Ethical Critique of The Principle of ALARP As A Health, Safety and Environment Decision-Making Tool

Abstract: The principle of "As Low as Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) has long served as a foundational tool in health, safety, and environmental (HSE) decision-making, particularly in high-risk industries. Grounded in cost–benefit logic, ALARP seeks to minimize risks unless further reduction would require disproportionate effort relative to benefit. This critical review analyzed the ethical strengths and weaknesses of ALARP through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontological duty, process integrity, and distributive justice. Drawing on recent literature and professional experience, the study identified that while ALARP promotes optimization, accountability, and continuous improvement, it also suffers from ethical limitations such as subjectivity, commodification of life and environment, lack of transparency, and potential injustice towards marginalized or vulnerable populations. The researchers argued that ALARP’s heavy reliance on cost–benefit analysis risks monetizing human life and environment and sidelining stakeholders consent especially in contexts where residual risks affect vulnerable groups or where the groups with potential exposure to the risk are not part of the decision makers. Recommendations include embedding ethical scrutiny, procedural fairness, and stakeholder participation into ALARP-based decisions, especially where AI or algorithmic systems are involved, to ensure morally sound and equitable HSE practices in an increasingly automated world.

Cost-benefit analysis, As Low as Reasonably Practicable, Ethical, artificial intelligence, acceptability, tolerability, deontological

