IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v149y2016icp164-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety regulations: Implications of the new risk perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, T.
  • Ylönen, M.

Abstract

The current safety regulations for industrial activities are to a large extent functionally oriented and risk-based (informed), expressing what to achieve rather than the means and solutions needed. They are founded on a probability-based perspective on risk, with the use of risk assessment, risk acceptance criteria and tolerability limits. In recent years several risk researchers have argued for the adoption of some new types of risk perspectives which highlight uncertainties rather than probabilities in the way risk is defined, the point being to better reflect the knowledge, and lack of knowledge, dimension of risk. The Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority has recently implemented such a perspective. The new ISO standard 31000 is based on a similar thinking. In this paper we discuss the implications of these perspectives on safety regulation, using the oil & gas and nuclear industries as illustrations. Several suggestions for how to develop the current safety regulations in line with the ideas of the new risk perspectives are outlined, including some related to the use of risk acceptance criteria (tolerability limits). We also point to potential obstacles and incentives that the larger societal and institutional setting may impose on industry as regards the adoption of the new risk perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, T. & Ylönen, M., 2016. "Safety regulations: Implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 164-171.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:149:y:2016:i:c:p:164-171
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016000168
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baldwin, Robert & Black, Julia, 2007. "Really responsive regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 23105, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Subhas C. Misra & Uma Kumar & Vinod Kumar & Mahmud A. Shareef, 2007. "Risk management models in software engineering," International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 59-70.
    3. Black, Julia, 2002. "Critical reflections on regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 35985, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Eugene A. Rosa, 1998. "Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 15-44, January.
    5. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yin, Xuanpeng & Xu, Xuanhua & Pan, Bin, 2021. "Selection of Strategy for Large Group Emergency Decision-making based on Risk Measurement," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steve Tombs & David Whyte, 2013. "Transcending the deregulation debate? Regulation, risk, and the enforcement of health and safety law in the UK," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 61-79, March.
    2. Ian Loader & Adam White, 2017. "How can we better align private security with the public interest? Towards a civilizing model of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 166-184, June.
    3. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    4. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    5. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2014. "The role of the state in regulatory policy for nanomaterials risk: Analyzing the expansion of state-centric rulemaking in EU and US chemicals policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 169-178.
    6. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    7. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    10. Michiel A. Heldeweg, 2017. "Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-34, July.
    11. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1515-1537, February.
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2013. "Governance mechanisms and regulation in the utilities: An investigation in a Taiwan sample," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 17-22.
    14. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    15. Turati, Pietro & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2017. "Simulation-based exploration of high-dimensional system models for identifying unexpected events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 317-330.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    17. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    18. Alexandra Hessling & Hanno Pahl, 2006. "The Global System of Finance," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 189-218, January.
    19. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Minogue, Martin, 2008. "What connects regulatory governance to poverty?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 189-201, May.
    21. Suparna Karmakar, 2010. "GATS : Domestic Regulations versus Market Access," Working Papers id:2903, eSocialSciences.
    22. Xuehua Zhang, 2016. "Judicial enforcement deputies: Causes and effects of Chinese judges enforcing environmental administrative decisions," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 29-43, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:149:y:2016:i:c:p:164-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.