ethical connotations in order to be traced back to the strictly technical process.
Only in this way will it be possible to develop an autonomous sensibility of the organization, not of the single actors, but in terms of synthesis, superior and widespread culture, starting its virtuous growth through the recovery and transversal diffusion of operational experiences, the exploitation of synergies in interfering processes, and in the prevention and reaction to accidental events.
The first step, which together denotes the acquisition of this awareness in the organization and promotes its development, is the adoption of a policy and systemic risk management.
It is a process of a progressive nature for which it would not be lawful, nor would it be useful, to identify and define serial stages, but rather to search for representative behaviour that is widespread and oriented in the awareness of the individual contribution to the organizational synthesis.
But in order for this condition to be achieved, attention must be focused on risk management methodology.
If, in fact, the concept of risk itself appears to be an extremely vast and changeable, if not elusive, category, only through the definition and adoption of a management methodology is it possible to trace the process back to the concreteness necessary to establish an objective foundation in the company’s dialect, to guarantee its effective and widespread perception by individuals, but above all to create a condition of intelligibility of the risk management process in the organization and therefore able to favour its effective participation.
But the importance of defining and adopting a methodology must be seen above all in the flexibility it offers to the supported process.
That experiential recovery and its re‐elaboration in the company processes mentioned above, understood as an awareness of the organization’s synthesis, is made possible only through a methodology defined and shared in the organization that allows the reading of experiences and the prospecting of new activities on the basis of uniform parameters that offer homogeneous measurement and comparison tools.
In this perspective, the importance of the methodology in the risk management process and in its projection with respect to the creation of value for the organization must be understood.
Preface 7
Enzo Matticoli
Renewable Energies HSE Director
When I met Luca Fiorentini the first time, I was attending his Bow‐Tie method presentation at 2017 Safety Expo Bergamo. I saw a Bow‐Tie diagram and I was impressed by the power of a tool (new to me) that would have supported both fire risk management and identifying the barriers to mitigate it. It was clear to me that a risk‐based approach is essential.
In 2012, I moved from the Oil & Gas sector to Renewable energy. Moving from an international working environment (Europe, Middle East, etc.) to an Italian photovoltaic company, I experienced a very poor HSE culture together with a very bad HSE climate. In order to improve the HSE key performance indicators, I had to start from the basics. Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to build and certify HSE‐integrated management systems based on the international standards. Having had continuous improvement as a driver, I was looking for new tools to reach the highest HSE standards.
So, in 2019, together with Luca Fiorentini and Rosario Sicari, we developed a photovoltaic fire risk assessment with the barrier‐based Bow‐Tie method. Some barriers were already in place; some others needed reinforcement or a different implementation. Stakeholder involvement, fire break zones, video surveillance systems, fire brigade training and close cooperation with O&M contractors, lightning protection system (LPS), insurance policies, automatic fire detection systems, inverter protection and safety systems, and so on are some of the proactive and reactive barriers identified to mitigate photovoltaic plants’ fire risks, focusing on the top event.
As HSE professionals, the most difficult challenges are those regarding top management involvement. I will never forget that during the HSE senior management review, when I presented the Bow‐Tie analysis, as soon as the Bow‐Tie diagram was on the screen, I immediately got the directors’ attention. They had an overview of multiple plausible scenarios in a single and organic picture. No doubt the Bow‐Tie method helped directors address measures to avoid unpleasant consequences such as loss of life, business interruptions, reputational damage, and so forth. Without such a clear and powerful tool, it would have been much more difficult. A personal thanks goes to Luca and Rosario.
Preface 8
Salvatore Bagnato
Operations Manager – Ed.Ina Donje Svetice
In both the daily aspects of social life and in the management of issues relating to the life of companies, there is often confusion between the terms risk and hazard.
The meaning of the word hazard can be confusing. Often dictionaries do not give specific definitions or combine it with the term risk, which helps explain why many people use the terms interchangeably and, therefore, often incorrectly.
There are many definitions of danger and risk. Still, among them, we will propose the one relating to the new ISO 45000, since management systems today represent an essential aspect of the organization of any company that wishes to achieve its business objectives. Today, it is impossible to separate the economic issues from those concerning the health and safety of workers as well as respect for and protection of the environment.
ISO 45001 defines a hazard as a “source or situation with a potential to cause injury and ill health,” while the risk is defined as the “combination of the likelihood of occurrence of a work‐related hazardous event or exposure(s) and the severity of injury and ill health that can be caused by the event or exposures.”
So, the hazard is the feature of the process that can harm an individual, and the risk is the likelihood that it will happen, along with how severe the consequences will be.
The risk assessment process is also, in this case, an intrinsic component of each person’s life and allows, consciously or unconsciously, to manage risks of any nature (related to health, economics, etc.) by operating with preventive actions (to reduce the probability that an event is assessed to happen) or mitigative (to minimize the effects that this event can cause).
The process of risk assessment is somewhat informal at the individual social level but can become a sophisticated process at the strategic corporate level. However, in both cases, the ability to anticipate future events and create effective strategies for mitigating them when deemed unacceptable is vital.
Risk assessment is the process that:
Identifies hazards and risk factors that have the potential to cause harm (hazard identification).
Analyzes and evaluates the risk associated with that hazard (risk analysis and risk evaluation).
Determines appropriate ways to eliminate the hazard or control the risk when the hazard cannot be removed (risk control).
In many companies now, the risk is fully integrated into the strategic planning process and in the context of the organization’s performance. Risk management is permeated within the company, determining those changes that can transform the negative potential that could lead to crises or failures into growth opportunities.
In
