When learners begin NEBOSH risk assessment practice, one of the easiest mistakes to make is writing hazards that are too broad.
A phrase such as “manual handling,” “chemicals,” “machinery,” or “slips and trips” may identify a general hazard category, but it does not explain what is actually happening in the workplace.
Good risk assessment writing starts with observation.
Instead of simply naming a hazard, describe the source of harm, the activity or condition creating the exposure, and the people who could be affected.
This is particularly important when practising for the practical side of NEBOSH GIC2. Your assessment should reflect the workplace you have actually observed rather than relying on generic examples found online.
If you are building your understanding of the wider process, see SFAST’s NEBOSH Risk Assessment Practical Guide and Risk Assessment Guide.
What Is a Generic Hazard?
A generic hazard is a description that is so broad that it gives little information about the actual workplace situation.
For example:
Manual handling
This tells the reader the general subject but not what workers are doing.
A more useful description could identify:
- What is being handled
- How it is being handled
- Where the activity takes place
- What creates the potential for harm
- Who may be exposed
The objective is not to make every hazard description unnecessarily long.
The objective is to make it specific enough to show what you actually observed.
Why Generic Hazard Wording Is Weak
A risk assessment should help someone understand the risk without having to guess what the writer means.
Consider:
Chemicals
What does this mean?
Is a worker:
- Mixing a cleaning product?
- Decanting a substance?
- Handling a container?
- Cleaning equipment?
- Working near chemical storage?
- Potentially exposed to fumes?
The word “chemicals” does not answer these questions.
Specific workplace observations provide much more useful information.
For example:
Cleaning staff may be exposed to chemical splashes while manually transferring cleaning products during routine cleaning activities.
This gives the reader a much clearer picture of the situation.
Generic vs Specific Hazard Wording
The difference becomes easier to understand when examples are placed side by side.
| Generic wording | More specific wording |
| Manual handling | Workers manually lift and carry boxes from the delivery area to storage shelving |
| Slips and trips | Loose packaging material is left on a pedestrian route during stock handling |
| Machinery | Operators may contact moving parts while using the production machine |
| Chemicals | Cleaning staff may be exposed to chemical splashes while transferring cleaning products |
| Forklifts | Forklifts operate in the same loading area as pedestrians |
| Work at height | Workers use a ladder to access stored materials at an elevated level |
| Electrical | Damaged cable insulation is present on electrical equipment used in the work area |
| Noise | Workers are exposed to high noise levels while operating equipment in the workshop |
| Fire | Combustible materials are stored close to a potential ignition source |
| Poor housekeeping | Materials and waste are obstructing part of an access route |
These examples are for learning purposes. A real assessment should describe the conditions you actually observe.
Start With the Workplace, Not the Hazard List
A common mistake is to begin with a list of hazards copied from a textbook.
For example:
- Manual handling
- Fire
- Chemicals
- Noise
- Machinery
This approach can encourage generic writing.
Instead, start by observing the workplace.
Ask:
What activities are taking place?
Then ask:
What could cause harm during those activities?
For example:
Workers unload deliveries.
Then consider:
What could go wrong during unloading?
Perhaps workers manually lift heavy boxes from a vehicle.
The hazard description can then become more specific:
Warehouse workers manually lift boxes from delivery vehicles, creating potential for musculoskeletal injury from awkward lifting and carrying.
The description comes from the activity rather than from a predetermined hazard list.
Use Observation to Improve Your Hazard Descriptions
A useful way to strengthen hazard wording is to follow a simple observation sequence.
1. What is happening?
Identify the activity.
2. What could cause harm?
Identify the hazard source.
3. How could someone be exposed?
Consider the interaction between the person and the hazard.
4. Who could be affected?
Identify the relevant people.
5. What harm could result?
Consider the potential outcome.
You do not necessarily need to include every element in one sentence, but thinking through each one helps you produce a more meaningful description.
Example: Manual Handling
Too generic
Manual handling.
This provides very little workplace information.
Better
Workers lift boxes manually.
This gives more information, but it remains fairly broad.
More specific
Warehouse workers repeatedly lift boxes from floor-level pallets and carry them to storage shelving, creating potential for back or other musculoskeletal injuries.
Now the reader can understand:
- Who is exposed
- What they are doing
- Where the activity occurs
- How exposure happens
- What type of harm could result
That is the level of thinking learners should practise.
Example: Slips and Trips
Too generic
Slips and trips.
This identifies a hazard category rather than a workplace condition.
Better
Workers may trip over materials.
Still vague.
More specific
Packaging materials are temporarily left in a pedestrian walkway during stock handling, creating a trip hazard for warehouse workers and visitors using the route.
The description connects the condition to the people who may encounter it.
Example: Chemicals
Too generic
Chemical exposure.
Better
Workers use cleaning chemicals.
More specific
Cleaning staff handle concentrated cleaning products during routine cleaning, creating potential for skin or eye exposure if the substance splashes during transfer or use.
