An introduction to

the IRGC
Risk Governance
Framework

international risk governance council

 Preface
P2

The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is a non-profit and independent

organisation whose purpose is to improve the understanding and management of
emerging systemic risks that may have signicant impacts on human health and
safety, the environment, the economy and society at large. IRGCs work includes
developing concepts of risk governance, providing insights on major emerging risk
issues and developing risk governance policy recommendations for key decision
makers.

Many current risk issues are complex, uncertain, or even ambiguous. In most cases,
the potential benets and risks interconnect. IRGC facilitates a better understanding
of risks and their scientic, political, social, and economic contexts. It also provides
support on how to manage them in the presence of knowledge gaps, time constraints
and policy trade-offs. IRGC believes that improvements in risk governance are
essential to taking optimal risk-related decisions and to maximising public trust in
risk management processes, structures and decisions.

Drawing on an analysis of established approaches to risk management, IRGC has

developed a Risk Governance Framework whose purpose is to help policy makers,
regulators and risk managers both understand the concept of risk governance
and apply it to their handling of risks. A detailed description of the framework
was published in 20051 in IRGCs White Paper titled Risk Governance Towards
an Integrative Approach, which provides guidance for the development of
comprehensive assessment and management strategies to cope with risks.

Building on this work, IRGCs 2009 Report on Risk Governance Deficits: An analysis
and illustration of the most common deficits in risk governance focused on the
sources of governance deficits and their constructive assessment and management.

This Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework summarises the main
points of the White Paper, identifies potential decits in the risk governance process
and illustrates their manifestation with recent examples.

More information on IRGC and the IRGCs Risk Governance Framework may be
obtained from www.irgc.org.

1
IRGC White Paper No1 Risk
Governance Towards an Integrative
Approach, IRGC, Geneva, 2005.

The full text of this document can be

downloaded from www.irgc.org

ISBN 978-2-9700772-2-0

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
Contents
P3

I From ordinary to systemic risks: 4

the need for improved governance

II Handling risks using the IRGC framework 6

III The IRGC risk governance framework: Description 8

1. Pre-assessment 8
1.1 Framing and early warning 8
1.2 The importance of context 10

2. Appraisal 12
2.1 Assessing the risk 12
2.2 Categorising the knowledge 14

3. Evaluation 16

4. Management 18
4.1. Managing the risk 18
4.2 Involving stakeholders 20

5. Communication 22

Conclusion 23

References 24

Appendix I 25

Appendix II 26

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
 I From ordinary to systemic risks:
the need for improved governance
P4

Risk is an uncertain (generally adverse) consequence of an event or activity with

respect to something that human beings value. Risks are often taken for opportunities
associated with initiating activities or applying technologies.

Systemic risks are embedded in the larger context of societal, nancial and
economic consequences and threaten the functionality of a service or a need that
is essential for the economy and/or society. Such risks are not conned to national
borders; they cannot be managed through the actions of a single sector; they
require a comprehensive and systemic governance approach, i.e. an approach
that acknowledges the interdependencies of the variables and attempts to correct
the drivers rather than the symptoms. The governance of systemic risks requires
cohesion between countries and the inclusion within the process of governments,
industry, academia and civil society.

Governance refers to the actions, processes, traditions and institutions by which

authority is exercised and collective decisions are taken and implemented.

Risk governance deals with the identication, assessment, management, evaluation

and communication of risks in the context of plural values and distributed authority.
It includes the totality of actors, rules, conventions, processes and mechanisms
and is concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed and
communicated, and how management decisions are taken. Risk governance is
both a descriptive (how are decisions made) as well as normative concept (how
decisions should be made). In its application as a normative concept it specifies
the principles of good governance that include transparency, effectiveness and
efciency, accountability, strategic focus, sustainability, equity and fairness, respect
for the rule of law, and the need for the chosen solution to be politically and legally
feasible as well as ethically and publicly acceptable.

Risk taking is crucial for technological and social change. It is a permanent and
important part of life and the willingness and capacity to take and accept risk is
crucial for achieving economic development and social welfare, for example by
introducing new technologies. Many risks, and in particular those arising from
emerging technologies, are accompanied by potential benets and opportunities.

The challenge of better risk governance lies here: to enable societies to

benet from opportunities while minimising the negative consequences of
the associated risks.

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P5

A thorough and comprehensive analysis of risk governance addresses the

following challenges:

n Inequitable distribution of risks and benets between countries, organisations

and social groups

n Differing approaches and protocols to assessing and managing the same risk

n Inadequate consideration of risk-loss and risk-benefit trade-offs

n Failure to understand secondary consequences and the interconnections among

consequences and between risks and opportunities

n Cost of inefcient regulations

n Decisions that take inappropriate account of public perception and the quest
for stakeholder involvement

n Loss of public trust

IRGCs risk governance framework is a comprehensive approach to help

understand, analyse and manage important risk issues for which there are decits
in risk governance structures and processes. The framework comprises ve linked
phases:

1. Pre-assessment

2. Appraisal

3. Evaluation

4. Management

5. Communication

These interlinked phases are summarised in the following pages. Together they
provide a means to gain a thorough understanding of a risk and to develop adequate
and appropriate options for dealing with it.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
 II Handling risks
P6
IRGCs policy brief on
Nanotechnology Risk Governance
can be downloaded from www.irgc.org
international risk governance council
using the IRGC framework
Policy makers are often required to make decisions and take actions under
considerable time pressure, with incomplete information and often faced by conicting
advice and public pressure. Even in situations of knowledge decit and high
uncertainty, decisions must be made and action is often needed.
The IRGCs framework can assist in giving guidance, even in situations of high
complexity, uncertainty or ambiguity. It can help detect current or potential
decits within the risk governance process, and so enable decision makers to act
on the basis of known facts, transparent assumptions, and broad societal values
and interests. The framework can also encourage people to raise the relevant
questions, the answers to which will help reduce uncertainty and handle political
and cultural ambiguities. The framework is designed to increase the capacity to deal
with the unanticipated consequences, the unknown impacts and social conflicts
over trade-offs.
In addition to the standard elements of risk handling risk assessment, management
and communication the IRGC framework incorporates additional activities which
reect the need to deal with risk in a way that fully accounts for the societal context
of both the risk and the decision that is reached.
Risk handling is not just about risk management. It starts at the much earlier stage
of risk pre-assessment, in which the essential perspectives of the problem,
particularly how the risk is framed by different stakeholders and whether or not
there are any applicable legal or other existing rules or processes, are identied
early and broadly.
To help achieve effective risk management and meaningful engagement with
stakeholders, IRGC recommends a categorisation of risks (whether they originate
from natural, technological, economic or environmental causes) as predominantly
simple, complex, uncertain, ambiguous or a combination thereof.
IRGC also emphasises the crucial role of communication and public involvement.
This includes not only informing people of a risk or of a risk management decision,
but also establishing a two-way dialogue needed at all stages of the risk handling
process including communication between those responsible for taking risk-related
decisions and those responsible for providing the knowledge on which the decisions
are based. Excellent communication is particularly important for the involvement
of stakeholders in participative risk-related decision making and conict resolution
and for ensuring that they can make informed choices about the risk, balancing
factual knowledge about it with their own interests, concerns, beliefs and resources.
It is also necessary to accept and account for the variety of risk cultures and
regulatory styles around the world, as these will require different methods for,
particularly, management and communication. Also, as risk cultures vary (for example,
over time and according to the level of economic development), timing is a key
criterion. What is possible now in one environment may not be possible elsewhere.
What is not feasible today may be feasible tomorrow.
An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P7

Cutting across each of these elements is the role played by stakeholders in analysing
the risk and in sharing the decisions about it. For example, the interests and intentions
behind the introduction of genetically modied crops were and remain very different
across countries. This reects both differences in risk cultures and the diverse roles
and values of various stakeholders.

The framework therefore offers an interdisciplinary and multi-level governance

approach. Most notably, it urges risk governance institutions to gather not only
knowledge about the physical impacts of technologies, natural events or human
activities but also knowledge about the concerns that people associate with these
and other causes of risks.

Classifying risks
Risks differ in a number of ways. One approach to understanding the differences is to consider a number of
dimensions which typically should inuence the risk governance process.

Several dimensions relate to the risk itself. For example:

n Degree of novelty is the risk emerging, re-emerging, increasing in importance, current (topical) or
institutionalised (already subject to management decisions)?

n Scope: is the risk local, dispersed, trans-boundary or global?

n Range: does the risk impact on human health and safety, the environment, capital assets, trade, etc?

n Time horizon: what is the timeframe available for analysing a risk?

n Type of hazard: is it ubiquitous, persistent and/or irreversible?

n Delay: is there a long timespan between the trigger of the risk and its effects (latency)?

n For the risks introduced by developments in science and technology: is the change incremental or
breakthrough?

Other dimensions relate to risk evaluation or management decisions, such as:

n Does handling the risk require international cooperation?

n Does it meet or violate other important societal values, business prospects, equity concerns, security
requirements, or trade agreements?

n Possibility of transfer or insurability.

n Level of public concern and stakeholder involvement.

n Form of regulatory framework: regulation/standards/guidelines/laissez-faire; national/international; level of

compliance.

n Form of public-private partnerships and the degree of governmental regulation versus self-regulation.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
 III The IRGC risk governance framework:
Description
P8

A simplified representation
of the IRGC risk governance
framework
The comprehensive representation can
be found in www.irgc.org/publications

IRGCs risk governance framework distinguishes between analysing and

understanding a risk for which risk appraisal is the essential procedure and
deciding what to do about a risk where risk management is the key activity. This
distinction reects IRGCs support for the clear separation of the responsibilities
for risk appraisal and management as a means of maximising the objectivity
and transparency of both activities. Those responsible for both should be jointly
involved in the frameworks other three elements: pre-assessment, characterisation
and evaluation, and communication.

1. Pre-assessment
1.1 Framing and early warning
IRGCs approach begins with risk pre-assessment: early warning and framing
the risk in order to provide a structured definition of the problem and how it may
be handled.

BOX 1: Subprime crisis in the United States (2007)

The subprime financial crisis has led to severe recessions in many countries and caused long-term negative impacts in many sectors. As
much of the critique has centered round the inadequacies of banking sector regulations, many important issues have been overlooked.
A pre-assessment of the risk would frame the issue as deeply interlinked with the economic and social fabric in many countries, where
various economic or financial policies have allowed unsustainable imbalances to develop for many years. For example in the US, the crisis
was triggered by numerous factors, including weak regulations, political pressure to encourage home ownership among lower-income
households or the opacity of financial products. It is important to identify these various sources and dimensions of risk as well as the
different stakeholders involved, even before full risk assessment starts. Thereby, risk pre-assessment contributes to a broader understanding
of the subprime crisis and can lead to the development of a more integrated solution than a narrow focus on regulation would propose.

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P9

Pre-assessment claries the various perspectives on a risk, denes the issues to

be looked at, and forms the baseline for how a risk is assessed and managed. It
captures and brings to the open both:
n the variety of issues that stakeholders and society may associate with a certain
risk (and the related opportunities), and
n existing indicators, routines and conventions that may help narrow down what
is to be addressed as the risk, as well as the manner in which it should be
addressed.

The main questions in pre-assessment are: Copyrights: NASA

n What are the risks and opportunities we are addressing?

n What are the various dimensions of the risk?
n How do we dene the limits for our evaluations (in terms of scope, scale, time horizon, depth of impact layers)?
n Do we have indications that there is already a problem? Is there a need to act?
n Who are the stakeholders? How do their views affect the denition and framing of the problem?
n What are the established scientic/analytical tools and methods that can be used to assess the risks? Do we need
new research protocols to characterise the risks (such as for nanoparticles)?
n What are the current legal/regulatory systems and how do they potentially affect the problem?
n What is the organisational capability of the relevant governments, international organisations, businesses and people
involved?

Potential governance deficits in pre-assessment:

n Warning: signals of a known risk have not been detected or recognised
n Scope: a risk which is perceived as having only local consequences may in fact be much broader (and vice-versa)
n Framing: different stakeholders may have conflicting views on the issue
n Black swans: no awareness of a hazard or possible risk

BOX 2: The influence of framing and pre-assessment

on the risk governance process the case of unconventional gas development
One of the key factors surrounding the risk governance of unconventional gas development is that various interest groups frame the issue,
and therefore the risks, very differently. For example, the oil and gas industry is driven by economic motives, national policy makers are
often driven by considerations of energy security, and local communities are concerned about the possible impact on the local environment,
public health, displacement and employment. These various actors and their different objectives, needs and constraints must be identified
before specific risk assessment can start. Inclusive risk management decisions require a balancing of various interests and views held
by different stakeholders. The neglect of any important factor, group or evidence can lead to the failure of risk management actions.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 10

1.2 The importance of context

Alongside the conventional elements of risk assessment, risk management, and
risk communication, the framework stresses the broader social, institutional,
political and economic contexts that must be taken into account in risk-related
decision-making.

Risk governance in context

Core Risk Governance

Process
(pre-assessment; risk appraisal:
risk and concern assessments;
evaluation tolerability/acceptability
judgement; risk management;
communication)

Organisational Capacity
(assets; skills; capabilities)

Actor Network
(politicians; regulators; industry/
business; NGOs; media;
public at large)

Political and Regulatory Culture

(different regulatory styles)

Social Climate
(trust in regulatory institutions;
perceived authority of science;
civil society involvement; risk culture)

For example, the organisational capacity of an organisation or system (the capability

of key actors in the risk governance process to fulfil their roles) and the political
cultures (the governmental and regulatory styles that dene particular institutions
or countries) are important in determining governance processes. Also important
are the risk culture, which impacts on the level of risk tolerance (or risk aversion),
and the degree of trust in the institutions responsible for risk governance.

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 11

Many governance deficits originate from the lack of an appropriate legal or regulatory framework. Sometimes
there is no appropriate structure or process. Alternatively, some regulatory structures overlap and compete with
others, creating conflicts which complicate how risks are handled.

BOX 3: Risks related to the development of bioenergy - the

importance of context
IRGCs project on the governance of the opportunities and risks of developing biomass
energy production has found that a full understanding of the context in which the policy
decisions are made is vital and that, as a result, policies will need to differ between countries.

This is primarily due to the enormous diversity of energy needs and production capacity,
agricultural and forestry practices, climate change impact, technological capacities, and
economic and social conditions. It is also due to differences in priorities and objectives of
the organisations which comprise the actor network. For example, policies may prioritise
different objectives, such as reducing carbon emissions, enhancing national energy security
and independence, or catalysing rural economic development.

Within society at large, differences in cultures and values mean that, often independently of
scientic data, some social groups may view bioenergy as a threat to the security of food
supplies whilst others view bioenergy as a potential source of new income. Although the
same principles and objectives of risk governance will be needed to develop and implement
policies for bioenergy, the context will mean that the policies themselves may vary widely.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 12

2. Appraisal
2.1 Assessing the risk
Risk appraisal develops and synthesises the knowledge base for the decision on
whether or not a risk should be taken and, if so, what options are available for
avoiding, mitigating, reducing or handling risks. Risk appraisal comprises both
a scientic risk assessment a conventional assessment of the risks factual,
physical and measurable characteristics, including the probability of occurrence (or
Copyrights: Andrea E. Janda
a probability distribution over a range of negative consequences) and a concern
assessment a systematic analysis of the associations and perceived consequences
(benets and risks) that stakeholders, individuals, groups or different cultures may
associate with a hazard or a cause of hazard. The IRGC framework distinguishes
between a risk agent, i.e. the hazard that has the potential to cause harm (for
example, a poisonous chemical or a knife) and the risk absorbing system, i.e. the
target that could be exposed to the risk agent. In principle, risk agents are confined
to energy, substance and information (all of which can cause harm). How much harm
they are able to cause depends on the exposure (how many targets are affected?)
and the vulnerability of the risk-absorbing system (how much stress can the system
tolerate?). Risks are hence a composition of the potential to cause harm by the risk
agent, the physical possibilities of being exposed to this agent and the vulnerability
of the risk-absorbing system. Furthermore, risks express the relative likelihood that
such harm is experienced.

The concern assessment is a key feature of the IRGC framework, ensuring that
decision makers account for how the risk is viewed when values and emotions come
into play. Human behaviour with respect to risk is governed by the perceptions and
associations of those who handle the risks. Through risk behaviour, physical risks
and risk perceptions become intertwined. It is therefore essential to understand
perceptions and concerns, as they not only determine the social and cultural
ambiguity about a risk issue but also influence the physical risk level.

Both activities, the risk and the concern assessments, are scientific approaches
to understand and characterise the risks and concerns. They require state-of-the-
art methodologies in physical sciences (such as toxicology, safety engineering,
epidemiology, system sciences) and well as in social sciences (such as sociology,
psychology, political sciences, anthropological behavioural sciences).

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 13

Scientific risk assessment deals with the following types of questions:

n What are the potential damages or adverse effects associated with the risk agent (hazard)?
n What are the potential pathways or scenarios that describe how and to what extent risk-absorbing systems (targets)
can be exposed to the risk agent?
n How vulnerable are these risk-absorbing systems with respect to the stress that the risk agent inflicts on them?
n What is the probability distribution over the scope of potential harm that the risk agent can inflict on the risk-absorbing
system?
n How reliable are these probability estimates and how much uncertainty prevails?
n How ubiquitous could the damage be? How persistent? Can it be reversed?
n How confident can we be about the comprehensiveness (were all relevant factors included) and accuracy (confidence
intervals, characterisation of non-knowledge) of the risk assessments?

Concern assessment deals with such questions as:

n What are the publics concerns and perceptions?
n What is the social response to the risk? Is there the possibility of political mobilisation or potential conict?
In which ways are perception, human response behaviour and physical risk connected?
n What role are existing institutions, governance structures and the media playing in defining public concerns?
n Are risk managers likely to face controversial responses arising from differences in stakeholder objectives and values,
or from inequities in the distribution of benefits and risks?

