What each reference contributes
ISO 31000:2018 provides risk management guidance applicable to different organisations and decisions. It is not a certifiable standard. Its value lies in connecting analysis with objectives, responsibilities, treatment and follow-up.
IEC 31010:2019 focuses on selecting and applying assessment techniques. The difference matters: having a general framework does not automatically determine which method a task needs. An investment appraisal, a fire scenario and noise exposure require different questions and evidence.
Start with the decision you need to make
Define the activity, people exposed, operating conditions and foreseeable changes. Frame a specific question: choosing a measure, comparing alternatives or checking whether a control is sufficient. Include maintenance, start-up, cleaning and abnormal situations where relevant.
Determine who understands the work and who can decide. Record data sources, the period covered and limitations. If measurements or equipment information are missing, a precise score does not remove the uncertainty; it may conceal it. Identifying what remains unknown is part of the analysis.
Choose a technique on a reasoned basis
The choice depends on the problem, possible consequences, available information and the team’s competence. A checklist helps check known conditions; structured scenario analysis may help where interactions or deviations are complex.
- Check whether a method is required or particularly suitable.
- Define a level of detail proportionate to the risk.
- Review the assumptions used by the technique.
- Combine methods when one perspective is insufficient.
Avoid choosing a method solely because it produces a number or is available in an application.
Relationship with occupational risk assessment
In Spain, risk assessment and preventive planning are governed by the Occupational Risk Prevention Act and its implementing legislation. ISO 31000 can help organise decisions, but does not change obligations or make a legally unacceptable risk acceptable on economic grounds.
A general matrix also cannot replace occupational hygiene measurements, ergonomic assessments or technical checks where these are necessary. Maintain traceability between the hazard, people exposed, evidence, measure and responsible person. Distinguish the risk before intervention from the risk remaining after controls have been checked.
Review results and their limitations
Analysis must lead to actionable decisions: what changes, who acts, which resources are needed and how verification will take place. Record significant uncertainties and conditions requiring conclusions to be reviewed, such as new equipment, substances, shifts or incidents.
Do not compare scores from different scales as though they were equivalent. Nor should a green cell be interpreted as proof of absolute safety. Review includes checking in actual work that measures are maintained and have not created other problems.
Hypothetical example: changing an operation
A factory considers automating a material transfer. It first identifies people, access, cleaning and possible failures. A scenario review identifies trapping hazards, and a specific assessment examines maintenance requirements.
The decision incorporates safeguards, safe access and checks before start-up. The team documents assumptions requiring manufacturer confirmation. The framework’s value is not obtaining a final score, but making visible the conditions that must be met for operation.
