An overview of hazard identification and risk assessment in industrial safety (2015–2025): A narrative review

Nur Aini; Ratih Berliana; Lailatul Badriyah

doi:10.70347/svsthya.v2i6.154

Authors

Nur Aini Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitas Jambi https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1234-9018
Ratih Berliana Occupational Safety and Health Program, Politeknik Perkapalan Negeri Surabaya https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6653-226X
Lailatul Badriyah Occupational Safety and Health Program, Department of Environmental Health, Poltekkes Kemenkes Pontianak

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70347/svsthya.v2i6.154

Keywords:

hazard identification, risk assessment, occupational health, industrial safety, public safety, public health

Abstract

Hazard identification and risk assessment (HIRA) is a key element in occupational health and safety (OHS) and industrial safety systems, particularly in high-risk industrial sectors with complex processes and dynamic operations. Over the past decade, various methodological developments have been proposed, but their application remains scattered and not optimally integrated. This narrative review aims to synthesize and critically examine research findings related to the application of HIRA and risk assessment methods in the context of occupational and industrial safety and health. This study employed a narrative-review approach. A structured literature search was conducted through the ScienceDirect database for articles published between 2015 and 2025 via a combination of keywords related to hazard identification, risk assessment, occupational safety, and the industrial context. From the 2,093 publications obtained in the initial stage, a multistep screening process was conducted based on relevance, inclusion criteria, full-text evaluation, and conceptual assessment, ultimately yielding 15 core articles for the qualitative synthesis. The synthesis results revealed that the methodological depth of HIRA implementation significantly impacts the quality of OHS decision-making support. Hybrid methods (e.g., fuzzy Bayesian networks integrated with HFACS) demonstrated 15–30% higher accuracy in hazard prioritization than standalone qualitative matrices did. The effectiveness of the method is highly dependent on the system complexity, hazard characteristics, and maturity level of the organization. This narrative review demonstrates a paradigm shift from HIRA as an administrative obligation to HIRA as a strategic, risk-based tool to support OHS decision-making. An adaptive, integrated, and decision-oriented risk assessment approach provides a stronger foundation for developing an effective and sustainable safety management system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Nur Aini, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitas Jambi

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitas Jambi

Ratih Berliana, Occupational Safety and Health Program, Politeknik Perkapalan Negeri Surabaya

Occupational Safety and Health Program, Politeknik Perkapalan Negeri Surabaya

Lailatul Badriyah, Occupational Safety and Health Program, Department of Environmental Health, Poltekkes Kemenkes Pontianak

Occupational Safety and Health Program, Department of Environmental Health, Poltekkes Kemenkes Pontianak

References

Masri D, Umar Abidin A, Brontowiyono W. Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining control occupational health and safety (OHS) in foundry industry, Yogyakarta. J Teknik Lingkungan 2022;28:1–11. https://doi.org/10.5614/j.tl.2022.28.2.1.

Jamil Z, Nordin S, Miraj M, Alqahtani M, Shaik RA, Akhter S, Nizam Isha AS. Sustainable safety practices and hazard management in the oil and gas industry: an HSE perspective. Front Public Health 2025;13:e1611106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1611106.

Priyoasmoro CH, Zulkifli Djunaidi. Analysis of factors influencing work accidents among workers at exploitation facilities and offshore oil and gas production at PT X from 2018 – 2023. Media Publ Prom Kesehat Indones 2024;7:1834–47. https://doi.org/10.56338/mppki.v7i7.5370.

Liu S, Nkrumah ENK, Akoto LS, Gyabeng E, Nkrumah E. The state of occupational health and safety management frameworks (OHSMF) and occupational injuries and accidents in the ghanaian oil and gas industry: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:6354895. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6354895.

Derdowski LA, Mathisen GE. Psychosocial factors and safety in high-risk industries: A systematic literature review. Saf Sci 2023;157:105948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105948.

Rout B, Sikdar B. Hazard identification, risk assessment, and control measures as an effective tool of occupational health assessment of hazardous process in an iron ore pelletizing industry. Indian J Occup Environ Med 2017;21:56. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_19_16.

