Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consistent risk management: three models outlined
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology.
2005 (English)In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 8, no 7-8, 557-568 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article introduces three models on how to understand the demand for consistent risk management. The first model, which accords with traditional risk analysis, is called the Standard Model. In this model, the decisive criterion of whether or not to accept a risk is if the total benefit exceeds the total cost. Since this model cannot protect the individual from unfair risk exposure two more models are outlined. The arguments in the Model of Inviolable Rights and in the Model of Procedural Justice evolve around the separateness of individuals, rights and fair risk taking. It is argued that risk management needs to acknowledge a variety of morally salient factors to avoid exposing people unfairly to risks.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 8, no 7-8, 557-568 p.
Keyword [en]
Costs; Mathematical models; Risk assessment; Risk exposure; Total cost; Risk management
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-5692DOI: 10.1080/13669870500085189ISI: 000233134400001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-28044461977OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-5692DiVA: diva2:10140
Note
QC 20100714Available from: 2006-05-10 Created: 2006-05-10 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Ethical aspects of risk management
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ethical aspects of risk management
2006 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

The subject of this thesis is ethical aspects of risk management. It is argued that a model for risk management needs to be developed that acknowledges several ethical aspects and most crucial among these, the individual’s right not to be unfairly exposed to risks.

Article I takes as its starting point the demand frequently expressed in the risk literature for a consistent risk management. Such consistency is often assumed to be in accordance with some kind of cost-benefit analysis. It is maintained that such a model, here called the Standard Model, does not respect the rights of the individual. Two alternative models are outlined in order to better deal with this ethical weakness, the Model of Inviolable Rights and the Model of Procedural Justice. The arguments in the alternative models evolve around the separateness of individuals, rights and fair risk taking. It is claimed that the latter model, which focuses on a fair procedure, seems most fruitful to develop.

Article II is a discussion of the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) conflict, which is well known from situations of siting potentially risky facilities. Of special concern is to investigate what the ethical premises are behind the negative characterization of the NIMBY concept. It is argued that, contrary to the assumption that the total benefit should outweigh the individual’s cost, individuals in siting scenarios have rights not to be unfairly exposed to risks.

Article III, which is co-authored with Professor Sven Ove Hansson, presents a three party model as a tool for ethical risk analysis. It is argued that ethical dimensions need to be acknowledged in the analysis of risks and that this is best done through a discussion of three parties that are involved in risk decisions – the risk-exposed, the beneficiary, and the decisionmaker. Seven crucial ethical questions are recognized and discussed regarding the relation between these parties. By using examples from the railway sector it is shown how the questions can be used to identify salient ethical features of risk management problems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2006. vii, 20 p.
Keyword
Risk, risk management, consistency, ethics, rights, cost-benefit, interpersonal weighing, decision-procedure, informed consent, NIMBY
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-3948 (URN)91-7178-346-6 (ISBN)
Presentation
2006-05-23, Seminarierummet, Avd. för filosofi, KTH, Teknikringen 78, Stockholm, 10:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20101116Available from: 2006-05-10 Created: 2006-05-10 Last updated: 2010-11-16Bibliographically approved
2. Rights at Risk: Ethical Issues in Risk Management
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Rights at Risk: Ethical Issues in Risk Management
2007 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

he subject of this thesis is ethical aspects of decision-making concerning social risks. It is argued that a model for risk management must acknowledge several ethical aspects and, most crucial among these, the individual’s right not to be unfairly exposed to risks.

Article I takes as its starting point the demand frequently expressed in the risk literature for consistent risk management. It is maintained that a model focusing on cost-benefit analysis does not respect the rights of the individual. Two alternative models are outlined. They evolve around the separateness of individuals, rights, and fair risk taking. It is claimed that a model that focuses on a fair procedure for risk decisions seems most fruitful to develop.

Article II discusses the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) conflict. The ethical premises behind the negative characterization of the NIMBY concept are investigated. It is argued that a collective weighing of risks and benefits ignores individuals’ rights not to be unfairly exposed to risks in siting scenarios.

Article III presents a three-party model tool for ethical risk analysis. The focus in such analysis is a discussion of three parties that are involved in risk decisions: the risk-exposed, the beneficiary, and the decision-maker. Seven crucial ethical questions are discerned by combining these parties pairwise.

Article IV discusses a model for procedural justice for risk decisions. Two theories of deliberative democracy are explored. The first focuses on a hypothetical contract, the second argues for the actual inclusion of affected parties. It is maintained that hypothetical reasoning should mainly serve as a guide concerning risk issues that affect people who cannot be included in the decision-making process. Otherwise an interactive dialogical reasoning is to be preferred.

Article V explores the claim that there are no real, objective risks – only subjective descriptions of them. It is argued that even though every risk can be described in different ways, involve value judgements and emotions, the ideal of objectivity should not be abandoned.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2007. viii, 22 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 25
Keyword
Risk, risk management, consistency, ethics, rights, cost-benefit, interpersonal weighing
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-4570 (URN)978-91-7178-810-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2007-12-17, Sal D3, KTH, Lindstedtsvägen 5, Stockholm, 13:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20100714Available from: 2007-12-10 Created: 2007-12-10 Last updated: 2010-07-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hermansson, Hélène
By organisation
Philosophy and History of Technology
In the same journal
Journal of Risk Research
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 166 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf