Stars 'Common Study Protocol' : Describing the French Risk Regulation Regime - Archive ouverte HAL Access content directly
Conference Papers Year : 2015

Stars 'Common Study Protocol' : Describing the French Risk Regulation Regime

(1) , , , , ,
Ivanne Merle
  • Function : Author
Teemu Reiman
  • Function : Author
Kenneth Pettersen
  • Function : Author
Ole Andreas Engen
  • Function : Author
Joukko Heikkila
  • Function : Author


The aim of the presentation is to apply, as part of the European project STARS (SocioTechnological Assessment in Risk Regulation regimeS), a ‘common study protocol’ (CSP) which has been specifically designed to compare Finish, French and Norwegian risk regulation regimes (RRR) of chemical, petrochemical and petroleum activities. This constitutes the first milestone of the project. The protocol contains 10 items which requires in depth data collection to frame consistently the many dimensions which have been considered relevant by the project consortium (University of Stavanger, Norway; INERIS, france and VTT, Finland). These items are: 1. The size and composition of the regulated industry; the size and composition of the regulatory body, background, competence, scale. 2. Development and trends of the industry in terms of technology and hazards, new technological innovations (e.g. integrated operations). 3. Responsibility and accountability for safety and accidents; legal responsibility, organizational versus individual responsibility. 4. Legal framework (connection to government, political system & influence). 5. Espoused regulatory strategy (prescriptive, functional / self-regulation, ALARP, ALARA), basic definitions (risk, safety, uncertainty). 6. Structure of regulators’ organizations, ways of organizing, and managing, trends. 7. Participation, who is participating and about what (tripartite, etc.), who has power and who does not, who knows whom and interacts with whom. 8. What types of inspections, how regularly, what is inspected. 9. Types of assessment methods and formalized indicators, what type of analysis is done (risk assessment ideology behind them). 10. How rules are produced. Challenges with the CSP is first to find relevant sources to gather data for each of the item, second, to adjust the level of depth to be developed for each item (in relation to the availability of data) and third, to describe items in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the project. When taking into account these challenges, the presentation of the French case study based on the CSP offers a unique perspective on a RRR which had never been described from such a wider perspective. A similar situation is met with the two other cases (FInish, Norwegian). The CPS provides condensed and very useful overview. But, once this material is gathered, a certain number of difficulties have to be addressed in relation to the aim of comparison between regimes. The results of this comparison are presented and reflected in relation to the purpose of providing ways for RRR to better harness the sociotechnological nature of industrial safety. Early outcomes of this process reveal interesting contrast between Finland, France and Norway, including the recruitment of inspectors, the size of the industry regulated and the type of interactions between industry, unions, state and civil society. These contrasts indicate different contexts in which the prospect for alternative approach to RRR through a sociotechnological assessment of high risk systems can unfold. Part of the context includes the sociotechnological view produced by safety research which has been producing a diversity of concepts, models and studies over the past thirty to forty years from a diversity of disciplinary backgrounds (psychology, ergonomics, management, sociology) and safety-critical systems (aviation, nuclear, railways, chemical). This abstract includes 4 different presentations. One presentation for each research partner introducing the application of the CPS to their RRR, and one common presentation about outcomes of comparison (including difficulties, insights).
Not file

Dates and versions

ineris-01855194 , version 1 (07-08-2018)


  • HAL Id : ineris-01855194 , version 1


Jean-Christophe Le Coze, Ivanne Merle, Teemu Reiman, Kenneth Pettersen, Ole Andreas Engen, et al.. Stars 'Common Study Protocol' : Describing the French Risk Regulation Regime. 8. International Conference "Smart Prevention for Sustainable Safety", Sep 2015, Porto, Portugal. pp.175. ⟨ineris-01855194⟩


36 View
0 Download


Gmail Facebook Twitter LinkedIn More