The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields?

Aven, Terje; Ylönen, Marja

doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.035

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, and as described by Lindøe and Baram (2019) and Straube (2001), the industry's attention is typically drawn to instructive specification‐based standards and guidelines. A similar argument is made by Aven and Ylönen (2019), who argue that standards (such as ISO 31000) have an increasing influence on the risk and safety field, even though the criticism against the standard's quality has increased.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

On the Use of Standards and Guidelines as a Tool to Fulfil Regulatory Requirements

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the years, industrial safety regulation has shifted from a “hard” command and control regime to a “soft” regime. A “hard” regime includes the use of strict prescriptive requirements which explain how industry should solve particular issues. A “soft” regime, uses more functional requirements, pointing out what goals are to be achieved. In a “soft” regime, prescriptive standards might still exist, but they are considered suggested solutions, with alternative solutions also being considered if they achieve the overall regulatory goals. The purpose of such a shift is to create regulations that are more flexible, meaning that they are more open for the use of novel technology and for the use of risk assessments as a basis for decision making. However, it is not clear that the shift from a hard to a soft regime has made it easier to use risk assessments for such a purpose in practice. In the present article, we discuss the limitations caused by strict adherence to prescriptive requirements presented in standards or regulations and present our perspective on why and how these can limit risk management in practice. The article aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses, with regard to risk management, when regulations are strictly dependent on prescriptive or specification‐based standards and guidelines. Several examples are used to illustrate some of the main challenges related to the use of specification‐based technical standards and how the regulatory shift from “hard” to “soft” has not necessarily made it easier to implement technological solutions based on risk assessments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

On the Use of Standards and Guidelines as a Tool to Fulfil Regulatory Requirements

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An exception is the SRA, which has recently produced several fundamental guidance documents (SRA, 2015a, 2015b, 2017a, 2017b). It can be argued that the standardization organizations (like International Organization for Standardization) also produce such statements and beliefs, but these organizations are not science‐based, as discussed by Aven and Ylönen (2019) and can therefore not be said to reflect the most warranted or justified beliefs of the scientific field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples

Aven¹

2020

Risk Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to demonstrate that risk science is important for society, industry and all of us. Rather few people today, including scientists and managers, are familiar with what this science is about-its foundation and main features-and how it is used to gain knowledge and improve communication and decision making in real-life situations. The article seeks to meet this challenge, by presenting three examples, showing how risk science works to gain new generic, fundamental knowledge on risk concepts, principles, and methods, as well as supporting the practical tackling of actual risk problems.

show abstract

“…ISO 31000 is professed to be applicable to organizations of “all types and sizes,” and hence also to NRAs. Within the risk management community, ISO 31000 has been both welcomed (Lalonde & Boiral, 2012; Purdy, 2010) and criticized (Aven, 2011, 2016; Aven & Ylönen, 2019; Leich, 2010). Moreover, the so‐called risk governance school concerns RA, or risk management as a whole, as a too limited approach.…”

Section: Regulation and Facilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

Pursiainen

Rød

2021

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the late 2000s, a process started that was designed to approximate the national disaster risk assessments in the European Union. Member states are currently obliged to prepare their assessments every three years. The European Commission will summarize the results, which should not only lead to a better overview of common risks but also direct future joint activities and investments. To date, two rounds of this new practice have been implemented and summarised. The present study investigates how and why this largely informal integrative practice was born, how it is facilitated, and how successful it has been vis‐à‐vis the expectations, especially achieving a relative comparability of the national risk assessments.

show abstract

The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields?

Cited by 41 publications

References 26 publications

On the Use of Standards and Guidelines as a Tool to Fulfil Regulatory Requirements

On the Use of Standards and Guidelines as a Tool to Fulfil Regulatory Requirements

Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples

National disaster risk assessments in Europe. How comparable are they and why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About