Potential governance deficits in risk appraisal:

n Information: there is scarcity of scientific data about the risk and/or about peoples concerns, or, if there is
sufficient information, there is a failure to accept it
n Confidence: there is a low confidence level in the data, the model or the interpretation of it
n Lack of attention to interdependencies and interactions between actors and between actors and the risk target
n Inadequate attention is given to the concerns of stakeholders

BOX 4: Two episodes of fisheries depletion in the North Sea in 1975 and 1995
A positive example of how a rapid and complete risk assessment can lead to improved risk
governance is the case of the North Sea herring fishery. This fishery suffered a severe collapse
in 1975-6 following failures by regulators to act on early warning signs that fish stocks were
unhealthily low. The fishery was therefore closed. Upon re-opening of the herring fishery in 1981,
efforts were made to improve the management of fish stocks and, in 1995, when early warning
signs once again showed that fish stocks were becoming dangerously low, quick and drastic
action was taken to avoid another collapse. By 2003, the stock had recovered without requiring
even temporary closures of the fishery. An important reason for the success was the support from
the fishing industry. Despite short-term losses, it had kept the memory of the earlier collapse.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 14

2.2 Categorising the risk issue the importance of knowledge

The IRGC risk governance approach to a particular risk depends in part on the state
and quality of knowledge about that risk.
During the risk appraisal phase a considerable amount of knowledge is developed
as a result of the risk and concern assessments. IRGCs approach places particular
emphasis on categorising the knowledge about the cause-effect relationships. This
knowledge challenge is important to categorise the risk as being predominantly
simple, complex, uncertain or ambiguous, or a combination thereof. Doing so can
assist in designing both risk management strategies (see above) and in planning
Copyrights: Amanda Boucq
for the participation of stakeholders in the risk-handling process.
Relatively simple risks (e.g. re safety in the home), where the benets of taking
regulatory action may be straightforward and uncontroversial (e.g. smoke detectors)
require a different approach to risk evaluation and governance compared to risks
that are increasingly complex, uncertain and/or ambiguous (with respect to the
perceptions and values associated with the risks).

n Complexity refers to difficulties in identifying and quantifying causal links between

a multitude of potential causal agents and specic observed effects. Examples
of highly complex risks include the risks of failures of large interconnected
infrastructures and the risks of critical loads to sensitive ecosystems.

BOX 5: Complexity - Risk Governance of Maritime Global Critical

Infrastructure (MGCI)
Global Critical Infrastructure (GCI) offers a new perspective on emerging critical infrastructure
systems characterised by highly complex internationally connected infrastructure networks.
Taking the case of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, which are crucially important for
global trade as well as local economies, the IRGC report on Risk Governance of Maritime
Global Critical Infrastructure (MGCI) highlights the complexity of the system, noting the great
variety of multiple and overlapping circles of stakeholders from local, regional to global, and
including public, private and non-governmental organisations as well as civil society actors. The
susceptibility of the infrastructure to trans-boundary natural and man-made threats and risks
that may have cascading effects on both land and sea is an issue of serious concern. The report
concludes with recommendations to facilitate risk governance in the domain of MGCI, centered
on the need for increased cooperation among the various local stakeholders.

n Uncertainty refers to a lack of clarity or quality of the scientic or technical

IRGCs policy brief, Managing and
reducing social vulnerabilities from
coupled critical infrastructures can
be downloaded from www.irgc.org
data. Uncertainty describes the level of confidence that analysts associate with
a qualitative or quantitative assessment of a specific risk. Highly uncertain risks
include those from most natural hazards, acts of terrorism and the long-term
effects of using nanoparticles in the food chain.

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 15

BOX 6: Uncertainty - Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology is a scientific discipline offering great promise in areas such as health and medicine, chemical manufacturing and energy
generation. However, uncertainties about the properties of new products, processes, benefits and risks, as well as about future regulatory
systems and the interaction between different forms of regulation and the innovation process, all may raise economic, political, legal and
ethical concerns. The IRGC policy brief Guidelines for the Appropriate Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology, published in 2010, provides
suggestions for identifying the uncertainties and trade-offs that need to be made between enabling innovation, minimising risk to people and
the environment, and balancing the interests and values of all relevant stakeholders. This policy brief argues that regulation must not simply
prohibit or restrict any development for which uncertainty exists but should seek the right balance between potential benefits and threats.

n Ambiguity results from divergent or contested perspectives on the justication,

severity or wider meanings associated with a given threat. Risks subject to high
levels of ambiguity include issues for which economic or ethical issues matter,
such as in the case of food supplements, hormone treatment of cattle, or some
developments in biotechnology.

BOX 7: Ambiguity - Genetically modified crops

Ambiguity is well illustrated by the global debate about genetically modified (GM) crops. IRGC analysis on genetically modified crops studies the
attitudes towards GM crops and regulation in the US and in Europe. Europe has been caught between conflicting perspectives from industry,
which has been promoting the benefits of this technological innovation, and the public, which has expressed fears about harmful consequences
and doubts about sustainable benefits. As a result of the fundamentally different perspectives, the evidence base for risk-related decision-making
on this issue has eroded and ambiguity has arisen. Evidence produced by companies to support product registration has been regarded as
suspect by the public and is scrutinised carefully by regulators. The different understandings of the technology and its impact point to high
levels of ambiguity surrounding the issue of genetically modified crops.

Linking a risks characteristics to how it is managed

Distinguishing between simple, complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks can help to design a risk management
strategy.

n Simple risk problems can be managed using a routine-based strategy, such as introducing a law or regulation.
n Complex risks can be addressed on the basis of accessing and acting on the best available scientic expertise,
aiming for a risk-informed and robustness-focused strategy. Robustness refers to the degree of reliability of the risk-
reduction measures to withstand threatening events or processes that have not been fully understood or anticipated.
n Uncertain risks are better managed using precaution-based and resilience-focused strategies, with the
intention being to apply a precautionary approach to ensure the reversibility of critical decisions and to increase
a systems coping capacity to the point where it can withstand surprises.
n Finally, for ambiguous risk problems the appropriate approach comprises a discourse-based strategy that
seeks to create tolerance and mutual understanding of conicting views and values with a view to eventually
reconciling them.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 16

3. Evaluation
IRGCs inclusion of this element is deliberately intended to ensure that the evidence
based on the scientific assessment of risks and concerns is combined with a
thorough understanding of other factors that matter in the evaluation of risks and
benefits representing wider societal values, economic interests and political
considerations. Evaluation provides for a balanced judgment of whether or not a
risk is acceptable (risk reduction is considered unnecessary), tolerable (to be
pursued because of its benets and if subject to appropriate risk reduction measures)
or, in some cases, intolerable and, if so, to be avoided.

