What is IPER?
IPER summarizes two linked stages: identifying the hazards of an activity and assessing the risks they generate under specific conditions. Identification asks what can cause harm, to whom, and in what situations. Assessment estimates the magnitude of the risk considering exposure, probability, consequences, and existing controls according to the chosen method.
The results are usually documented in a matrix organized by process, position, or task, but the IPER (Identification of Hazards and Risk Assessment) is not just that document. It includes work observation, consultation with personnel, review of equipment, substances, incidents and requirements, technical judgment, and decisions on corrective actions. It must cover routine and non-routine tasks, maintenance, foreseeable emergencies, changes, and particularly vulnerable groups when applicable.
Differences between IPER, IPERC and risk assessment
IPER stands for Hazard Identification and Risk assessment . IPERC explicitly adds the determination of controls; in some countries, this is the regulatory name for the matrix. Occupational risk assessment is the general term used in Spain and in European documents: it aims to estimate unavoidable risks in order to decide on appropriate measures.
The differences are primarily terminological and methodological, not a reason to omit controls. Every preventive assessment must lead to decisions. Hazard should also not be confused with risk: a hazard is the source or situation capable of causing harm; risk depends on how the exposure occurs and its potential severity. The same machine can generate different levels of risk depending on safeguards, frequency, task, and the people exposed.
What is it for?
The IPER (Identification of Hazards and Risk Assessment) provides a common basis for prioritizing resources and communicating the rationale behind a particular action. It can be used when designing a process, before starting a non-routine task, when acquiring equipment, when reviewing a workstation, or when managing changes. It allows for linking each hazard to existing controls, pending actions, responsible parties, and deadlines.
Its usefulness depends on the quality of the information and its connection to the operation. A highly detailed matrix can be useless if it simply copies generic risks, fails to consult those performing the task, or remains outdated. The goal is not to achieve a low score, but to eliminate hazards whenever possible and reliably control the remaining risks, verifying the effectiveness of the measures.
How to conduct an IPER
A practical sequence is:
- Define scope, processes, activities, and people involved.
- Gather information: actual tasks, equipment, agents, changes, damages, and incidents.
- Identify hazards and who may be affected, including contractors and visitors where appropriate.
- Describe the potential harm and exposure.
- Assess the risk using an appropriate method and considering existing controls.
- Decide whether the risk is acceptable or requires action.
- Select measures according to the hierarchy: eliminate, replace, technical controls, organizational controls and personal protection.
- Assign responsibilities, resources, and deadlines.
- Communicate, execute, and verify.
- Review after changes, incidents, damage, or new information.
Involving people who know the work improves the identification and applicability of the measures.
Risk matrix and scoring limits
Many matrices combine probability and consequence categories to assign a level. This classification facilitates prioritization, but it doesn’t make the assessment an exact measurement. The criteria must be well-defined, consistent, and reflect actual exposure. A low-frequency risk with catastrophic consequences may require stringent measures; a numerical sum should not obscure this.
The INSST emphasizes that assessment is a means of obtaining sufficient information to make decisions. When a standard requires a specific method, exposure limits exist, or the risk requires specialized knowledge, a generic matrix is insufficient. Uncertainties and assumptions must also be documented. If relevant doubt exists, a precautionary approach is adopted, and additional information or advice is sought.
Practical example
For a cleaning task inside a mixer, the team identifies mechanical energy and unexpected start-up as hazards. The potential consequences are serious, and the exposure occurs during non-routine tasks. Although a stop button is present, the team concludes that it does not guarantee isolation.
The priority is not to provide more protective equipment, but to prevent movement: energy lockout/tagout procedures are established, along with verifiable personal lockout/tagout measures, access control, and zero-energy testing. Authorized personnel are trained, and the initial implementation is observed. The matrix records the responsible party and date, but closure is only accepted after verifying the procedure in the field. If the mixer is changed or a contractor is involved, the hazard identification and risk assessment (IPER, its Spanish acronym) is reviewed before work begins.
Regulatory framework and territorial references
There is no universal regulation of the acronym IPER. In Spain, the equivalent process is governed by Article 16 of Law 31/1995 and Articles 3 to 7 of Royal Decree 39/1997; the INSST guidelines define its stages and quality standards. The ILO-OSH 2001 Guidelines and the ILO’s five-step guide provide international references. ISO 45001 includes hazard identification , risk assessment, and controls within the occupational health and safety (OHS) system.
In Peru, where the IPERC designation is widely institutionalized, the Regulations of Law 29783 include hazard identification, risk assessment, and controls among the system documentation, and SUNAFIL publishes a specific manual. Requirements for participation, updates, approval, or format should always be verified in the applicable sectoral and national legislation.
