PHYSICAL RISK CONTROL

INTRODUCTION TO RISK CONTROL

The control of risk can be divided into two main areas. These are financial risk control

and physical risk control. This chapter will deal with physical risk control first.

Financial risk control can be divided into internal and external financial risk control.

This is basically dealing with the financial consequences of a loss. The most

important tool dealing with this aspect is insurance. Despite this there are other

methods of financial risk control which will quickly be reviewed later. Physical risk

control is divided into three parts. These are avoid the risk, reduce the risk and

prevent the risk from occurring. All three aspects will be dealt with in this chapter. It

must be borne in mind that management must make a conscious decision to do or not

to do something based on the risk analysis carried out earlier. It is possible to accept a

risk if it is within acceptable limits whatever management decides those limits to be.

Therefore one option management has is to do nothing. In taking this option

consideration should be given to the question of the damage that could arise bearing

in mind legal liabilities as well as personal and physical injury. In considering legal

liability you must remember that if somebody is injured they only have to prove that,

on the balance of probabilities, the injurer was negligent. It could be held that an

identification of risk together with a failure to do something about it could be held to

be negligence

When considering actively carrying out risk control cost has to be borne in mind.

Management will have to allocate resources which could be used elsewhere or not

enter into a particularly risky undertaking. If the risk analysis is carried out the cost of

reducing or preventing the risk is known and therefore decisions can be made with

these in mind. Obviously if the steps to control risk deal with more than one event this

will be more persuasive when making a decision. As indicated above all steps relating

to risk control should also be made bearing in mind the legal consequences.

There are three choices when considering physical risk control, the first is to avoid the

risk, the second is to prevent the loss and the third is to reduce the loss. If the risk is

too great for management to take then the task involved should not be started or, if it

is already happening, it should be stopped. An example is buying land for building a

factory in an area subject to flooding. This risk may be too great for management to

take and therefore should be avoided.

In most instances management will wish to pursue the chosen activity therefore they

must take steps to reduce or prevent any future losses. Risk consists of both frequency

and severity thus a strategy can be developed to deal with either or both these factors.

Reduction of risk usually refers to the severity of the possible loss. This can be

reduced by installing sprinklers in a building or providing first aid in the event of a

personal injury. Prevention refers to probability and strategies should be developed to

reduce the probability of an event occurring. Such steps as installing burglar bars to

prevent burglaries or guarding machinery to prevent accidents are risk preventative

measures.

SAFETY THEORIES

In this section we are going to discuss some safety theories which can be used to both

reduce and prevent possible accidents. The idea of a theory is to help you think about

a problem rather then be any depiction of what happens. You can view safety from

two different perspectives. You can argue that it is an engineering problem or a

psychological one. That is safety revolves around people or technology. The theories

have approached safety from both these perspectives. People experience injury and

technology produces risks which need to be handled.

There are a number of safety models which will be discussed. The first is the chain

theory. Each step in dealing with losses represents a link in a chain. Break a link and

the loss increases, follow the links without a break the amount of the loss will be

decreased.

Diagram one depicts the links. The first link is the source of loss. This means dealing

with the point where an event can occur before it is likely happen. For example

machinery should be made safe or before a building is constructed management can

ensure that fire precautions are installed. Access and egress can be planned in the

event of a fire occurring. Employees should be trained in safety procedures. They

should wear, for example, protective clothing when riding.

The second link involves the reduction of hazards. Hazards are situations which are

likely to increase the possibility of an untoward event occurring. Control the hazards

and the risk is reduced or prevented. Clearing waste on a regular basis would reduce

the possibility of a fire occurring.

The third link is the minimisation of loss. In this case the event has occurred and an

attempt must be made to reduce the impact of the occurrence. Fire extinguishers or

sprinklers will reduce the effect of a fire. A good escape plan will minimise the

possibility of damages occurring to people. A burglar alarm could reduce the time

available to burglars to remove goods. Separation of materials which are combustible

by keeping them in separate buildings would also reduce a loss if a fire occurred. If

dangerous materials are kept separate from innocuous ones then if a fire does occur

the amount of loss will be reduced.

The final link is salvage. Once the event has occurred and its effects ended then

salvage operations should take place. If a fire occurs in a clothing shop it may be

possible to remove the clothes and reduce the damage caused by smoke and water by

cleaning them thoroughly

The next theory is one which is heavily oriented towards the human approach. This

was formulated by Heinrich, H.W. He carried out some detailed research into the

occurrence of accidents and ascertained that approximately 88% of all accidents were

as a result of unsafe acts committed by human beings and the remaining 12% was

caused by technological factors. From these observation he developed a theory which

has come to be known as the domino theory. Heinrich considered that there were a

number of factors which contribute to an accident. These could be likened to a

number of dominoes standing in a row. If one is knocked down the remainder also

fall. This is depicted in diagram two. Remove one of the dominoes and the possibility

of a loss occurring is reduced. In Heinrich’s view there are four dominoes which lead

to an accident. The first is entitled the social environment. Individuals are brought up

in a particular environment. Some people have little concern for their own or other

people’s safety, they might consider it “macho” to take chances. The second domino

is entitled the fault of the person. This means that the person himself has particular

tendencies to enter into unsafe situations. This is the psychological make up of the

person that leads to the individual either deliberately doing something which is unsafe

or was unaware of the fact that he or she was entering into an unsafe act. It is the

person who is at fault, the psychology of the individual as opposed society’s effect on

the person concerned. The third domino is entitled the unsafe act. This is the actual

act itself which leads to the injury. This could be the loss of balance on a horse or the

failure to secure the stable door properly so that an animals escapes. The final domino

is the injury itself, that is to say the broken leg or arm or the damage to property.

Remove one of these dominoes and the likelihood of the injury occurring is reduced.

Heinrich advocated concentrating on the unsafe act as little could be done about social

and psychological factors. In order to illustrate his theory Heinrich uses the example

of an employee who, when falling from a ladder fractures his skull. The injured party

descended the ladder with his back to it, in wilful disregard of instructions. On his

way down he caught his heels in an upper rung and fell. The employee had been

trained how to use the ladder yet blatantly disregarded what he had been told. This

can be argued to be the fault of the person. The unsafe act was the descent of the

ladder backwards and the injury was the fractured skull. Investigation revealed that

the worker came from a background which encouraged unsafe acts. Heinrich

considered that the best domino to remove was the unsafe act. Training can be given

to try to reduce this type of event from occurring thus dealing with the possibility of

the worker entering into an unsafe act.

A further theory which may help in dealing with risk control was developed by

Haddon. .This is called the energy transfer approach. Haddon argues that accidents

generally occur because of the sudden, unplanned release of energy such as

hurricanes, fire, lightning and vehicles. In his view there are ten ways in which these

sudden releases of energy can be handled. These are depicted in diagram three. This

method combines the human and mechanical approach to safety and therefore you can

see elements of the previous two ideas in this system. It contains an advantage over

the other systems in that it focuses on the way in which a common energy or force

that could cause an accident can be dealt with. This approach can be used regardless

of the type of untoward event being considered. The model can be applied in the

event of fires, theft, accidents of all types or falls.

Diagram 3 Haddons Energy Transfer Model

Strategies Illustration1 Prevent marshalling in the first

placePrevent workers from climbing to high places from which they may fall

2 Reduce the amount of energy which is marshalled from which accidents may result.

Reduce the number of workers permitted to climb to high places

3 Prevent the release of energy which has built up.

Build guard rails to prevent fallsfrom high places.

4 Slow down the release of energy. Reduce the height from which employees must work; slow downthe rate at which explosives are permitted to burn.

5 Separate, in space or time, the energy which is released from the object susceptible to injury

Prohibit entry to blasting areas during blasting periods.

6 Place a physical barrier between energy source and the object susceptible to injury.

Require workers to use safety helmets, shoes or goggles.

7 Modify the contact surface by rounding or softening the edges.

Design cars with padded dashes; build toys without sharp edges.

8 Strengthen the object against damage by energy release.

Require fireproof building construction. Require workers to be vaccinated against disease.

9 Mitigate the damage that has not been prevented by previous eight measures.

Use fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, emergency medical care facilities, storm-warning systems.

10 Use rehabilitation and restorative techniques where damage has occurred.

Retrain injured workmen with permanent disabilities

Haddon argues that an escape of energy can be dealt with by ten strategies. These are

set out in diagram three. Alongside each strategy is an example of how it can be

applied in a particular set of circumstances. The first strategy is aimed at preventing

the marshalling of energy in the first place. An example is workers climbing to the top

of a building. A release of energy occurs should they fall. The second strategy is to

reduce the amount of energy which is marshalled. For example do not allow so many

worker on the roof or reduce the height from which they can fall. The third strategy is

to prevent the build up of energy in the first place. An example is to reduce the

amount of combustible material on the premises or not allow workers on top of the

building. The next strategy is to slow down the release of energy. An example given

is to put a longer fuse on explosions. The fifth strategy is to separate, in space or time,

the energy which is released from the object susceptible to injury. For example keep

highly flammable buildings in a special section of the building which is separated by

fire walls from the remainder of the premises. The sixth strategy consists of placing a

physical barrier between the energy source and the object susceptible to injury.

Examples of this strategy are the wearing of safety hats or gloves when dealing with

certain chemicals. The next strategy is to modify the contact surface by rounding or

softening the edges. Removal of sharp objects from children’s toys is an example of

this strategy. The eighth strategy involves strengthening the object against damage by

energy release. The vaccination of horses against disease is an example of this.

The penultimate strategy is to mitigate the damage which has not been prevented by

the previous eight measures. Examples are providing first aid for injured persons or

having a strategy ready in the case of a defective product entering the market. The

Final strategy is the use of rehabilitation and restorative techniques where damage has

occurred.

SUMMARY

This completes the discussion of physical risk control. One should bear in mind that

when dealing with this aspect of risk management there will be legislative

requirements which have to be met. Most countries have implemented safety, health,

safety and welfare rules to protect individuals at a place of work and these have to be

complied with consequently the risk manager should be well aware of the legislative

requirements when implementing risk control. In dealing with physical risk control

risks can be categorised under various headings as discussed earlier.