- JD Solomon
- Jan 29
The Precautionary Principle was born out of the risk and uncertainty associated with humans and the natural environment. Most financial wonks, corporate risk managers, and engineers working in physical processes have likely never heard of it. The idea behind the Precautionary Principle is that we should act to prevent harm before it occurs. Laws and regulations should anticipate harm and prevent it from happening. It is consistent with the adage “better safe than sorry”. It has much intuitive appeal when uncertainty is high, especially if you are on the receiving end of the potential negative impact.
The Trouble with the Precautionary Principle
However, there is trouble one layer below the intuitive thought. The Precautionary Principle dictates that indication of harm, rather than proof of harm, should be the trigger for action. This essentially shifts the burden of proof from humans and the environment to those entities that produce, import, or use the substance in question. It requires that those who seek to introduce chemicals into our environment, or risk, must first demonstrate that what they propose to do has been tested and no evidence of harm has been shown.
To Wait or Not To Wait?
If this sounds somewhat like the testing of new pharmaceuticals, it is. And this is the tough part. We feel protected by new medications being introduced only after there is a limited risk that they will harm us. However, many people become ill or die as we wait to reduce uncertainty.
Example: PFAS
In the environmental sector, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been chemically produced by man since the 1940s, have the potential to improve our quality of life. They are found in many products ranging from stain-repellent fabrics, water-repellent clothing, nonstick cooking pans, polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning products. In commercial sectors and industrial sectors, PFAS compounds are used in fire-fighting foams, electronics manufacturing, chrome plating, and other production processes.
PFAS compounds have the potential downsides, including adverse health effects. While their advantages include being resistant to heat, water, and oil, PFAS compounds do not break-down easy in nature (they are considered “persistent”) and they tend to accumulate in living humans, animals, and plants.
The list of new products and the underlying chemical compounds is growing exponentially. The downside is that testing, or regulation, cannot keep up with them individually. And in combination with one another, well, forget about it. USEPA is one good source on the thousands of contaminants of emerging concern and the associated challenges with addressing them.
More Dynamic Than Static
So “better safe than sorry” only addresses a high-level aspect of dealing with risk and uncertainty. Fine points such as “by how much” and “in what combination” are necessary considerations. So is the nemesis of all Small World, static-thinking risk managers – time, and timing. Risk and uncertainty are indeed more dynamic than static.
What Does It Mean?
What does the Precautionary Principle mean to us in a world full of both measurable risks and immeasurable uncertainties? Here are five thoughts.
The Right Thing Is Often Obvious
First, there are certain things we should do and others we should not. Doing the right thing is often obvious. Forget about too much optimization. Forget about saving your job, making money, or leaving too much sunk investment on the table. As Abraham Lincoln said, “firmness in the right, as God gives us the ability to see the right.”
Uncertainty is Dynamic
Second, it is easy to be a risk expert and a key advisor when thresholds of harm or regulatory action levels have been set. Setting the thresholds of harm and regulatory action levels is the hard part. In a Small World, expectations and objectives can be measured by compliance. In Large Worlds full of uncertainty, the expectations and objectives occur in a very dynamic environment.
“Risk-Based” Is Best for Prioritization
“Risk-based” is not all that it has promoted to be. It is an approach, best used for prioritization, with the underlying working assumption that some things are more important than others. A risk-based approach does not provide assurance that the right thing is being done. A risk-based approach simply assures that the right thing is being done for and by those making the decisions.
Context Matters
Context matters. In Small Worlds, we must take the time and make the effort to test, measure, and do quantitative analysis. In Large Worlds, there will always be complexity and uncertainty that cannot be measured, modelled, and understood. Good judgment and expertise in dynamic decision making is required.
Don’t Be Tone Deaf
Fifth, have empathy. Think less from the perspective of the numbers and the risk assessment, and more from the perspective of your family and friends having to drink the water, breath the air, or ingest the product. The Voice of the Customer, as we cite in manufacturing and quality circles, should be more than superficially getting the end user to be satisfied for some short period of time.
Applying the Precautionary Principle
When looking backwards, after the fact, and when knowledge is perfect, the Precautionary Principle may appear to be illogical or irrational. When looking forward in Large Worlds full of uncertainty, the principle has a more solid foundation. How much do you really believe the fancy models and even your own forecasts? Would you bet the lives of the people you care most about on them? The most illogical or irrational thing that we can do is not live to fight another day.
Much can be learned from different practice areas related to approaches for dealing with risk and uncertainty. For more on the roots of the Precautionary Principle, see Sandra Steingraber’s classic Living Downstream: An Ecologist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment.
This article was first published by JD Solomon on LinkedIn.
Solomon, J. D. (2018, October 3). Risk and uncertainty: The precautionary principle. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/risk-uncertainty-precautionary-principle-jd-solomon
JD Solomon writes and consults on decision-making, reliability, risk, and communication for leaders and technical professionals. His work connects technical disciplines with human understanding to help people make better decisions and build stronger systems. Learn more at www.jdsolomonsolutions.com and www.communicatingwithfinesse.com.
