The logic of risk assessment has long been discussed in terms of the two differing methods of qualitative and quantitative.
In my experience most organizations have taken a quantitative approach and utilised the well-used 5×5 risk matrix, whilst
also sticking to the ‘5 steps to risk assessment’ guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The 5 steps
guidance provided by the HSE is both simple and logical and is almost universally in place across the UK.
The issue for discussion in this blog is the subjective nature of determining a risk level. Currently in most workplaces both
the likelihood and consequences of an event are educated guesses. Consequences are potentially easier to determine than
likelihood e.g. being struck by a moving vehicle may cause death or serious injury, yet determining the likelihood of that
event is more difficult.
Here we introduce a more logical and less subjective means of determining likelihood in risk assessment. This is borrowed
from the process safety industry, in which probability calculations are utilised. There is no requirement to go to such
lengths in lower risk environments. However, we can incorporate a clearer means of assessing likelihood.
Risk is inherent in all that we do. Controls are optional.
The simple table provided above goes some way to demonstrate the barrierbased approach to determining likelihood in risk assessment.
It focuses on the presence of engineering and administrative controls and the number of them. This is then used to provide a less subjective, clear and more robust determination of likelihood.
A lot can be learned from sharing ideas across industries and whilst a proportionate approach to risk assessment is logical, it doesn’t mean ideas from high-risk industries cannot be shared with lower risk counterparts.
This approach is only a possible alternative to current methods. As ever, this is no right or wrong with the approach to risk assessment, only it’s application
Consequence
Although the above table addresses likelihood. A more detailed determination of consequence is also recommended. There are varied approaches to categorising consequence from utilising different terminology to the location of injury type. Catastrophic or Fatal Critical or Major Minor or First Aid required Regardless, it would be useful to expand the detail within each layer of consequence, so risk assessors can make more accurate judgements e.g. fractures – do they all appear in the same category or not? The combination of a less subjective approach to likelihood and more detailed consequence sections, may provide organizations with the ability to produce more robust risk assessments. Ultimately, improving risk management in their workplaces. For risk assessment training and consultancy, Protecting People can help. Please feel free to get in touch.
Health, Safety and Wellbeing – Should wellbeing be in the domain of a health & safety practitioner? Health and Safety practitioner’s roles are transforming, influenced
Invisible Hazards Shining a light in the dark… Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Now is the time
Health and Safety – An Asset in Turbulent Times The COVID-19 pandemic has proved how valuable health safety practitioners are…The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized how
Incident Investigation- Gold Dust! Incidents lay bare an organization’s health and safety failings like nothing else… All organisations strive to avoid incidents (accidents, near misses
Incident Investigation- Gold Dust! Adding clarity to risk levels The logic of risk assessment has long been discussed in terms of the two differing methods
Navigating the health and safety forest Are we compliant? Have we missed anything? The landscape of health and safety can appear quite daunting at first
ENGAGING AND POSITIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING