Ethical Critique of The Principle of ALARP As A Health, Safety and Environment Decision-Making Tool

The principle of "As Low as Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) has long served as a foundational tool in health, safety, and environmental (HSE) decision-making, particularly in high-risk industries. Grounded in cost–benefit logic, ALARP seeks to minimize risks unless further reduction would require disproportionate effort relative to benefit. This critical review analyzed the ethical strengths and weaknesses of ALARP through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontological duty, process integrity, and distributive justice. Drawing on recent literature and professional experience, the study identified that while ALARP promotes optimization, accountability, and continuous improvement, it also suffers from ethical limitations such as subjectivity, commodification of life and environment, lack of transparency, and potential injustice towards marginalized or vulnerable populations. The researchers argued that ALARP’s heavy reliance on cost–benefit analysis risks monetizing human life and environment and sidelining stakeholders consent especially in contexts where residual risks affect vulnerable groups or where the groups with potential exposure to the risk are not part of the decision makers. Recommendations include embedding ethical scrutiny, procedural fairness, and stakeholder participation into ALARP-based decisions, especially where AI or algorithmic systems are involved, to ensure morally sound and equitable HSE practices in an increasingly automated world.