Occupational and non-occupational health risks: can double standards be justified? Online publication date: Sat, 01-Nov-2008
by Anders J. Persson
International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (IJRAM), Vol. 10, No. 1/2, 2008
Abstract: This essay considers the fact that health and safety standards allow for higher exposures in employees than the general public. The distinction between exposure and risk is proposed as a key determinant for the relevance of arguments put forward to support such double standards. The justification of 'double standards', for public and occupational (risk) exposure, is linked to two separate types of issues, namely empirical and normative ones. Whether we have reasons for accepting a double standard of protection depends on how we understand the double standard in relation to the distinction between exposures and risks, and emphasis should be placed on the need of normative support of double standards concerning risks. The relation between work-related risks and occupation is discussed and analysed, and it is argued that arguments for double standards of risks are linked to certain activities rather than to employment or occupation.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management (IJRAM):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook