Noise risk assessments within the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies

Background: The entire risk assessment process is fraught with methodological and technical uncertainties, exacerbated by the introduction in legislation of ambiguous technical terms such as adequately controlled and reasonably practicable. The combination of these factors renders the risk assessment process opaque regarding required employer actions for securing legal compliance within the noise risk assessment context.Aim: This study aims to evaluate how companies are applying and interpreting the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies within the context of hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) and noise risk assessment processes.Setting: Four manufacturing and utilities companies.Methods: The four companies, selected through convenience sampling, submitted noise risk assessment records for evaluation through document analysis to determine the companies’ interpretation of the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies.Results: In the reviewed noise risk assessment records, the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies were poorly discerned. Specifically, the hierarchical approach for noise control outlined in the noise induced hearing loss regulations, for which the basis for adequately controlled philosophy ensues, remains misinterpreted by employers. Furthermore, cost-benefit analysis, which enables decision-making on the tolerability of risk within the reasonably practicable philosophy, was also omitted in the assessments.Conclusion: The adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies were poorly applied and interpreted by the participating companies, to the detriment of tangible noise control.Contribution: This study provides insights on company application and interpretation of the adequately controlled and reasonably practicable philosophies, and HCPs, which contributes to inaction on noise control.