Understanding and Assessing Social Risk
In general, organisations do a thorough job at undertaking Technical Risk Assessments. Typically, this involves assessing the likelihood of something happening against the consequences if it does (e.g., Health, Economic, Environmental, Reputational etc.).
The challenge with this approach is that organisations develop a false sense of confidence in proceeding to engagement when the technical risk profile looks 'right'. This approach misses the fact that there is a difference between the risks that hurt people and the risk/trigger that upset people.
​
In 1985, Paul Slovic identified that technical experts and the general public had a very different approach to assessing risk(1). The technical expert's assessment of risk was often based on well-defined and measurable metrics, but there were factors beyond the technical element that had a much larger impact on the general public's assessment of risk. In fact, these non-technical triggers (Social Risks) impact someone's perception of risk by a factor of 4, compared to the risks considered in traditional technical assessment.
​
Based on this work, risk communications specialist Peter Sandman offered a different risk equation for risk assessment:
​
Risk = Hazard x Outrage
​
In the above equation, 'hazard' recognises the critical need to consider the technical risks. When there is a hazard, people get upset and this relationship between actual hazard and concern is a good thing! (eg: it why we don't put our hand on a hot stove)
​​
However, Sandman introduced the factor of 'outrage' as the second element of the risk equation. 'Outrage' points to the fact that people do not become concerned just because there is a technological hazard. The reality is that there are 14 to 12 psychological and 'non-technical' factors that contribute to heightened risk perception.
​
​In essence, the research showed that when people are triggered by one or more of these 'non-technical' factors, they are more likely to think something is a hazard. For example: Are you more critical of restaurant food when you are in a good or bad mood?
​
Understanding the influence these 12 triggers have on how your project may be received can go a long way to better understanding if your engagement approach needs to be modified.
​
The following assessment is meant as a guide only and should be used as a conversation starter.
​
Copyright and Usage
​
This resource is provided under the Creative Commons Licence. It is intended solely for internal use. Redistribution, modification, or use of this material for commercial purposes is prohibited.
Attribution and No Derivatives
​
Any non-commercial use must give appropriate credit to Aha! Consulting and indicate if any changes were made to this original work. Any changes made cannot suggest that Aha! Consulting endorses you or your use of this work. If you remix, transform or build upon the material, you may also not distribute the modified material for commercial gain. By accessing or using this resource, you agree to comply with these terms.
​
Disclaimer
​
This is an indicative assessment only and provided as a guide for internal discussions and sense making of your context. Actual community responses may vary.
​
By completing the tool, you are agreeing to allow
- deidentified project data to be collected that will be used to create industry benchmarks for social risks.
-​ contact information to be separated and added to the Aha! Consulting mailing list (you can unsubscribe at any time)
​
​
References
1 Slovic, P. (1. (1985). “Risk Perception.” (Technical Report).