According with the statutory order in 2004 the Dutch quantitative risk criteria as location-based risk, to ensure that nobody faced big risk. The Dutch have improved a software tool to estimate individual risk and societal risk. This software applies the methods from the books Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, 1997, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, 1999. In calculation of the limits, the authorities must contrast the calculated societal risk with the proved limits for risk acceptance.
The expected rate of accidents involving more than 10 deaths must not exceed 10-5 per year.
For accidents involving more than 100 deaths, 10-7 per year.
For accidents involving more than 1000 deaths, 10-9 per year.
During the estimation of societal risk, a maximum consequence distance is used which, by definition, covers the region where the expected mortality rate is greater than one per cent for the worst-case accidents.
Risk acceptance criteria in Iceland
Safety distances between major hazard establishments or dangerous substances is a characteristic of Iceland’s risk management. The major hazard is the fire between overcrowded areas with the most victims. They do not use standard methods of dangers prevention. Several legislations specify the distance from facilities storing or using dangerous substances, including the statutory order for F-gas storage and storage of flammable liquids.
Risk acceptance criteria in the United Kingdom
Risk criteria for land-use planning in the vicinity of major industrial hazard are referred as ‘consultation distances’. These areas specified by the central authority, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE calculate the risk in each case based on information gathered via the local authorities from the establishment’s permits (Hazardous Substances Consent data, including information on quantities of dangerous substances, tank sizes, pressure and temperature, etc.). The results from calculations can be approximate for toxic substances but can be accurate where the risk is due to the possible fire or explosion. The HSE offers assessments based on individual risk (comparable to location-based risk). HSE uses 10-6 per year as the minimum limit for the individual risk of the population. Any risk lower than this is not significant in relation to everyday risks.
Risk acceptance criteria in France
In order to deal with hazards, France has developed an elaborate method for the establishments and their surroundings. This method incudes simplification risk assessment in contrast with quantitative risk assessments used in the Netherlands, Flanders, and the United Kingdom.
The characteristic of this method is that identify various accident scenarios when assessing risk for the establishment in question. These scenarios are categorized into:
Rapid accident scenarios.
Slow accident scenarios. These kinds of accidents identify scenarios which the accident process permits the evacuation of all people who probably be affected before the accident develops.
The scenario characterized as slow when the establishment present the necessary information to justify classification. The frequency of the accident lead to the way of assessment.
Risk acceptance criteria in Germany
The German ‘Störfallkommission’ distinguish guidelines for implementing the necessary distances between major hazard establishments and vulnerable objects. The guidelines are used to assess special distance requirements address to stockpiles of explosives and ammonium nitrate. Distinction is made between conditions with or without detailed knowledge. General distance requirements are introduced based on the declared substances stored or used by the establishment. Where detailed knowledge of an industry is available consequence estimations are prepared for the specific establishment.
According to the above risk acceptance criteria, we observe that each country has different way to see the danger based on specific characteristics. Specifically, each country has risk acceptance limits based on:
Political situation. This is an assessment both of the government’s ability to carry out its declared program(s), and its ability to stay in office. Moreover, government unity and legislative strength play vital role in the risk management of each country.
Socioeconomic situation. Based on the government's intervention of the employment and the social life as the level of dealing with the poverty. Moreover, these situations can be derived from social inequality, religion, ethnic differences, the development of cultural models, historical relations between countries, all of which can lead to the outbreak of disturbances, varied from relatively peaceful protest and societal boycotts of specific products, to acts of terrorism in extreme occasions, which with different ways impact on counties risk management. Relations with neighboring countries could also be a source of instability with declaration of war being the ultimate recourse
External Conflicts. The external conflict measure is an assessment both of the risk to the incumbent government from foreign actions. In other words, the possibilities for war or Cross-Borders conflicts.
Corruption. The greatest risk in such corruption is that at some time it will become so overweening, resulting in a fall or overthrow of the government, a major reorganizing or restructuring of the country’s political institutions, or, at worst, a breakdown in law and order, rendering the country ungovernable.
Military in Politics. For instance, the military become involved in government by faced an external threat. Such a situation would imply the distortion of government policy in order to meet this threat.
Economic situation. Overall the economic situation determines most of the risk management criteria as where its strengths outweigh its weaknesses it will present a low economic risk and where its weaknesses outweigh its strengths it will present a high economic risk. In other words, each country taking into consideration the economic cost before assessing each risk. As we can observe from the above analysis, countries with strong economies deal with risk with more complete methods and plans.
Culture. Culture reflects the attitudes and behaviors of a group of people regarding risk-taking and risk management. It is the essence of a risk management system. No matter how good risk management rules and models are, without a good risk culture, they are difficult to create value for the country. A healthy risk culture can boost the improvement of risk management from the inside of an organization or country.
People monitor and manage risk actively and consistently.
More risks are likely to be identified.
Risk issues can be escalated quickly in the organization.
Decision makers can get risk information timely with high quality.
Risk-adjusted metrics are used to measure the performance
Subcultures that might have an impact on risk management in the countries of EU. Specifically, multiple subcultures have different way dealing with problems, for this reason they can also lead to rogue, risk-taking behavior that can ultimately harm the organization. A sound risk culture consistently supports appropriate risk awareness, behaviors, and judgements about risk-taking within a strong risk governance framework. A sound risk culture bolsters efficient risk management, promotes sound risk-taking, and declare that emerging risks or risk-taking activities beyond the institution’s risk appetite are recognized, assessed, escalated, and addressed in a timely manner. Risk culture evolves over time in relation to the events that influence the countries’ and to the external context within which the institution operates. Sub-cultures within countries may exist depending on the different contexts within which parts of the institution operate. However, sub-cultures should hang on to the high-level values and elements that supply the counties’ overall risk culture.