Risk Governance:
Defining a Better Process for Risk
Communication and Stakeholder Participation:
Ortwin Renn
IRGC
Stuttgart University and
DIALOGIK gGmbH
The Basic Fabrics of Risk Governance
The Five Components
of Risk Governance
Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts
 Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception
and socio-cultural processing of risk
Avoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social
constructions of risks
Link between risk assessment, management and communication
 Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial,
economic and social risk;
Explore social amplification pathways
Consider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications
 Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity
building and management competency
Systematic use of management sciences and decision aiding
Emphasis on risk communication between and among agencies
and professionals
New Challenge: Systemic Emerging Risks
 Emergence of systemic risks that are:
 transboundary
 socially amplified via perception and social
mobilisation
 subject to expert dissent regarding risks and
benefits
 unmanageable by single organisations
 difficult to communicate
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
4  61
There is a need for improved
RISK GOVERNANCE
 Governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and
institutions by which authority is exercised and decisions are taken
and implemented.
 Risk is an uncertain (positive or negative) consequence of an event
or an activity with respect to something that humans value
 Risk governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions
and institutions by which decisions about risk handling are
prepared, taken and implemented
 Best practice in risk governance integrates the principles of good
governance within the processes of risk identification, assessment,
management and communication and includes criteria such as
effectiveness, accountability, efficiency, fairness and social and
ethical acceptability
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
5  41
COMMON DEFICITS IN RISK GOVERNANCE
 Framing – different stakeholders have conflicting views of the issue
 Scope – a risk perceived as only local may have global
consequences (and vice versa)
 There is a scarcity of data about the risk or people’s perceptions of
it or, if data does exist, there is a failure to accept it
 Transparency – trade-offs are not made explicit and hidden
agendas seem to determine the outcome
 Inequity – decisions allot the risk and benefits unfairly
 Accountability – decision makers are isolated from the impact of
their decision
 Alienation – people or organisations are ignored (can lead to social
mobilisation) (also “Authority knows best”)
 Lack of trust in the process or the communication channel
 “Paralysis by analysis” – overly inclusive process leads to inertia
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
6  61
CONVENTIONAL RISK HANDLING
Who needs to
know
what,
Deciding
when?
Management
The knowledge
needed for
judgements and
decisions
Communication
Appraisal
Who needs to
do what, when?
Most risk handling processes do not go beyond these steps
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
7  61
IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Getting a
broadUnderstanding
picture
of the risk
Appraisal
The knowledge
needed for
judgements and
decisions
August 2007
Pre-assessment
Communication
Characterisation
and evaluation
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
Who needs to
know
what,
Deciding
when?
Management
Who needs to
do what, when?
Is the risk
tolerable,
acceptable or
unacceptable?
8  41
INNOVATIONS IN THE IRGC’S FRAMEWORK
1. The pre-assessment phase
 extending problem definition
2. Including concern assessment as part of risk appraisal
3. Categorising the knowledge about the risk as:
 linear
 complex
 uncertain
 ambiguous
4. The characterisation and evaluation phase
 is the risk acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable?
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
9  61
HOW CATEGORISING THE KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP
 Linear risk problems can be managed using a ‘routine-based’
strategy, such as introducing a law or regulation
 Complex risks may be best addressed by accessing and acting on
the best available scientific expertise, aiming for a ‘risk-informed’ and
‘robustness-focussed’ strategy
 Uncertain risks are better managed using ‘precaution-based’ and
‘resilience-focussed’ strategies, to ensure the reversibility of
critical decisions and to increase a system’s capacity to cope with
surprises
 Ambiguous risk problems require a ‘dialogue-based’ strategy
aiming to create tolerance and mutual understanding of conflicting
views and values with a view to eventually reconciling them
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
10  61
ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS
WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS
Management Sphere:
Decision on & Implementation of Actions
3
Assessment Sphere:
Generation of Knowledge
Pre-Assessment
Pre-Assessment:
Risk Management Strategy:
•
•
•
•
 routine-based
 risk-informed/robustnessfocussed
 precaution-based/resiliencefocussed
 discourse-based
Problem Framing
Early Warning
Screening
Determination of Scientific Conventions
Management
Risk Risk
Management
Risk Appraisal
Risk Appraisal:
Implementation
• Option Realisation
• Monitoring & Control
• Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice
Risk Assessment
• Hazard Identification & Estimation
• Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment
• Risk Estimation
Communication
Concern Assessment
• Risk Perceptions
• Social Concerns
• Socio-Economic Impacts
Decision Making
• Option Identification & Generation
• Option Assessment
• Option Evaluation & Selection
1
Knowledge Challenge:
 Complexity
 Uncertainty
 Ambiguity
Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement
Risk Evaluation
• Judging the Tolerability & Acceptabiliy
• Need for Risk
Reduction Measures
2
Risk judged:
Risk Characterisation
• Risk Profile
• Judgement of the
Seriousness of Risk
• Conclusions & Risk
Reduction Options
 acceptable
 tolerable
 intolerable
11  34
RISK GOVERNANCE INCLUDES
AND IS SENSITIVE TO CONTEXT
Core Risk Governance Process
• pre-assessment
• risk appraisal
-- risk assessment
-- concern assessment
• evaluation: tolerability /
acceptability judgement
• risk management
• communication
Organisational Capacity
• assets
• skills
• capabilities
Most risk management processes are done in this context only
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
12  41
RISK GOVERNANCE GOES MUCH FURTHER
Core Risk Governance Process
• pre-assessment
• risk appraisal
-- risk assessment
-- concern assessment
• evaluation: tolerability /
acceptability judgement
• risk management
• communication
Organisational Capacity
• assets
• skills
• capabilities
Actor Network
• politicians
• regulators
• industry/business
• NGOs
• media
• public at large
Social Climate
• trust in regulatory institutions
• perceived authority of science
• degree of civil society involvement
Political & Regulatory Culture
 different regulatory styles
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
13  41
Details of each phase
Integrating Disciplines and
Perspectives in Risk
Governance
The interplay between the five components
Phase 1
PREASSESSMENT
COMPONENTS OF PRE-ASSESSMENT
Pre-Assessment
Components
Definition
Indicators
1 Problem framing
Different perspectives of how
to conceptualize the issue
 dissent/consent on goals of selection rule
 dissent/consent on relevance of evidence
 choice of frame (risk, opportunity, fate)
2 Early warning
Systematic search for new
hazards
 unusual events or phenomena
 systematic comparison between modeled
and observed phenomena
 novel activities or events
3 Screening
(risk assessment and
concern assessment
policy)
Establishing a procedure for
screening hazards and risks
and determining assessment
and management route
 screening in place?
 criteria for screening: hazard potential,
persistence, ubiquity, etc.
 criteria for selecting risk assessment
procedures for: known risks,
emergencies, etc.
 criteria for identifying and measuring
social concerns
4 Scientific conventions
for risk assessment &
concern assessment
Establishing a procedure for
screening hazards and risks
and determining assessment
and management route
 definition of NOAEL
 validity of methods and techniques for
risk assessments
 methodological rules for assessing
concerns
16  34
IMPORTANCE OF FRAMING
Frames represent social, economic and cultural
perspectives
– Challenge or problem
– Opportunity or risk
– Innovation or intervention
Frames determine boundaries of what is included and
excluded
– Time and duration (future generations, sustainability)
– Location and space (the universe, all nation, the Netherlands, Le
Hague)
– Social class and stratus (vulnerable groups, poor, immigrants)
– Types of adverse effects (physical, mental, social, cultural)
– Primary or secondary impacts (ripple effects)
– Criteria taken into account (risk reduction, cost, benefit, equity,
environmental justice, value violations…)
NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION: THE IMPACT OF FRAMING ON
THE RISK-HANDLING OF GMOs
Some of the differences between EU and US
approaches to the regulation of GM crops can be
traced to a very early difference in the framing of
the technology for regulatory purposes.
In the EU, GM crops were framed as a radical
departure from any previous products and were
seen as requiring path-breaking regulatory
approaches.
