Risk strategy. Risk management decision-making
This article describes how problems have been identified in processes, which are not always perfect, and how there is often anomaly and unreasonableness in deciding what is passable, what treatment options could be dominant in the three areas where problems can be identified.
introduction
Decision-making processes in risk management are not perfect, and in fact there are often biases and injustices in determining what is acceptable and deciding which treatment options are best.
The following are three areas where such issues have been identified:
- Individuals with money and interests can influence the process of determining whether risk can be accepted. Because the process of determining (including the costs of mitigation and regulatory practices) is influenced by politics and may be shaped by political ideology, it is possible for companies or interest groups to lobby and influence these decisions. This can be seen with dangers such as handguns and assault rifles, environmental degradation, soil and water pollution and construction in hazardous areas. Increased citizen participation in the process can reduce the type of injustice. By increasing the decision-making power of the general public, a more democratic outcome is possible (although not guaranteed).
- Putting a dollar number (in cost-benefit analysis) on a human life is unethical and incomprehensible. This is primarily a factor related to involuntary risks. For those whose lives are at risk, any dollar figure will seem low or inappropriate as a trade-off to accept the risk. Many people would feel that their life is too great a price to pay for the existence of involuntary risk. The cognitive processes that dictate these decisions about "people in a human life" are often different for voluntary risks. As the example of car safety illustrates, people are willing to accept some increase in risk to their own lives in favor of more affordable products. How much more affordable is different from person to person. Nevertheless, as evidenced by lawsuits against tobacco companies from smokers who became ill, people may be reluctant to accept some voluntary risks despite prior knowledge of these risks. Due to the controversial nature of putting a value on life, it is rare that a risk assessment study would actually indicate a dollar figure for the amount that could be saved per. Accepted human loss of life. Subsequent studies have calculated the dollar numbers used per. Life during a crisis, but wondering how much a company or government is willing to spend to save or risk a life would be extremely distasteful to most people.
- Risk management is usually an undemocratic process because those who may be harmed are not always identified or asked if the danger is acceptable to them. It is not hard to remember a case where a vulnerable or disadvantaged group of people were exposed to a risk whose benefits were enjoyed by others. Many landfills for toxic waste are located in poor parts of the city, towns and states, although people in these communities did not have much to say in determining the location of such materials. Related to these materials. In the context of this injustice, the reality is that the poor are usually less able to avoid such risks because the properties or jobs available to them are often associated with the same risks. It is often the poor who have to live in areas at high risk of floodplains, or under high-voltage power lines or along highways. These carry a greater proportion of the population risk, whereas many others enjoy much lower risk levels from these particular dangers, even though they enjoy a disproportionate share of the benefits. Risk communication and public participation are thus important in counteracting these injustices.
Feel free to comment, or contact us for more information!
source:
Coppola, D. (2021): “Introduction to International Disaster Management”
