Safety practice: Goal setting and prescriptive legal regimes in process safety

摘要

This paper reviews the relative advantages and disadvantages of goal-setting and prescriptive legal regimes in process safety. A process safety legislative framework, founded on the concept of as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), is based on self-regulation principles, with targets or goals to be achieved. The responsibility for reducing and managing risks lies with the risk owner. In contrast, prescriptive legislation implies a written rule or a course to be followed in order to comply with the regime. In practice, the two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as elements of a goal setting regime can also be described as prescriptive. The following factors need to be in place for a goal setting legislative framework to provide greater benefits to society than a prescriptive one: The presence of effective process safety legislation in the first instance; The prevailing culture of society toward process safety risks and more broadly health and safety. The concerns of business towards its workers; The power of workers to insist on their rights to protection; The competence of the regulator.