Copyright: Freakingnews.com
The US, in line with the OECD approach, framed them as inherently
similar to existing products developed through conventional plant
breeding programmes and therefore not requiring any additional
scrutiny beyond existing regulatory systems, for example for pesticides,
food for human consumption or animal feeds (i.e. they were seen as
requiring path-dependent and evolutionary regulation).
Taken from Risk governance of genetically modified crops – European and American perspectives, Joyce Tait, for publication by Springer in 2007 in the book “Global
Risk Governance: Concept and Practise Using the IRGC Framework”
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
18  61
Phase 2
APPRAISAL
RISK APPRAISAL
 Risk Assessment
Hazard identification and estimation
Exposure assessment
Risk estimation
 Concern Assessment
Socio-economic impacts
Economic benefits
Public concerns (stakeholders and individuals)
20  34
CONCERN ASSESSMENT
How do values and emotions impact on how the risk is perceived?
 What are the public’s concerns and perceptions?
 What is the social response to the risk? Is there the possibility of
political mobilisation or potential conflict?
 What role are existing institutions, governance structures and the
media playing in defining public concerns?
 Are risk managers likely to face important controversies (ambiguities)
arising from differences in stakeholder objectives and values, or
from inequities in the distribution of benefits and risks?
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
21  41
BRENT SPAR – UNDERESTIMATING STAKEHOLDER
CONCERN
© Greenpeace / David Sims
Greenpeace’s campaign included occupation of the platform but did
not include calling for a consumer boycott. Nonetheless, Shell is
estimated to have lost between £60-100 million, mostly from lost sales
across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany.
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
22  61
Phase 3
Tolerability and
Acceptability Judgment
EVALUATION – IS THE RISK ACCEPTABLE, TOLERABLE OR
INTOLERABLE / NOT-ACCEPTABLE (TRAFFIC LIGHT MODEL)
Based on both the evidence from the risk appraisal and evaluation
of broader value-based choices and the trade-offs involved, decide
whether or not to take on the risk.
Prohibition or
Substitution
Reduction
Acceptance
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
Risk so much greater than
benefit that it cannot be
taken on
Benefit is worth the risk,
but risk reduction
measures are necessary
No formal intervention
necessary
24  61
CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION
What are the broader, value-based questions to consider?
 Characterization:
 What are the societal and economic benefits and risks?
 Are there impacts on individual or social quality of life?
 Are there ethical issues to consider?
 Is there a possibility of substitution?
 Evaluation:
 What are possible options for risk compensation or
reduction?
 How can we assign trade-offs between different risk categories
and between risks and benefits (or opportunities)?
 What are the societal values and norms for making
judgements about tolerability and acceptability?
 Do any stakeholders have commitments or other reasons for
desiring a particular outcome of the risk governance process?
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
25  41
Phase 4
RISK MANAGEMENT
COMPONENTS OF RISK MANAGEMENT
Assessment
Components
Definition
Indicators
1 Option
generation
Identification of potential risk
handling options, in particular risk
reduction, i.e. prevention,
adaptation and mitigation, as well
as risk avoidance, transfer and
retention







standards, voluntary agreements
performance rules
restrictions on exposure or vulnerability
economic incentives
compensation
insurance and liability
labels, information/education
2 Option
assessment
Investigations of impacts of each
option (economic, technical,
social, political, cultural)







effectiveness and efficiency
minimization of side effects
sustainability
fairness
legal and political implementability
ethical acceptability
public acceptance
3 Option evaluation
and selection
Evaluation of options (multi-criteria
analysis)
 assignment of trade-offs
 incorporation of stakeholders & the public
4 Option
implementation
Realization of the most preferred
option
 accountability
 consistency
 effectiveness
5 Monitoring and
feedback
 Observation of effects of implementation (link to early warning)
 Ex-post evaluation
 intended impacts
 non-intended impacts
 policy impacts
27  34
NEED FOR DIFFERENT RISK
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
 dealing with routine, mundane risks
 dealing with complex and sophisticated
risks (high degree of modeling necessary)
 dealing with highly uncertain risks (high
degree of second order uncertainty)
 dealing with highly ambiguous risks (high
degree of controversy)
 dealing with imminent dangers or crisis
(need for fast responses)
28  34
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (I/II)
Knowledge
Characterisation
Management
