Risk assessment methods: which one, where, and why
The regulation does not impose a specific method; it requires one that suits the workplace and is systematic and repeatable. This page compares the methods as measured from their primary sources: inputs, formula, result bands and the work each one is good for.
Which method does the law require?
None of them. The Turkish risk assessment regulation prescribes the qualities of the method, not its name: it must suit the workplace, identify hazards systematically, and be repeatable and documentable. What the hazard class does set is the renewal interval: at most every two years in the highly hazardous class, four in the hazardous class and six in the least hazardous class.
How to choose a method
Three questions narrow it down: (1) What are you analysing — a job step, a process, a piece of equipment, an exposure? (2) Do you have numerical data, or will you work from expert judgement? (3) What is the output for — prioritisation, barrier design, an investment decision? Using more than one method in the same workplace is not an exception; in large workplaces it is the norm.
In use Partly Catalogued The badge shows where the method stands in Optifora: in use, partly in use, or catalogued for later.
Legal basis
The table shows the obligations of the legislation region you pick in the top bar; it refreshes without reloading the page when the region changes.
Legal basis — Türkiye
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the tool covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The employer carries out or has carried out a risk assessment for occupational health and safety in order to provide, maintain and improve the safety and health of the working environment and the workers. | Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation, Art. 5(1) | The page's "which method does the legislation require?" block: none; the regulation prescribes the quality of the method rather than its name. |
| A completed risk assessment is renewed at the latest every two, four and six years in very hazardous, hazardous and low-hazard workplaces respectively. | Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation, Art. 12(1) | The page's own sentence giving two, four and six years for the very hazardous, hazardous and low-hazard classes. |
| The risk assessment is renewed in whole or in part on relocation or building changes, changes in technology, substances or equipment, changes in the production method, an occupational accident, occupational disease or near miss, a change in the legislation on limit values, the results of workplace measurement and health surveillance, or a new external hazard. | Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation, Art. 12(2) | The method selection block of the page: using more than one method in the same workplace is not exceptional, and the renewal triggers are independent of the method. |
| The risk assessment is carried out by a team formed by the employer, made up of the employer or the employer's representative, the safety specialists and workplace physicians, the worker representatives, the support staff and knowledgeable workers representing all units. | Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation, Art. 6(1) | The question on the method cards about proceeding on expert judgement; the team is one of the three questions that narrow the choice of method. |
Turkish legislation prescribes the quality of the method, not its name; the only thing bound by a figure is the renewal interval, which varies with the hazard class.
Legal basis — European Union
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the tool covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The employer shall evaluate the risks to the safety and health of workers, inter alia in the choice of work equipment, the chemical substances or preparations used, and the fitting-out of work places. | Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Art. 6(3)(a) | The "what are you analysing" question in the page's method catalogue: a task, a process, an item of equipment or an exposure. |
| The employer shall be in possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, including those facing groups of workers exposed to particular risks. | Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Art. 9(1)(a) | The badge note on the page: the state of the method inside Optifora; the document meets the same duty whichever method is used. |
| The general principles of prevention are avoiding risks, evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided, combating the risks at source, adapting the work to the individual, adapting to technical progress, replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous, developing a coherent overall prevention policy, giving collective protective measures priority over individual ones and giving appropriate instructions to the workers. | Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Art. 6(2)(a)-(i) | The third question in the page's method selection block: will the output be used for prioritisation, barrier design or an investment decision. |
In the European Union risk assessment rests on the Framework Directive; the directive gives neither a method name nor a renewal interval, it binds the existence of the assessment and its consistency with the principles of prevention.
Legal basis — United Kingdom
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the tool covers it |
|---|---|---|
| Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees while at work and of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct of his undertaking. | Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg. 3(1) | The page's own wording that the legislation prescribes the quality of the method; in Great Britain that quality is being suitable and sufficient. |
| The assessment shall be reviewed if there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid or there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates, and any required changes shall be made. | Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg. 3(3) | The British counterpart of the page's renewal sentence: there is no calendar, there are triggers. |
| An employer shall not employ a young person unless he has made or reviewed an assessment in relation to risks to young persons, taking particular account of their inexperience, lack of awareness of risks and immaturity. | Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg. 3(4) and 3(5) | The domain filter on the page; person-specific assessment is a separate domain in the method catalogue. |
In Great Britain the test is a "suitable and sufficient" assessment; there is no calendar renewal interval, the review is tied to a reason to suspect the assessment is no longer valid or to a significant change.
Legal basis — United States
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the tool covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The employer shall use one or more of the following methodologies appropriate to determine and evaluate the hazards of the process being analysed: What-If, Checklist, What-If/Checklist, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis, or an appropriate equivalent methodology. | 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(2)(i)-(vii) | The HAZOP, FMEA, fault tree and checklist cards in the page's method catalogue; on the United States side the method names are written into the regulation itself. |
| At least every five years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis, the analysis shall be updated and revalidated by a team to assure that it is consistent with the current process. | 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6) | The United States counterpart of the page's renewal sentence; in Türkiye the interval is two, four or six years by hazard class, here it is a single five years. |
| The process hazard analysis shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations. | 29 CFR 1910.119(e)(4) | The question about proceeding on expert judgement in the page's method selection block. |
| The employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present and shall verify that the required workplace hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification. | 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1) and (d)(2) | The page's block on where the figures come from; on the United States side the written certification duty is explicit. |
There is no general risk assessment duty binding every workplace at the United States federal level; the process safety management standard, however, names the methodologies and imposes a five-year revalidation.
Where the numbers on this page come from
Every method was read from its own primary document; the scales, formulas and result bands were taken from that document rather than second hand. The documents and their fingerprints are kept in the product's internal source archive.