Advertisement

Risk Assessment and Environmental Impacts: Economic and Social Implications

  • Maria Claudia LucchettiEmail author
  • Gabriella Arcese
  • Olimpia Martucci
  • Chiara Montauti
Chapter

Abstract

Risk Management is the identification, analysis, assessment, control, and avoidance, minimization, or elimination of unacceptable risks. In order to consider the environmental sustainability aspects, risk management is a business strategy that aligns profit goals with a company’s environmental policies. The objective of this work has to develop a framework for the identification of the hotspot in the business activities where it is useful to use risk assessment in a global sustainability strategy. The method used for data and experiences collected is based on qualitative analysis of different sources of information. In conclusion, the framework developed in this research adheres to the criteria and lends itself to be one of the suitable tools to implement a comprehensive business strategy based on the risk management.

Keywords

Risk assessment Risk management Sustainability 

Bibliography

  1. Amann, M., & Lutz, M. (2000). The revision of the air quality legislation in the European Union related to ground level ozone. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78(1–3), 41–62.Google Scholar
  2. Ashauer, R., & Brown, C. D. (2013). Highly time-variable exposure to chemicals: Toward an assessment strategy. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9, 27–e33.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, G., et al. (2006). Cost benefits analysis and the environment: Recent development. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  4. Barboza, L. G. A., & Gimenez, B. C. G. (2015). Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspective. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 97, 5–12.Google Scholar
  5. Bickel, P., et al. (2013). Environmental external costs of transport. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  6. Borruso, G. (2008). Network density estimation: A GIS approach for analysing point patterns in a network space. Transactions in GIS, 12(3), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock, T., et al. (2018). Ecological recovery and resilience in environmental risk assessments at the European Food Safety Authority. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 14(5), 586–591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, S. J., & Zalk, D. M. (2014). Environmental Risk Communication through Qualitative Risk Assessment. Toxics, 2, 346–363.Google Scholar
  9. Desaigues, B., et al. (2007). Final report on the monetary valuation of mortality and morbidity risks from air pollution. New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability.Google Scholar
  10. European Food Safety Authority Genetically Modified Organisms Panel (EFSA GMO). (2015). Scientific opinion updating risk management recommendations to limit exposure of non-target Lepidoptera of conservation concern in protected habitats to Bt-maize pollen. EFSA Journal, 13, 4127. 31.Google Scholar
  11. European Food Safety Authority Plant Protection Products and Their Residues Panel (EFSA PPR). (2014). Scientific opinion on good modelling practice in the context of mechanistic effect models for risk assessment of plant protection products. EFSA Journal, 12(3), 3589. 92.Google Scholar
  12. European Food Safety Authority Plant Protection Products and Their Residues Panel (EFSA PPR). (2015). Scientific opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target arthropods. EFSA Journal, 13(2), 3996. 212.Google Scholar
  13. European Food Safety Authority Scientific Committee (EFSA SC). (2016). Scientific opinion on coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA. EFSA Journal, 14(1), 4312. 132.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2016). Report from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council.Google Scholar
  15. Everaert, G., et al. (2018). Risk assessment of microplastics in the ocean: Modelling approach and first conclusions. Janssen, Environmental Pollution, 242, 1930–e1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ExternE. (1995–2005). External cost of Energy. Directorate-General for Research Sustainable Energy Systems,Google Scholar
  17. Forbes, V. E., & Calow, P. (2013). Developing predictive systems models to address complexity and relevance for ecological risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9, 75–e80.Google Scholar
  18. Grachev V., et al. (2018). New methods of assessing damage from environmental pollution. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 9, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hainoun, A., et al. (2010). Estimating the health damage costs of Syrian electricity generation system using impact pathway approach. Energy, 35, 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammitt, J. K. (2007). Valuing changes in mortality risk: Lives saved versus life years saved. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(2), 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland, M., & Krewitt, W. (1996). Benefits of an acidification strategy for the European Union. European Commission, DGX1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. Kahn, J., & Yardley, J. (2007). As China roars, pollution reaches deadly extremes. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  23. Koelmans, A. A., et al. (2017). Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief. Environmental Science & Technology, 51, 11513–e11519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramm, J., & Volker, C. (2018). Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspective. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 97, 5–e12.Google Scholar
  25. Krewitt, W., et al. (1998). Application of the impact pathway analysis in the context of LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 3, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lusher, A. (2015). Microplastics in the marine environment: Distribution, interactions and effects. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages (eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, D. R. J., & Bartell, S. M. (2000). Estimating ecological risks of multiple stressors: Advanced methods and difficult issues, 117–168, In Susan A. Ferenc & Jeffrey A. Foran (eds.), Multiple stressors in ecological risk assessment: Approaches to risk estimation. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).Google Scholar
  28. Novoselova, N. N., et al. (2016). Factors of providing food and economic security of the state and its regions. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(1S), 159–164.Google Scholar
  29. Parkhurst, B. R., et al. (1996). Methodology for aquatic ecological risk assessment. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation. Contract No. RP91-AER-1.Google Scholar
  30. Rabl, A. (2003). Interpretation of air pollution mortality: Number of deaths or years of life lost? Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 53(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rico, A., et al., (2017). Developing ecological scenarios for the prospective aquatic risk assessment of pesticides. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12, 510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seiler, F. A., & Alvarez J. L., (1996). On the selection of distribution for stochastic variables. Risk Analysis, 16, 5–18.Google Scholar
  33. Van Cauwenberghe, L. (2015). Occurrence, effects and risks of marine microplastics. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences. Ghent University, Belgium, p. 213.Google Scholar
  34. Wagner, M., & Lambert, S. (2017). Freshwater microplastics: Emerging environmental contaminants? Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.Google Scholar
  35. Zalk, D. M. (2010). Control banding; A simplified, qualitative strategy for the assessment of risks and selection of solutions, pp. 2–8. Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft Publisher.Google Scholar
  36. Zalk, D. M., & Nelson, D. I. (2008). History and evolution of control banding: A review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 5, 330–346.Google Scholar
  37. Zalk, D. M. et al. (2010). Risk level based management system: A control banding model for occupational health and safety risk management in a highly regulated environment. Industrial Health, 48, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Claudia Lucchetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriella Arcese
    • 1
  • Olimpia Martucci
    • 1
  • Chiara Montauti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesRoma Tre UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations