Ethical Critique of The Principle of ALARP As A Health, Safety and Environment Decision-Making Tool

Esang Lazarus Esitikot, Akaninyene Edet Ekong, Utibe Amos Ofon, Mfonobong David Udoudom, Kingsley Ekpo, Mary Ubong Umoh, Gerald Ndubuisi Okeke, Clement O. Obadimu and Anthony Akadi
Additional contact information
Esang Lazarus Esitikot: Highstone Global University, Texas, USA
Akaninyene Edet Ekong: Highstone Global University, Texas, USA
Utibe Amos Ofon: Institute of Health, Safety, Security and Environment Studies, University of Uyo, Nigeria
Mfonobong David Udoudom: General Studies Department, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria
Kingsley Ekpo: University of Essex, Colchester, England
Mary Ubong Umoh: Institute of Health, Safety, Security and Environment Studies, University of Uyo, Nigeria
Gerald Ndubuisi Okeke: Highstone Global University, Texas, USA
Clement O. Obadimu: Institute of Health, Safety, Security and Environment Studies, University of Uyo, Nigeria
Anthony Akadi: Institute of Health, Safety, Security and Environment Studies, University of Uyo, Nigeria

International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, 2025, vol. 14, issue 7, 550-556

Abstract: The principle of "As Low as Reasonably Practicable" (ALARP) has long served as a foundational tool in health, safety, and environmental (HSE) decision-making, particularly in high-risk industries. Grounded in cost–benefit logic, ALARP seeks to minimize risks unless further reduction would require disproportionate effort relative to benefit. This critical review analyzed the ethical strengths and weaknesses of ALARP through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontological duty, process integrity, and distributive justice. Drawing on recent literature and professional experience, the study identified that while ALARP promotes optimization, accountability, and continuous improvement, it also suffers from ethical limitations such as subjectivity, commodification of life and environment, lack of transparency, and potential injustice towards marginalized or vulnerable populations. The researchers argued that ALARP’s heavy reliance on cost–benefit analysis risks monetizing human life and environment and sidelining stakeholders consent especially in contexts where residual risks affect vulnerable groups or where the groups with potential exposure to the risk are not part of the decision makers. Recommendations include embedding ethical scrutiny, procedural fairness, and stakeholder participation into ALARP-based decisions, especially where AI or algorithmic systems are involved, to ensure morally sound and equitable HSE practices in an increasingly automated world.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ijltemas.in/DigitalLibrary/Vol.14Issue7/550-556.pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.ijltemas.in/papers/volume-14-issue-7/550-556.html (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bjb:journl:v:14:y:2025:i:7:p:550-556

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science is currently edited by Dr. Pawan Verma

More articles in International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science from International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science (IJLTEMAS)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dr. Pawan Verma ().