Title: Occupational and non-occupational health risks: can double standards be justified?

Authors: Anders J. Persson

Addresses: Dept. Languages and Culture, Lulea University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea, Sweden

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.

Keywords: contract of employment; double standards; ethical justification; ethics; exposure; health and safety standards; occupational health; health risks; work risks; risk assessment.

DOI: 10.1504/IJRAM.2008.021060

International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2008 Vol.10 No.1/2, pp.160 - 171

Published online: 01 Nov 2008 *

Full-text access for editors Full-text access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article