Hazard and Risk Tracking: From Identification to Verified Risk Reduction

Hazards vs Risks

Hazards and risks go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing. A hazard is something with the potential to cause harm, while risk describes the likelihood of that harm occurring and how serious the consequences could be.

For example, an object left in a walkway is a hazard. The associated risk is that someone may trip over it and suffer an injury.

Similarly, flammable material and an ignition source create a fire hazard. The associated risks may include burns, smoke inhalation, property damage, environmental harm and interruption to operations.

Sources of Hazards and Risks

Hazards, and therefore the associated risks, can be identified through many different sources:

• HAZOP and HAZID
• Task risk assessments
• Inspections and audits
• Incidents and near misses
• Management of change
• Maintenance findings
• Field observations
• Contractor activities
• Regulatory reviews

Once hazard and risk information has been captured, it's good practice to track the risks  associated with the hazards using a formal risk management system.  Sometimes  the term 'hazard tracking'  is used to describe the practice of maintaining visibility of hazards, associated risks, controls and outstanding risk-reduction actions

How Hazards and Risks are Assessed

Once a hazard has been identified the associated risk normally needs to be assessed by considering:

• Who or what could be harmed
• How the harm could occur
• Likelihood
• Severity
• Existing controls
• Initial and residual risk ratings

This article provides practical advice on risk-reduction action tracking

As an example of why it's important to go through this process, consider this example :  Two workplaces may contain the same hazard but have very different levels of risk. A rotating machine in a locked enclosure presents a different risk from the same machine with exposed moving parts in a busy work area.

Controls and risk-reduction actions

Once the hazard has been identified and the associated risk assessed, suitable controls must be selected to eliminate the hazard or reduce the risk.

Risk controls are normally considered through the five levels of the hierarchy of controls:

Elimination

Examples:

• Stop using a hazardous chemical where it is no longer necessary.
• Design out the need to work at height by assembling equipment at ground level.
• Remove an unnecessary manual lifting task through process redesign.
• Decommission unsafe machinery rather than continuing to maintain it.
• Eliminate confined-space entry by using remote inspection equipment.

Substitution

• Replace a solvent-based cleaner with a water-based alternative.
• Use a less toxic chemical in a production process.
• Replace a noisy machine with quieter equipment.
• Use lower-voltage tools where practical.
• Replace manual handling with smaller, lighter components.

Engineering controls

• Fit machine guards around moving parts.
• Install local exhaust ventilation to remove dust or fumes.
• Use interlocks that stop equipment when a guard is opened.
• Install fixed barriers around hazardous areas.
• Add gas detection, automatic shutdown or pressure-relief systems.
• Use mechanical lifting equipment instead of manual lifting.
• Improve drainage or flooring to reduce slip hazards.

Administrative controls

Change the way work is planned, organised or carried out.

Examples:

• Introduce permit-to-work procedures.
• Use safe systems of work and written instructions.
• Provide training and competence assessment.
• Restrict access to authorised personnel.
• Schedule hazardous work when fewer people are present.
• Use warning signs and exclusion zones.
• Introduce inspection, maintenance and housekeeping routines.
• Rotate workers to reduce exposure time.

Personal protective equipment

Protect the individual when other controls do not fully remove the risk.

Examples:

• Safety helmets
• Gloves
• Safety glasses or face shields
• Hearing protection
• Respiratory protective equipment
• Flame-resistant clothing
• Safety footwear
• Fall-arrest harnesses

PPE is normally the least effective level because it depends on correct selection, fit, use and maintenance. It should support stronger controls rather than replace them.

Hazard Tracking vs Risk Tracking

Hazard tracking and risk tracking are closely connected, but they focus on different things.

Hazard tracking is concerned with maintaining visibility of the source of potential harm. This may include where the hazard was identified, which asset, activity or location it relates to, what controls already exist and what further actions are required.

Risk tracking focuses on the assessed level of risk created by that hazard. It considers the likelihood of harm occurring, the severity of the possible consequences, the effectiveness of existing controls and the level of residual risk that remains after further action has been taken.

For example, a flammable liquid is a hazard. The associated risks may include fire, explosion, injury, environmental damage and loss of production. Hazard tracking records the presence and context of the flammable material. Risk tracking records how likely those outcomes are, how severe they could be and whether the controls reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

In practice, the two should not be managed separately. A useful system should link each hazard to:

• the associated risks
• the initial risk rating
• existing safeguards
• required risk-reduction actions
• responsible owners and deadlines
• supporting evidence
• the residual risk after controls are implemented
• final review and approval

This is why the term “hazard tracking” is sometimes used more broadly than its strict technical meaning. What is actually being tracked is usually the relationship between the hazard, the risks it creates, the controls applied and the outstanding actions needed to reduce those risks.

The objective is not always to remove the hazard itself. Some hazards, such as pressure, electricity, working at height or flammable materials, may remain part of the operation. The aim is to ensure that the associated risks are properly assessed, controlled, monitored and reduced to an acceptable level.

The Practical Difference

How Software Can Support Hazard and Risk Tracking

Hazard and risk tracking may be manageable using spreadsheets when the number of records is small and responsibility sits with one team. As the volume of hazards, risks, controls and actions grows, however, maintaining a reliable overview becomes more difficult.

Software can provide a central record linking each hazard to its associated risks, existing controls and outstanding risk-reduction actions. Named owners, deadlines, reminders and escalation help prevent important actions from being overlooked.

Supporting evidence such as photographs, documents, inspection records and test results can be attached to actions. Review and approval stages can then confirm that the required controls have been implemented before the action is closed and the residual risk is reassessed.

Software becomes particularly useful where records span multiple sites, departments, contractors or long-running projects, or where the organisation needs a complete audit trail for assurance or regulatory review.

It should not replace professional judgement, formal risk assessment or specialist processes such as HAZOP and HAZID. Its purpose is to improve visibility, accountability and verification.

How Pisys Supports Risk-Reduction Actions

Pisys Action Tracking helps organisations manage the actions that arise from hazard identification and risk assessment processes.

The system does not replace HAZOP, HAZID, task risk assessment or a formal risk register. Its role is to make sure that agreed risk-reduction actions are clearly assigned, monitored, evidenced and verified through to closure.

Each action can be linked to the original hazard, risk assessment, study finding or other source record, and given a named owner, due date, priority and review route. This creates clear accountability and makes it easier to see which actions are overdue, high risk or waiting for approval.

Supporting evidence such as photographs, documents, test results and completed inspection records can be attached directly to the action. Reviewers can then assess whether the required control has been implemented properly before approving closure.

Configurable workflows allow different types of action to follow different review and approval stages. This is useful where higher-risk actions require independent verification or where contractors submit evidence that must be approved by the client organisation.

Automated reminders, escalation and dashboards help managers maintain visibility across multiple sites, projects and teams. A full audit trail records changes to ownership, deadlines, evidence and status, providing a clear history of how each action was managed.

By combining ownership, evidence, review and reporting in one system, Pisys helps organisations move from identifying risks to demonstrating that the agreed risk-reduction measures have actually been completed and verified.

Final Thoughts

Hazard tracking and risk tracking describe different parts of the same management process. The hazard identifies the source of potential harm, while the risk assessment determines how likely that harm is and how serious its consequences could be.

Effective management connects both to the controls and actions required to reduce risk. Those actions should remain visible until they have been completed, evidenced and verified, and the residual risk has been reviewed.

That is what turns hazard identification from a one-off exercise into a controlled process of risk reduction.