Does hazard-based Communication work?

F. Bouder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


The view that risks and hazards are distinct concepts is commonly held in the scholarly literature on risk especially in the English-speaking community. The dichotomy is also enshrined in key documents commissioned or developed by Governments to help regulators conceptualise, regulate and communicate harmful events. Yet, the implications of risk-based versus hazard-based regulations have often been overlooked. Scholars have only conducted limited discussions, in contrast to the extensive debates about the respective merits of evidence-based and precautionary-based regulation. Lofstedt's article ?Risk versus Hazard ? How to Regulate in the 21 st Century? offers a new and important perspective on the relationship between science and regulatory decisions. Lofstedt essentially argues that the conceptual distinction between hazards (the potential for a substance, activity or process to cause harm or adverse effect) and risks (a combination of likelihood and the severity of a substance, activity or process to cause harm) presents a meaningful classification to analyse regulations.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)173-175
JournalEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2011

Cite this