15.11 Risk Communications
263
Hubbard 2009) and risk assessment is reduced to a binning exercise of “magic single
numbers” like, say, likelihood = 3 * impact = 5, thus risk = 15! (see Sects. 1.2 and
4.2.1).
Avoiding misleading statements, openly exposing uncertainties, and abolishing
arbitrary selections are all actions leading to demystifying the risk assessment process. They are there for the benefit of all parties. The public (and management) will
indeed be in a better position to understand why risk estimates are fraught with
inevitable uncertainties, despite the fact that they are based on the best available
data and unbiased interpretation. That is, of course, provided conflict of interest and
biases are kept at bay during the process.
Acknowledging uncertainty is very different from asserting “unpredictability” or
declaring ignorance. Unpredictability is oftentimes used as an alibi to avoid difficult
discussions, especially when dealing with long-term projects. At the other end of the
spectrum, ignoring uncertainty and posturing more certainty than data or experience
may justify is a sure way to lose credibility. The spectrum is not binary, not “black
or white”, nil or one. It is indeed a continuum from very high confidence to “guess
work” where neither extreme position is certainly true.
At the end of the day, in spite of all the efforts, some people will remain dissatisfied,
as the demand for certainty has shown itself to be a human trait since the time
of Oracles, especially in times of crises. Taking the public’s suggestions seriously
into consideration will help reassure and give comfort with the additional benefit
of perhaps shedding light on particular aspects of uncertainties. What remains most
important is not offering things that cannot be done or achieved, or, again, misleading
the public with simplistic assessments.
Oftentimes when explaining risks to management or the public the “zero risk”
objection arises. Stakeholders may point out that any “non-zero” risk is unacceptable.
In the aftermath of any recent accident, public opinion, regulators, law enforcement
agencies and the media have vehemently embraced that vision. The first reaction
should be to declare that stating a risk to be zero would be a lie due to inevitable
uncertainties. We have been exposed to hazards and resulting risks since the dawn of
humanity, but of course we are more ready to accept voluntary risks than involuntary
ones. Nevertheless, it is a vain goal to expect zero risk in any human endeavor. More
realistic goals may be “as low as reasonably possible” (ALARP) mitigation or the
implementation of best available control technology (BACT) (see Sects. 13.2.1 and
14.3). Both these notions are of course open for discussion, as even their definitions
are debatable and clouded with uncertainty (e.g., What is reasonable? What is possible? What is available?). The response to such questions depends on the assessment
of the source and the quality of the request.
For operational risks, the demand for ALARP/BACT may be reasonable and lead
to extremely low, tolerable exposures within sustainable mitigative budgets. In some
cases the demand for zero risk may simply be a tactic to make a strong point. The
demand then becomes a negotiating position. Here transparent tolerance criteria and
uncertainties may help to explain that any further mitigation may divert capital from
areas which require more attention.
263
Hubbard 2009) and risk assessment is reduced to a binning exercise of “magic single
numbers” like, say, likelihood = 3 * impact = 5, thus risk = 15! (see Sects. 1.2 and
4.2.1).
Avoiding misleading statements, openly exposing uncertainties, and abolishing
arbitrary selections are all actions leading to demystifying the risk assessment process. They are there for the benefit of all parties. The public (and management) will
indeed be in a better position to understand why risk estimates are fraught with
inevitable uncertainties, despite the fact that they are based on the best available
data and unbiased interpretation. That is, of course, provided conflict of interest and
biases are kept at bay during the process.
Acknowledging uncertainty is very different from asserting “unpredictability” or
declaring ignorance. Unpredictability is oftentimes used as an alibi to avoid difficult
discussions, especially when dealing with long-term projects. At the other end of the
spectrum, ignoring uncertainty and posturing more certainty than data or experience
may justify is a sure way to lose credibility. The spectrum is not binary, not “black
or white”, nil or one. It is indeed a continuum from very high confidence to “guess
work” where neither extreme position is certainly true.
At the end of the day, in spite of all the efforts, some people will remain dissatisfied,
as the demand for certainty has shown itself to be a human trait since the time
of Oracles, especially in times of crises. Taking the public’s suggestions seriously
into consideration will help reassure and give comfort with the additional benefit
of perhaps shedding light on particular aspects of uncertainties. What remains most
important is not offering things that cannot be done or achieved, or, again, misleading
the public with simplistic assessments.
Oftentimes when explaining risks to management or the public the “zero risk”
objection arises. Stakeholders may point out that any “non-zero” risk is unacceptable.
In the aftermath of any recent accident, public opinion, regulators, law enforcement
agencies and the media have vehemently embraced that vision. The first reaction
should be to declare that stating a risk to be zero would be a lie due to inevitable
uncertainties. We have been exposed to hazards and resulting risks since the dawn of
humanity, but of course we are more ready to accept voluntary risks than involuntary
ones. Nevertheless, it is a vain goal to expect zero risk in any human endeavor. More
realistic goals may be “as low as reasonably possible” (ALARP) mitigation or the
implementation of best available control technology (BACT) (see Sects. 13.2.1 and
14.3). Both these notions are of course open for discussion, as even their definitions
are debatable and clouded with uncertainty (e.g., What is reasonable? What is possible? What is available?). The response to such questions depends on the assessment
of the source and the quality of the request.
For operational risks, the demand for ALARP/BACT may be reasonable and lead
to extremely low, tolerable exposures within sustainable mitigative budgets. In some
cases the demand for zero risk may simply be a tactic to make a strong point. The
demand then becomes a negotiating position. Here transparent tolerance criteria and
uncertainties may help to explain that any further mitigation may divert capital from
areas which require more attention.