Van cijfers en controle naar waarden en vertrouwen

Over een paradox en de zoektocht

Jan Willem Dijk, Theo Dijkstra, Eric Frank en Jack Kruf  | 4 juni 2015

Over een paradox en de zoektocht. Een essay naar aanleiding van een ronde tafel op uitnodiging van de gemeenten Assen, Groningen en Leeuwarden. Een multidisciplinair gezelschap buigt zich over de volgende vraag: ‘Wat zijn belangrijke waarden in het krachtenveld tussen cijfers en controle aan de ene kant en waarden en vertrouwen aan de andere kant?’

Het gezelschap wordt welkom geheten door Jan Willem Dijk, gastheer namens het PRIMO-lid de gemeente Assen. Noord-Nederland wordt in nieuw perspectief geplaatst. Gespreksleider Jack Kruf begint met een voorstelronde zodat eenieder weet wie aan tafel zit, wat zijn of haar achtergrond is en de fascinatie met het thema. Hij benadrukt de veelzijdigheid in vakgebied (techniek, gemeente, waterschap) en functie (raadslid, wethouder, controller, gemeentesecretaris) deze middag en onderstreept het belang daarvan voor een dialoog die ons kan helpen in het vinden van de weg die leidt van cijfers en controle naar waarden en vertrouwen. Download het verslag (inclusief foto’s).

De deelnemers aan de Ronde Tafel. Tweede rij v.l.n.r.: Theo Dijkstra (gemeente Groningen én Assen, alleen deze dag), Lucas-Jan Hooykaas (Wetterskip Fryslân), Theo Berends (gemeente Eemsmond), Kees Swagerman (gemeente Oldambt), Wouter Slob (gemeente Medemblik), Arnold van Kampen (gemeente Rotterdam), Jeltje Hoekstra-Sikkema (gemeente Terschelling), Atze Dijkstra (Samenwerkingsverband Noord-Nederland), Harry Bevers (gemeente Leeuwarden). Eerste rij v.l.n.r. Jack Kruf (PRIMO Europe), Eric Frank (PRIMO Nederland), Huibert van Wijngaarden (RISNET), Ilhan Tekir (gemeente Utrecht), Arie van Eck (gemeente Rijssen-Holten), Jan Willem Dijk (gemeente Assen), Kees Tillema (Universiteit Groningen).

De gespreksleider licht kort toe hoe de vereniging PRIMO is ontstaan. Op 1 april 2005 is in Straatsburg de vereniging opgericht door de Europese Vereniging van Gemeentesecretarissen (UDITE). Op 6 oktober 2006 volgde de oprichting van PRIMO Nederland door de toenmalige Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (BNG), Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (BiZa) en de Vereniging van Gemeentesecretarissen (VGS). Hij gaat kort in op het toenemend belang voor en de behoefte van publieke leiders en managers aan resultaatsturing en het management van risico’s daarbij. Risicomanagement wordt steeds meer gezien als een integraal onderdeel van goed publiek bestuur.

PRIMO is erop gericht kennis te delen over de grenzen van landen, regio’s en gemeenten heen. Er valt veel van elkaar te leren. Welkom bij deze ronde tafel, waar vrijuit gesproken moet worden.

Lees verder “Van cijfers en controle naar waarden en vertrouwen”

Uncertain safety

WRR Scientific Council for Government Policy | 2008

In view of the vulnerability of humans, society and the natural environment, a proactive approach to uncertainties is required. A precautionary approach will create new responsibilities for the government, the private sector and consumers, as well as new activities. In its report Uncertain safety (Report no. 82, 2008), the WRR recommends inserting the new precautionary principle in the Constitution.

Not so much risks as uncertainties

The classical risk approach has limitations as a result of social developments (food safety, new technologies and climate change, for example) and progressive scientific insights. Society is not so much confronted with risks as with uncertainties. These uncertainties have to be addressed in an organised manner.

