Writing a risk assessment is not just about identifying a hazard. You also need to describe the hazard, potential harm, existing controls and further actions clearly enough for another person to understand the situation.
For learners preparing for NEBOSH GIC2, one useful practice exercise is to identify vague or weak wording and consider how it could be made more specific.
Phrases such as “be careful,” “unsafe area,” “use PPE,” or “improve safety” may sound appropriate, but they often provide little information about the actual workplace problem or the action required.
This does not mean every short phrase is automatically wrong. The important question is whether the wording communicates enough practical information about the risk and its control.
This guide looks at common weak phrases in risk assessment writing and how to develop stronger thinking around them, without providing ready-made answers for submission.
Why Risk Assessment Wording Matters
A risk assessment should help people understand what could cause harm and what can be done to control it.
HSE guidance recommends identifying hazards, considering who might be harmed and how, evaluating risks, recording significant findings and reviewing the assessment.
If the wording is too vague, it becomes difficult to understand:
- What the actual hazard is
- Where or when exposure occurs
- Who may be affected
- What harm could occur
- Which controls already exist
- What further action is needed
For NEBOSH learners, developing specific workplace language is therefore an important part of learning how to apply risk assessment principles.
1. “Be Careful”
“Be careful” is one of the most common weak phrases.
The problem is that it does not explain what people should be careful about or how the risk should be controlled.
For example:
Weak thinking:
“Workers should be careful around moving vehicles.”
A better approach is to ask:
- What vehicles are moving?
- Where do pedestrians encounter them?
- What could happen?
- What control currently separates people from vehicles?
- Is additional segregation needed?
The aim is not simply to replace “be careful” with a longer sentence. The aim is to identify the specific risk and practical control.
2. “Unsafe Area”
“Unsafe area” identifies a concern but does not identify the hazard.
Imagine an inspection finds a pedestrian route partially obstructed by stored materials.
Writing only:
“Unsafe area.”
does not tell the reader what makes the area unsafe.
Instead, think about:
Condition → exposure → potential harm → control
For example, ask yourself:
- What is obstructing the area?
- Who needs to use the route?
- What could happen because of the obstruction?
- What should be done to remove or control the obstruction?
This produces much more useful risk assessment thinking.
3. “Use PPE”
PPE can be an important control, but “use PPE” is often too generic when used as the entire control recommendation.
HSE explains that PPE should be considered within a wider approach to controlling workplace risks rather than being treated as the only solution.
When you see a PPE-related hazard, ask:
- What is the source of the hazard?
- Can exposure be eliminated?
- Can the task or material be changed?
- Can engineering controls reduce exposure?
- Are administrative controls required?
- What PPE is appropriate if residual exposure remains?
For example, simply writing “use PPE” for a chemical cleaning activity does not explain the control strategy.
Your practice should instead consider the specific exposure and the controls appropriate to that exposure.
You can explore this further through SFAST’s Hierarchy of Controls.
4. “Improve Housekeeping”
“Improve housekeeping” sounds reasonable but does not identify the problem or the required improvement.
Suppose you observe materials stored in a walkway.
Instead of stopping at:
“Improve housekeeping.”
consider:
- What materials are creating the problem?
- Where are they stored?
- Who uses the walkway?
- What could happen?
- What change would remove the obstruction?
The resulting action should be specific enough that a responsible person understands what needs to be addressed.
5. “Provide Training”
Training can be an appropriate control, but it should not automatically be used whenever a hazard is identified.
Ask why training is needed.
For example:
- Are workers unfamiliar with a procedure?
- Is equipment being used incorrectly?
- Are workers failing to recognise a particular hazard?
- Is there evidence that existing instructions are not understood?
Training may support other controls, but it may not remove the hazard itself.
If the underlying problem is poorly designed equipment or inadequate physical protection, simply saying “provide training” may leave the main source of risk unchanged.
6. “Improve Safety”
“Improve safety” is too broad to function as a useful action.
Safety improvement should relate to a particular problem.
A better way to think about the phrase is:
What exactly needs to improve?
For example, if your observation concerns pedestrian movement near vehicles, consider whether the required improvement relates to:
- Traffic routes
- Physical segregation
- Visibility
- Vehicle movement arrangements
- Access control
- Worker communication
The specific action should come from the hazard you identified.
7. “Make Workers Aware”
Worker awareness can be useful, but “make workers aware” does not explain what workers need to know or what behaviour or procedure should change.
Ask:
- Aware of what?
- Which workers?
- At what point in the task?
- What information or instruction is required?
- How will the control support the risk reduction?
This turns a vague idea into a practical control-planning exercise.
8. “Use Warning Signs”
Warning signs can communicate hazards, but a sign does not necessarily remove the underlying risk.
For example, if pedestrians and forklifts operate in the same area, a sign warning people about forklifts may provide useful information. However, you should still consider whether stronger controls are reasonably practicable.
This is where the hierarchy of controls becomes useful.
HSE’s approach encourages consideration of how risks can be eliminated or controlled at source rather than relying solely on warnings or individual behaviour.
9. “Monitor the Area”
“Monitor the area” can be meaningful only when you explain what is being monitored and why.
Ask:
- What condition is being monitored?
- Who is responsible?
- How frequently should checks occur?
- What happens when a problem is found?
- Is monitoring being used alongside a more direct control?
Monitoring should support risk control rather than become a substitute for addressing an obvious hazard.
10. “Check Equipment Regularly”
Regular checks can be valuable, but the phrase is incomplete without understanding what should be checked.
For example, if equipment presents a mechanical risk, your practice should consider:
- What equipment is involved?
- Which component or condition creates concern?
- What type of inspection is appropriate?
- Who should carry it out?
- What should happen if a defect is identified?
The exact inspection arrangements will depend on the equipment and workplace.
11. “Follow Procedures”
Procedures can be an important administrative control, but simply writing “follow procedures” does not identify which procedure or how it addresses the hazard.
If a risk exists because workers perform a task inconsistently, consider what procedure, instruction or safe working arrangement is relevant.
Then ask whether the procedure is:
- Available
- Suitable
- Understood
- Communicated
- Followed in practice
- Reviewed when circumstances change
Weak Hazard Descriptions vs Specific Thinking
Weak wording is not limited to control measures. Hazard descriptions can also be too broad.
Consider these examples:
| Weak phrase | Questions to ask |
| “Manual handling” | What is being lifted, carried or moved? |
| “Electricity” | What electrical equipment or condition creates the hazard? |
| “Fire” | What could cause ignition or contribute to fire spread? |
| “Chemicals” | Which substance or exposure route creates concern? |
| “Working at height” | What task involves height and what could cause a fall? |
| “Slippery floor” | Where is the floor slippery and why? |
| “Forklift hazard” | What vehicle movement or interaction creates exposure? |
The objective is to move from a hazard category to a specific workplace observation.
SFAST’s Risk Assessment Guide provides broader guidance on the risk assessment process.
A Simple Formula for Stronger Risk Assessment Thinking
When a phrase feels too vague, use this sequence:
1. What did I observe?
Describe the actual workplace condition or activity.
2. What is the hazard?
Identify what has the potential to cause harm.
3. Who could be harmed?
Identify the relevant people exposed to the hazard.
4. How could they be harmed?
Connect exposure to a realistic type of injury or ill health.
5. What controls already exist?
Record controls that are genuinely present.
6. What could further reduce the risk?
Consider additional controls using the hierarchy of controls.
7. What action is needed?
Describe the practical improvement rather than using a general instruction.
This process helps you develop your own assessment rather than searching for phrases to copy.
A Few More Weak Phrases to Watch For
During practice, look out for phrases such as:
- “Take care.”
- “Work safely.”
