However, this does not mean that you are exempt from anything. If the risk can be reduced by simpler and more proportionate measures, they would be reasonably achievable. So it`s not a question of thinking that a control measure could affect your profits or is a little more expensive than expected, and this can be ruled out. Only if a risk is negligible in relation to the time and cost of mitigating it can it be concluded that control is not reasonably practicable. In other words, grossly disproportionately. Still don`t know this reasonably achievable term? Although regulations state that employers must do what is „reasonably practicable,“ there is often confusion as to what this actually means. Our IOSH-approved instructor-led risk assessment course offers an interactive step-by-step video tutorial (and a 1-to-1 coaching session) to give you the confidence to do what is reasonably practical. Try the free modules! Remember that the focus should always be on introducing measures and reducing risk, unless the measures are manifestly disproportionate and the risk is insignificant in comparison. Not only will this help you comply with the law by taking steps that are „reasonably achievable,“ but it will also help keep your employees safe and productive. Watch our animated video to get an overview of the concept of reasonably achievable before diving deeper into real-world examples of how it can be applied.
The phrase „where reasonably practicable“ means that the degree of risk in a given situation can be weighed against the time, effort, cost and physical difficulties of taking steps to avoid the risk. If these funds are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable for an employer to have to raise them to avoid this, the employer is not obliged to do so, unless there is a specific requirement to do so. While this term tells you to do something, it`s not exactly clear what you need to do. Should you do everything you can to reduce the risk? What is reasonably achievable and how do you decide if something is reasonably achievable? The ability to afford a control measure is generally not a factor in assessing its costs. The greater the risk, the less weight must be given to costs. In other words, the greater the risk, the greater the effort to reduce it. The courts are of the view that small employers with little money should not get away with a lower safety standard by citing poverty. Sometimes, however, resources are taken into account. For example, a large company can reduce risk with the latest engineering controls that a small employer may never be able to afford. Just because the risk is reduced in this way doesn`t mean it`s reasonably practical for everyone. Do you think the employer did everything reasonably possible to protect Joe? The questions you should ask might be.
But that doesn`t mean you don`t have to do anything to control the risk. There may be other controls that would be easier to implement to minimize risk. If proportionate, such measures would be reasonably practicable. You can find it as SFAIRP („to the extent possible“) or ALARP („as low as reasonably achievable“). SFAIRP is the term most commonly used in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, etc. and its regulations. ALARP is the term used by risk specialists, and bondholders are more familiar with it. We use ALARP in this guide. In HSE`s view, the two terms are interchangeable unless you are drafting formal legal documents where you need to use the correct legal wording. LJ Asquith described a scale that weighs a risk in relation to the steps in terms of money, time or effort to counter it. When deciding what measures are reasonably practical to eliminate or reduce risks, employers must carefully weigh the balance between the two.
The balancing decision in what is „reasonably achievable“ is not black and white. It is not a balanced decision in favour of the size of the company. Or the cost of a living. It is a decision that leans in favour of health and safety. All employers, large or small, have the same duty. Protect people and prevent harm. To demonstrate that you are complying with health and safety regulations, you must demonstrate that you are reducing the risk as much as possible or as low as reasonably achievable (ALARP). So how can we measure what`s „appropriate“ and make sure you`re doing enough to mitigate risk and protect your employees? For example, if the risk of injury is very low compared to the money, time or effort required to eliminate it, they cannot reasonably be expected to take steps to avoid it.
Then, if you wish, you can read our article for a detailed example. Finally, let`s also take a look at some of the myths surrounding the term „reasonably practical.“ The concept of „reasonably practicable“ is at the heart of the UK`s health and safety system. It is an integral part of general occupational health and safety tasks, etc. 1974 Act and many types of health and safety regulations that we and local authorities enforce. HSC`s policy is that any proposed regulatory action (regulations, ACOP, guidelines, campaigns, etc.) should be based on what is reasonably practicable. However, in some cases, this may not be possible because the regulations implement a European directive or other international measure that adopts a risk control standard that is different from „reasonably practicable“ (i.e., different from what ALARP is). This does not mean, therefore, that these risk control standards are reasonably achievable simply because some companies have adopted them. As an employer, you are not expected to completely eliminate all the risks your workforce faces. Everything involves risk, even everyday activities such as going down stairs or crossing the street. It would be impossible to eliminate all risks at all times and, above all, it would not be reasonably feasible. The Court of Appeal`s decision in Edwards v.
National Coal Board described a scale of risk and the steps taken to avoid the risk, so in order to assess whether you have complied with the duty „to the extent reasonably possible,“ a careful assessment of the balance between the two is required. This is the key to understanding general obligations in the context of occupational health and safety, etc. Law of 1974 and numerous accompanying regulations.
