Question: Critically evaluate the development of the concept of risk. To what extent is the management of risk now driven by concerns about accountability?
‘Risk’ is an interesting concept which now plays a large role in modern society. This paper aims to identify its origins, its place throughout history and in our psychology, our growing need to manage and minimise risk, our modern perception of risk, and the association of risk with blame and accountability.
Before the philosophy of chance, random phenomena – miraculous or disastrous – could only be explained as sacred signs from the gods, often “interpreted to reveal a more profound message from the transcendent 'beyond'” (Reith, 1999, p. 13). Take an example of life in medieval France; it was an unforgiving and cruel existence where people placed accountability at the hands of magic, God and Satan (Lupton, 1999). When sins were committed, “God's law was often assumed to have been violated” (Joffe, 1999, p. 24). Lupton (1999, p. 3) states that this is because “societies develop a system of strategies and beliefs in the attempt to deal with, contain and prevent danger”. Although it is believed that the concept of risk appeared during this period in the form of maritime insurance, it “excluded the idea of human fault and responsibility” and focused on “the possibility of an objective danger, an act of God, a force majeure, a tempest or other peril at sea” (Lupton, 1999, p. 5). Bernstein (1996, p. 21) believes that it was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century when our relationship with God changed that “people gradually recognized that the future offered opportunity as well as danger, that it was open-ended and full of promise”. This encouraged trade, spawning capitalism, which in turn encouraged more risky behaviour; “the prospect of getting rich is highly motivating, and few people get rich without taking a gamble” (Bernstein, 1996, p. 21). “The chances of a ship coming safely home and making the fortune of its owner were set against the chances of its being lost at sea, bringing ruin.” (Douglas, 1990, p. 1).
The Ages of Reason and Enlightenment (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) furthered our thinking; we started to believe “that the key to human progress and social order is objective knowledge of the world through scientific exploration and rational thinking” (Lupton, 1999, p. 6). “During the nineteenth century it became possible to see that the world might be regular and yet not subject to universal laws of nature. A space was cleared for chance.” (Hacking, 1990, p. 1). Statistics flourished, Victorians “produced and published facts in unprecedented quantities” (Freedgood, 2000, p. 14). William Farr's statement that “knowledge will banish panic” (Freedgood, 2000, p. 13) shows that as the Victorians attempted to diminish the anxiety of uncertainty by propagating these facts, it allowed them to “define and locate risk as a means of containing and taming it” (Freedgood, 2000, p. 171-172).
According to Lupton (1999) the expansion of the insurance industry in the nineteenth century was a contributing factor to how risk is perceived today. “Consequences that at first affect only the individual become 'risks', systematically caused, statistically describable and in that sense 'predictable' types of events, which can therefore also be subjected to supra-individual and political rules of recognition, compensation and avoidance” (Beck, 1992, cited by Lupton, 1999, p. 6). With the medieval belief that our lives were out of our control and in the hands of fate long gone, knowledge that people could be the cause of and thus be held accountable for our problems replaced it.
We could argue that risk is a fundamentally human construct. Risk is a part of human nature that has existed for as long as we have; a sense of achievement and conversely a sense of danger dictates the way children learn by trial-and-error, for example learning to walk or ride a bicycle (Adams, 1995). Without us, appraisals of risk and therefore the need to calculate and manage this risk, the concept would be void. Therefore it is important for us to consider why the very concept of risk exists. This can be explained through the field of Cognitive Psychology and the role of human perception.
The perception and actions taken on risk by humans may be considered in two distinct ways. Firstly, we perceive and act on our feelings of risk, and secondly we react to risk through analysis, using logic and reasoning in order to facilitate decision making (Slovic & Peters, 2006). Automaticity (the automatic responses to complete behaviour) tends to take control over the majority of decisions we make regarding risk. This has been argued by researchers to be rather instinctual, which stems from our evolutionary past when split-decisions about our environment could mean life or death. For example, “people judge a risk not only by what they think about it but also by how they feel about it” (Slovic & Peters, 2006). The way we feel about risk may be affected by the role of emotions subconsciously. For example, Slovic & Peters (2006) argue that in response to uncertainty, fear induces amplification of surrounding risk, whilst anger minimises this risk.
The ‘affect heuristic’ suggests that there are certain characteristics that we rely on to make decisions about risk. Such characteristics include the dual-processes of experiential, non-verbal and analytical, verbal processes to come to a decision whether or not to take a risk (Slovic & Peters, 2006). We often see this risk in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. For example, if we are presented with a high risk activity, but this has high benefits, the perception of the risk may be low; similarly if a high risk activity suggests low benefits the risk is most likely to be viewed as too high to contemplate taking.
The 'Risk Thermostat' is a model explained by Adams and Thompson (2002) that demonstrates the balancing act we take when a risk is considered. It dictates that everybody takes risks and they are influenced by the potential rewards that can be attained by taking them. When deciding whether to take the risk we weigh up any unfavourable outcomes that may occur as a result of that action, and this may vary between individuals who have different perceptions of how risky the proposed behaviour is. These perceptions can often be based on unfavourable results in the past experienced first or second-hand, or from others (i.e. the media). “We all have an internal risk thermostat set to our preferred level of risk-taking, which will vary from person to person” (Adams & Thompson, 2002); some like it hot whilst others like it cool.