Strategy
Appropriate Instruments
Stakeholder
Participation
1 ‘Simple’ risk
problems
Routine-based:
(tolerability /
acceptability
judgement)
 Applying ‘traditional’ decision-making
 Risk-benefit analysis
 Risk-risk trade-offs
Instrumental
discourse
(risk reduction)





Risk-informed:
(risk agent and
causal chain)
 Characterising available evidence
 Expert consensus seeking tools, such as
Delphi or consensus conferencing, meta
analysis, scenario construction
 Results fed into routine operation
Robustnessfocussed:
(risk absorbing
system)
 Improving buffer capacity of risk target via:
 Additional safety factors
 Redundancy and diversity in designing
safety devices
 Improving coping capacity
 Establishing high reliability organisations
2 Complexityinduced risk
problems
Trial and error
Technical standards
Economic incentives
Education, labelling, information
Voluntary agreements
Epistemological
discourse
29  34
RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (II/II)
Knowledge
Characterisation
Management
Strategy
Appropriate Instruments
Stakeholder
Participation
3 Uncertaintyinduced risk
problems
Precautionbased:
(risk agent)
 Using hazard characteristics such as
persistence, ubiquity etc. as proxies for risk
estimates
 Tools include: Containment, ALARA, BACT
Reflective
discourse
Resiliencefocussed:
(risk absorbing
system)
 Improving capability to cope with surprises
 Diversity of means to accomplish desired
benefits
 Avoiding high vulnerability
 Allowing for flexible responses
 Preparedness for adaptation
Discoursebased:
 Application of conflict resolution methods for
reaching consensus or tolerance for risk
evaluation results and management option
selection
 Integration of stakeholder involvement in
reaching closure
 Emphasis on communication and social
discourse
4 Ambiguityinduced risk
problems
Participative
discourse
30  34
Complementary Phase
Risk Communication
RISK COMMUNICATION –
POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS
The most important governance gaps are:
 One-way information instead of two-way communication prevents
building a dialogue
 Certain concerns are treated as irrational and, as a result, those
holding them are alienated from the risk handling process (which
may cause social mobilisation against the institution)
 The communication is not adapted to the category of risks and
the stakeholders involved
 Low level of confidence or trust in the information given and in the
decision-making process weakens the whole process
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
32  41
Risk Communication at Different Stages (1)
PREASSSSMENT
• Internal
• Informing other agencies and getting feedback from them
(who is affected and how does it relate to their mandate?)
• External
• Media briefing about process to start
• Inviting stakeholders to provide feedback and framing
suggestions (if risk appears to load high on uncertainty
and ambiguity)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (2)
APPRAISAL
• Internal
• Informing the appropriate scientific departments in other
agencies and, if necessary, organize workshops
• External
• Media briefing and announcement to stakeholders that
assessment process is on its way (low complexity)
• Depending on degree of knowledge, press conferences or
press releases on results (high complexity)
• Conducting hearings, Delphi, or other information
gathering techniques with appropriate knowledge carriers
(high complexity and uncertainty)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (3)
EVALUATION
• Internal
• Involving all affected agencies if risk characterisation is
either uncertain or evaluation controversial
• External
• Press conferences with assessors and managers on
evaluation results and protective measures (low
uncertainty and ambiguity)
• Information of stakeholders and invitation for written
review (high uncertainty and low ambiguity)
• Deliberation with stakeholders about values/perspectives
and assigning trade-offs (high ambiguity)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (4)
Management
• Internal
• Involving all affected regulatory or government bodies if
risk management measures have impacts on their
mandate
• External
• Press conferences on selection of management measures
(low uncertainty and ambiguity)
• Information of stakeholders about regulatory impact
review and, if needed, organisation of hearings (high
uncertainty and low ambiguity)
• Engaging in formal deliberations with stakeholders and
representatives of the public (high ambiguity)
Beyond communication
Stakeholder and Public
Involvement
Crucial Questions for Involvement
 Inclusion
Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)
What: options, policies, scenarios, frames,
preferences
Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and
horizontal)
Scale: space, time period, future generations
 Closure
What counts: acceptable evidence
What is more convincing: competition of arguments
What option is selected: decision making rule
(consensus, compromise, voting)
Stakeholder Involvement at Different Stages
