Author: Terje Aven has been a Professor in Risk Science at the University of Stavanger, Norway since 1992. Previously he was also Professor (adjunct) in Risk Analysis at the University of Oslo and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He has many years of experience as a risk analyst in industry and as a consultant. He is the author of many books and papers in the field, covering both fundamental issues as well as practical risk analysis methods. Aven is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Risk and Reliability, and Area Editor of Risk analysis in Policy. He has served as President of the international Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) and Chairman of the European Safety and Reliability Association (ESRA) (2014-2018).
It is often claimed—particularly in social science contexts—that risk is a social construction. This statement is, I argue, wrong or at least imprecise. While the results of risk assessments (i.e., risk characterizations) and people’s risk perceptions are indeed shaped by social and cultural factors, this does not mean that risk as such is a social construction. It is essential to distinguish clearly between the concept of risk and the ways in which risk is measured, characterized, and perceived. When driving a car or making an investment, we face risk: something undesirable may occur. There should be no debate on that fundamental point. However, judgments about the magnitude or severity of a risk—whether in formal risk assessments or in individual risk perceptions—are inherently subjective and can vary significantly across analysts and laypeople. These judgments are influenced by social and cultural factors and can therefore be regarded as social constructions.
There are important differences in the degree of social influence. Risk perceptions are more heavily shaped by social and cultural factors than professional risk assessments. Unlike formal assessments, perceptions incorporate feelings, personal values, likes, and dislikes regarding aspects of the risk. Professional risk assessments, while guided by defined protocols and methodologies, still involve subjective elements—such as choices about study design, selection of relevant inputs, and the presentation and communication of results—that reflect social and cultural influences. These influences are, however, in general far less dominant than in the case of risk perception.
Unfortunately, contemporary risk discourse remains confused on these issues. The core problem is an unwillingness to be precise about what “risk” actually means. Clarity can only be achieved by explicitly relating the discussion to the risk perspective being adopted. The present analysis starts from the perspective endorsed by the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) in its glossary, which maintains a clear distinction between risk as a concept and how it is measured or described. If risk is instead defined through its measurement or description, it can be viewed as a social construction. This perspective is problematic, however, because it removes any reference point and incentive for improving risk characterizations.
Is this discussion important for risk science and practice? Yes—very much so. It concerns how we understand and communicate risk, which in turn shapes risk management. At stake are fundamental questions about the authority and role of science relative to management and politics, and about the legitimacy and power of risk science itself. Risk perception judgments can provide valuable input to decision-makers, but they must be recognized and valued for what they are: subjective appraisals. Professional risk analysts also offer judgments that contain subjective elements, yet these are not equivalent to perceptions, for the reasons outlined above.
Aven, T. (2026) A History of Risk Science. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/A-History-of-Risk-Science-Concepts-and-Principles-of-Risk-Analysis/Aven/p/book/9781032867977