I would personally refer to other SSoW & Guidance documents using page numbers and titles covering the hazard or even topic, i like to quote British Standards also.

Some of my risk assessments and espeically fire one's would go on and on and on, so referring to other documents but also giving the RP access to these documents makes it easier and in my opinion more efficient.

Thanks for your replies. I meant reference to your other risk assessments rather than to regulations/standards.

Of course you can cross-refer.
As RA is (meant to be) a management tool, to identify what measures are needed for identified risk, you can do it anyway you want. The objective is that the business is safe 'so far as is reasonably practicable' and compliant with specific requirements where these exist.
There are no set rules on how to do, or record. Bear in mind it is expected that managers assess risk, and it is 'good practice' to involve (or at least consult) the workforce, usually via competent supervisors.
Have a good look at the HSE guidance and FAQs on RA; sometimes we (SPs) forget to use the huge resource available from the enforcers.
There is also a wealth of discussion and a variety of opinion to be perused if you search this forum.

if there is a same typical hazard on second part of task , it is reasonable to cross reference ..but if you just cross referencing to another document..e.g Control measures in HSG guidance no....Come on no one would go to read it!

SHV

End users (beyond those conducting the assessment) would be those responsible for closing-out actions to enable a satisfactory mitigation of risk (SFARP). I would expect those responsible to have access to intranet etc. R/A = management tool and management process. SSoW = end user.

No, I was talking about hard copies. That is, our employee is delegated to work off site but the client required a risk assessment. Our employee takes hard copies of relevant RAs with him to the job.
So, again, I'm not asking if it's OK to include references to regulations/acops/etc. but to other RAs prepared by the same company (say all of them are in one folder, RA 2 can have ref in it to RA 10 if all hazards identified in RA 10 are relevant for RA 2 as well).

I am aware of the risk of possible "endless" referencing, e.g. RA2 refers to RA10, RA10 refers to RA 4, etc. but I'm talking about doing it reasonably and only when practical - instead of pasting 3 pages copied from another RA, you just refer the reader to it, that's all.

there are a number of parts to such areas;-

The academic exercise where cross referencing, quantity of documentation etc. is managed & in my view CR is OK and probably a must at this point to get a full picture

The day to day working situation where all the detail noted above is made as easily readable/workable etc. as possible to the worker e.g. large academic RA's etc. are turned into 1 'working' page at the most noting only the real risk points -- I have done this for years in all kinds of work complicated situations

And adequate training and management for all concerned

Good point RayRapp, I think it's better to put less information to address a particular hazard instead of referring to another document. I think the reference can be there just in case someone wants to get into more details regarding hazard controls

Thank you all for your input.