Again, the important point is the actual workplace activity.
Example: Forklift and Pedestrian Movement
Too generic
Forklift hazard.
This does not explain the risk situation.
Better
Forklifts operate near pedestrians.
More specific
Forklifts and pedestrians use the same loading area during delivery activities, creating potential for vehicle-pedestrian collision.
This gives a much clearer picture of the interaction creating the risk.
You can then examine the existing controls and consider whether additional measures are appropriate.
For broader understanding of hazard and risk, see SFAST’s Hazard vs Risk guide.
Example: Work at Height
Too generic
Working at height.
Better
Workers use ladders.
More specific
Workers use a portable ladder to access materials stored on elevated shelving, creating potential for a fall during climbing or while reaching for stored items.
The specific activity makes it possible to consider the circumstances rather than simply naming the hazard category.
Don’t Confuse a Hazard With a Risk
Another reason generic wording causes problems is that learners sometimes mix up the hazard and the risk.
A hazard is something that has the potential to cause harm.
Risk considers the likelihood and potential consequences of that harm occurring in the circumstances.
For example:
Hazard:
Moving forklift operating in an area also used by pedestrians.
Risk:
A pedestrian could be struck by the forklift, potentially resulting in serious injury.
The hazard description should therefore identify the actual source or situation creating the potential for harm.
Avoid writing only:
High risk of accident.
That does not explain what is creating the risk.
Avoid Using “Accident” as the Hazard
“Accident” is an outcome, not usually a useful description of the hazard itself.
For example:
Accident involving machinery
does not tell the reader what needs to be controlled.
Instead, identify the source:
Operators may come into contact with moving machine parts during operation and cleaning activities.
Now the assessment can examine how that exposure is controlled.
Avoid Writing Only the Harm
The same principle applies when learners describe the injury instead of the hazard.
For example:
Back injury
This is a possible consequence, not a description of the hazard.
A stronger approach would identify the activity:
Workers repeatedly lift and carry heavy boxes between the delivery area and storage location, creating potential for musculoskeletal injury.
The harm remains relevant, but it is connected to the actual workplace exposure.
Avoid Turning Every Hazard Into “Lack of PPE”
Another common problem is writing:
Workers are not wearing PPE.
This may identify an observation, but it does not necessarily explain the underlying hazard.
Ask what workers are being exposed to.
For example:
Workers handle cleaning chemicals during routine cleaning activities.
You can then examine:
- Whether the substance can be substituted
- How it is stored
- How it is handled
- Whether ventilation is appropriate
- Whether procedures are available
- Whether workers have suitable information and training
- What PPE is appropriate
PPE may form part of the control strategy, but it should not replace identification of the underlying hazard.
SFAST’s Hierarchy of Controls guide provides further context on selecting stronger controls.
Make Your Hazard Specific Without Making It Too Long
Specific does not mean writing a paragraph for every hazard.
Compare:
Manual handling of boxes from floor-level pallets to storage shelving by warehouse workers may involve repeated bending, lifting and carrying, potentially resulting in musculoskeletal disorders, particularly where loads are heavy or awkward.
This may contain useful information, but the same idea can often be communicated more efficiently:
Warehouse workers repeatedly lift and carry heavy or awkward boxes from floor-level pallets to storage shelving, creating potential for musculoskeletal injury.
The second version is more concise while retaining the important workplace information.
Use the “Who, What, Where and How” Test
Before finalising a hazard description, ask four questions:
Who?
Who is exposed?
What?
What activity, condition, equipment or substance creates the hazard?
Where?
Where does the exposure occur?
How?
How could the person come into contact with the hazard?
For example:
Warehouse workers (who) manually move heavy boxes (what) between the loading area and storage shelves (where), creating potential for musculoskeletal injury during repeated lifting and carrying (how/harm).
You do not need to force these four words into every sentence. Use them as a thinking tool.
Generic Hazard Categories Can Still Help
This does not mean broad terms such as “manual handling” or “noise” are useless.
They can be helpful when:
- Organising your initial observations
- Grouping similar hazards
- Planning a workplace inspection
- Studying HSE topics
- Checking whether you have considered common hazard types
The problem occurs when the category is used as the final workplace hazard description without further detail.
Think of the category as the starting point, not the finished assessment entry.
How to Turn a Generic Hazard Into a Specific One
Use this simple progression:
Generic category → workplace activity → exposure → people affected → potential harm
Example
Generic:
Noise
Activity:
Workers operate powered equipment.
Exposure:
They work close to operating equipment for extended periods.
People:
Equipment operators and nearby workers.
Potential harm:
Hearing damage or other effects associated with excessive noise exposure.
Specific description:
Workers operate powered equipment in the workshop while other employees work nearby, creating potential exposure to excessive noise.
This process can be applied to many workplace hazards.
Practice With Your Own Observations
If you are preparing for NEBOSH GIC2, practise rewriting generic terms based on workplaces you can actually observe.
