IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v105y2012icp47-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why risk acceptance criteria need to be defined by the authorities and not the industry?

Author

Listed:
  • Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

In various industries it is common to use risk acceptance criteria to support decision-making. The criteria are seen as absolute in the sense that measures need to be implemented if the criteria are not met. In Norway the petroleum regulations state that the operator has a duty to formulate risk acceptance criteria relating to major accidents and to the environment. This practice is in line with the internal control principle, which states that the operator has the full responsibility for identifying the hazards and seeing that they are controlled. In this paper we discuss the rationale for this practice. The expected utility theory, which is the backbone for all economic thinking, is used as a basis for the discussion. We show that if risk acceptance criteria are to be introduced as a risk management tool, they should be formulated by the authorities, as is the common scheme seen in many countries and industries, for example in the UK. Risk acceptance criteria formulated by the industry would not in general serve the interest of the society as a whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Aven, Terje, 2012. "Why risk acceptance criteria need to be defined by the authorities and not the industry?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 47-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:105:y:2012:i:c:p:47-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832011002419
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.004?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. Eirik Bjorheim Abrahamsen, 2011. "On the rationality of using risk acceptance criteria based on the expected utility theory," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 70-78.
    2. Aven, Terje & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2005. "On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 15-24.
    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. Xin Ruan & Zhiyi Yin & Dan M. Frangopol, 2015. "Risk Matrix Integrating Risk Attitudes Based on Utility Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1437-1447, August.
    2. Oliver Henk, 2020. "Internal control through the lens of institutional work: a systematic literature review," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-273, September.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    4. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.

    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. Moura Carneiro, F.O. & Barbosa Rocha, H.H. & Costa Rocha, P.A., 2013. "Investigation of possible societal risk associated with wind power generation systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 30-36.
    2. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    3. Nam, Kiil & Chang, Daejun & Chang, Kwangpil & Rhee, Taejin & Lee, In-Beum, 2011. "Methodology of life cycle cost with risk expenditure for offshore process at conceptual design stage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1554-1563.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    5. Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    6. J. E. Vinnem & T Aven, 2006. "Case illustration of a decision framework for health, environment, and safety management," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 220(2), pages 115-121, December.
    7. Abrahamsen, E.B. & Aven, T., 2008. "On the consistency of risk acceptance criteria with normative theories for decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(12), pages 1906-1910.
    8. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Terje Aven, 2007. "On the Ethical Justification for the Use of Risk Acceptance Criteria," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 303-312, April.
    10. Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2010. "Risk analysis and risk acceptance criteria in the planning processes of hazardous facilities—A case of an LNG plant in an urban area," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 662-670.
    11. Terje Aven, 2013. "On the Meaning and Use of the Risk Appetite Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 462-468, March.
    12. Cerqueti, Roy & Lupi, Claudio, 2015. "Consistent Risk Acceptance Criteria through Networks," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp15076, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    13. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2020. "On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    14. Hu, Shenping & Fang, Quangen & Xia, Haibo & Xi, Yongtao, 2007. "Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 369-377.
    15. Aven, Terje & Hiriart, Yolande, 2011. "The use of a basic safety investment model in a practical risk management context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1421-1425.
    16. Kumar, Sourabh & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2022. "A modeling framework and analysis of challenges faced by the Indian petroleum supply chain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    17. Ersdal, Gerhard & Aven, Terje, 2008. "Risk informed decision-making and its ethical basis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 197-205.
    18. Kumar, Sourabh & Kumar Barua, Mukesh, 2022. "Modeling and investigating the interaction among risk factors of the sustainable petroleum supply chain," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. J Barabady & T Aven, 2008. "A methodology for the implementation of production assurance programmes in production plants," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 283-290, September.

    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:105:y:2012:i:c:p:47-50. 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.