Adams (1995) also believes that the responsibility of who controls our thermostat changes as we grow from children into adults. At first a parent manages risk for their child, for example holding his hand whilst crossing the road, but this responsibility is handed over as the child matures and he is trusted increasingly to manage his own risks. Furthermore for risks that we do not understand fully, we trust and expect our authorities to be “possessed of superior wisdom about the nature of risks” (Adams, 1995, p. 2) and to manage them.
In order to manage risks a different approach is taken according to the category the risk falls under (Adams and Thompson, 2002). The first category accounts for “directly perceptible risks” and these are risks that are managed “instinctively” which evolution and education has given us the intuition to take (Adams and Thompson, 2002, p. 1). The second category are “risks perceived through science”, dangers that cannot be seen but have been proved – examples can be drawn from medicine, meteorology, engineering, astronomy and all throughout science (Adams and Thompson, 2002, p. 2). The hardest risks to manage fall under the third category, “virtual risks”, and these are dangers that have yet to be proved – the speculative what ifs like theological beliefs, superstitions and popular fears (Adams and Thompson, 2002, p. 2). It is believed that we interpret virtual risks using “perceptual filters” (Adams and Thompson, 2002, p. 7) which help us use existing knowledge to manage the risk accordingly and practically.
Thompson, Ellis and Wildavsky (1990) apply the ecological theory of the 'myths of nature' in relation to risk management. These five myths can be given categorical names to explain the various types of people and how they manage risks; the individualist, the egalitarian, the hierarchist, the fatalist and the hermit (Thompson, Ellis & Wildavsky, 1990). Adams and Thompson (2002) elaborate, stating that the self-made individualist commands nature whilst the tolerant egalitarian obeys nature, the hierarchist believes everyone has their place in a larger schema and manages nature and the fatalist, resigned to the situations life throws at them, endure and enjoy nature. “The hermit's strategy is one of withdrawl” (Thompson, Ellis & Wildavsky, 1990, p. 29), resilient because as the landscape changes he is able to adapt. In their report to the Health and Safety Executive, the UK organisation charged with “ensuring risks in the changing workplace are properly controlled” (About us home, 2007), Adams and Thompson (2002) place the organisation in the role of the hierarchist. In this position, the executive can provide informed recommendations to the public taking scientific data proportionally without shunning popular fears or beliefs. The report notes that the organisation must operate with maximum insight, considering other organisations and their perceptions (Adams & Thompson, 2002).
The meaning of risk has now changed; we used to believe in the concept of good and bad risk, taking chances with the hope of reaping rewards (Furedi, 2005). “The early modern concept of a 'good risk' appears largely to have been removed from the vernacular” (Lupton, 1999, p. 148). The millennia-old tradition of gambling for fun (Bernstein, 1996) or more recently practising extreme sports, both in the name of mental toughness – holding nerve in the face of danger and living to tell the tale (Lupton, 1999) – are only seen as risks in terms of the possibility of a negative outcome. Nowadays the term risk “refers to the probability of damage, injury, illness, death or other misfortune associated with a hazard” (Furedi, 2005, p. 17). Beck (1999, p. 3) describes Risk as “the modern approach to foresee and control the future consequences of human action, the various unintended consequences of radicalised modernization. It is an (institutionalized) attempt, a cognitive map, to colonize the future”. “The weighing up of positive and negative outcomes, which was traditionally involved in thinking of risks, has been replaced by an outlook where only danger enters into the equation” (Furedi, 2005, p. 18). The mass media plays a large part in exacerbating the fear of risks and using danger to sell papers (Furedi, 2005). Virtual risks in particular can prove a problem to manage when the media latch onto the fear of the unknown, relying “on the compelling nature of danger to hold people's attention” (Joffe, 1999, p. 2). However, Beck (1992, p. 55) does state that “it is not clear whether it is the risks that have intensified, or our view of them ... perceptions of risks and risks are not different things, but one and the same”.
Studies of modern risk often identify Western culture's perception of 'the other'. Joffe (1999) believes the culture of holding others accountable for our misfortune stems from our xenophobic suspicion of non-Westerners throughout history when at times of crisis, usually a disease epidemic, 'Orientals', Africans, the Irish, etc. would be blamed. The “not me – others response” (Joffe, 1999, p. 32) has surely given rise to the blame culture of today. Furedi (2005) believes that we are even refusing to believe that accidents can happen (without holding anyone accountable), with the British Medical Journal even banning the word from its publications. In the aftermath of an accident this attitude has led us to instantly apportion blame; “A routine, spontaneous act is easily reconstructed as a thoughtless deed responsible for someone's injury” (Furedi, 2005, p. 11). “What used to be seen with the benefit of foresight as a risk worth taking is now with the benefit of hindsight and a clever lawyer reinterpreted as culpable negligence” (Furedi, 2005, p. 11). Futhermore, Singer & Endreny (1993) found that the mass media responded differently to incidents, the stories where somebody was perceived to be at fault provoking the most serious response.
