R&D Programme: Research Brief

Ethical basis of rail safety decisions (T230a)

Background
Although performance, cost and safety are
often cited as the three most important
factors to consider when making rail safety
decisions within the industry, society is not
always well informed about the underlying
principles upon which these decisions
hinge. Moreover, the public is not always
confident that decision makers put these
principles into practice. The purpose of this
research therefore is to pose the question
how should an ethically responsible
railway industry trade off performance, cost
and safety?
Conducted by Dr. Chris Elliot of Pitchill
Consulting and Tony Taig of TTAC, this
report is a companion piece to research
previously undertaken by Professor
Jonathan Wolff of University College
London (UCL); Railway safety and the
ethics of the tolerability of risk.

Aims
Developing an understanding of the
contribution that ethical considerations can
make to rail safety decisions is a key aim
of this research. By exploring the ethics of
decisions about rail safety it endeavours to
provide insights into societys views on
railway safety decisions and to investigate
the social contract between industry and
society, where one is the service provider
and the other is composed of people who
are citizens and potentially service users.
Furthermore, it sets out to explore the
necessity of establishing a permanent
advisory group for the rail industry on
ethical matters, perhaps analogous to the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Created on 15/02/2005 09:28

Method
Through comprehensive interviews, the
research approach investigates the views
of individuals with experience of ethical
approaches to risk in other industries and
walks of life. A literature review on related
issues and discussions among a small
project team comprising the authors and
key railway industry experts provided
further information to allow the authors to
arrive at their conclusions.

Findings
Outcomes of the research suggest that
outside of the railway industry there is little
understanding or appreciation of the
principles that underpin safety decision
making within the industry. It was found
that once these are explained, there is little
criticism of the principles by which the
railway takes safety decisions. However,
the practice of decision taking among
those consulted raises doubts and is
deemed unsatisfactory, as it does not
always appear to accord with the
principles.
In addition it was found that there currently
remains a gap in the process of safety
decision making relating to the involvement
of railway users and the public, both in
major decisions and in the framework,
process and criteria to be used for more
minor ones.
The research also highlights that whilst
ethics does not tell us what values to apply
in balancing safety against other factors
such as cost and performance, it does tell
us that the people affected by rail safety
decisions have a right to participate in
them, and that parliamentary democracy

Page 1 of 3

R&D Programme: Research Brief

and the formal licensing arrangements that

flow from it are not on their own sufficient
to ensure that right is realised.
It is argued that the duty of industrial
organisations, whose activities give rise to
risk, is not to judge what is acceptable on
behalf of society but to ensure that society
can be well informed in reaching such
judgements. In addition it is important that
these judgements can be communicated to
industry, and for industry to carry out its
duties competently so that safety is
maximised within the constraints society
agrees.
The railway industry has historically
approached consultation with the public by
communicating with democratically elected
Members of Parliament who were uniquely
authorised to speak on behalf of society.
The growth however of what is often
termed civil society embraces a much
wider group, encompassing passengers;
pressure groups; the press; local regional,
devolved and European government;
QUANGOs; unions; and investors and
shareholders. Building a social contract
with this wider constituency, it is argued,
requires the development of subtle and
sensitive techniques for stakeholder
engagement.

It appears therefore that there are two

missing elements in the current approach
to the ethical basis of rail safety decisionmaking:
1) How do we engage the public (including
people who are exposed to the risk), to
ensure that decisions are made in a way
that they consider reasonable?
2) How do we make certain that society
can be assured that the practice of railway
decision making accords with the
principles?
Finally, in relation to the enquiry regarding
the necessity of an ethics advisory group to
the rail industry, perhaps analogous to the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the report
concludes that it does not see the need for
a Nuffield Council approach. Neither does
the research advocate radical changes to
the way in which the rail industry behaves
or is regulated. What is argued however is
that it is for the rail industry itself to
continue its work on improving the way in
which safety decisions are taken, including
the way in which it engages with
stakeholders.

Next steps
The research establishes that the railway
industry has failed to build broad
consensus for its policies, in part it is
believed because it has failed to establish
mechanisms to consult society more
widely. Although the railway industry has
sought consultation with society through
social and economic research to determine
peoples willingness to pay to avoid
railway risks, it is argued that this is a very
limited
form
of
involvement.
This
participation presupposes a decision
framework in which the industry and
government decide, and the wider public
has a right to consultation only on a small
portion of the broad issues of principle.

Created on 15/02/2005 09:28

Building on these points, the report

encourages industry to lead the way in
establishing some form of social contract
on the basis of which the industry and its
funding and regulating organisations can
decide how to strike the balance between
performance, cost and safety, and
distinguish between:
a) Situations requiring explicit consultation
and involvement by a wider audience, and
b) Situations where the industry and its
funding and regulatory bodies can make
decisions
within
the
established
framework, but without requiring specific
wider consultation.

Page 2 of 3

R&D Programme: Research Brief

It is suggested that industry has a moral

duty to ensure that wider debate about
such matters is well informed, and also to
act competently to ensure that the mix of
safety, performance and cost is the best
that can be delivered within the agreed
social contract.
The report proposes
developing this work:

three

ways

of

extend the current programme of

research into ethics

target specific research at finding

ways of engaging the public, as
customers and as citizens, and

target
specific
research
at
improving the provision of public
information on rail safety.

improving safety decision making in

practice:
tools,
guidance,
competencies.

Contact
Alan Penter
Head of Management Research
R&D Programme
Rail Safety and Standards Board
research@rssb.co.uk

RSSB believes that this research provides

us with some new thinking that will help the
industry and its stakeholders escape from
the dangers of a sterile debate about
safety policy.
In terms of progressing the issues raised
within this report these proposals should
be seen in the context of a number of
workstreams in the RSSBs research
programme that are tackling these and
similar issues such as:

understanding ethical principles

and how to apply the lessons

understanding
the
current
framework, and making changes
where necessary

understanding
public
opinion,
involving the public and informing
them

modelling in support of strategic

decision making
improving structures, processes,
and criteria for safety decision
making, and

Created on 15/02/2005 09:28

Page 3 of 3