Proactive approach to uncertainties

A proactive approach to uncertainties can take various forms. For example, by actively conducting research or by designing early-warning systems. An adequate policy on physical safety also requires that the government has access to the relevant knowledge. The independence of science is an essential precondition for this.

Background of this report

Governments, non-governmental organizations, businessmen and experts regularly voice concerns about safety and security issues. Often, these concerns pertain to crime and terrorist threats. However, safety issues need attention as well. Although citizens of today’s Western industrialized countries, on average, live longer and in better health than previous generations and the inhabitants of most other countries, flood prevention, food safety, the transport of hazardous substances, infectious diseases, the risk of new technologies and many other threats to public health and the environment call for ongoing alertness.

“Public interest in safety issues is substantial and this is likely to persist,” the Dutch Cabinet wrote in its request for advice to the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) that instigated the report at hand. The wrr was asked to study in particular how individual responsibility for safety issues can be strengthened in society.

The current high level of safety is a product of the efforts of many. Not only the government takes responsibility for safety issues; businesses and individual citizens do so as well. Moreover, in this area many non-governmental organizations are active, increasingly safety policies are developed in international arenas. Expertise plays a crucial role as many threats cannot be identified, or not on time, on the basis of only everyday experience. For example, the carcinogenicity of particular chemical substances can only be established through extensive and often time-consuming scientific research. At the same time, it is not possible to steer blindly on expertise. In weighing policy options not just technical aspects are relevant; normative issues and other considerations need to be taken into account as well.

Most policy problems that present themselves are highly domain-specific. For obvious reasons, flood prevention calls for other measures than the transport of hazardous substances. Still, there are similarities among the various fields within the safety domain, as well as several generic problems. This report concentrates on these problems.”

Download report.

Lees rapport in Nederlands.

Is the end of risk management near?

A collective reconsideration

Marinus de Pooter | 2015

For those who listen in various sectors, the picture quickly emerges that risk management is not successful in practice. And that despite all the investments made and the energy that has been put into it in recent years. If risk management does indeed bring so much good (as is usually claimed), how is it possible that line managers do not flock to training and conferences? Why don’t they queue up to learn more about all those wonderful concepts and tools (including the many impressive software applications)? As a management system, has it sold so badly or can it simply not deliver what is promised? Perhaps it is a combination of both. It’s time for something better. As far as I am concerned, the end of conventional risk management is near. I refer to the instrumental approach from a separate staff function. The limited enthusiasm for this usual setup is due to several factors. I will mention a number of observations from the consultancy practice.

Usually, risk management is invested in a separate function or in different specialised functions such as Security, Quality and Safety, et cetera. This easily leads to responses from line managers along the lines of: “We hired you to take care of those (information security) risks!” Regulators have devised the creation of a separate Risk Management department (or even a separate CRO function) as a counterbalance to the overthrown ambitions of line managers. However, just because of the differences in personalities, its effectiveness can only be limited. If you do something about risk management, because your supervisor requires it or because the head office requires it from you, it will not easily be embedded in your day-to-day operations. If you use it as an accountability tool, it will at most help to give supervisors a sense of (false) security.

As the backbone of their risk management systems, many organisations have built extensive management frameworks, for example for their financial reporting, information security, business continuity, etc. These frameworks, whether or not coordinated with each other, fit perfectly into a planning & control way of thinking. However, the unruly reality appears to only want to adapt to these frameworks moderately. Not least because of important disruptive factors such as people of flesh and blood. The “control frameworks” fit within the philosophy that the world can be made. If your goals are clear, you estimate your risks properly, you design, implement and implement appropriate measures, then you have reasonable assurance that reality will unfold as you did at the ‘P’ of your PDCA cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act). In practice, this is considerably more nuanced.

