IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v191y2019ics0951832018313255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

The precautionary principle is well known among scientists, politicians and the public in general. However, the closely related and broader cautionary principle is not so often referred to. Whereas the precautionary principle is typically invoked in cases of scientific uncertainties, the cautionary principle applies to the more general situation of risk and uncertainties. The present paper summarises and extends the argumentation adopted to justify the cautionary principle and presents and discusses some real-life examples of its use, covering both safety and security issues. The aim of the paper is to clarify the rationale of the principle in risk management, by reasoning and using these examples to illustrate the ideas and argumentation. The paper also refers to a new concept, the ‘anti-cautionary principle’, which stimulates actions and measures that can produce highly positive values.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018313255
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018313255
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106585?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. Terje Aven, 2015. "The Concept of Antifragility and its Implications for the Practice of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 476-483, March.
    2. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    3. Jones-Lee, M. & Aven, T., 2011. "ALARP—What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 877-882.
    4. Martin Peterson, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 595-601, June.
    5. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    6. D. Warner North, 2011. "Uncertainties, Precaution, and Science: Focus on the State of Knowledge and How It May Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1526-1529, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Aven, T. & Flage, R., 2009. "Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(9), pages 1491-1498.
    9. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    10. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    11. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    12. Charles Vlek, 2011. "Straightening Out the Grounds for Precaution: A Commentary and Some Suggestions About Terje Aven's “On Different Types of Uncertainties”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1534-1537, October.
    13. Terje Aven, 2017. "On some foundational issues related to cost-benefit and risk," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 182-191.
    14. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    15. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    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. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.

    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. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    5. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    6. H. Orri Stefánsson, 2019. "On the Limits of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1204-1222, June.
    7. Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    8. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    9. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    10. Terje Aven, 2011. "Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1538-1542, October.
    11. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    14. Rachunok, Benjamin & Nateghi, Roshanak, 2020. "The sensitivity of electric power infrastructure resilience to the spatial distribution of disaster impacts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Terje Aven, 2019. "Comments to Orri Stefánsson's Paper on the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1223-1224, June.
    16. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020. "A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2399-2412, November.
    17. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    18. Chao Fang & Piao Dong & Yi-Ping Fang & Enrico Zio, 2020. "Vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructure under disruptions: An application to China Railway High-speed," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 235-245, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Terje Aven, 2019. "The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1196-1203, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018313255. 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.