health discussions as they have a strongly vested interest their own well‐being and the risks that may compromise their health or safety. OPs also have a major potential disadvantage in that it is more onerous, if not outright unlikely, to inject prevention into their communication with patients as the topic of work‐related risks is often a by‐product of the discovery of existing illness or injuries. Ergonomists often face a similar hurdle in the discussions or work‐related risks as they are often called in to perform an assessment after pain, injury, or musculoskeletal diseases have already occurred. It takes a persuasive risk communication for ergonomists to inject themselves in a preventative manner. The leverage toward controlling and reducing physical exposures is often in balance with the economic disincentive, familiar to corporate board rooms and well known to seasoned EHS professionals, of the potentially high costs often associated with intervention outcomes in the absence of injury and illness. Risk communication strategies must overcome these barriers at all levels.
2.5 EHS Generalist
The EHS Generalist is a newer breed within the health and safety professions, often as a by‐product of shrinking EHS staff budgets within companies and corporations. Individuals within this type of position may have an education, work experience, or personal preference that focuses one or more of the EHS professions. However, the nature of EHS Generalist positions requires the ability to understand enough of the individual disciplines to assist their employers in achieving and maintaining a comprehensive regulatory compliance. They are just as likely to execute initiatives, programs, procedures, reports, permits, and training within the health and safety realm as they are to contribute to the develop the required environmental regulatory reports and submissions to achieve and maintain standard documentation. In a similar vein, corporations often employ EHS Managers that also assist in a generalist capacity, but often have more responsibility in the development of programs and overall promotion of healthy and safe workplaces. Both EHS Generalists and Managers are often involved in tracking of, and investigation into, work‐related incidents and accidents that are related to workers' compensation as well as regulatory compliance. The risk communication for these responsibilities is both important and potentially complicated, as effectively creating, maintaining, and enforcing regulatory compliance in line with corporate programs requires a depth of knowledge across each of the EHS disciplines that is often elusive, if not impossible, to acquire. Therefore, it is even more important for EHS Generalists and Managers to understand the hurdles and difficulties for risk communication that face each of the individual EHS professions. In doing so, they can help isolate where potential issues may arise in a given profession. This helps them to derive solutions appropriate for a given profession and identify the right communication methods to help ensure work‐related risk discussion points are both understood and retained by stakeholders.
3 MODELS AS RISK COMMUNICATION
As risk communication challenges have been identified for the most common EHS professions, we are now positioned to assist field practitioners and generalists alike to identify strategies and processes to help them address work‐related risk issues as they arise. Models of occupational risk prevention are derived primarily from the safety profession and they are essential for understanding the causal pathway of accidents and incidents across EHS. These models will describe which data are relevant to collect and assist in focusing the design of risk assessments to maximize the collection of risk communication components. Together with insight into the context of the events occurring, these data can, therefore, be transformed into information, and with the aid of models, information can be turned into knowledge. This derived knowledge can then be transferred into clearly delineating the value of necessary interventions, outcomes, and acquiring the resources to ensure they remain sustainable. Knowledge on causal pathways of accidents and incidents not only provides insight in reasons why they occur but also directs efforts to prevent work‐related adverse outcomes from occurring. The scientific field dealing with occupational risk prevention, however, is relatively young, and the models used in this field of research have a status of graphic presentations, instead of a classic scientific model (10).
3.1 Bow‐Tie Model
EHS professionals can learn a lot in improving risk communication from the safety bow‐tie model for presenting accidents (Figure 1). In the bow‐tie model, barriers are depicted that prevent the scenario from unrolling. These barriers are the center of a safety management system. Managing these barriers is the key to successfully manage safety. The barriers on the left side of the bow‐tie are called primary barriers. Failing primary barriers can lead to a central event and can consist of failing hardware barriers or inadequate human interventions 11, 12). Supporting these primary barriers are the underlying management factors, which by failing cannot generate a central event, but determine the quality of the primary barriers. For safety, risk prevention, or exposure elimination, it is necessary to stay left of the red circle representing the central event of an accident.
Figure 1 Bow‐tie model.
Therefore, the bow‐tie is a combination of a fault tree and an event tree, linked together by a “central event.” The central event in (Figure 1 presents a state of “loss of control”; the energy content of the hazard is released and the barriers on the right side are in place to prevent the released energy from becoming an unwanted consequence like an injury or accident. As the bow‐tie was initially developed as a model for safety science, hazards like electricity or falls from heights can clearly assist in how the bow‐tie acts as an excellent risk communication model. Left‐side barriers like training and control barriers like Lock‐Out/Tag‐Out or the right fuses to prevent electrical shocks and guard rails, parapets, or the right ladder can help avoid falls from elevation. If any of these barriers fail, the release of the central event's energy does not necessarily need to lead directly to the consequences of an accident. Right‐side barriers like GFCI or surge protectors can halt the flow of electricity into a worker and fall protection devices can reduce or eliminate the adverse outcome initiated by the initial fall from elevated surfaces. Generally, scenarios leading to consequences can occur within seconds or even less. The left side of the bowtie reflects the latent condition, which can take much more time to develop, sometimes up to several years 13).
This way of presenting accidents, certainly those that lead to severe outcomes, has a major advantage for risk communications. The presentation focuses risk prevention activities for central events. Companies can pay their attention to central events they would like to avoid most, either guided by past experience, industry‐related occurrence statistics or guided by the notion that some central events will jeopardize their production. However, it is astonishing to see that most companies only have vague ideas on central events they need to avoid. Finally, the bow‐tie presentation has scenarios as its main component, either for major or for minor accidents and incidents. This difference between different types of incidents is important. It is a common belief that minor and major accidents share the same causes, or accident scenarios, and their consequences are largely governed by chance.
3.2 Multidisciplinary Bow‐Tie Model
Although the bow‐tie model is derived primarily from the safety profession and is designed for use by OS disciplines, it is also an excellent tool for use within and between EHS professionals.
Prevention can be seen in Figure 2 on the left side, serving as the barriers that seek to be appropriately placed to avoid a given hazard from becoming an unwanted central event. Although these barriers may differ across the EHS professions to achieve this prevention, they may also work in concert with one another or create new risks that require the consideration of additional barriers. Using a task with a high hazard chemical as an example,