This paper develops an approach considering parameters related to the societal acceptance of industrial risks, to determine an adjusted Disproportion Factor (DF∗), whereby the pre-existing calculation model of the Disproportion Factor (DF) developed by Goose (2006) is used as the basis. Our approach will allow companies to have a much more realistic perception and coloured picture of decision-making, where societal acceptability is fully integrated into the calculation process. This way, the decision will not only be more accurate, but also be more defensible. After a literature review, 11 indicators were identified as relevant within the framework of prevention of disasters in companies. Factor analysis confirmed that the 11 indicators represent a societal acceptability of risks (SAR) concept. By using a scoring system we explain how an adjusted DF∗ can be determined. An illustrative example is also given to show how the model can actually be used. This study thus provides a scoring system that could be used by risk managers in order to include the societal acceptability of risks (SAR) into economic analyses of industrial risks.

Decision-making under risk and uncertainty is not straightforward. This paper investigates how people make decisions when they need to choose between prevention and production investments and the decision involves risks and uncertainties that could have major negative consequences. A questionnaire was conducted among 405 students at the University of Antwerp, in Belgium. With regard to decision-making under risk, the findings reveal that the respondents behaved in a more risk-averse manner than predicted by the theory of expected values. Concerning decision-making under uncertainty, the respondents also displayed more risk-averse decision-making behaviour than anticipated, especially under circumstances of complete uncertainty. The study also shows that men are more likely to behave in a more risk-seeking manner than women are, and that people with a high intuitive thinking style are less risk-averse than people with a low intuitive thinking style. Furthermore, people with a high rational thinking style are more risk-averse than people with a low rational thinking style, and respondents with a high sensation-seeking style make decisions in a more risk-seeking way than respondents with a low sensation-seeking style.