The future is immensely complex, making simple predictions illusions. Some operational cause-effect relationships in a conditioned environment may be evident, but others (especially strategic ones) are difficult to determine. Many approaches conveniently ignore the limitations of our human capacities, such as estimating probabilities. If you imagine the world as an endless chain of causes and effects, then it is impossible to get a full picture of the future variants (scenarios). However, this relativity often remains unexplained, such as when determining resistive capacities.

It is also difficult that opportunities and risks are not tangible or identifiable. They are conceptual representations of future events or circumstances, which can be different for everyone. This realisation is suppressed in the more instrumental approach to risk management. Common tools such as risk registers and risk profiles can be very misleading. For example, they provide little insight into the mutual dependencies of the risk categories and the extent to which the organisational objectives will be achieved according to expectations. Moreover, the (dark red) top corner in risk diagrams (the well-known ‘heat maps’) is unrealistic: no organisation goes bankrupt (high probability) on a daily basis (high impact).

Structured thinking about the future is negatively used in conventional risk management. If you only focus on things that can go wrong, you are not holistic about the future. If you use separate risk reports with “key risk indicators”, then you give the signal that controlling threats (risk management) is separate from exploiting opportunities (performance management). You miss the connection with most directors and managers if you look at risks in isolation from opportunities. In the real world, they always go hand in hand: if you want to rule out personnel fraud completely, then as a manager you have to do everything yourself (and of course be honest as an employee).

When things go wrong, the media eagerly responds to sensational incidents. Don’t we think it’s all spectacular when a few large cranes fall on houses in Alphen aan den Rijn? However, thinking in a structured way about possible errors in advance turns out to be much less popular, because it is quickly associated with failure. For example, in an environment dominated by engineers, confidence in one’s own (technical) capabilities is nurtured. Even if the management team is primarily action-oriented, the structured improvement of the internal organisation can become subordinate to the “real work”. Not enough time is taken for reflection. The hustle and bustle of everyday life, such as putting out all kinds of fires, then determines the agenda.

Functional compartmentalisation quickly develops, especially in larger organisations. This makes it difficult for the management of the organisation to obtain and maintain a total overview of the operational management. The directing function is often less developed. And this while integrated opportunity and risk management is one major coordination issue to focus the separate disciplines and areas of knowledge on jointly achieving the formulated organisational objectives.

The above observations do not lead to great joy. It is therefore time for a rethink. Our brainpower and resources can be better spent. In my opinion, answering the main question for each management team should be central: do we manage our organisation in such a way that we meet the expectations of our most important stakeholders?

Suggestions

Below I give a number of point-by-point suggestions on how to achieve this in practice. In essence, they boil down to the removal of separate risk management functions. The focus should be on training decision-makers to make balanced decisions based on the agreed core values ​​and the best available information. This requires intensive cooperation and a heavy directing role for the management of the organisation.

