3 A basic control banding 4 × 4 model for delineating risk levels. A risk level (RL) is an outcome of probability and severity inputs, with RL1 as the lowest risk and RL4 the highest.
4.3 Global EHS Perspective
The simplified strategies that underlie CB models created over the last two decades were part of an intentional design toward making them useful for small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs make up the vast majority of industries in economically developed countries and their smaller size typically renders their budget for EHS staffing from minimal to nonexistent. It was quickly realized that CB was also useful in economically transitional and economically developing countries, even in large‐scale enterprises, where EHS staffing is also lacking or their professions are unavailable altogether. According to International Labour Organization (ILO), there are over 2.8 billion workers and at least 2.8 million deaths annually are attributable to work‐related risks and 86% of these deaths are due to work‐related disease. In addition, each year there are also 374 million nonfatal accidents, and 160 million occupationally acquired diseases for the global workforce (25). The WHO estimates that, at best, 10–15% of these have no access to EHS professionals, leaving 2.5 billion workers facing unnecessary occupational risks daily (11). Therefore, the growth of CB was tied to the need to identify a simplified path to identify solutions to reduce work‐related risks through qualitative risk assessment methods for common workplace hazards that could be readily learned and applied by management and employees alike. CB has also proven itself in the scientific literature as being extremely useful in the absence of information, as in the absence of OELs or in emerging technologies like nanomaterials, and equally as essential in addressing the lack of sufficient EHS professional expertise in the workplace globally (26, 27).
The advancement of this approach on an international scale can be seen with the implementation of global harmonized system for the classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS). The GHS requires chemicals to be classified in a standardized format within a safety data sheet (SDS). SDSs are now required for the distribution of each chemical product on a global basis use this classification or derived hazard statements to objectively hazard rank chemicals and provide direct input into the CB models for chemical agents (16, 18, 19, 27). This requirement for the GHS SDSs creates a significant advantage in how CB can be used globally. The starting point for a standardized risk assessment and internationally consistent risk communication can now be either the GHS classification (see ILO Chemical Toolkit link in Online Resources section or the derived GHS Hazard Statements (see Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials Technical Basis Online Resources section) which are available on each SDS and Supplier Label for each hazardous chemical. The GHS Classification and Hazard Statements are directly linked by the United Nations (UN) Purple Book; Revision 5 is now in use in North America and Revision 7 (see Online Resources section) is a planned replacement within two years. Combining GHS and these CB models (COSHH Essential e‐Tool and ILO Chemical Control Toolkit) creates objectivity in hazard ranking, removing bias from acute and chronic health hazards in risk assessment processes that may otherwise be a subjective exercise for individual IHs. Field level risk assessments often do not consider chronic and acute health risks, however, combining SDSs available at worksites with CB models will enable a field professional's understanding of these hazards and generally identify potential control approaches associated with the RLs. Combining SDS and CB models turns a subjective process into a standardized, objective process using globally accepted CB principals and a risk communication process that leads to a consistent application of control approaches for chemical agents. In addition, in areas of the world that lack appropriate EHS staffing, an objective hazard ranking can be achieved by associating GHS Hazard Classifications with the CB Hazard Band structures that provide an effective risk communication for workers to understand the relative risk of workplace chemicals.
4.4 Multidisciplinary Control Banding
Recent CB expansion of range, beyond bulk chemicals for IHs and into other EHS professions, uses the basic stratification of practical prevention strategies as earlier risk matrices. This includes barrier banding, a strategy utilizing CB concepts for OS rather than IH (28). Barrier banding explores the practicality of addressing safety accident scenarios, implementing barriers, and managing solutions in a simplified manner to achieve injury reduction (11). This approach to takes classification of safety hazards and seeks to offer barrier controls to achieve risk reduction based on accident scenario determinants. Benefits are seen at the SME level where banding strategies in safety present an opportunity to reduce accidents. A tool that can lead decision‐makers to make a priori determinations for the proper hazard‐based safety controls to protect workers is valuable for accident prevention. CB in ergonomics offers comparable approaches for controlling musculoskeletal disorders within worker‐based programs (14, 29).
The use of a qualitative, risk‐based CB strategy for assessment and control of potential environmental contaminants also provides a standardized approach to improve risk communication. The CB model used by EAs is also designed for integration within an OHSMS program to provide the basis for a holistic approach for EHS professionals. The simplified environmental risk matrix is also stratified over four RLs. Examples of qualitative environmental CB strategies have been applied to comply with United States regulations for construction, research activities, facility maintenance, and spill remediation that affect air, water, soil, and waste disposal. These CB risk matrix models collectively provide the basis for a standardized risk communication language that is well positioned to improve communications within and between EHS professionals, workers, and management (30). A somewhat surprising by‐product of the expanding use of CB internationally is that it has been an extremely helpful tool for risk communication not only within the workplace as designed but also within and between EHS professionals (31). The discussion of CB principles and strategies has become an effective means for teaching how IH practitioners think when performing risk assessments and has also played an important role in the growth of the profession in places in the world where it is most needed. Once this risk communication potential was realized, the development and dissemination of CB and related banding strategies began harnessing this important component of risk management and began the process of simplifying risk assessment and control continued across the EHS professions and into EORM.
5 MULTIDISCIPLINARY RISK COMMUNICATION
With the variety of CB models now available for each of the EHS professions, the opportunity to integrate these qualitative risk assessment approaches became the next step toward providing as standardized, multidisciplinary risk communication language. All involved parties in a given workplace incorporate a graded approach mindset that can also be translated into a risk matrix approach as in Figure 3, offering an outcome of a traditional hierarchy of controls in order to provide a consistent hazard elimination process to mitigate employee risk. Tasks with an RL1 designation outcomes are primarily work performed by the general public and a common‐sense procedure approach is presumed. Tasks with an RL2 designation are commonly performed by industry; however, they may require certain standardized controls to ensure a satisfactory reduction of work‐related risk. If regulatory compliance is a component of ensuring this risk reduction, then RL2 tasks do require some level of documentation that these controls are consistently in place and a supervisor's record of these tasks in a designated logbook can work well. EHS professionals can also audit these activities on occasion with the supervisor during workplace visits, ensuring work performed is within the scope and established controls are in place.
As RL1 and RL2 activities are most often made up of standardized tasks that pertain to a given profession or industry, this cost‐effective method ensures EHS regulatory compliance by focusing on risk (32). RL1 and RL2 activities also afford workers an opportunity to take credit for their training and job‐specific expertise while minimizing EHS involvement. The RL3 designation is for work relating to either a higher level of potential risk, including potential regulatory noncompliance, or inappropriately characterized