Abstract
The constituents of risk have received much attention in risk management circles the last decades, as there has been
a shift from probability-based perspectives, towards a focus on events, uncertainties, and consequences. In 2015,
the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway altered the risk definition underlying their regulation, now emphasizing
uncertainty as a core component of risk. Based on a thematic document analysis of relevant Norwegian standards,
we have identified a shift towards subjective risk and knowledge. The word probability has been removed from the
newer risk definitions, and the concept of probability itself seems to have a more subjective and less mathematical
meaning in these standards compared to the older probability-based definition. The risk concept also seems to
address harm that can be enhanced by flaws in the risk assessment itself. We discuss how the risk standards may be
both enabling and constraining for the industry’s risk understanding and work, when it comes to implicit
coordination, and possible gaps between academics and skilled workers. All in all, the new risk definition in the
standards seems more nuanced, but further research is needed to see how it is implemented in practice.
a shift from probability-based perspectives, towards a focus on events, uncertainties, and consequences. In 2015,
the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway altered the risk definition underlying their regulation, now emphasizing
uncertainty as a core component of risk. Based on a thematic document analysis of relevant Norwegian standards,
we have identified a shift towards subjective risk and knowledge. The word probability has been removed from the
newer risk definitions, and the concept of probability itself seems to have a more subjective and less mathematical
meaning in these standards compared to the older probability-based definition. The risk concept also seems to
address harm that can be enhanced by flaws in the risk assessment itself. We discuss how the risk standards may be
both enabling and constraining for the industry’s risk understanding and work, when it comes to implicit
coordination, and possible gaps between academics and skilled workers. All in all, the new risk definition in the
standards seems more nuanced, but further research is needed to see how it is implemented in practice.