Abstract

Risk-informed decision-making is a key concept in regulatory regimes covering a wide range of technical disciplines and risk domains. Increased standardization in terms of highly prescriptive and detailed requirements is observed in various risk management regulations and application areas. This development has spurred a discussion with equally strong voices promoting and opposing standardization of risk. The aim of this paper is to explore the knowledge base from scientific literature related to effects of standardization of risk and to assess the strength of the arguments used in the discussion. Through a scoping study and a systematic argument analysis, this study contributes to the debate on the most adequate approach to standardization in risk management regulations. Conclusions from the study are that effects of standardization of risk management regulations are not widely covered in scientific literature and empirical evidence is largely lacking to support the arguments used. The argument analysis indicate that many arguments are assessed as being weak, interconnected and even contradictory. It seems not possible to come to a conclusion and reach agreement in the discussion if the strengths of standardization outweigh the weaknesses. Thus, the discussion should be in the form of dialectic rather than debate. Acknowledging, understanding and addressing the various arguments in favour of and rejecting standardization, as well as their respective context, is essential when designing risk management regulations. Future research efforts are required to further explore when and how the risk management and risk governance processes can be standardized and the appropriate level of standardization.