Risk Governance: Concept and Application to Institutional Risk Management

Chapter

Abstract

The chapter addresses the requirements for a risk governance framework that is inspired by the works of the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Risk governance is exposed to three major challenges that result from a lack of knowledge and/or competing knowledge claims about the risk problem: complexity, scientific uncertainty, and sociopolitical ambiguity. To deal with these three challenges, the chapter illuminates a risk governance model that augments the classical model of risk analysis (risk assessment, management, communication) by including steps of pre-estimation, interdisciplinary risk estimation, risk characterization and evaluation, risk management, as well as monitoring and control. This new risk governance model also incorporates expert, stakeholder, and public involvement as a core feature in the stage of communication and deliberation.

Keywords

Transportation Coherence Stake IAEA OECD 

References

  1. Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009): The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism, Risk Analysis, 29(4), pp. 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2010): Risk Management. (Heidelberg and New York: Springer)Google Scholar
  3. Baram, M.(1984): The Right to Know and the Duty to Disclose Hazard Information. American Journal of Public Health, 74 (4): 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, H.F. (2008): Ergebnisse der Projektgruppe Risikoakzeptanz des AGS. Gefahrstoffe- Reinhaltung der Luft, 68, (7/8): 287–288.Google Scholar
  5. Boholm, A. (1998): Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2): 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (eds.) (2009a): Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. (Heidelberg and New York: Springer)Google Scholar
  7. Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (2009b): Introduction. In: M. Dreyer and O. Renn (eds.): Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. (Heidelberg and New York: Springer), pp. 3–10Google Scholar
  8. Ely, A.; Stirling, A.; Dreyer, M.; Renn, O.; Vos, E.; Wendler, F. (2009): The Need for Change. In: M. Dreyer and O. Renn (eds.): Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. (Heidelberg and New York: Springer), pp.11–27Google Scholar
  9. Filar, J.A. and Haurie, A. (eds.) (2010): Uncertainty and Environmental Decision Making (New York et al.: Springer).Google Scholar
  10. Functowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1992): Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science. In: S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.): Social Theories of Risk, (Westport and London: Praeger), pp. 251–273Google Scholar
  11. Graham, J. D. and Rhomberg, L. (1996): How Risks are Identified and Assessed. In: H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic (eds): Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. (Thousand Oaks: Sage), pp. 251–273Google Scholar
  12. Health Council of the Netherlands (2006): Health Significance of Nanotechnologies. (The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands); publication no. 2006/06E.Google Scholar
  13. Horlick-Jones, T. and Sime, J. (2004): Living on the Border: Knowledge, Risk and Transdiciplinarity, Futures, 36: 441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. HSE, Health and Safety Executive (2001): Reducing Risk – Protecting People (London: Health and Safety Executive)Google Scholar
  15. IAEA (1995): Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas. Technical Document: IAEA-TECDOC PGVI-CIJV. (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency)Google Scholar
  16. IEC (1993): Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Technological Systems. Report IEC-CD (Sec) 381 issued by the Technical Committee QMS/23. (Brussels: European Community)Google Scholar
  17. IRGC, International Risk Governance Council (2005): Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper No 1, O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham (Geneva: IRGC)Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (eds.) (2000): Choices, Values, and Frames (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  19. Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2002): A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies, Risk Analysis, 22(6): 1071–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2010): Risk Governance: Contemporary and Future Challenges. In: J. Eriksson, M. Gilek and C. Ruden (eds.) Regulating Chemical Risks: European and Global Perspectives (Berlin et al.: Springer), pp. 9–28Google Scholar
  21. Lave, L. (1987): Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions. Science, 236: 291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Löfstedt, R.E. (1997): Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 92 (Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment)Google Scholar
  23. Nye, J. S. and Donahue, J. D. (eds.). (2000): Governance in a Globalising World. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  24. OECD (2003): Emerging Systemic Risks. Final Report to the OECD Futures Project (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  25. Olin, S. Farland, W., Park, C., Rhomberg, L., Scheuplein, R., Starr, T. and Wilson, J. (1995): Low Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks: Issues and Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: ILSI Press)Google Scholar
  26. Radandt, S..; Rantanen, J. and Renn, O. (2008): Governance of Occupational Safety and Health and Environmental Risks. In: H.-J. Bischoff, H.-J. (ed.): Risks in Modern Society (Springer. Heidelberg und Berlin), pp. 127–258.Google Scholar
  27. Renn, O. (2008): Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Earthscan: London).Google Scholar
  28. Renn, O. and Jäger, A. (2008): Synopsis of Critical Comments on the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. In: O. Renn and K. Walker (eds.) (2008): Global Risk Governance. Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 331–367Google Scholar
  29. Renn, O. and Walker, K. (eds.) (2008a): Global Risk Governance. Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 331–367Google Scholar
  30. Renn, O. and Walker, K. (2008b): Lessons Learned. A Re-Assessment of the IRGC Framework on Risk Governance. In: O. Renn and K. Walker (eds.) (2008): Global Risk Governance. Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 331–367Google Scholar
  31. RISKO (2000): Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin, 3: 2–3.Google Scholar
  32. Roco, M.; Renn, O. and Jäger, A. (2008): Nanotechnology Risk Governance. In: O. Renn and K. Walker (eds.) (2008): Global Risk Governance. Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 301–327Google Scholar
  33. Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O. (2000): Risk Perception Research – An Introduction. In: O. Renn and B. Rohrmann (eds.): Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. A Survey of Empirical Studies (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer), pp. 11–54Google Scholar
  34. Rosenau, J. N. (1992): Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In: J. N. Rosenau and E.-O. Czempiel (eds.): Governance without Government. Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1–29Google Scholar
  35. Rouse, J. (2011): The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Risk Assessment System. Incorporation of the International Risk Governance Council Framework. Paper at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis in Salt Lake City, December 6. (Washington, D.C.: Arete Associates)Google Scholar
  36. Stirling A. (2003): Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences,. In: F. Berkhout, M. Leach and I. Scoones, I. (eds.): Negotiating Change (Edward Elgar: London), pp. 33–76Google Scholar
  37. Slovic, P. (1992): Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.): Social Theories of Risk (Westport and London: Praeger), pp. 153–178Google Scholar
  38. Stricoff, R. S. (1995): Safety Risk Analysis and Process Safety Management: Principles and Practices. In: R. V. Kolluru, S. M. Bartell, R. M. Piblado and S. Stricoff (eds.): Risk Assessment and Management Handbook. For Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals (New York: Mc-Graw-Hill), pp. 8.3–8.53Google Scholar
  39. Underdal, A. (2009): Complexity and Challenges of Long-term Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Change, 20: 386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UK-Treasury Department (2005): Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance. Draft for Consultation, HM Treasury Press, London, October, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk, accessed on 11 February, 2011
  41. US-Environmental Protection Agency (2009): Potential Nano-enabled Environmental Applications for Radionuclides. EPA-402-R-06-002. (Washington: EPA)Google Scholar
  42. Van Asselt, M.B.A. (2000): Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer).Google Scholar
  43. Vos, E. and Wendler, F. (2009): Legal and Institutional Aspects of the General Framework. In: M. Dreyer and O. Renn (eds.): Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement. (Heidelberg and New York: Springer), pp. 83–109Google Scholar
  44. Wolf, K. D. (2002): Contextualizing Normative Standards for Legitimate Governance Beyond the State. In: J. R. Grote and B. Gbikpi (eds.): Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications (Opladen: Leske und Budrich), pp. 35–50Google Scholar
  45. Zahariadis, N. (2003): Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies (Washington: Georgetown University Press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Sociology and Technology AssessmentUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Environmental Policy InstituteMemorial University of NewfoundlandNewfoundlandCanada

Personalised recommendations