{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,9,3]],"date-time":"2024-09-03T22:24:40Z","timestamp":1725402280697},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"American Society of Mechanical Engineers","content-domain":{"domain":["asmedigitalcollection.asme.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,11,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>The key factor in risk management process is the risk acceptance decision. However, it is not an easy task since different approaches can be adopted. In Portugal, it is unknown how companies decide in relation to the risk acceptance of the occupational risks and on the need to implement risk reduction measures. Building on these facts, this work aims to analyze how Portuguese organizations make their decisions concerning occupational accident risk and the main constraints to the decision process, and to identify the most appropriate approach to be applied. The questionnaire Risk Decision Analysis was developed and applied on a sample of Portuguese Occupational Health &amp; Safety Professionals. The results show that the type of OHS services was the main factor that influenced the risk analysis activities and the type of risk assessment, namely in relation to quantitative risk assessments: the in-house OHS personnel use more quantitative risk assessments than the external consultants. Both qualitative and quantitative criteria need to be considered, but quantitative criteria are preferred in relation to qualitative criteria. In relation to risk measures used, the risk matrix is the most used to evaluate the risks of particular activities and risk rates for evaluating the safety performance of organizations. The study also shows that ALARP principle is the best approach to be applied in decision-making process on occupational risk. In general, the study emphasized the need of guidelines that helps in acceptance criteria formulation.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1115\/imece2012-88354","type":"proceedings-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,10,8]],"date-time":"2013-10-08T21:42:18Z","timestamp":1381268538000},"page":"1757-1763","update-policy":"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1115\/crossmarkpolicy-asme","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Risk Decision: Main Constraints and Approaches"],"prefix":"10.1115","author":[{"given":"Matilde A.","family":"Rodrigues","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Porto Polytechnic Institute, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal"}]},{"given":"Pedro M.","family":"Arezes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Minho, Guimar\u00e3es, Portugal"}]},{"given":"Celina P.","family":"Le\u00e3o","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Minho, Guimar\u00e3es, Portugal"}]}],"member":"33","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2013,10,8]]},"event":{"name":"ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition","start":{"date-parts":[[2012,11,9]]},"sponsor":["ASME"],"location":"Houston, Texas, USA","end":{"date-parts":[[2012,11,15]]},"acronym":"IMECE2012"},"container-title":["Volume 3: Design, Materials and Manufacturing, Parts A, B, and C"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/asmedigitalcollection.asme.org\/IMECE\/proceedings-pdf\/doi\/10.1115\/IMECE2012-88354\/4511979\/1757_1.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,2]],"date-time":"2019-09-02T03:25:15Z","timestamp":1567394715000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/asmedigitalcollection.asme.org\/IMECE\/proceedings\/IMECE2012\/45196\/1757\/288734"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2012,11,9]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1115\/imece2012-88354","relation":{},"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2012,11,9]]}}}