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
Eurocodes and REACH - differences and similarities
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2007 (English)In: Risk Management: An International Journal, ISSN 1460-3799, no 19, 19-35 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The developments of the new European construction standard (Eurocodes) and the new European chemical legislation (REACH) have taken place in parallel, and they are now both in their final stages. Both consist in European harmonization of safety regulations that concern major industries. In this paper, we compare Eurocodes and REACH in terms of purpose, intended level of harmonization, the science-policy interface and controversies about the costs of the regulations. We have found that the science-policy interface of REACH is characterized by public controversy and by attempts to keep risk assessment and risk management apart while the science-policy interface of Eurocodes is characterized by trust in experts, limited public involvement and organizational confluence of risk assessment and risk management. Furthermore, the costs of REACH have been a major issue in discussions between the Commission and the chemical industry while, in contrast, the costs of Eurocodes have not even been calculated either by the Commission or by the construction industry. A major reason for this is that construction industry does not seem to regard possible cost increases due to Eurocodes as a threat to their business interests. Regulators seem to have treated the cost issue as a business interest, not as an aspect of the decision that they should be concerned with even in the absence of external pressure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. no 19, 19-35 p.
Keyword [en]
Eurocodes, REACH, policy, science, chemicals, construction
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-6002DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250022OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-6002DiVA: diva2:10567
Note
QC 20101110. Uppdaterad från Submitted till Published (20101110).Available from: 2006-04-14 Created: 2006-04-14 Last updated: 2012-02-02Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Is it safe? safety factor reasoning in policy-making under uncertainty
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Is it safe? safety factor reasoning in policy-making under uncertainty
2006 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

This thesis examines the practice of using safety factors in decision-making under uncertainty, in particular in the areas of toxicology and civil engineering. The aim is to expose and clarify some of the philosophical issues surrounding the practice.

Paper I (co-written with Sven Ove Hansson and Fred Nilsson) gives an historical background to the practice of formal safety factor and safety margin use. The notion of an uncertainty function is presented as a more general concept covering safety margins, safety factors and the related uncertainty factors. Three categories of uncertainty functions are identified: explicit, implicit and natural safety reserves. Finally, the problems of countervailing risks and distribution arbitrariness are discussed.

Paper II (co-written with John Cantwell) discusses the relation between decision-making with safety factor rules and the ideal of formal normative decision theory. The role of safety factor rules in practical and theoretical reasoning is also examined and certain difficulties regarding normative evaluation of safety factor rules are pointed out.

Paper III (co-written with Sven Ove Hansson) looks at two current regulatory systems under development: Eurocodes for construction and REACH for chemicals. The two regulations have many similarities but reactions to them have been highly divergent. The differences are discussed and some hypotheses as to their explanation are suggested.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2006. 6 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1654-627X
Keyword
safety factor, uncertainty factor, uncertainty function, uncertainty, rationality, policy, decision, science, risk
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-4053 (URN)91-7178-405-5 (ISBN)
Presentation
2006-06-14, Seminarierummet, Teknikringen 78 B, 2 tr., Stockholm, 14:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20101110Available from: 2006-04-14 Created: 2006-04-14 Last updated: 2010-11-10Bibliographically approved
2. Dealing with uncertainty
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Dealing with uncertainty
2012 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Uncertainty is, it seems, more or less constantly present in our lives. Even so, grasping the concept philosophically is far from trivial. In this doctoral thesis, uncertainty and its conceptual companion information are studied. Axiomatic analyses are provided and numerical measures suggested. In addition to these basic conceptual analyses, the widespread practice of so-called safety factor use in societal regulation is analyzed along with the interplay between science and policy in European regulation of chemicals and construction.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2012. 25 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 40
Keyword
safety factor, safety margin, uncertainty factor, uncertainty function, uncertainty, information, risk, risk assessment, risk management, epistemology, science, reasoning
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-72680 (URN)978-91-7501-216-2 (ISBN)
Public defence
2012-02-17, F3, Lindstedtsvägen 26, KTH, Stockholm, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20120202Available from: 2012-02-02 Created: 2012-02-01 Last updated: 2012-02-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Clausen Mork, JonasHansson, Sven Ove
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Risk Management: An International Journal
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 125 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