    1. With a holistic approach you always look at opportunities and risks together. A project manager is alert to future circumstances that could promote (opportunities) or hinder (risks) the realisation of his or her objectives. It is about the integral performance that you achieve as an organisation. In that context, we should no longer use ‘risk management’ as an umbrella term. After all, most people associate that designation with things you shouldn’t have. Therefore, just use terms such as ‘(integral) management’ or ‘organise’.
    2. Many successful large SMEs do not have a separate risk management function. Of course, those management teams do manage their risks, although perhaps less explicitly than in conventional risk management. Transfer the compartmentalised risk management activities to other departments, such as Strategy & policy, Planning & control, Information provision, et cetera, and at P&O for training skills. Make sure that there is a coordination function high up in the organisation for the essential directing role.
    3. What makes integral opportunity and risk management especially challenging is that it is about the future. And that is simply uncertain. For example, no one knows whether Bitcoin will be the currency of the future or the next bubble. Realise that, as a team or individual, you can at most make the best possible move, making use of the available information.
    4. Probability and risk management is actually ‘expectation management’. Avoid unrealistic expectations. As humans, we are simply subject to many limitations. Consider the quality (timeliness, correctness, completeness, etc.) of our available information and the limitations of our human mind to make effective estimates. Be sure to also be alert to the temptations that can cause people to make wrong choices.
    5. In an environment steeped in planning and control, vigorous leadership is welcomed. “Yes, we can!” is associated with piloting the organisation’s ship through the turbulent waves. However, you must admit that you do not know exactly how it will all turn out. It is not that strange when the future is by definition uncertain.
    6. Management is about making decisions to create and maintain the intended value for your important stakeholders. The real added value of integrated management of opportunities and risks lies in the contribution to that decision-making. You need good information for good decision-making. Therefore, fully commit to knowledge management and big data, which will play an increasingly important role.
    7. Opportunity and risk management focuses on realizing the explicit and implicit objectives. The interests of specific stakeholders are decisive for these objectives. There are always interests involved when making decisions. See through that game. If you don’t understand what interests are in the background, you can never perform effective analyses of opportunities and threats.
    8. When you talk about creating and protecting value, the first question is of course what you understand by ‘value’. All too often it turns out to be about euros or dollars. But is money the end or the means? The answer depends on what your key stakeholders expect from your organisation. As a management team, first discuss what you really value. Only then does it make sense to talk about opportunities and risks.
    9. When organizing your (civil service) company to deliver and retain value for your important stakeholders, your vision is guiding. It must be clear to every employee in the organisation what you want to achieve together. That includes being clear about what you don’t want to achieve. Then the discussion automatically arises, which again was the intention of the organisation. Invest in developing and propagating that clear vision.
    10. Thinking together about opportunities and risks can best be done with daily activities as the basis. Your colleagues have to make their decisions there. Whether it concerns management, primary or supporting processes. They can make mistakes when carrying out any of the activities. They must also seize the opportunities there. Provide an integrated overview of what the important players within your organisation are doing. Without this overview it is difficult to see the interrelationships and to prioritize the desired improvements.
    11. Integrated opportunity and risk management is always about options for human action. Then you cannot avoid talking about ethics. If you reason from a “the-end-justifies-the-means” principle, you may be able to get away with inadequate legislation or enforcement. However, remember that there is more that you should not do beyond what is explicitly prohibited.
    12. In order to be able to make good judgments, you need clear core values ​​in addition to sound information. For example, to judge an investment that pays off nicely, but is ethically questionable. Core values ​​determine which stakeholders (and their interests) are dominant, what weighs most heavily in thorny issues and what behavior is expected of employees. They also play a key role in operationalising the tricky concept of ‘risk appetite’ (and its counterpart ‘chance greed’). Make sure your core values ​​are clear to all involved.
    13. The attitude of the people you have on board is decisive for a successful internal organisation. The CEO of a major international real estate investor recently told me that his chief risk manager is the Human Resources Director. Analyze the risk attitude of your managers. Select strictly at the gate on the moral compass and mentality of possible new colleagues. Also, as soon as possible, put people outside the gate who do not fit the intended core values ​​of your organisation.
    14. The owners of the objectives (and therefore of the processes required to achieve those objectives) must constantly make trade-offs. Namely what value they want to create and protect for which stakeholders. Make sure they have the necessary specialist help in realizing their objectives, for example because legislation and regulations (such as collective labor agreements) are complex, because technologies change quickly, et cetera.
    15. The added value of risk managers, controllers, compliance officers and similar functions lies in supporting those who serve the customers (citizens, tenants, patients, students, etc.). Require all staff positions to be of service to their colleagues who serve customers in the primary processes. They always have to make difficult decisions when using the available resources and can use valuable input from specialists in support departments.
    16. Taking advantage of opportunities is also a consideration process. Innovation implies uncertainty. New materials or methods can have great advantages, but the long-term effects will only become known afterwards. So it means daring to let go and being honest about possible disadvantages. Opportunities must also be prioritised. As a team, keep the focus on your strategy and prevent your colleagues from jumping on every passing train.
    17. Every issue related to internal organisation is about how much freedom you leave to the person who has to make the decisions. Do you trust the competences of the professional or is it better to record? Do you give freedom or are you going to standardise? Do you draw up tight schedules or do you count on the ability to improvise? As a management team, make conscious choices with regard to the frameworks.
    18. The underlying question in the integral management of opportunities and risks is: are you as an organisation resilient and agile enough to deal effectively with what is coming your way in the future? Keep in mind that the system world of planning and control has major limitations. Focus more on improving the agility of your organisation to respond to change (s) in circumstances.
    19. The future is inherently uncertain. It is advisable to put more effort into making forecasts (looking through the windshield of your car) than comparing with budgets (looking through the rear window). When making your decisions, therefore, do not primarily focus on whether there is a budget for it. More relevant is the question which action is wise in the light of the given (changed) circumstances.
    20. Making decisions is always optimising under preconditions. If you are responsible for something, but your options are too limited, then it is important to bring that up. Consider the situation where you cannot choose your own staff. “Competence is not a criterion here” recently sighed the controller of an Environmental Service during a reorganisation of the organisation. Apparently there was a balance between the interests of the employees and the trade unions on the one hand and the service and its ‘customers’ on the other. As a team, realise that the quality of the people you have in-house determines the ultimate effectiveness of your organisation.
    21. Ambition levels that are too high in a political environment demand solid guarantees. Like with that visionary mayor who saw an obvious regional function for his village. Supported by research reports from an expensive consultancy firm, he energetically focused on expanding retail capacity. It is not only due to increased internet sales that a significant portion of the store base is now empty. Be vigilant about controlling dominant personalities. Otherwise there can be no balanced decisions.
    22. Contracts are suitable instruments for making agreements about mutual rights and obligations. Design, construction, financing, maintenance and management are integrated in ‘DBFMO’ contracts. They can concern large interests for longer periods. Invest risks as much as possible with the contracting parties that can influence them the most, such as uncertainties with regard to permits.
    23. Dealing integrally with opportunities and risks is mainly about constantly discussing the considerations you make. In practice, it comes down to a critical look at the assumptions for submitted (investment) plans. Conduct ‘pre-mortem’ reviews. Raise it up if the substantiation in a business case is buttery soft and wafer-thin.
    24. If raising the subject of ‘accountability’ is already perceived as threatening in your organisation, there is still a lot to be done. Make those responsible for achieving the organisational objectives also responsible for exploiting the opportunities and managing the risks. Provide clarity about their ownership.
    25. If you ask me, the hardest part of dealing with opportunities and risks remains courage. If everyone yells ‘hosanna’ and ‘hallelujah’ about a possible collaboration or merger, do you, as a controller, dare to spoil the upcoming party, if you think the risks are too great? With that action you place yourself (partly) outside the group. And that remains difficult for everyone to do. Remember that good leaders value opposition. A culture of fear is not in the interest of an organisation.
    26. Being allowed to make mistakes is an indispensable condition for becoming a “High Reliability Organisation”. However, developing the learning capacity demands quite a bit from the attitude of the managers and stakeholders. After all, everyone really wants his or her treating doctors to work flawlessly. Train your people to make their decisions as professional as possible. And above all ensure exemplary behavior as a manager.

____

In this contribution, I have come to far-reaching conclusions regarding conventional risk management. I also touched on enriching options for adaptation with regard to integral (opportunity and risk) management. I would like to invite you to think further about its further application in daily practice. Send your suggestions to marinus@mdpmct.com. Thank you very much for that.

Risk Culture

Under the Microscope Guidance for Boards

The Institute of Risk Management | 2012

Richard Anderson, Chairman of The Institute of Risk Management: “For over 25 years, the Institute of Risk Management has provided leadership and guidance to the emerging risk management profession with a unique combination of academic excellence and practical relevance. The Institute’s profile continues to grow internationally with heightened interest in the management of risk across government, public and business domains. 

This board guidance on risk culture is our latest contribution to thought leadership in the field. Although essential, the continuing parade of organisational catastrophes (and some notable successes) demonstrates that frameworks, processes and standards for risk management are insufficient to ensure that organisations reliably manage their risks and meet their strategic objectives. What is missing is the behavioural element: why do individuals, groups and organisations behave the way they do, and how does this affect all aspects of the management of risk?

“Problems with risk culture are often blamed for organisational difficulties but, until now, there was very little practical advice around on what to do about it.”

Problems with risk culture are often blamed for organisational difficulties, but until now, there has been very little practical advice on what to do about it. This paper seeks to give guidance in this area, drawing upon the wealth of practical experience and expert knowledge across the Institute. It aims to provide advice to organisations wanting a greater understanding of their own risk cultures and to give them some practical tools that they can then use to drive change. It should be of interest to board members, executives and non-executives, risk professionals, HR professionals, regulators, and academics.

This short document summarises our approach to risk culture for those working at the board level. There is also a longer companion document – Risk Culture: Resources for Practitioners – which covers the detailed thinking behind the concepts and models we found helpful. This remains a developing area, and we do not consider that we have written the last word on the subject – we expect to see more models and tools and, in particular, sector and issue-specific work emerging in the future.”

The future of risk

Ernst & Young | 2009

Protecting and enabling performance: albeit painful, progress ultimately results from crisis. The current downturn is causing companies to challenge their risk management processes and ask how they can further improve their risk management efforts.

Against this backdrop, we conducted a survey to provide a snapshot of the current risk environment and to understand organizational attitudes toward enterprise risk management. We were also interested in understanding how recent events have impacted approaches to risk management and organizations’ abilities to identify and manage different types of risk. Never has there been a more critical time to define a path forward for the “future of risk”.

We believe that the recent economic challenges were, in part, more difficult to predict and manage due to the increasing complexity of risk management processes. Over the past few decades, the number of risk management functions has grown to the point where most large companies have seven or more separate risk functions — not counting their independent financial auditor.

As the number of risk functions increases, coordination becomes more difficult

This has created inefficiencies and resulted in a degree of fatigue on the business. As the number of risk functions increases, coordination becomes more difficult and often results in coverage gaps and overlapping responsibilities. The demands and various reporting requirements placed on the business by these risk functions can become significant and burdensome. The number of risk functions and the various communications from these functions can be a challenge for executives and the board of directors to manage and understand.

As complexity has increased, so has company spending on risk management. Based on a previous survey we conducted last year of Fortune 1000 companies, we estimate that the average company spends about 4% of revenue on risk management activities. We believe the answer to these challenges can be found by carefully considering how to balance risk, cost and value across the enterprise.

Considering the events of the past 12 months, it is not surprising that 96% of our recent survey respondents believe that their risk management programs could be improved. Furthermore, only 1% of companies intend to reduce their risk management resources. Given the current cost-conscious mentality, the fact that nearly all companies want to improve their risk management efforts and intend to maintain or increase their current levels of investment underscores the growing awareness of the value of sound risk management.

Moreover, 46% agreed that committing more resources to risk management would help to create a competitive advantage. Clearly, organizations recognize the importance of risk management. Leading organizations acknowledge that risk management is more than simply protecting existing assets; it is also about enabling performance to create future value.

However, the reality is that most risk functions will be asked to do more with the same or limited additional resources. There is a strong drive to improve risk coverage through better use of existing resources and to deliver more value from their respective functions.

The challenge for most organizations will be to find increased efficiencies in the way their risk management functions operate

The challenge for most organizations will be to find increased efficiencies in the way their risk management functions operate and define the improvements that create the greatest value. We believe the answer to these challenges can be found by carefully considering how best to balance risk, cost and value across the enterprise. Companies that effectively address this challenge are more likely to outperform their competitors.

Summarising conlusions

Risk management has grown increasingly complex over the years, prompting organizations to increase the size, magnitude and reach of their risk management functions. However, an increase in risk management activities does not always correlate to more effective risk management. Recent events have revealed this vulnerability and provided a much needed “wake-up call.”

Many organizations had committed significant resources and investment in risk management but had not worked to connect their processes. Kingdoms or silos were developed, but the levels of interaction, shared reporting, data exchange and coordination was minimal.

While there has been a maturing of risk management, there is still considerable opportunity for improvement. Organizations need to constantly challenge their approach to risk management. This is especially true now, when risk functions are being asked to do more with the same — or limited additional — resources. More than ever, organizations need to rethink their approach to risk management in order to balance risk, cost and value. Our research shows the most commonly identified areas for improvement are:

  • Improving the risk assessment approach to better anticipate, identify and understand risks.
  • Aligning risk management focus with business objectives to drive greater value and focus on the risks most likely to affect the business.
  • Enhancing coordination of risk and control groups to achieve greater efficiencies and eliminate redundancies, duplication and gaps among risk activities.

Organizations that improve their risk management activities will not only provide better protection for their businesses, but also improve their business performance, improve their decision- making and, ultimately, increase their competitive advantage.

Download: Future of risk 2009

[pdf-embedder url=”https://civitasnaturalis.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/083ef-future_of_risk_rapport_2009.pdf” title=”future_of_risk_rapport_2009″]

[su_note note_color=”#E2E2E2″]

This publication is part of the web-book Public Risk Canon

[/su_note]

Redefining Failure

Seth Godin | Harvard Business Review, 2010

We think we know what failure looks like. Products don’t get purchased. Reorganizations make things worse. Shipments aren’t delivered. Speeches don’t get applauded. Things explode. These are the emergencies and disasters that we have nightmares about.

“Every day, there’s a line (sometimes 10 minutes long) to use the ladies’ room at Grand Central in New York. This is a failure.”

We think that failure is the opposite of success, and we optimize our organizations to avoid it. We install layers and layers of management to eliminate risk and prevent catastrophes. Read more

Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review)

Robert W. Kates and Jeanne X. Kasperson | 1983

Hazards are threats to people, and what they value, and risks are measures of hazards. Comparative analyses of the risks and hazards of technology can be dated to Starr (1969) but are rooted in recent trends in the evolution of technology, the identification of hazards, the perception of risk, and the activities of society.

These trends have spawned an interdisciplinary quasi-profession with new terminology, methodology, and literature. A review of 54 English-language monographs and book-length collections published between 1970 and 1983 identified seven recurring themes:

i. Overviews of the field of risk assessment.

ii. Efforts to estimate and quantify risk.

iii. Discussions of risk acceptability.

iv. Perception.

v. Analyses of regulation.

vi. Case studies of specific technological hazards.

vii. Agenda for research.

Within this field, science occupies a unique niche, for many technological hazards transcend the realm of ordinary experience and require expert study. Scientists can make unique contributions to each area of hazard management, but their primary contribution is in the practice of basic science.

Hazards are threats to people, and what they value, and risks are measures of hazards.

Beyond that, science needs to further risk assessment by understanding the more subtle processes of hazard creation, establishing conventions for estimating risk and presenting and handling uncertainty.

Scientists can enlighten the discussion of tolerable risk by setting risks into comparative contexts, studying the evaluation process, and participating as knowledgeable individuals, but they cannot decide the issue. Science can inform the hazard management process by broadening the range of alternative control actions and modes of implementation and devising methods to evaluate their effectiveness.

Bibliography

Kates, R. W., & Kasperson, J. X. (1983). Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(22), 7027-7038.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.22.7027

Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk: what is our society willing to pay for safety?. Science, 165(3899), 1232-1238.