When you’re responsible for people, risk decisions rarely feel theoretical. They show up as trade-offs.
What’s realistic.
What’s affordable.
What’s fast enough.
And what actually keeps people safe.
The risk control hierarchy exists to guide those decisions. It’s not a checklist. It’s a way of thinking about control measures in the right order — so effort and investment go where they have the greatest impact.
This article explains the hierarchy clearly, how to apply it in practice, and where organisations often get it wrong.
The risk control hierarchy ranks control measures from most effective to least effective. The principle is simple: the closer you get to removing the hazard entirely, the safer people become.
The hierarchy typically follows this order:
Elimination
Substitution
Engineering controls
Administrative controls
Personal protective equipment (PPE)
What matters isn’t memorising the list. What matters is understanding why the order exists — and how it should influence real decisions.
Many organisations jump straight to training, procedures, or PPE. These feel quick and visible. However, they rely heavily on people behaving perfectly, every time.
The hierarchy is designed to reduce reliance on human behaviour. Controls higher up the hierarchy remove risk at the source. Controls lower down manage exposure once the risk already exists.
If you’re carrying responsibility, this distinction matters. It’s the difference between hoping nothing goes wrong and building systems that fail safely.
Elimination sits at the top for a reason. If a hazard no longer exists, it can’t harm anyone.
In practice, elimination might mean:
Cancelling non-essential travel to high-risk locations
Removing hazardous tasks entirely
Changing operational models to avoid exposure
In travel and security contexts, elimination decisions often feel uncomfortable. Saying “no” can feel restrictive. Yet, in many cases, it’s the strongest duty-of-care decision you can make.
Risk assessments and remote threat assessments help you identify where elimination is genuinely possible — and where it isn’t.
When elimination isn’t realistic, substitution is the next best option. This means replacing a higher-risk activity with a safer alternative.
Examples include:
Using remote meetings instead of in-country visits
Changing routes, accommodation, or transport providers
Replacing higher-risk equipment or methods with safer ones
Substitution still removes part of the risk at source. It reduces exposure without relying solely on individual behaviour.
This is where tools like Aurora support better decisions, by showing real-time risk profiles across locations and routes.
Engineering controls focus on isolating people from hazards through design.
In operational settings, this might include:
Physical security barriers or access controls
Vehicle safety features and tracking systems
Medical infrastructure and evacuation pathways
Aviation safety standards and audited operators
These controls work regardless of how people feel or behave. Once implemented, they quietly reduce risk every day.
Engineering controls often require investment. However, they consistently deliver the strongest long-term protection.
Administrative controls sit lower in the hierarchy because they depend on people following rules under pressure.
They include:
Policies and procedures
Travel briefings and approvals
Incident reporting processes
Communication protocols through SIREN
These controls still matter. They provide structure and clarity. However, they work best when layered on top of stronger controls — not used as a substitute for them.
Personal protective equipment is the final layer. It doesn’t remove the hazard. It simply reduces harm if exposure occurs.
In security and travel contexts, PPE might include:
Protective clothing
Medical kits
Communications devices
Protective equipment for hostile environments
PPE has value, but it should never be the primary control. If risk management relies mainly on PPE, something higher up the hierarchy has been missed.
In practice, risk control rarely relies on one level alone. The safest environments use multiple layers, prioritised correctly.
For example:
Eliminate unnecessary travel
Substitute safer routes where travel is required
Engineer safety through secure transport and tracking
Support behaviour with briefings and communication
Provide PPE for residual risk
This layered approach aligns directly with ISO 31030 and modern Security & Travel Risk Management (STRM) frameworks.
The most common mistake is reversing the hierarchy. Organisations often start with training and PPE because they’re visible and fast.
Other gaps include:
Treating procedures as protection
Failing to revisit controls as conditions change
Applying the same controls everywhere, regardless of context
Separating safety, security, and medical planning
Effective risk control looks at the whole picture — people, environment, and response capability together.
The hierarchy works best when supported by live intelligence and response.
NGS connects control measures with:
Real-time monitoring through Aurora
Emergency communication via SIREN
24/7 medical and security operations
Evacuation and secure transport capability
This ensures controls don’t sit on paper. They operate when it matters.
The risk control hierarchy isn’t about perfection. It’s about prioritisation.
When you understand where controls sit, decisions become clearer. You know when a risk is genuinely managed — and when it’s merely tolerated.
That clarity helps you protect people, meet your duty of care, and act with confidence.