Risk-reduction

This phase involves making a judgement based on such questions as:

n What are the societal, economic and environmental benets and risks?

n How do risks and benefits affect quality of life?

n Are there ethical issues to consider?

n Is there a possibility of substitution? If so, how do the risks compare?

n Does a choice of a particular technology impact on the risk? How?

n What are the possible options for risk compensation, or reduction?

n What are the societal values and norms for making judgments about tolerability
and acceptability?

n Do any stakeholders government, business or other have commitments or

other reasons for wanting a particular outcome of the risk governance process?

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 17

Potential governance decits in risk evaluation:

n Exclusion: when some stakeholders and their views or signicant benets and other consequences are
accidentally or deliberately excluded from the evaluation process

n Indecision: when there is indecision or lack of responsiveness, whether voluntary (act of authority) or involuntary
(overly inclusive process with stakeholders leads to inertia)

n Transparency: when trade-offs are not made explicit and hidden agendas seem to determine the outcome of
the evaluation process

n Overlooking values failing to fully consider social needs, environmental impacts, cost-benet analyses and
risk-benet balances

n Timing: when the timing issues are not properly addressed

BOX 8: Risk governance lessons from BSE

In the UK alone, 4.4 million cattle were slaughtered by 2000 and the total costs of dealing
with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) (mad cow disease) are estimated at 5 billion.
Additionally, 165 human deaths have resulted from the associated new variant Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease (vCJD). The BSE epidemic provides many lessons for risk governance.

One is that no evidence of proof is not evidence of no proof. In the early stages of the
epidemic, the public was advised that there was no scientic evidence that BSE can be
transmitted to humans; such advice did not make clear that there was no evidence either
way. Equally, even after government acceptance of the link, advertising by the beef industry
stated: There is no proof of a link between BSE and CJD.

Another lesson is the impact of delay. The rst report of a cow behaving unusually was
in December 1984. It was 9 months before samples from the animal were tested by the
UK Central Veterinary Laboratory; BSE was diagnosed a week later. It took another 10
months for the existence of the new disease to be accepted, 7 months to inform Agriculture
ministers and a further 9 months to inform the UK Department of Health. It took a full 9 years
to extend a ban on using meat and bone meal to cover all farm animals.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 18

4. Management
4.1 Managing the risk
All tolerable risks will need appropriate and adequate risk management. Risk
management involves the design and implementation of the actions and
remedies required to avoid, reduce, transfer or retain the risks. Based on the
development of a range of options and a consideration of the most appropriate of
them, risk management decisions are taken and put into practice. Risk management
includes the generation, assessment, evaluation and selection of appropriate risk-
reduction options as well as implementing the selected measures, monitoring their
effectiveness and reviewing the decision if necessary.

The questions are:

n Who is, or should be, responsible for decisions within the context of the risk
and its management? Who needs to be included in the process of designing
and evaluating interventions?

n Have they accepted this responsibility?

n What management options should be chosen (technological, regulatory,

institutional, educational, compensation, etc.)? Are the three major components
of risks (complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity) adequately addressed?

n How are these options evaluated and prioritised?

n Is there an appropriate level of international cooperation and harmonisation for

global or trans-boundary risks?

n What are the likely impacts of particular risk-reduction options? How do these
impacts compare with the gains in risk reduction?

n What potential trade-offs between risks, benets and risk-reduction measures

may arise?

n What measures are needed to ensure effectiveness in the long term (compliance,
enforcement, monitoring, adaptive management plans, etc.)?

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 19

Risk management is confronted with the challenges of complexity, uncertainty and

ambiguity. Based on this distinction one can distinguish four risk-management routes
(simple, complex, uncertain, ambiguous). Each of these four routes is characterised
by different processes and requirements for the choice of appropriate instruments,
the inclusion of experts, stakeholders and the general public, and specific discourse
arrangements. For instance, traditional decision-making frameworks within risk
regulatory agencies may be suitable for simple risks (Route 1), whereas complex
risks should be dealt with by risk-based decision making involving external experts
and relying on scientific models and simulations (Route 2), uncertain risks by
resilience-based decision making focusing on the risk-absorbing system to reduce
its vulnerabilities against even uncertain or unknown risks (Route 3), and ambiguous
risk by discourse-based decision making involving all groups that have special
interests or value commitments with respect to the risk or the benefits (Route 4).

Potential governance deficits in risk management:

n No entity is responsible for managing the risk, or several are and things fall between the cracks

n Inadequate or ignored information: may lead to inappropriate decision

n Regulation: no appropriate regulatory structure or process

n Sustainability: short-term decisions lead to further, secondary problems

n Short-term expediency: authority makes a decision on a knee-jerk basis to give the impression of management

n Inflexibility: failure to revisit a risk decision in the light of new knowledge

n Indecision/lack of timeliness: delays or inaction make matters worse

n Inequity: decisions allot the risk and benefits unfairly

n Accountability: decision makers are isolated from the impact of their decision

n Implementation: decisions are ignored or poorly implemented

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 20

4.2 Involving stakeholders coping with plural values and interests

IRGC broadens the concept of risk assessment by adding the parallel scientific
activity of concern assessment the consideration of individual, organisational and
societal perceptions of, and concerns about the consequences of risk. Both are
relevant inputs to risk evaluation and risk management.

In addition, it provides guidance on how best to implement the idea of inclusive

governance. Inclusive governance is based on the assumption that all stakeholders
have something to contribute to the process of risk governance and that their
Copyrights: Gerald Fischer-Bernsteiner
inclusion improves the nal decisions rather than impeding the decision-making
process or compromising the quality of scientic input.

Few risk governance models currently include procedures or guidance for how,
or when, to involve the concerns of stakeholders particularly the general public.

IRGC recommends that decision makers consider using the dominant

characteristic of a risk as the basis for deciding on the appropriate level of
stakeholder involvement in the process.

Whilst simple risks may require little consultation on the nature of the risk itself
because of their routine nature (although consultation may be needed on the choice of
the most effective method of control), highly complex and uncertain risks may benet
from wider dialogue amongst, respectively, a broader base of people with expert
knowledge or all directly affected stakeholders. Risks with high levels of ambiguity
are those for which wider stakeholder consultation is recommended, not least as a
means of trying to reconcile the various framings that different stakeholders may
have when interpreting a risk or evaluating the options for its management.

A structure for stakeholder

involvement

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 21

The involvement of stakeholders is both to ensure that the risk-handling process is

inclusive and responsive to those affected by it, and to maximise the effectiveness
and acceptability of the decisions that are made.

Potential governance deficits relating to stakeholder involvement:

n Exclusion: accidental or deliberate exclusion of stakeholders and/or their views
n Authority knows best: a deliberate refusal to seek or accept knowledge or to communicate with other interested
parties leads the stakeholders with power to make the decisions, irrespective of the need for consultation and
dialogue
n Paralysis by analysis: selection of an overly inclusive process leads to inertia or indecision

Ignoring the composition of complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity and designing a process that is either too
inclusive (for rather trivial risks) or not inclusive enough (for highly ambiguous risks).

BOX 9: Reaching agreement through stakeholder engagement

CFCs and the Montreal Protocol 5
The discovery and monitoring of the Antarctic ozone hole heightened concerns regarding
negative impacts on the environment and health. In 1985, CFCs were found responsible for
the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Only two years later, the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed, leading to regulated production
and a scheduled phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances. As a consequence, the
combined levels of ozone-depleting gases in the stratosphere decreased by 8-9% as of
2005 from their peak values in 1992-94. It is important to note that a decisive, coordinated
international action was instrumental for the success of both the agreement conclusion and
its implementation. All actors with a stake in the issue, including the industrial, scientific and
political groups, came together to work out a solution and negotiated a specific, detailed,
and forward-looking agreement.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
P 22

5. Communication
Communication is of the utmost importance. First, it enables risk assessors and risk
managers to develop a common understanding of their tasks and responsibilities (internal
communication) and second, it empowers stakeholders and civil society to understand
the risk and the rationale for risk management (external communication). It also allows
them to recognise their role in the risk governance process and, by being a deliberate
two-way process, gives them a voice in it. Once the risk management decision is made,
communication should explain the rationale for the decision and allow people to make
informed choices about the risk and its management, including their own responsibilities.
Effective communication is the key to creating trust in risk management.

Questions:
n What are the demands, needs and purposes for information and communication?
n How can communication be facilitated between and among regulators, risk
assessors and other in-house experts (internal communication)?
n How can communication be facilitated between risk managers, stakeholders,
the media and the affected public (external communication) as well as between
assessors and other in-house experts (internal communication)?
n How is information interpreted by those who receive it?
n What is known about the risk and the hazard, by whom, and how can it be
conveyed to the interested stakeholders and the public?
n How can communication be organised so that two-way information is effective,
enlightening and timely?
n Are the concerns of stakeholders and the public being clearly articulated and
are decision makers listening?
n What is the degree of condence in the risk managers responsible for generating
or disseminating information, and for organising a dialogue?
n What has been and can be the role of the media?

Potential governance deficits in risk communication:

n One-way information instead of two-way communication prevents building a dialogue
n Communication is not adapted to the category of risk (simple, complex, uncertain, ambiguous) (see section 2)
n Communication does not account for how different stakeholders receive and accept information
n Alienation: peoples or organisations concerns are treated as irrelevant or irrational; this may cause incomplete
understanding of the full nature of risks as well as social mobilisation against the institution or the nal decision
n Low level of condence or trust in the decision-making process, the information given or the communication
channel weakens the whole process

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
Conclusion
P 23

The IRGC framework is comprehensive and exible. It offers guidelines for identifying,
understanding and addressing the essential elements of sound and inclusive risk
governance. It can help risk governance institutions to structure their tasks. It can
assist in diagnosing decits in the risk governance process and provide suggestions
for how to correct them. Internationally, the framework can add to efforts to harmonise
risk governance approaches and nd common denominators for risk handling in a
globalised and plural world.

The framework is not intended as a recipe or a checklist that can guarantee all
relevant aspects are considered when analysing a risk and its governance process
and structures. However, by building into conventional risk analysis and management
such soft issues as societal values, concerns and perceptions of risk and by
looking into the interactions between the various actors involved in the process,
the IRGC risk governance framework can contribute to the development of more
inclusive and effective risk governance strategies.

Notes
Readers of this document who wish to learn more about the basis for the development
of the IRGCs risk governance framework and read a detailed description of the
framework are invited to download a copy of the IRGC White Paper No.1 from our
website (www.irgc.org).

A further source of additional information is the book Global Risk Governance

Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework published by Springer Academic
Publishers in 2008. This volume includes critiques of the framework by internationally
renowned experts on risk governance, applications of the framework to specic
risk issues, and a chapter in which Ortwin Renn who has led this area of work
by IRGC itemises the lessons learned from the critiques and case studies as
well as from IRGCs experience of using the framework in the two years since the
publication of the White Paper.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council

P 24
Further reading
Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2010): Risk Manage-
ment, Heidelberg and New York: Springer
Bischoff, H.-J. (ed.) (2008): Risks in Modern
Society, Heidelberg and New York: Springer
Boulder, F.; Slavin, D. and Lfstedt, R.
(eds) (2007): The Tolerability of Risk: A New
Framework for Risk Management, London:
Earthscan
Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (eds.) (2009): Food
Safety Governance: Integrating Science , Pre-
caution and Public Involvement, Heidelberg
and New York: Springer
Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2012): Adaptive
and integrative governance on risk and un-
certainty, Journal of Risk Research Vol. 15,
no. 3: 273-292
Pechan, P., Renn, O., Watt, A., Pongratz,
I. (eds.) (2011): Safe or not Safe? Deciding
What Risks to Accept in Our Environment and
Food, Heidelberg and New York: Springer
Renn O. (2008): Risk Governance: Coping
with Uncertainty in a Complex World, Lon-
don: Earthscan
Renn, O. and Walker, K. (eds.) (2008): Glob-
al Risk Governance: Concepts and Practice
Using the IRGC Framework, Heidelberg and
New York: Springer
Renn O. and Schweizer, P. (2009): Inclusive
risk governance: Concepts and application to
environmental policy making, Environmental
Policy and Governance 19, no. 3: 174-85.
Renn O.; Klinke, A. and van Asselt, M.B.A.
(2011): Coping with complexity, uncertainty
and ambiguity in risk governance, AMBIO 1,
no. 1: 67-81.
van Asselt, M.B.A. and Renn, O. (2011): Risk
governance, Risk Research. 1, no. 4: 431-
449
international risk governance council
References
References
BOX 1 relies on the analysis of the subprime
crisis in the United States published in the
IRGC Report Risk Governance Deficits: An
analysis and illustration of the most common
deficits in risk governance, IRGC, 2009.
BOX 2 draws on the discussions and
presentations from the IRGC Expert
Wo r k s h o p o n R i s k G o v e r n a n c e o f
Unconventional Gas Development, held in
Zurich on November 5-6, 2012, irgc.org
BOX 3 refers to the IRGC Policy Brief Risk
governance guidelines for bioenergy policies
published in 2008.
BOX 4 draws on Comparison of two periods
of North Sea herring stock management:
success, failure, and monetary value,
Simmonds, E.J., ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 64, 686-92; and on Saving North
Sea Herring, Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, UK,
based on an article first published in Fishing
News, February 12, 1999.
BOX 5 draws on IRGCs report on Maritime
Global Critical Infrastructure (www.irgc/
publications).
BOX 6 refers to the IRGC Policy Brief on
Risk governance guidelines for synthetic
biology, published in 2010.
An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
BOX 7 relies on Risk Governance of
Genetically Modified Crops by Joyce Tait,
published in Risk Governance Deficits: An
analysis and illustration of the most common
deficits in risk governance, IRGC, 2009.
BOX 8 uses information taken from The
recipe for disaster that killed 80 and left
a 5bn bill by David Brown and published
in The Telegraph on 27 October 2000,
the Lords Hansard of 28th March 2001,
from Have lessons been learned from the
UK bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) epidemic by Michael OBrien in the
International Journal of Epidemiology (2000;
29:730), from The lessons from BSE by
J R Ashton in the Journal of Epidemiology
and Public Health (2007; 67:134) and from
The precautionary principle lessons
from BSE by Michael Warhurst on
www.website.lineone.net
BOX 9 draws on WMO (World Meteorological
Organization), Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 2006, Global Ozone
Research and Monitoring ProjectReport
No. 50, 572 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
It can be accessed at: www.wmo.ch/pages/
prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ozone_asst_
report.html
In 2012, IRGCs partners and sponsors
included:
Swiss State Secretariat for Education
and Research
EPFL, Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale
de Lausanne
Swiss Reinsurance Company
Oliver Wyman
Center for Strategic Futures (Singa-
pore)
Portuguese Science and Technology
Foundation
European Virtual Institute for Integrated
Risk Management (EU-VRi) (Germany)
Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada
APPENDIX 1
P 25

The original IRGC risk governance model has recently been modified by Klinke and Renn1.
In particular the two authors added a dynamic, adaptive component to the linear model
that had been criticised as too static to capture the iterative and relational nature of risk
governance2. The adaptive and integrative quality of the process requires the capacity to
learn from previous and similar risk-handling experiences to cope with current risk problems
and apply these lessons to cope with future potential risk problems and surprises. The Figure
below illustrates the dynamic risk governance process. The revised IRGC risk governance
model addresses four core functions:

n Systematically and consistently complementing the relevant risk-handling functions

in a risk governance cycle;

n Coping with vulnerabilities evoked by generic challenges of different orders of

uncertainty;

n Providing adaptability and flexibility in risk governance institutions in response to

actual outcome or expected consequences which may moderate the estimates about
the risk; and

n Enhancing the resilience of the risk governance system by increasing the capacity to
retain the basic functions and structures of risk handling and to absorb disturbance
in the risk handling components.

The different phases of the risk governance model are briefly explained below. The titles
are taken from the original risk governance model; they correspond one-to-one to the new
variant by Klinke and Renn.

1
Klinke, A. and O. Renn (2012): Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty, Journal
of Risk Research 15, no. 3: 273-292.
2
Boholm, A. and H. Corvellec (2011): A relational theory of risk, Journal of Risk Research 14, no.1-2:
175-190.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
 APPENDIX 2
P 26

Application of Institutional Risk Management

Since its publication in 2005, the IRGC Risk Governance Framework has been applied to diverse risk governance issues in various case
studies. Publications of these case studies are available on IRGCs website (www.irgc.org/publications). The case studies deal with
emerging risks such as air quality, bio-energy, carbon capture and storage, critical infrastructure, nanotechnology, pollination services,
and synthetic biology. Furthermore, several case studies have been conducted to test the applicability, efficacy and practicability of
the Risk Governance Framework (Renn and Jger 2008: 130). The various contributors to the edited volume (Renn and Walker 2008a)
applied the IRGCs Risk Governance Framework to examine risk governance issues of such heterogeneous risks as genetically modified
crops, listeria in raw soft milk cheese, energy security, and nanotechnology. The applications have shown that the Framework can be
used as broad conceptual guidance on the critical elements of the risk governance process that need to be considered (Renn and
Walker 2008b: 338). The Framework is to be conceived as a comprehensive yet flexible outline and unified set of guidance for improved
risk governance (Renn 2008). The case studies have shown that the framework is a worthwhile basis for diagnosing governance
deficits and that it is flexible enough to be adapted to diverse governance issues and contexts. Among the many applications of the
framework, it might be illuminating to choose the examples of food safety and nanotechnology. The two examples demonstrate the
broad applicability of the IRGC framework and highlight its importance for two major sources of concern in contemporary society.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

As stated above, IRGCs Risk Governance Framework has been applied in the context of food safety regulation. The EU-funded research
project SAFE FOODS, Promoting Food Safety through a New Integrated Risk Analysis Approach for Foods, has applied the Risk
Governance Framework. The result is the General Framework for the Precautionary and Inclusive Governance of Food Safety (Dreyer
and Renn 2009a) which adapts IRGCs Risk Governance Framework to the specific needs of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The current institutional EU food safety regulation has the primary feature that the responsibilities for assessment and management
are divided between institutions (Ely et al. 2009: 18). The General Framework for the Precautionary and Inclusive Governance of Food
Safety implements the five principles of good governance participation, openness, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence
suggested by the White Paper on European Governance. It consists of four stages: 1) Framing, 2) Assessment, 3) Evaluation, and 4)
Management, with communication and participation running parallel to each stage (Ely et al. 2009: 45).

The results of SAFE FOODS show that some aspects of European food safety regulation are in need of further improvement, namely
the complex relationship between Risk Assessment and Risk Management; the application of precaution in the face of scientific
uncertainty; and the opening up of the governance process through public participation. The General Framework for the Precautionary
and Inclusive Governance of Food Safety seeks to implement the following improvements in food safety governance:
1. Introducing more transparency into the conduct of food safety governance procedures;
2. Achieving better involvement of stakeholder organisations and the wider public;
3. Ensuring effectiveness and flexibility of governance procedures;
4. Embedding the innovative procedures of framing, screening and evaluation as far as possible within the existing governance structures;
5. Providing procedures for handling threats which involve scientific uncertainty and/or socio-political uncertainty (Vos and Wendler 2009: 85).

Health Council of the Netherlands

Nanotechnology constitutes a newly emerging field of research. It involves the manipulation and/or creation of material structures at
the nanoscale in the atomic, molecular and supra-molecular realm (Roco et al. 2008: 303). Nanotechnology offers a broad range of
applications in industry, medicine and technology and has the potential to become a driver for innovation and economic development. It
comes as no surprise that nanotechnology poses some interesting challenges to risk governance. The properties that make nanoparticles
so interesting, such as their high degree of reactivity and ability to cross barriers, could also make them potentially hazardous to humans
and the environment (Health Council of the Netherlands 2006: 12). Nanotechnology is still a developing field of research, and sound
risk governance is essential.

In 2006 the Health Council of the Netherlands therefore published the advisory report Health Significance of Nanotechnology, which
explores governance issues and potential adverse effects of nanotechnology. In its advisory report the committee adopts the description

international risk governance council An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework
 P 27

used by the IRGC: The IRGC recently presented a general framework for risk governance. It corresponds closely with our national
ideas on dealing with risks and the Committee believes it can also be used for dealing with the risks of nanotechnologies. (Health
Council of the Netherlands 2006: 82).

The Health Council of the Netherlands states that: Nanotechnologies are rather a collection of extremely varied technologies and
applications with very little relationship between each other and which often have nothing more in common than the scale at which the
material is studied and manipulated, and the unusual properties that the material can display at that scale. Moreover, nanotechnologies
are at widely varying stages. They are also largely enabling technologies, which aid progress in technological developments in a wide
variety of fields but thereby also strengthen the associated problems they involve. To achieve effective risk governance, it is therefore
important not to treat nanotechnologies as a single group but as individual (types of) applications, each with its own specific risks.
(Health Council of the Netherlands 2006: 84).

The IRGC Risk Governance Framework helps to tackle these governance issues. In particular, the differentiation between generic
challenges for Risk Assessment complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity helps to distinguish specific aspects of individual types of
nanotechnology applications. The advisory report states that IRGCs proposed categorisation of risk problems can be used for previously
identified problems that arise from (or are reinforced by) nanotechnology applications (Health Council of the Netherlands 2006: 86).

Other applications:
The IRGC risk framework has been discussed and partially applied in many other institutions and organisations. Most prominent is its
application of the framework for strategic risk management of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (Rouse 2010). The model has been used
for major military operations and has, according to the source, improved the risk management process considerably. Similar reports
have been made by the German Occupational Health and Safety Committee (Bender 2008), the International Occupational Safety
Association (Radandt et al. 2008), the UK Treasury (UK Treasury 2005), the US-EPA (2009), and several private organisations. A Google
scholar search for IRGC framework in 2012 produced a total of 1790 academic publications in which the IRGC framework has been
used for characterising, assessing or managing risks.

References
Bender, H.F. (2008): Ergebnisse der Projekt-
gruppe Risikoakzeptanz des AGS, Gefahrst-
offe- Reinhaltung der Luft, 68, (7/8): 287-288.
Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (eds.) (2009a): Food
Safety Governance: Integrating Science, Pre-
caution and Public Involvement, Heidelberg
and New York: Springer.
Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (2009b): Introduc-
tion, in M. Dreyer and O. Renn (eds.): Food
Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Pre-
caution and Public Involvement, (Heidelberg
and New York: Springer, pp. 3-10.
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.11-27.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2006):
Health Significance of Nanotechnologies, The
Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands;
publication no. 2006/06E.
HM Treasury (2005): Managing Risks to the
Public: Appraisal Guidance, London: www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/media/0/B/Managing_risks_
to_the_public.pdf; access: February 2011.
HSE, Health and Safety Executive (2001):
Reducing Risk Protecting People, London:
Health and Safety Executive.
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.
Roco, M.; Renn, O. and Jger, A. (2008): Nan-
otechnology Risk Governance in O. Renn and
K. Walker (eds.) (2008): Global Risk Gover-
nance. Concepts and Practice Using the IRGC
Framework, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 301-327.
Rouse, J. (2011): The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Risk Assessment System: In-
corporation of the International Risk Gover-
nance Council Framework, Paper at the An-
nual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis
in Salt Lake City, December 6, Washington,
D.C.: Arete Associates.
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.
US-Environmental Protection Agency
(2009): Potential Nano-enabled Environ-
mental Applications for Radionuclides. EPA-
402-R-06-002, Washington: EPA.
Vos, E. and Wendler, F. (2009): Legal and
Institutional Aspects of the General Frame-
work in M. Dreyer and O. Renn (eds.): Food
Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Pre-
caution and Public Involvement, Heidelberg
and New York: Springer, pp. 83-109.

An introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework international risk governance council
 international risk governance council
EPFL n CM 1.517
Case Postale 99
1015 Lausanne Switzerland

tel +41 (0)21 693 8290

fax +41 (0)21 693 8295

info@irgc.org
www.irgc.org

All Rights Reserved, International Risk Governance Council, 2012

ISBN 978-2-9700772-2-0

international risk governance council