Take a category such as:
Housekeeping
Then ask what you can see.
Perhaps you observe:
Waste packaging accumulating beside a frequently used walkway.
You could then describe:
Waste packaging is accumulating beside a frequently used walkway, creating a potential trip hazard for workers using the route.
The description is now tied to a specific condition rather than a general category.
Don’t Invent Specific Details
There is an important balance between being specific and making assumptions.
If you did not observe something, don’t add it simply to make the hazard description sound more professional.
For example, avoid inventing:
- Exact weights
- Exposure times
- Number of workers
- Equipment specifications
- Injury history
- Previous incidents
- Measurements
- Control arrangements
unless you have reliable information supporting them.
A simple, accurate observation is stronger than a detailed description based on assumptions.
Generic Hazards Can Lead to Generic Controls
Weak hazard descriptions often produce weak control recommendations.
Consider:
Manual handling
A learner might respond:
Provide PPE and training.
But what needs controlling?
Once the hazard is described more clearly:
Workers repeatedly lift heavy boxes from floor-level pallets to storage shelving.
You can start thinking about the task itself.
Possible control considerations could include:
- Reducing manual movement
- Improving storage arrangements
- Using mechanical handling equipment where appropriate
- Changing the layout
- Reducing awkward lifting
- Reviewing task arrangements
- Providing suitable information and training
The actual controls should depend on the workplace assessment.
Think About the Control, Not Just the Hazard
After identifying a specific hazard, ask:
What is already controlling this risk?
Then:
What further improvement may be reasonably required?
This helps you move from simply listing hazards towards genuine risk assessment thinking.
For example:
Hazard:
Forklifts and pedestrians operate in the same loading area.
Existing control:
Marked pedestrian route.
Further consideration:
Assess whether physical segregation or improved traffic arrangements could further reduce interaction.
The recommendation should reflect the workplace rather than being a generic list.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
1. Writing only the hazard category
Chemicals
Better: Describe the relevant activity and exposure.
2. Describing only the injury
Back pain
Better: Identify the activity that could cause the injury.
3. Using “accident” as the hazard
Accident involving a forklift
Better: Describe the interaction between forklifts and pedestrians.
4. Copying online examples
Online examples can help you learn the concept, but they may not describe your workplace.
Use them for learning, not as a substitute for observation.
5. Adding details you did not observe
Specificity should come from evidence, not imagination.
6. Making every hazard excessively long
Specific writing should still be clear and concise.
7. Jumping straight to PPE
Identify the underlying hazard before deciding how it should be controlled.
A Quick Self-Check Before You Finalise a Hazard
Read your hazard description and ask:
Could someone unfamiliar with the workplace understand exactly what I am referring to?
Then check:
- Does it describe a real workplace situation?
- Is the activity or condition clear?
- Is the exposure understandable?
- Can I identify who may be harmed?
- Have I avoided vague words?
- Have I avoided unsupported assumptions?
- Have I separated the hazard from the potential harm?
- Can the existing controls be considered against this description?
- Could I explain where I observed it?
If the answer is yes, your wording is likely much stronger than simply writing a hazard category.
Final Thoughts
Strong NEBOSH risk assessment practice does not depend on using complicated language.
It depends on accurate observation and clear description.
Instead of writing:
“Manual handling”
describe the actual task.
Instead of:
“Chemicals”
describe how workers interact with the substance.
Instead of:
“Forklift hazard”
describe the vehicle-pedestrian interaction you observed.
The goal is not to produce the longest hazard description. The goal is to make the workplace situation clear enough that another person can understand what is happening, who may be exposed, and what needs to be considered.
For broader guidance on completing a workplace risk assessment, see SFAST’s NEBOSH Risk Assessment Practical Guide. You can also review the Risk Assessment Guide and Risk Assessment Template to understand how hazard descriptions fit into the wider assessment process.
Learn the category, but write what you actually see.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are generic hazards in NEBOSH GIC2 practice?
Generic hazards are broad descriptions such as “manual handling,” “chemicals,” “machinery” or “slips and trips” that do not explain the specific workplace activity or condition being assessed.
How can I make a hazard specific?
Start with what you observed. Identify the activity or condition, how people are exposed, who may be affected, and the potential harm. Then describe the situation clearly and concisely.
Should I write the potential injury in the hazard description?
The potential harm can be included where useful, but do not use the injury alone as the hazard. Describe the activity, condition, or source that could cause the harm.
Is “manual handling” a good hazard description?
“Manual handling” is a useful hazard category, but it is usually too broad as a final workplace description. Explain what workers are lifting, where they are doing it, and how the task creates exposure.
Can I use hazard examples from the internet?
Yes, examples can help you understand how to write specific hazards. However, your practical work should be based on the workplace and activities you actually assess rather than copied examples.
Should every hazard description be very detailed?
No. The aim is specific and clear, not unnecessarily long. Include enough information for the reader to understand the workplace situation without adding unsupported details.