Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Third‐Party Inspection as an Alternative to Command and Control Regulation

2002; Wiley; Volume: 22; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/0272-4332.00029

1539-6924

Howard Kunreuther, Patrick J. McNulty, Yong Kang,

Regulation and Compliance Studies

Risk AnalysisVolume 22, Issue 2 p. 309-318 Third-Party Inspection as an Alternative to Command and Control Regulation Howard C. Kunreuther, Corresponding Author Howard C. Kunreuther*Address correspondence to Howard C. Kunreuther, The Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 1325 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6366.Search for more papers by this authorPatrick J. McNulty, Patrick J. McNultySearch for more papers by this authorYong Kang, Yong KangSearch for more papers by this author Howard C. Kunreuther, Corresponding Author Howard C. Kunreuther*Address correspondence to Howard C. Kunreuther, The Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 1325 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6366.Search for more papers by this authorPatrick J. McNulty, Patrick J. McNultySearch for more papers by this authorYong Kang, Yong KangSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 October 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00029Citations: 16Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1 Coglianese, G., and Lazer, D. (2001). Management-based regulation: Using private sector management to achieve public goals. Regulatory Policy Program Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Google Scholar 2 Er, J. P., Kunreuther, H., and Rosenthal, I. (1998). Utilizing third-party inspections for preventing major chemical accidents. Risk Analysis, 18, 145–154. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00926.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3 Belke, J. (2001). The case for voluntary third party risk management program audits. Paper presented at the 2001 Process Plant Safety Symposium of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, April 23. Google Scholar 4 Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischhoff, B. (1984). Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents. Management Science, 30, 464–474. 10.1287/mnsc.30.4.464 Web of Science®Google Scholar 5 Camerer, C., and Kunreuther, H. (1989). Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8, 565–592. 10.2307/3325045 Web of Science®Google Scholar 6 Magat, W., Viscusi, W. K., and Huber, J. (1987). Risk-dollar tradeoffs, risk perceptions, and consumer behavior. In W. Viscusi & W. Magat (Eds.), Learning About Risk (pp. 83–97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar 7 Kunreuther, H., Novemsky, N., and Kahneman, D. (2001). Making low probabilities useful. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23, 103–120. Google Scholar 8 Huber, O., Wider, R., and Huber, O. (1997). Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. Acta Psychologica, 95, 15–29. 10.1016/S0001-6918(96)00028-5 Web of Science®Google Scholar 9 Ashford, N.A., and Stone, R.F. (1991). Liability, innovation, and safety in the chemical industry. In P.W. Huber and R.E. Litan (Eds.), The Liability Maze (pp. 367–427). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Google Scholar 10 Cohen, L., and Noll, R. (1981). The economics of building codes to resist seismic shocks. Public Policy, Winter, 1–29. Google Scholar 11 Kleindorfer, P., and Kunreuther, H. (1999). The complementary roles of mitigation and insurance in managing catastrophic risks. Risk Analysis, 19, 727–738. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00442.x Web of Science®Google Scholar 12 Bowman, E., and Kunreuther, H. (1988). Post Bhopal behavior of a chemical company. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 387–402. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00044.x Web of Science®Google Scholar 13 Shrivastava, P. (1987). Bhopal, Anatomy of a Crisis. NewYork: Ballinger Publishing Company. Google Scholar 14 Er, J. P. (1996). A third party approach to environmental regulation and possible roles for insurance companies. PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar 15 Moore, M., and Viscusi, K. (1990). Compensation Mechanisms for Job Risks: Wages, Workers' Compensation and Product Liability. PrincetonNJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar 16 Viscusi, W. K. (1991). Reforming Products Liability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar 17 Jin, G., and Leslie, P. (2001). The effects of disclosure regulation: Evidence from restaurants. Mimeo. Google Scholar 18 McNulty, P. J., Barrish, R. A., Antoff, R. C., and Schaller, L. C. (1999). Evaluating the use of third parties to measure process safety management in small firms. 1999 Annual Symposium, Mary Kay O'Connor Process & Safety Center, Texas, A&M University, October 26. Google Scholar 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Third party audit pilot project in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Final Report U.S. EPA Region III. Philadelphia, PA, February. Google Scholar 20 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (1989). 29 CFR Part 1908, Consultation Agreements, Final Rule, 49 FR 25094, June 19, 1984, as amended at 54 FR 24333, June 7, 1989. Google Scholar 21 Collins, L., et al. (in press). The insurance industry as a qualified third party auditor. Professional Safety. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume22, Issue2April 2002Pages 309-318 ReferencesRelatedInformation