Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship

Abstract

This paper analyses the nature of the relationship between risk and responsibility. Since neither the concept of risk nor the concept of responsibility has an unequivocal definition, it is obvious that there is no single interpretation of their relationship. After introducing the different meanings of responsibility used in this paper, we analyse four conceptions of risk. This allows us to make their link with responsibility explicit and to determine if a shift in the connection between risk and responsibility can be outlined. (1) In the engineer’s paradigm, the quantitative conception of risk does not include any concept of responsibility. Their relationship is indirect, the locus of responsibility being risk management. (2) In Mary Douglas’ cultural theory, risks are constructed through the responsibilities they engage. (3) Rayner and (4) Wolff go further by integrating forms of responsibility in the definition of risk itself. Analysis of these four frameworks shows that the concepts of risk and responsibility are increasingly intertwined. This tendency is reinforced by increasing public awareness and a call for the integration of a moral dimension in risk management. Therefore, we suggest that a form of virtue-responsibility should also be integrated in the concept of risk.

The sociological link between risk and responsibility: a critical review and a theoretical proposal

“…The approach that represents a kind of “starting point” for analysing risk is the “technical” paradigm, which has also been used in the relation between risk and responsibility (Kermish ). In the technical analysis, in fact, risk is basically defined as a statistical value that assumes that undesirable events might or might not occur (Hansson ; Jaeger et al .…”

“…The connection between this extremely quantitative concept of risk and the notion of responsibility is very weak, and this is because the actors that cause the risk are completely detached from the allocation of responsibility in cases where damages are provoked by risky behaviours. In this sense, the “technical” concept of risk has not integrated any notion of responsibility (Kermisch ). It deals with the identification and assessment of risk and delegates to risk management the acceptance of the consequences, the social management, and the responsibility allocation when risks become a reality.…”

“…In this case, risk management is engaged in determining who should pay – and how much – for the damage caused (van de Poel ). This represents a huge limitation, because the evaluation of how many and which subjects will be involved in the occurrence of a risk and how much it will cost, in terms of assumption of responsibility, cannot be ignored in the process of risk assessment (Kermisch ).…”

Professional Ethics, Engineering and Energetic Issues

“…The main point of this canon is the requirement that engineers be aware of the dependence of the lives, health and welfare of the general public upon their judgment and act in accordance with this huge amount of responsibility. This implies working in conformity to safety standards, constantly reviewing the safety of their plans, designs or products, and informing the proper authorities when risks arise4 [ASME, first criterion of 4 In technical risk analysis, risk is commonly defined as "the statistical expectation value of unwanted events, which may or may not occur" (Hansson, 2004 [5]; see also Kermisch, 2010 [6]). A European Commission Report, (2000, p. 18 [7]) suggests that "risk is widely recognized as a function of the probability and severity of an adverse effect/event occurring to man or the environment following exposure, under defined conditions, to a hazard".…”

Exploring the lay/expert divide: the attribution of responsibilities for coal ash pollution in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

“…For a recent review of application of the cultural theory of risk to analyse the notion of environmental responsibility, see Kermisch (2012). 2.…”