Industrial technology lies at the root of risks that can pose a threat to assets, health or even, in extreme cases, human life. This has opened up a new area of reflection to experts, characterised by its multidisciplinarity as it is based, among other things, upon the sciences, the art of engineering, medical knowledge, law, economics, sociology and politics.
It is in that context that this paper is put forward, with industrial development and the associated technologies as its backdrop. The concepts used are illustrated thanks to examples mainly borrowed from the two industrial segments of chemistry and energy.
Industrial risk is either linked to large-scale accidents or to the normal operation of facilities and the resulting chronic pollution of the environment.
As regards large-scale accidents, the combined role of the probability of occurrence and of gravity in the quantification of the associated risk is first noted. The factors of uncertainty that influence these two parameters are highlighted, as is the difficulty of deducing the social acceptability of such risks given the aversion to risk that is typical of all mankind. The article also raises issues regarding the management of accidental risks, especially in terms of their prevention and compensation. Prevention includes both technical aspects and institutional and legal aspects. Examples from the field of design engineering and from regulatory initiatives are provided and explained. Concerning compensation, the authors make a special effort to describe the original mechanisms developed in the field of liability law to enable victims to obtain compensation for damages suffered.
As regards the chronic impact on the environment, the authors examine the models that have characterised the evolution in man’s behaviour towards his environment. Chronic risk management is discussed in relation to scientific developments (in particular in the burning issue of the dose-response relationship), to economics (when using a cost-benefit analysis), and to the response by regulators - i.e. the authorities who, for one reason or another, play a role in determining the implementation of public policies aimed at preventing or reducing the environmental impact of industrial activities. The article thus highlights the difficulties of putting a monetary figure on the benefits or advantages associated with protecting life, health and nature itself, the methodological difficulties (price of time in the long term, the relationship between optimum and equity) involved in cost-benefit analyses, the necessary differences to be established between risk and uncertainty and between prevention and precaution and, lastly, the prescriptive methods and incentives (taxes, emission permits) used by regulators.
The article ends with a consideration of the principle of precaution. After having underlined the vague wording of the principle and the legal insecurity that it can generate for those subject to it, the undesirable effects of the principle are described, which include excessive reference to the zero risk solution, disproportionate use of worst-case scenarios and the reversal of the burden of proof.