1. Bisbey, T. M., Kilcullen, M. P., Thomas, E. J., Ottosen, M. J., Tsao, K., & Salas, E. (2021). Safety culture: An integration of existing models and a framework for understanding its development. Human factors, 63(1), 88-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819868878 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Maselli, G., Macchiaroli, M., & Nesticò, A. (2021). ALARP criteria to estimate acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk. Applied Sciences, 11(19), 9086. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199086 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Idoko, D. O., Agaba, J. A., Ijeoma, N., Badu, S. G., Ijiga, A. C., & Okereke, E. K. (2024). The role of HSE risk assessments in mitigating occupational hazards and infectious disease spread: A public health review. Open Access Research Journal of Biology and Pharmacy, 11(2), 011-030. https://doi.org/10.53022/oarjbp.2024.11.2.0029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arrow, K. J., Cropper, M. L., Eads, G. C., Hahn, R. W., Lave, L. B., Noll, R. G., ... & Stavins, R. (1996). Benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Kotre C. J. (2022). ALARP: when does reasonably practicable become rather pricey?. The British journal of radiology, 95(1138), 20220612. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Stephens, D. W. (2016). Other people’s lives, other people’s livelihoods – making ALARP decisions in the context of considerations other than safety and cost. Safety and Reliability, 36(4), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2017.1334291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Langdalen, H.,Abrahamsen, E. & Selvik, J. T. (2020). On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 204(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Baram, M. S. (1979). Cost-benefit analysis: an inadequate basis for health, safety, and environmental regulatory decisionmaking. Ecology LQ, 8, 473. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Mokander, J. et al. (2021). Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitations. Sci Eng Ethics, 27, 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00319-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Methuku, N. (2025).. The ethical challenges of implementing AI in risk management and compliance. International journal of computer engineering & technology. 16. 1431-1442. https://doi.org/10.34218/ijcet_16_01_107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fiegler-Rudol, J. & Lau, K., Mroczek, A. & Kasperczyk, J. (2025). Exploring human–AI dynamics in enhancing workplace health and safety: A narrative review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 22. 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22020199. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Barati Jozan, M., Daneshvar Ghorbani, B., Khalid, M. S., Lotfata, A., & Tabesh, H. (2023). Impact assessment of e-trainings in occupational safety and health: A literature review. BMC Public Health, 23, 1187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16114-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gilbert, Y., & Kumpulainen, A. (2008, October). Bridging HSE risk with cost analysis: A model for optimising completion fluid choice. In SPE Middle East Health, Safety, Security, and Environment Conference and Exhibition (pp. SPE-120531). SPE. https://doi.org/10.2118/120531-MS [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Haslam, C., Haefeli, K., & Haslam, R. (2010). Perceptions of occupational injury and illness costs by size of organization. Occupational medicine, 60(6), 484-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mansour, M. (2016). Quantifying the intangible costs related to non-ergonomic work conditions and work injuries based on the stress level among employees. Safety science, 82, 283-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gupta, N., van Dongen, J. M., Holtermann, A., van der Beek, A. J., Stevens, M. L., & Rasmussen, C. D. N. (2022). Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a participatory ergonomics intervention among childcare workers: an economic evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 64(6), 533-539. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Riaño‐Casallas, M. I., & Tompa, E. (2018). Cost‐benefit analysis of investment in occupational health and safety in Colombian companies. American journal of industrial medicine, 61(11), 893-900. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22911 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Garcia-Herrero, L., Lavrnic, S., Guerrieri, V., Toscano, A., Milani, M., Cirelli, G. L., & Vittuari, M. (2023). Cost-benefit of green infrastructures for water management: A sustainability assessment of full-scale constructed wetlands in Northern and Southern Italy. Sustainability, 15(10), 7235. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107235 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environmental management: Readings and cases, 2(1997), 49-66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Flyvbjerg, B., & Bester, D. W. (2021). The cost-benefit fallacy: Why cost-benefit analysis is broken and how to fix it. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 12(3), 395‑419. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2021.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Melchers, R. E. (2022). Society, tolerable risk and the ALARP principle. In Probabilistic risk and hazard assessment (pp. 243-252). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Health Safety and Executive (2001). Reducing risks, protecting people: HSE’s decision-making. HSE Books: London, UK [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Alakbarli, E., Hamedanian, M. M., & Guarascio, M. (2023). ALARP in engineering. Risk based design and CBA. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Complexity, Future Information Systems and Risk (Vol. 1, pp. 61-68). SCITEPRESS Digital Library [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Katre, A., Pannirselvam, S., & Dhillon, B. S. (2023). Decision-making frameworks in health and safety engineering: Balancing cost, risk, and ethics. Journal of Safety Research, 85, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.04.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Abrahamsen, E. B., & Aven, T. (2021). A framework for risk management and governance of health, safety, and environmental risks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 210, 107513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Goerlandt, F., Reniers, G., & Khakzad, N. (2021). Validity and applicability of the ALARP principle for safety management in complex socio-technical systems. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 147, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Langdalen, H., Abrahamsen, E. B., & Selvik, J. T. (2020). On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 204, 107222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107222 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nesticò, A., He, S., De Mare, G., Benintendi, R., & Maselli, G. (2018). The ALARP principle in the cost-benefit analysis for the acceptability of investment risk. Sustainability, 10(12), 4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124668 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Abdul Aziz, M. A., & Md Said, M. S. (2023). ALARP demonstration in management of change using quantitative Bowtie analysis risk assessment tool for an offshore gas platform. Process Safety Progress, 42(2), 310-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Li, D., Qing, S., Luo, H., Wang, J., & Xu, J. (2022, August). Application of ALARP Concept in Nuclear Power Plant Design—A Case Study in HPR1000. In International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (Vol. 86403, p. V006T06A009). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE29-92241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., ... & Virk, G. (2022). Identifying sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. Association for Computing Machinery. 1(1), 1-33 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Bianchini, M., & Da Silva, M. G. (2022). Reassessing ALARP: Ethics and equity in risk-based decision-making. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 158, 105909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2022.105909 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Zhang, H., & Zio, E. (2021). Subjectivity and accountability in ALARP-based risk governance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 204, 107232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Von Eschenbach, W. J. (2021). Transparency and the black box problem: Why we do not trust AI. Philosophy & technology, 34(4), 1607-1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. El Bouchikhi, M., Weerts, S., & Clavien, C. (2024). Behind the good of digital tools for occupational safety and health: a scoping review of ethical issues surrounding the use of the internet of things. Frontiers in public health, 12, 1468646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1468646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Howard, J., & Schulte, P. (2024). Managing workplace AI risks and the future of work. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 67(11), 980-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence, 1(9), 389-399 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mei, Z., & Wang, J. (2023). Equity implications of cost–benefit frameworks in occupational safety: A study in Chinese manufacturing. Safety Science, 161, 105221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.105221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Steele, K., & Watson, F. (2022). The morality of monetizing safety: A critique of ALARP in modern industrial practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 176(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04612-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Xu, L., Li, B., & Liu, Y. (2021). Distributive injustice in safety investment: Revisiting ALARP. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084315 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Advanced Digital Communication Strategies: A Comprehensive Analysis
• Developing an Explainable AI System for Digital Forensics: Enhancing Trust and Transparency in Flagging Events for Legal Evidence
• The Global Impact of Government Censorship on Women’s Access to Information: A Literature Review
• "Reimagining Higher Education Workspaces: A Review on The Transformative Role of Digital Technology Adoption"
• Improved CSP Efficiency: Innovations and Challenges in Thermal Energy Storage Systems