PREASSSSMENT
Shaping the process (consensus on frames)
Design Discourse
APPRAISAL
Gathering information and knowledge
Epistemic Discourse
EVALUATION
Deliberating around values/perspectives and assigning trade-offs
Reflective Discourse
MANAGEMENT
Weighing pros and cons of management measures
Pragmatic Discourse (for low ambiguity)
Participative Discourse (for high ambiguity)
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
« Civil society »
Scientists/
Researchers
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Instrumental
Epistemic
Reflective
Participative
Find the most
cost-effective
way to make
the risk
acceptable or
tolerable
Use experts to
find valid,
reliable and
relevant
knowledge
about the risk
Involve all
affected
stakeholders to
collectively
decide best
way forward
Include all
actors so as to
expose, accept,
discuss and
resolve
differences
Simple
Complexity
Uncertainty
Ambiguity
Actors
Type of participation
Dominant risk
characteristic
As the level of knowledge changes, so also
will the type of participation need to change
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
40  41
The wider context
Organizational Capacity
ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY (1)
Risk governance relies upon equipping all actors with adequate:
 Assets
 Laws and regulations that establish rights and obligations
 Resources – financial and physical – to gather information and
act
 Knowledge – the experience and expertise to best use the
resources
 Integration – with which to access and deploy the other assets
 Skills
 Flexibility – adapting to change in a dynamic situation
 Vision – preparedness to think “outside the box”
 Directivity – being an agent for external change when necessary
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
42  41
ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY (2)
 Capabilities
Relations – links between the actors to create the
basis for collaborative learning and decision making
Networks – enhanced links between key actors
Regimes – the structures that create and oversee the
overall process and how all the actors interact
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
43  41
Criteria for Evaluating Governance Performance
 Effectiveness (Were the goals of risk management accomplished or
are they likely to be accomplished?)
 Efficiency (Are the management measures cost/effective?)
 Legality (Are the risk measurement measures compatible with legal
prescriptions and national/international laws?)
 Legitimacy (Are the management measures based on due process
and publicly accepted procedures)
 Accountability (Are all responsibilities for risk management and
liability clear and unambiguous?)
 Fairness (Is the risk/benefit distribution considered fair and just?)
 Acceptance (Are the measures approved by the main stakeholders
and the public at large?)
 Acceptability (Are the measures compatible with ethical and moral
standards?)
 Sustainability ( Are the measures in line with the goals of
sustainable development?)
August 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
44  41
ONE RESULT OF A DEFICIT IN ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY
(AP Photo/Phil Coale)
“The Gulf Coast States have attempted to coordinate contraflow plans
with neighboring States that may be affected, but exercises, traffic
simulations, and other analyses to evaluate evacuation options for
catastrophic incidents on the scale of Hurricane Katrina have not been
conducted.”
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation, A Report to Congress; US Dept of Transportation and Dept of
Homeland Security, June 2006
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
45  61
Part V: Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS I
 Problems in handling risks:
 Plural values and knowledge claims
 Expert dissent on risk and benefits
 Transboundary nature of risks
 Social amplification and attenuation via perception and
social mobilization
 Pressure from globalized economy
 Lack of organizational capacity in many countries
 Lack of effective governance structures
 Emergence of systemic risk that cross national and
sectoral boundaries (ripple effects)
 Need for integration of risk analysis and perception
46  34
CONCLUSIONS II
 Good risk governance integrates traditional risk analysis with
the thorough understanding of how different stakeholders
perceive the risk (“framing” and “concern assessment”)
 Understanding and acting on how different stakeholders frame
the risk is a key factor in the overall success of the process
 Categorising the knowledge about the risk as simple, complex,
uncertain or ambiguous can help:
 select a risk management strategy
 design the process for stakeholder involvement
 Using the results of both risk assessment and concern assessment
can support a tolerability/acceptability judgement that accounts
for both scientific facts and people’s perceptions
Oct 2007
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
47  61
QUOTE
 “What man desires is not knowledge but
certainty.”
Bertrand Russell
 Policy makers cannot produce certainty but
can help people to develop coping
mechanisms to deal prudently with the
necessary uncertainty that is required for
societies to progress
48  34
 EXTRA SLIDES
49  34
Transition towards Governance
Evolution of Risk Research
Four stages of development
Stage 1: Engineered Safety
 Characteristics
Deterministic Safety Analysis
Risk = What happens if?
Probability exposure over losses (at best)
Clear focus on human lives and health
 Problems
Mechanical conception of risks and accidents
Uncertainties are “ignored”
Risk communication only among experts and
between experts and politicians
Stage 2: The New Monarch: PRA
 Characteristics
Probabilistic Safety Analysis
Risk = Function of probability times damage
Probability assessment over events and exposure
Clear focus on human lives, health, capital assets and
environmental damage
 Problems
Probability distribution often intelligent guesses
Uncertainties are confined to statistical confidence
intervals
Risk communication is designed to bridge the gap
between risk assessments and (biased) perceptions
Stage 2:
Probability Theory in Risk Analysis
 Actuarial Approach:
Statistical extrapolation
 Causal Modeling:
Determining the pathways from emission to effects
using models of dispersion and transport, doseresponse-relationships, exposure assessment,
consequence analysis
 Probabilistic Risk Assessments:
Synthesizing failure rates through fault and event
trees
Stage 3:
The Rise of Cultural Relativism
 Characteristics
Probability theory is one instrument among others
Risk = social construction of the human mind
All knowledge is created equal
Focus on everything that human value
 Problems
Danger of solipsism due to constructivist concepts
Uncertainties are confined to beliefs of individuals and
groups (for example subcultures)
Risk communication is designed to give voice to
those who have alternative views on risk
Stage 4:
Towards Systemic Integration
 Characteristics
Acknowledgement of prospects and limitations of
probability theory
Risk = integration of technical and social concepts
Coping with uncertainty by applying precaution
Explicit system boundaries of what is covered
 Problems
Incompatibility between technical and social
approaches to risk
Uncertainties are subdivided in aleatory, epistemic,
and indeterminate
Risk communication is designed to combine rational
policies with social perceptions and concerns
Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts
 Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception
and socio-cultural processing of risk
Avoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social
constructions of risks
Link between risk assessment, management and communication
 Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial,
economic and social risk;
Explore social amplification pathways
Consider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications
 Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity
building and management competency
Systematic use of management sciences and decision aiding
Emphasis on risk communication between and among agencies
and professionals
Annex: Back-up Slides
RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (I):
COPING WITH ROUTINE AND COMPLEXITY
 Routine Risk Management




Sufficient knowledge of key parameters
Little complexity, clear causal knowledge
Standard Assessment sufficient
Risk-benefit analysis and risk-risk comparisons as basic tool for
evaluation
 Risk-Informed Management




High complexity of causal risk models
Little uncertainty and ambiguity
Expanded risk assessment / need for knowledge management
Emphasis on robust risk management strategies, i.e. risk
standards including safety factors
 Emphasis on close monitoring of outcomes
05-12-06
RISK GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
57  34
Annex: Back-up Slides
RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (II):
COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY
 Precaution-Based Management





High uncertainty or ignorance
Adverse effects plausible but quantification not reliable
Appraisal of uncertainty by statistical means
Goal of risk management: avoidance of irreversible effects
Instruments:
– Negotiation between too little and too much precaution
– classic: ALARA etc.
– new: containment, diversification, monitoring; substitution
 Discourse-Based Management
 High ambiguity
 Goal of risk management : to find consensus or tolerance
 Instruments:
– stakeholder involvement
– public debate
– risk communication
05-12-06
RISK GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
58  34