and workers have a vested interest to translate this risk knowledge into action that is geared toward achieving these objectives. In addition, should management need to bring a request for additional to accomplish these objectives to the corporate board of directors, it is good to know that they also use comparable risk matrices to derive levels of risk as part of a standard board room language.
6.3 Risk Communication for EHS Results
The simplified risk communication language provided by RLBMS and its framework brings together the roles and responsibilities of workers and expertise of EHS field practitioners to create a comprehensive EORM that is built with a bottom‐up approach. EHS staff become an essential part of translating this knowledge into action in not just raising the consistent issues facing them over the years but also presenting an integrated component in developing solutions that are positive for everyone involved. Through this process, the RLBMS provides a comprehensive knowledge approach to workplace risk management that can be compiled and sold to upper management as a benefit to operations and a cost‐effective approach for highly stressed and shrinking EHS resources. In implementing the participatory approach, EHS staff meet with their workforce and begin by exchanging their knowledge on the most commonly performed tasks and their related risks.
Teams of affected workers, EHS staff, and management representatives then meet to further develop this approach. With the RLBMS and its derived procedures identified and tasks isolated, the workers then take the lead in communicating to management how these tasks should be performed to reduce work‐related risks. For the more commonly performed activities, primarily as RL1 and RL2 tasks with some RL3 examples mixed in, the teamwork of EHS staff and workers can be shown in the aligning of hazard‐to‐control designations for tasks and assigned RLs based on the depth and integrity of supporting data. Management involvement in this process is best optimized when it is limited to assuring final product quality and understanding the needs and expectations of their workers on a first‐hand basis. Once agreements for management support and dedication of resources are reached, the next steps should be the documentation of the approach, training, and procedural requirements to maintain this system over time. Risk communication and knowledge building needs to involve employees, EHS staff, and management working together toward optimizing EORM programs to maximize EHS resources and capabilities. This strategy provides a comprehensive risk communication language and a process that is invaluable for receiving worker buy‐in and achieving program implementation in the short term. It can also help in attaining the elusive long term goal of EHS staff everywhere; the retention of program expectations amongst workplace peers for many years to come (11).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks go to the Exposure and Control Banding Committee of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Control Bandits everywhere, for continually stretching the boundaries of how Control Banding applications can be maximized professionally. Appreciation is also given to the dedicated volunteers of Workplace Health Without Borders (WHWB), both international and WHWB‐UK, that have encouraged and championed the power of Control Banding to provide risk communication around the world. This work, in part, was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE‐AC52‐07NA27344, LLNL‐BOOK‐795518.
ONLINE RESOURCES
Control Banding Resources, https://controlbanding.llnl.gov
COSHH Essential Technical Basis http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/assets/live/CETB.pdf
ILO Chemical Control Toolkit, https://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/ctrl_banding/toolkit/main_guide.pdf
GHS Purple Book (Revision 5), https://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev05/05files_e.html
GHS Purple Book (Revision 7), https://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev07/07files_e.html
Summary of Hazard Bands based on combining ILO Chemical Control Toolkit and COSHH Essentials e‐Tools, https://www.chemscape.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/Hazard_Band_Handout_2018.pdf
Summary of relationship between GHS Classification and Hazard Statements based on GHS Purple Book Revision 5, https://www.chemscape.com/themes/chemscape/pdf/ghs-classification-hp-statements_v2.pdf
Bibliography
1 1 Hayakawa, H., Fischbeck, P.S., and Fischhoff, B. (2000). Traffic accident statistics and risk perceptions in Japan and the United States. Accid Anal Prev 32 (6): 827–835.
2 2 Sheppard, B., Janoske, M., and Liu, B. (2012). Understanding Risk Communication Theory: A Guide for Emergency Managers and Communicators. Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. START: College Park, MD. http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/UnderstandingRiskCommunicationTheory.pdf (accessed 28 May 2019).
3 3 Coombs, W.T. (2012). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4 4 McComas, K.A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996‐2005. J Health Commun 11 (1): 75–91.
5 5 Palenchar, M.J. (2005). Risk communication. In: Encyclopedia of Public Relations (ed. R.L. Heath), 752–755. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6 6 CERC (2018). Manual for emergency risk communication. Crisis and emergency risk communication. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf (accessed 28 May 2019).
7 7 Williams, R.A., Kulinowski, K.M., White, R., and Louis, G. (2010). Risk characterization for nanotechnology. Risk Anal 30 (11): 1671–1679.
8 8 Mardikian, J. (2008). Mental health consequences of September 11: a five‐year review of the behavioral sciences literature. Behav Soc Sci Libr 27 (3): 158–210.
9 9 Sandman, P.M. (2003). Four kinds of risk communication. The Synergist, American Industrial Hygiene Association, April: 26–27.
10 10 Swuste, P. (2007). Qualitative methods for occupational risk prevention strategies in safety, or control banding–safety. Saf Sci Monit 11: 1–7.
11 11 Hale, A., Ale, B., Goossens, L. et al. (2007). Modeling accidents for prioritizing prevention. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92 (12): 1701–1715.
12 12 Guldenmund, F., Hale, A., and Betten, J. (2006). The development of an audit technique to assess the quality of safety barriers management. J Hazard Mater 130: 234–241.
13 13 Zalk, D.M. (2010). Control Banding; A Simplified, Qualitative Strategy for the Assessment of Risks and Selection of Solutions, 210. Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft Publisher.
14 14 Zalk, D.M. (2001). Grassroots ergonomics: initiating an ergonomics program utilising participatory techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 45 (4): 283–289.
15 15 Zalk, D.M. (2003). Control banding principles to reduce musculoskeletal disorders: the ergonomics toolkit. Proceedings of the International