RFWC is simple a way of having a useful measure of risk. You are correct in saying most worse case consequencies can be set at death if you push it far enough. However, the requirement within Risk Assessment is to address all foreseeable risks, e.g. it is a realistic event. Two common problems with the risk matrix approach (Serv. x Likel) are firstly a mis-match of the two elements and secondly it only a tool to rank risk - not to justify it! Taking the first problem - the likelihood should match the severity. If you want to take a paper cut (a very likely event in an office) to death, then you need to use the likelyhood that a paper cut will occur, then turn septic, not be treated in time and then kill you (an extremely unlikely event!). A common problem is that people base the likelihood on the fact that something will occur and the severity as the 'worse case' outcome. Moving on to the second - the matrix system, and the resulting 'score' doesn't mean you are meeting legal compliance, you don't need to do anymore or even that the risk is unacceptable! It just gives you a relative indicator to use in your SFRP balance. It is a ranking tool - to assist in controlling risks. The resulting number, or colour means nothing in itself. As for IOSH having a position on this, I think the question is mute. It's a matter of reasonableness and the correct application of risk assessment technique. Tony.

I was always under the belief that safety is not managed on a 'worst case' scenario but the probable outcome. If you use the worst case concept then all accidents would have a fatal outcome! Health and safety is managed by doing what is practical, or reasonably practical; given the circumstances and case law dictates the only defence is one of foreseeability (save for a few exceptions). This does not require employers or safety practitioners to have a crystal ball either. Whilst we must often be mindful of the worst case scenario it should rarely come into the equation when completing risk assessments as it is normally the most unlikely outcome, hence in all probability an injury will occur but not leading to a death.

The most significant outcome in terms of risk isn't necessarily either the worst foreseeable consequence or the most likely consequence (which let's face it is often "nothing"). If you wanted to do it rigorously you would take the severity and probability of each outcome, put them separately into a finely-graduated risk matrix and see which one comes out highest. In practice it comes down to the approach Tony describes. "What is the worst outcome that you wouldn't consider outrageously unlucky?"