مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد قوت استدلال های استانداردسازی مدیریت ریسک – الزویر 2023

Abstract

     Risk-informed decision-making is a key concept in regulatory regimes covering a wide range of technical disciplines and risk domains. Increased standardization in terms of highly prescriptive and detailed requirements is observed in various risk management regulations and application areas. This development has spurred a discussion with equally strong voices promoting and opposing standardization of risk. The aim of this paper is to explore the knowledge base from scientific literature related to effects of standardization of risk and to assess the strength of the arguments used in the discussion. Through a scoping study and a systematic argument analysis, this study contributes to the debate on the most adequate approach to standardization in risk management regulations. Conclusions from the study are that effects of standardization of risk management regulations are not widely covered in scientific literature and empirical evidence is largely lacking to support the arguments used. The argument analysis indicate that many arguments are assessed as being weak, interconnected and even contradictory. It seems not possible to come to a conclusion and reach agreement in the discussion if the strengths of standardization outweigh the weaknesses. Thus, the discussion should be in the form of dialectic rather than debate. Acknowledging, understanding and addressing the various arguments in favour of and rejecting standardization, as well as their respective context, is essential when designing risk management regulations. Future research efforts are required to further explore when and how the risk management and risk governance processes can be standardized and the appropriate level of standardization.

Introduction

     Managing and governing risk is at the core of regulatory regimes covering land-use planning, process safety, occupational health and safety, security, environmental protection and many other technical disciplines and risk domains. The practices of risk-informed decision-making processes are implemented differently in different regulations. Some regulatory regimes require risk assessments to be performed and used for decision-making without defining how they should be conducted and used. Others are more standardized in terms of providing prescriptive requirements on key risk management components such as risk analysis methodologies, assumptions, modelling tools, data input, evaluation criteria, etc. Viewing the level of detail prescribed in risk management regulations as representing the level of standardization, highly prescriptive regulatory regimes then represent high level of standardization whereas regulations with lesser prescriptive requirements represent low level of standardization. Standardization in risk management regulations can be applied to individual elements of the risk management and risk governance processes (e.g. risk analysis) or the entire process.

Conclusions

     The main conclusions from this scoping study and argument analysis are that effects of standardization of risk management regulations are not widely covered in scientific literature and empirical evidence is largely lacking to support arguments advocating and opposing standardization of risk management regulations. Although not often underpinned by empirical evidence, there are, however, strong opinions and multiple arguments promoting and opposing standardization. Assessing if the strengths of standardization outweigh the weaknesses is subjective and highly contextual. Even if the argument analysis presented in this paper indicates that many of the arguments are labelled weak, they should not be disregarded since the arguments may be logically correct and intuitively reasonable even if they lack appropriate empirical backing in the particular publication(s).