- “Use proper equipment.”
- “Be aware.”
- “Improve conditions.”
- “Keep area safe.”
- “Follow safety rules.”
- “Use appropriate PPE.”
- “Provide supervision.”
- “Check regularly.”
- “Avoid accidents.”
- “Make sure everything is safe.”
None of these phrases is necessarily useless in every context. The problem occurs when they are used without enough detail to explain the hazard or action.
For each one, ask:
What specifically needs to happen, where, why and for whom?
That question can quickly expose vague wording.
Do Not Turn Every Phrase Into a Longer Phrase
There is also a danger in trying to make every sentence longer simply to appear more detailed.
Good risk assessment wording is not about using complicated vocabulary.
It is about being:
- Specific
- Relevant
- Evidence-based
- Practical
- Understandable
For example, replacing “be careful” with a paragraph of general safety language does not necessarily improve the assessment.
A short statement based on an actual observation can be much more useful.
Use the Hierarchy of Controls When Improving Weak Controls
One useful way to challenge weak control wording is to ask whether you have considered controls beyond worker behaviour and PPE.
The hierarchy generally moves from stronger approaches, such as eliminating a hazard, towards administrative controls and PPE.
For example:
Weak thinking:
“Workers should wear PPE when exposed.”
Stronger thinking process:
- Can the hazardous activity be eliminated?
- Can a safer material or method be substituted?
- Can engineering controls prevent exposure?
- Can work arrangements reduce exposure?
- What PPE is needed for remaining risk?
The hierarchy is not a writing formula, but it is a useful way to challenge your first control idea.
How to Review Your Own Practice Report
Once you have completed your practice assessment, review each entry and look for vague language.
Circle phrases such as:
- “Be careful”
- “Improve safety”
- “Use PPE”
- “Provide training”
- “Monitor”
- “Make workers aware”
- “Follow procedures”
Then ask whether each phrase answers the practical question:
What exactly needs to be done to control the identified risk?
Also check whether your proposed action is connected to the hazard you actually observed.
If the action could be copied unchanged into almost any workplace, it may need more workplace-specific thinking.
Keep Examples for Learning, Not Copying
Examples can be useful when learning how risk assessments are structured.
They can help you understand:
- The difference between a hazard and a risk
- How workplace observations are described
- How existing and further controls are separated
- How action planning works
- How the hierarchy of controls can influence control selection
But a completed example from another workplace should not become the basis of your own practical assessment.
Your GIC2 work should reflect the workplace and observations relevant to your assessment. NEBOSH provides official guidance and assessment information for its International General Certificate, so learners should use the current official resources and their Learning Partner’s instructions when preparing their assessment.
A Quick Weak-Phrase Check
Before finalising your practice work, scan your assessment for these questions:
Hazard: Is the hazard specific to what I observed?
People: Have I identified who may actually be exposed?
Harm: Have I explained how harm could occur?
Existing controls: Have I recorded controls that are actually present?
Further controls: Does the action address the source of the risk?
Specificity: Could someone understand exactly what needs attention?
Evidence: Is the entry based on my own workplace observation?
Ethics: Am I using examples for learning rather than copying someone else’s completed work?
This simple check can help you identify weak wording before you move on to the next stage of your preparation.
Final Thoughts
Good risk assessment writing does not require complicated language. It requires clear thinking about the workplace.
When you see a phrase such as “be careful,” “unsafe area,” “use PPE,” or “improve safety,” do not simply replace it with a longer sentence. Ask what the phrase is actually trying to communicate.
Identify the specific hazard, consider who could be harmed and how, examine the existing controls, and then think about practical further controls.
For more structured preparation, explore SFAST’s NEBOSH Risk Assessment Practical Guide and Risk Assessment Template.
If you are preparing for NEBOSH GIC2 and need guidance on building your practical risk assessment skills, you can contact SFAST near the end of your preparation journey for appropriate learner support.