Talk:Risk management

Active discussions


[first paragraph]

This definition of Risk management is so vague in meaning here and esoteric in communication as to why it is important to corporations that it conveys no concrete meaning to the average layperson who does not work in the insurance industry. I frankly am mystified how since 2001, when this article was created, the word “risk” is being used to define risk, especially considering how many people have edited this Wikipedia article and overlooked it. The definition is more obscured with vague terminology, “application of resources”, “unfortunate events”, and “realization of opportunities.” This most certainly needs clarification. Cnkaufmann (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Risk analysis to Risk managementEdit

I propose that Risk analysis be merged into Risk management. I think that the content in the Risk analysis article can easily be explained in the context of Risk management, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Risk analysis will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Hamburg-1982 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Analysis is an integral part of management. Merging would eliminate content forking and I agree later the article may be split if becomes necessary. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no reason to object. bd2412 T 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • OpposedConcerned. I haven't the time to fully assess this, but I am concerned about how to merge it. How much does Risk analysis overlap Identification ("Identification" itself being Practice area-specific)? At present, Method and Process appear both partially overlapping and partially inconsistent. Again, I think this is an effect of multiple use areas/vocabularies contributing to a single article. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • With further study, the content of the present article is no more appropriate for merger with Risk Management than Risk assessment. The first issue with this article is the single source lead; that source fully states that there are two subjects with the same name, but by the lead only cites the Risk management part of that definition, but the article then discusses only the lower-level process part of that definition, i.e., that Risk analysis is a part of Risk management that is also commonly (as presently written) a part of one of the definitions of Risk assessment, and so, it would be maybe a candidate for merger with a clarified or practice-split revision of Risk assessment, and should not be merged with Risk management for that reason. At the very least, though, the Society for Risk Analysis reference should be replaced with a reference that supports the present body of the article, if the later should be kept. We could integrate Risk analysis/Risk assessment, but it has to be agreed what the Main definitions will be, but that is a topic for the Project. See also ISO/IEC 31010. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Some people define risk management as the process of risk analysis (identifying and measuring risks) and risk mitigation. Others define risk analysis as the process of risk assessment and risk management. For example, see Society for Risk Analysis's page on how risk analysis is defined Since there is no consensus on which is the broader term, these pages should NOT be combined. They can be different concepts. There should be links between the two pages, so that interested people can see the different perspectives on risk analysis vs risk management. mackca01
  • Delete Risk analysis. Merging would be problematic per the comments of both IveGoneAway and Mackca01. But I don't see a coherent subject for Risk analysis. I think it is better off gone. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See discussion of deletion for Risk analysis here. IveGoneAway (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus for delete. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Risk management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ISO (and AS, etc.)Edit

An updated response to

What's the use of all these ISO references? Advertising?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 

under the section #ISO, to put a finer point on it. For some practitioners, such as manufacturing and aviation, certification to certain ISO or AS can be a customer-imposed requirement, some of the customers being contributors to the definition of the standards. Certainly, the risk-relevant ISO/AS standards are not relevant to all practices, but they are essential to some. In comparison, (hazard-specific) risk-related ARPs and DOs, while not legal requirements (in the U.S. airspace), are acceptable means of compliance with Federal Regulations. So, IMO, it is just as important that the ISO standards be referenced in the broad subject as it is that they not be the only current practice standards referenced. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removedEdit

  Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 06:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Risk colonization, and risk management in Food safety and European regulationsEdit

Here are some interesting sources:[1][2][3]. See also Blame#Blaming_and_transparency for some context. --Signimu (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rothstein, Henry; Huber, Michael; Gaskell, George (February 2006). "A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk". Economy and Society. 35 (1): 91–112. doi:10.1080/03085140500465865.
  2. ^ Manning, Louise; Luning, Pieternel A; Wallace, Carol A (19 September 2019). "The Evolution and Cultural Framing of Food Safety Management Systems—Where From and Where Next?". Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 18 (6): 1770–1792. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12484.
  3. ^ Davis, Courtney; Abraham, John (August 2011). "A comparative analysis of risk management strategies in European Union and United States pharmaceutical regulation". Health, Risk & Society. 13 (5): 413–431. doi:10.1080/13698575.2011.596191.

RCCE - Risk Communication and Community EngagementEdit

I recently came across the acronym of RCCE. I think it should get a mention here and the article RCCE redirect to here (currently it redirects to RICE).EMsmile (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Risk management" page.