J-value analysis of different regulatory limits for workers and the public

Abstract The J -value technique allows an objective determination to be made of the resources that should be applied cost effectively to improve heath and safety. This is essential if capabilities are to be employed optimally and risks reduced in a way that reflects their severity. Although other considerations such as good practice and socio-political influences may affect a final decision on the resources to be sanctioned, the incorporation of these additional factors should be made transparent if the decision is no longer to be based on cost effectiveness. The J -value provides an objective criterion by which to judge when “reasonable practicability” has been achieved in committing resources for safety improvement, which is the legal requirement under health and safety law in the UK. Moreover, the J -value methodology also allows other related issues to be addressed objectively. Regulatory bodies apply different limits for workers and the general public, with higher risks being permitted for workers. Although a factor of about 10 has been used in several contexts, no objective rationale has been developed for this particular figure until now. However, it is shown that application of the J -value analysis can provide a justification for a ratio of workers’ risk to public risk of approximately this size if certain reasonable assumptions are made. Thus the paper provides the first quantitative explanation for the different levels of protection demanded by regulators nationally and internationally for workers and public.