ALARP and CBA all in the same game

ABSTRACT The concept of reducing risk As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) as presented by the UK Health and Safety Executive for the purpose of discharging its decision-taking responsibilities and the principle of balancing cost and benefits through monetary Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) which is used more widely in health and safety decision-making seem to occupy the extremes of the decision making spectrum. ALARP seems on the qualitative, holistic, principles based side whereas CBA seems on the quantitative, limited, precisely defined side. These characteristics expose both principles to criticism. Application of the ALARP concept may to lead to different decisions in similar contexts resulting in uncertainty and unpredictability in decision making. CBA leads to decisions in which only money counts and all that cannot be expressed in money or is perceived of no monetary value is neglected. In this paper this issue is explored in more depth, and it is concluded that they are part of the general decision making process. The nature of the relevant safety laws and how they are applied frame the application of these concepts. If the level of acceptable risk is not explicitly set by law, the risk level resulting from compliance to the regulations is just as accidental as the Value of a Statistical Life (VOSL) found from ex post evaluations of decisions. ALARP, QRA and CBA are part of the grander scheme of making decisions. Throughout, the focus is on the principle rather than the practices of ALARP and CBA in reducing risk.