Buttny (1993) believes the concept of blame can be explained using the Bible. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve eat apples from a tree which they had been forbidden to eat from by God. When they were questioned they did not deny the fact that they had eaten the apples but blamed the snake. Their assumption was that “free choice is presumed to be a necessary condition for responsibility, so if a person can convincingly avow that he/she did not act freely, then the burden of responsibility cannot hold” (Buttny, 1993, p. 2). If stories of blame can be identified this far back in history, is blame therefore a part of human nature? Psychologists have studied how people assign causes for behaviours to others in the field of attribution theory; Wrightsman, Green, Nietzel and Fortune (2002, p. 58) state that “when our own actions lead to negative outcomes, we are more likely to blame the external environment for the outcome”, the external environment relating to others or events out of our control. The study within attribution theory of the locus of control concept can be explained as “whether one interprets events as being caused by one's own behavior or by outside circumstances” (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2001, cited by Attribution theory, n.d.). It is thought we attribute events differently dependent on our locus of control; an internal locus would prompt us to blame somebody whilst an external locus would more readily attribute it to something out of their control (ibid.).
There are various techniques and methods associated with establishing liability in a corporate environment. It has been stated that in establishing liability, or finding external accountability, we must “[seek] to investigate and assess actions taken (or not taken) by agents or subordinates and to impose sanctions” (Mulgan, 2000, p. 561), the extent of this accountability dependent on their involvement in the decision-making process that led to those actions. There are two schools of thought in governing how risks are managed with regard to who is liable or accountable; the high-blame or no-blame approaches (Hood & Jones, 1996). The high-blame approach advocates a “strict financial and legal liability for risk” (Hood & Jones, 1996, p. 46) and suggests that those liable are those that were charged with the task of minimising risk (but failed). The intention of this approach is to prevent failures entirely because those responsible for risk management (and thus liable) should take utmost care to protect themselves. Promoters of the no-blame approach suggest that it encourages employees to report problems with their procedures, highlighting perceived dangers and near-misses, in order to improve them in the future (Hood & Jones, 1996).
In cases where a corporation's criminal liability for an incident is proved, it is often difficult attributing accountability to a specific person whilst undertaking their duties as an employee, unless they are considered directly responsible. Hood and Jones (1996) explain that if a corporation's procedures are at fault, English law can be used to prosecute company directors for the negligent behaviour of the organisation. In cases of gross negligence and a subsequent trial in a Crown court this can prove problematic as “this leaves open wide scope for juries to establish the limits of acceptable risk-taking” (Hood & Jones, 1996, p.54).
Concluding remarks
Our perception of risk has changed. Where once we would all share a fatalistic view that everything was predetermined and random events were out of our control, we now believe that although the future cannot be written it can be predicted and manipulated to a certain extent. We realised that our natural propensity to take risk could reap rewards, or see us lose everything. However this wisdom has brought us the need to act responsibly, with a thought to the consequences of the decisions we make. With our culture changing and criminal accountability for both individuals and organisations now expected if negligence occurs, the field of Risk Management has been spawned with organisations devising various strategies to predict the unpredictable.
Adam Smith, eighteenth century philosopher and economist, may have been wise before his time when he stated that whilst he “was keenly aware that the human propensity to take risk propelled economic progress, he feared that society would suffer when that propensity ran amuck.” (Bernstein, 1996, p. 12). Whilst balancing our decisions in our modern culture of fear and anxiety, whilst trying to achieve the most favourable outcome, we must remember that accidents do happen and mistakes are often a natural part of the learning process. It is often hard to control nature but we must watch out that our growing concerns about accountability, liability and negligence may be discouraging us from taking similar risks to those that have propelled our society to what it is today.
References
About us home. (2007). Retrieved December 28, 2007, from the Health and Safety Executive website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/index.htm
Adams, J., (1995). Risk. London: UCL Press.
Adams, J., Thompson, M. (2002). Taking account of societal concerns about risk (Research Report 305). London: HMSO.
Attribution theory. (n.d.). Retrieved 3 December, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0003/ai_2699000382
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U., (1999). World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buttny, R., (1993). Social Accountability in Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bernstein, P., (1996). Against the Gods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Douglas, M. (1990). Risk as a forensic resource. In E. Burger (Ed.), Risk (pp. 1-16). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Freedgood, E., (2000). Victorian Writing about Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Furedi, F., (2005). Culture of Fear. London: Continuum.
Hacking, I., (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joffe, H. (1999). Risk and 'the Other' [Electronic version]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lupton, D., (1999). Risk. New York: Routledge.
Mulgan, R. (2000). 'Accountability': An Ever-Expanding Concept? [Electronic version]. Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573.
Reith, G., (1999). The Age of Chance. London: Routledge.
Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on risk. New York: Russell Sage.
Slovic, P. & Peters, E. (2006). Risk Perception and Affect [Electronic version]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (6), 322-325.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wrightsman, L., Greene, E., Nietzel, M. & Fortune, W. (2002). Psychology and the Legal System (5th ed). Belmont: Wadsworth.
