A hazard is something with the potential to cause harm. Risk concerns how likely that harm is and how serious it could be in the actual situation.
The difference at a glance
A hazard is something that could cause harm; risk concerns how likely that harm is and how serious it could be in the actual circumstances. A cable across a walkway is a trip hazard. The risk depends on who uses the route, their exposure and the controls in place. [1]
The distinction helps you write an assessment that leads to action. Naming a hazard identifies the problem; assessing risk explains who could be harmed, how and what needs to change. This guide uses ordinary workplace examples in Great Britain, not specialist assessment of a particular site.
| Feature | Hazard | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | What could cause harm? | How likely is harm, and how serious could it be? |
| Cable example | A trailing cable across the walking route | Someone may trip, fall and be injured; likelihood depends on use and controls |
| Description needed | Identify the thing, activity or condition | Identify people exposed, circumstances, likely harm and existing controls |
| Effect of a control | May remain present, or may be removed from the task | Can be reduced by preventing exposure or harm |
| Assessment role | Find the potential source of injury or illness | Decide what control action is needed |
| Shared purpose | Helps identify what needs attention | Helps turn that attention into practical protection |
The table separates identification from assessment and control. [1] [2]
Consider an invented example: a cable runs across the floor of a room. In the first situation the room is locked and unused. In the second, staff and visitors repeatedly cross that floor while carrying boxes. The cable has not changed, but exposure has. The second situation calls for attention to the walking route, sight lines and people passing through.
Do not describe risk only as “high” or “low” without the explanation. “Visitors could trip on the cable while entering reception” tells a colleague much more than “cable: medium”. It identifies a person, a route to harm and a condition that a control can address.
In this hypothetical office, a lamp’s cable crosses the route between a doorway and a desk. Moving the desk closer to a suitable socket and routing the cable behind it removes that cable from the walking route. The useful question afterwards is whether the route stays clear in normal use, including when the desk or lamp is moved.
The electricity and cable still exist, so this does not demonstrate that every hazard associated with the lamp has disappeared. It addresses the specified trip hazard. A control should be evaluated against the harm it is intended to prevent, rather than celebrated as “zero risk”.
Begin by considering whether the hazard can be removed. Where that is not possible, change the job, equipment, process or exposure to control the risk. Instructions and protective equipment can form part of protection, but naming them does not show that the underlying problem has been managed. [1] [2]
For the cable example, “tell everyone to be careful” leaves the obstruction in place. Routing it away from pedestrians directly changes the route to a trip. Decide who will make the change and when, then check that it works. This is the difference between listing a precaution and implementing a control.
Use each question to build a useful description. The example answers are illustrative; they do not certify your workplace.
Write “lamp cable crossing reception walkway”, not merely “reception”. A location tells you where to look; the hazard description tells you what could cause harm.
In our example, employees and visitors could catch a foot on the cable, fall and suffer an injury. Consider actual use and any people with particular requirements rather than assuming everyone encounters the route in the same way. [2]
Moving and routing the cable away from the walkway addresses the trip mechanism. Record who will do it, when, and how you will confirm the route remains clear. If the obstruction returns, the control needs review. [2]
If you employ five or more people, record significant findings, including hazards, who could be harmed and what controls you use. Having fewer than five does not remove the need to assess and control the risks. The practical control remains the point of the exercise. [1] [2]
Review controls when they may no longer work, when relevant workplace changes occur, or after problems, accidents or near misses. An old assessment is not enough if the desk has moved and the cable now crosses the route again. [2]
An injury is harm or a possible consequence. The hazard is what can cause it; the risk concerns the likelihood and seriousness of that harm in context. [1]
Sometimes, but not always. A change can keep people away from a hazard or prevent a particular route to harm while the underlying equipment remains.
No. Your task, people, equipment and controls need their own assessment. Larger or higher-risk activities need the relevant detailed guidance and competent help. [1] [2]
Sources reviewed on 4 October 2026. This article was prepared with AI assistance and checked against the linked sources. The featured image is an AI-generated editorial illustration. The worked examples and decision paths were written for this guide; they are not reports of tests or expert review.
Leadership builds direction and commitment; management organises people and resources to deliver. These are complementary activities, often carried out by the same person.
Workplace coaching often focuses on a specific performance goal through reflection and practice. Mentoring draws more explicitly on shared experience for development. The methods and timescales can overlap.
A P45 records pay and tax when you leave a job. A P60 is the annual record from an employer you work for on 5 April. Here is when each…