Adnyana IMDM. Agent Fisik. In: Nasution AS, editor. Epidemiologi dasar. 1st ed., Malang: Future Science Publisher; 2024, p. 131–51.

Bęś P, Strzałkowski P, Górniak-Zimroz J, Szóstak M, Janiszewski M. Innovative Technologies to improve occupational safety in mining and construction industries—part I. Sensors 2025;25:5201. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165201.

Patradhiani RP, Maimana. Assessment of human factors causes of occupational risk in the chemical industry using the analytic network process (ANP) method. Int J Sci, Tech Manag 2021;2:2086–96. https://doi.org/10.46729/ijstm.v2i6.373.

Maier A, Burnham T, DeLeo P, Lynch H. Many paths to one goal for occupational risk assessment: Insights from a practitioner dialogue. J Occup Environ Hyg 2025:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2025.2529978.

Whittaker MH. Risk assessment and alternatives assessment: Comparing two methodologies. Risk analysis 2015;35:2129–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12549.

Gul M, Ak MF. A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. J Clean Prod 2018;196:653–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.06.106.

Pinciroli L, Hosseini SA, Chen M, Mesa MVC, Coscia TM, Futalef J-P, Marchetti S, Miqueles L, Menza ST, Zio E. Risk assessment for modern industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2026;269:112126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.112126.

Kumar A, Singh SK, Samanta B, Bhattcherjee A. Risk assessment in sociotechnical systems based on functional resonance analysis method and hierarchical fuzzy inference tree. Sci Rep 2025;15:23827. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10063-5.

Hunt D, Naweed A. The risk of risk assessments: Investigating dangerous workshop biases through a socio-technical systems model. Saf Sci 2023;157:105918. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSCI.2022.105918.

Hunt D, Naweed A. The risk of risk assessments: Investigating dangerous workshop biases through a socio-technical systems model. Saf Sci 2023;157:105918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105918.

Naidoo CM, Obi CL, Mkolo NM. Future trends and innovations. Cases on AI Innovations in Occupational Health and Safety. 1st ed., Hershey, Pennsylvania, AS: IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025, p. 115–40. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9301-7.ch006.

Junjia Y, Alias AH, Haron NA, Abu Bakar N. A Bibliometrics-based systematic review of safety risk assessment for IBS hoisting construction. Buildings 2023;13:1853. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071853.

Medaa E, Shirzadi Javid AA, Malekitabar H. Evolution of risk analysis approaches in construction disasters: A systematic review of construction accidents from 2010 to 2025. Buildings 2025;15:3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15203701.

Kabiesz P, Płaza G, Jamil T. Modern technologies in occupational health and safety training: An analysis of education, innovation, and sustainable work practices in industry. Sustainability 2025;17:7305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167305.

Su X, Chau KY, Ho G, Yip HT, Tang YM. A bibliometric study on technology usage for occupational safety and health risk assessment in construction industry. J Asian Arch Buil Eng 2025:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2025.2499727.

Shah IA, Mishra S. Artificial intelligence in advancing occupational health and safety: an encapsulation of developments. J Occup Health 2024;66:uiad017. https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiad017.

Mahat D, Neupane D, Shrestha SK. A decade in focus: occupational health and safety research trends - a bibliometric approach. Int J Occup Saf Health 2025;15:308–26. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijosh.v15i2.64809.

Mu M, Hao J, Li J, Li J. Identifying and classifying data risk sources and triggering events: A conceptual two-stage method for risk-aware data governance. J Manag Sci Eng 2025;10:656–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2025.07.003.

He Q, Zhang W. Algorithm selection model based on fuzzy multi-criteria decision in big data information mining. Demonstratio Mathematica 2024;57:e156. https://doi.org/10.1515/dema-2023-0156.

Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi S, Shaffiee Haghshenas S, Vahabzadeh S, Guido G, Geem ZW. An integrated MCDM approach for enhancing efficiency in connected autonomous vehicles through augmented intelligence and IoT integration. Results Eng 2024;23:102626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102626.

Aydin N, Cari M, Kara B, Ayyildiz E. A review of artificial intelligence-enhanced Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approaches for sustainable transportation planning. Comp Mat Continua 2025;85:2625–50. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2025.067290.

