Risk, Precaution, Assessments & Science: Conflict or Complementary?

Precautionary principles and risk mitigation strategies are routinely in conflict or traded off between a binary choice of one or the other.

As a result, risk management practices and belief are likely a mix of both concepts in varying degree of representation or consideration.

Therefore, consideration of which factor (precautionary or risk analysis) should remain top of mind for practitioners, management and governing boards.

While not immediately intuitive, segmentation between beliefs, science and other evidentiary factors routinely trigger the process and ultimately lead to one of many, diverse outcomes.

This in turn leads to the appraisal process. Noting appraisal is used here as opposed to analysis.

The primary reason for this distinction is because appraisals can be made by anyone, technical qualified and experienced, or not.

As opposed to analysis, which should be conducted by suitably qualified and experienced individuals.

It is at this juncture that science, precautionary and professional practices are most evident.

Presumptions without evidence, analysis or evaluation is less qualitative and professional of the options.

Precautionary, inductive, deductive, deliberative or systematic are more professional approaches but not infallible or entirely reliable.

However, few practitioners, organisations and even governments can adequately determine, apply or even know which method is used, prioritised or underpins much of the narrative/s around risk.

These first stages are the realm of professionals and experts (hopefully), but the subsequent steps are more general management, leadership and governance.

Meaning, confounders, divergence and alternate outcomes are inherently hard-wired into the process and practice.

Regardless of the prevailing rigour, science or evidence that lead to this point.

It is at this point that some of the best and worst decisions and trade offs are made.

In other words, evaluation and management remain entirely humanistic practices. It is value, ideology and judgement laden.

Not to mention decided within the context of organisation culture, communities and society-at-large.

Again, choices and decision are not made in a vacuum.

In sum, precautionary principles and risk management are derived from analysis or assessment which is made up of factors and stages within a repeatable or applicable system.

If not, it is random and non-repeatable.

This is where art-forms and science diverge or conflict.

However, systematic application of either precautionary principles or empirical risk practices should be documented, traced and applied consistently.

Again, if not, consider it a random, personalised art form.

With that said, all the science, data, evidence and analysis in the world will at some point be evaluated and traded-off by management and lay people.

As a result, variance, confounders and divergence is inherently indicative of both precautionary and risk analysis practices.

The challenge and trap for most is determining which is applied, how choice is applied or if there is in fact a system or just theatrics of 'risk theatre'.

Tony Ridley MSc CSyP MSyl M.ISRM

Security, Risk & Management Sciences