In this podcast episode, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss the concept of risk appetite versus zero harm and the confusion it creates at board levels because they&apos;re trying to put all of their risk issues into a single statement. They discuss how a risk appetite is about balancing risk and reward, whereas zero harm is about nothing bad happening, and this gets uncomfortable when applying risk appetite to human safety.  The outline the commonly applied risk paradigms and how a synthesis of risk appetite in commercial and safety practice does occur in project due diligence. For more information about Richard &amp; Gaye&apos;s due diligence work, head to https://www.r2a.com.au

How Standards stifle innovation

Due Diligence and Risk Engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss governance in an engineering context.Richard &amp; Gaye are co-directors at R2A and have seen the risk business industry become very complex. The OHS/WHS 'business', in particular, has turned into an industry, that appears to be costing an awful lot of organisations an awful lot of money for very little result.&nbsp;Richard &amp; Gaye's point of difference is that they come from the Common Law viewpoint of what would be expected to be done in the event that something happens. Which is very, very different from just applying the risk management standard (for example).&nbsp;They combine common law and risk management to come to a due diligence process to make organisations look at what their risk issues are and, more importantly, what they have to have in place to manage these things.Due diligence is a governance exercise. You can't always be right, but what the courts demand of you is that you're always diligent&nbsp;