Li T, Sun J, Fei L. Application of multiple-criteria decision-making technology in emergency decision-making: Uncertainty, heterogeneity, dynamicity, and interaction. Mathematics 2025;13:731. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13050731.

Sahoo SK, Goswami SS. A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances 2023;1:25–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237.

Paulus AY, Sulaeman, Mayasari AC, Ayu JD, Musniati N, Sari MP, Hamdan DF, Farid A, Selly JB, Amalia N, Aulia U, Adnyana IMDM. Biostatistika Epidemiologi. 1st ed. Bandung: CV. Media Sains Indonesia; 2023.

Giménez J, Bayarri B, Malato S, Peral J, Esplugas S. Occupational risk assessment in AOPs labs and management system that comply with UN sustainable development goals. Process Saf Environ Prot 2024;182:903–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2023.12.033.

Nwankwo CD, Theophilus SC, Arewa AO. A comparative analysis of process safety management (PSM) systems in the process industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2020;66:104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2020.104171.

Shanmugam K, Abdul Razak M. Assessment on process safety management implementation maturity among major hazard installations in Malaysia. Process Saf Environ Prot 2021;149:485–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2020.11.013.

Wang B, Zhou J, Wang Y. Enhancing process safety management through evidence-based process safety management (EBPSM): A theoretical framework and case analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2024;91:105381. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2024.105381.

Liaw HJ. Improved management practice and process hazard analysis techniques for minimizing likelihood of process safety incidents in Taiwan. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2023;81:104966. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2022.104966.

Chen Y, Zhang T, Long F, Wang R. Methodology for describing the whole process to accident based on entropy increase principle and Darwin’s Natural Selection. Process Saf Environ Prot 2023;172:165–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2023.02.011.

Fu G, Xie X, Jia Q, Li Z, Chen P, Ge Y. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model. Process Saf Environ Prot 2020;134:47–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2019.11.027.

Sultana S, Andersen BS, Haugen S. Identifying safety indicators for safety performance measurement using a system engineering approach. Process Saf Environ Prot 2019;128:107–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2019.05.047.

Sattari F, Lefsrud L, Kurian D, Macciotta R. A theoretical framework for data-driven artificial intelligence decision making for enhancing the asset integrity management system in the oil & gas sector. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2022;74:104648. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2021.104648.

Liu Q, Meng X, Li X, Luo X. Risk precontrol continuum and risk gradient control in underground coal mining. Process Saf Environ Prot 2019;129:210–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2019.06.031.

Jaafar MN, Rosli MI, Nordin D, Buhari J. Systematic literature review on the risk assessment of ammonia refrigeration systems in the food industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2025;96:105629. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105629.

Omidi L, Zakerian SA, Nasl Saraji J, Hadavandi E, Yekaninejad MS. Safety performance assessment among control room operators based on feature extraction and genetic fuzzy system in the process industry. Process Saf Environ Prot 2018;116:590–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2018.03.014.

Kidam K, Sahak HA, Hassim MH, Shahlan SS, Hurme M. Inherently safer design review and their timing during chemical process development and design. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;42:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2015.09.016.

Ying So W, Hassim MH, Ahmad SI, Rashid R. Inherent occupational health assessment index for research and development stage of process design. Process Saf Environ Prot 2021;147:103–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSEP.2020.09.015.

Ghasemi F, Gholamizadeh K, Farjadnia A, Sedighizadeh A, Kalatpour O. Human and organizational failures analysis in process industries using FBN-HFACS model: Learning from a toxic gas leakage accident. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2022;78:104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JLP.2022.104823.

Cahyadi A, Marwa T, Poór J, Maulana A, Szabó K. High-involvement human resource management practices and employee resilience: The mediating role of employee technology adaptation—a case study of South Sumatra. Adm Sci 2024;14:292. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110292.

Mohsendokht M, Li H, Kontovas C, Chang C-H, Qu Z, Yang Z. Systemic risk analysis of complex socio-technical systems from the safety-II perspective. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2026;270:112200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112200.