The study considers the objective of comparing occupational risk assessment results and the special assessment of working conditions under the impact of hazardous and/or harmful production factors.
It has been suggested that the comparison is conducted via the representation of the attributes of occupational risk (potential implementation of hazard and the severity of consequences of implemented hazard) and the attributes of health damage risk (severity category and risk category) determining the value of occupational illness index associated with a class of working conditions in the same axes.
Rules of ranking classification for occupational risk assessment matrix cells, depending on the value of the occupational illness index, and for elementary cells determining the border of the occupational risk assessment matrix cell have been developed and provided.
Based on the example of the analysis of occupational risk assessment matrices of the dimensions of 5x5 and 4x4 and various results of conducting the special assessment of working conditions, the methodology of the determination of the harmonized risk level at a workplace has been substantiated.
2. On special assessment of working conditions: Federal Law of December 28, 2013 № 426-FZ. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/499067392 (accessed: January 25, 2025). (In Russ.).
3. GOST R ISO 45001—2020. Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements with guidance for use. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200175068 (accessed: January 25, 2025). (In Russ.).
4. Labor Code of the Russian Federation: Federal Law of December 30, 2001 № 197-FZ. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901807664 (accessed: January 25, 2025). (In Russ.).
5. R 2.2.3969—23. 2.2. Occupational hygiene. Employee occupational health risk assessment manual. Organizational and methodological basics, assessment principles, and criteria. Guidance. Available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_489426/ (accessed: January 25, 2025). (In Russ.).
6. On approval of the Recommendations on the selection of methods of occupational risk level assessment and the reduction of such risk levels: the Order of the Ministry of Labor of Russia of December 28, 2021 № 926. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/728029758 (accessed: January 25, 2025). (In Russ.).
7. Jensen R.C., Bird R.L., Nichols B.W. Risk Assessment Matrices for Workplace Hazards: Design for Usability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022. Vol. 19. Iss. 5. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052763
8. De Oliveira C.G., Nunes F.O., Simas L. Risk Management in Occupational Health and Safety Context: A Proposal for a Coherent Structure of Concepts and Terminology. Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology. 2022. Vol. 12. № 4. pp. 96–107. DOI: 10.4236/ojsst.2022.124009
9. Pons D.J. Alignment of the safety method with New Zealand legislative responsibilities. Safety. 2019. Vol. 5. Iss. 3. DOI: 10.3390/safety5030059
10. Jensen R.C., Hansen H. Selecting appropriate words for naming the rows and columns of risk assessment matrices. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health. 2020. Vol. 17. Iss. 15. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17155521
11. Alabi A.T., Jelili M.O. Clarifying likert scale misconceptions for improved application in urban studies. Quality & Quantity. 2023. Vol. 57. Iss. 1. pp. 1337–1350. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01415-8
12. Cox L.A. What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis. 2008. Vol. 28. Iss. 2. pp. 497–512. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
13. Bao C., Wu D., Wan J., Li J., Chen J. Comparison of different methods to design risk matrices from the perspective of applicability. Procedia Computer Science. 2017. Vol. 122. pp. 455–462. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.393
14. Ruan X., Yin Z., Frangopol D.M. Risk matrix integrating risk attitudes based on utility theory. Risk Analysis. 2015. Vol. 35. Iss. 8. pp. 1437–1447. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12400
15. Levine E.S. Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes. Journal of Risk Research. 2012. Vol. 15. Iss. 2. pp. 209–222. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.634514
16. Hubbard D.W. The Failure of Risk Management: Why It’s Broken and How to Fix It. 2nd Ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2020. 336 p.