Chris definition works at a macro level.

But here we are dealing with safety. And safety has to have a people focus. Therefore I reckon a definition must include people for it to have an impact.

Some thing's in life we know, some things we don't. Same with foreseeability. And these influence certainty / uncertainty.

So I'd refine it to something like "The effect of a series of events that impact on a persons safety"

I agree with that definition. Risk is bigger than safety. All too often when we talk of risk, we like to silo out safety, when in fact, risks all overlap.
A company that is struggling to manage its financial risks isn't in a good position to manage its safety risks. High staff turnover has financial, compliance, as well as safety risks.

How many companies specifically spell out what their objectives are when it comes to safety? When you know what your objectives are, then the definition above makes sense.

I think the answer is that it depends.

Chris's definition is from the ISO31000 risk management standard, and is very useful when you need a definition that applies across all situations. I've used it successfully when covering risk management across all arms of the business.

But I'm told that across the ISO body of standards there are something like 19 different definitions of risk. Which says to me that the definition of risk can and should change depending on the situation and circumstances.

So when discussing health and safety I often simplify it further. A hazard is something that could hurt you. A risk is the chance that exposure to the hazard causes harm.

From there, depending on the audience and what we're doing, I build on the hazard being a potential energy source, where and what the controls and barriers are to reduce exposure, and what types of harm could occur.

But, again, you need to allow risks to cross disciplines within an organisation. So, the risk that a hazard poses will vary depending on who you are talking to, and the context.
One of the best ways to get senior management's buy-in on safety issues is: Here's the hazard, and here is the safety risk it poses, here's the financial risk it poses, and here's the compliance risk it poses. Now, each of those have (or should have) their own objectives, sometimes directly at odds with each other, but they all need to have the same definition of risk for an integrated risk management policy to work.
I'd be interested to know how many here specifically set out their company's safety objectives and targets?

I agree with everyone - but really ... We still have trouble getting people to understand the difference between a hazard and risk. We do ask and expect a lot from people that are struggling with safety. My approach with teams in the field is still "what will hurt you today" closely followed by "what do we need to do to make sure that doesn't happen - or if it does, how do we make sure it won't kill you"? All the other terminology is great for trained safety professions but doesn't create a burning bridge for many.

Exactly right Wayne.

I can't disagree with the definition from a broader sense, but while it may be suitable for inclusion in a dictionary, from a health, safety, wellbeing or environmental perspective, it removes the notion that people will be in the firing line and makes it more about continuity of operations.

I wouldnt dare disagree with any of the statements, let alone Chris :)

However, I would add that agreed with above, its how we relate the terms from ISO or other formal documentation and make it relevant to those we are trying to educate or apply these terms in a meaningful way.

To me, if any event takes a series of links in a chain to happen, removing as many of those links as possible reduces the risk of that, or other, events (hazards/harm) from happening.

Relate back to Plan, Act, Do, Check. rinse and repeat.

I agree with the definition. Which I then think leads to our roles in H&S being to help people achieve their objectives... safely. This puts the focus on achieving objectives which is the WIIFM factor that ideally draws people into participating in the H&S process. Our focus may be H&S, but the key focus should never be H&S which is only one of the many risks around achieving the objective.

This leads to the continuity of operations, identifies the burning bridge, allows cross discipline, and the overlapping risk considerations.

Our goal should be to have people always consider (and action) H&S when they are planning on how they will achieve their objectives. I think this is a different goal than trying to teach people to be safe.

I agree with the comments so far. Chris's definition defines risk with a broad scope and encompasses more situations and activities than health and safety alone.

It wouldnt fly in my organisation when it comes to engaging with workers and helping them understand risk. Just as it is a broad definition for Chris, it would be too abstract for many of my workers to easily understand. I tend to phrase hazards and risk more as "What are the things in <this job> that can hurt you? How likely is this <thing> to hurt you?"

The definition works at a higher level. You would expect managers and Directors to be taking a more broad view of the subject.

I completely agree. If carrying out operations successfully and safely aren't in a company's objectives, then that indicates to me that safety is in its own silo.
Likewise, if profitability isn't acknowledged within safety goals.

Take the Lockerbie disaster for example, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988. No one would consider it an accident, it was most definitely a terrorist incident where 270 people died. — Andy Huntley

If you look at the CAANZ definition of an accident, it specifically excludes "when the injuries are self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to passengers and crew". Something like the Lockerbie bombing isn't classed as an aviation accident.
Our definition only starts from when a person boards an aircraft with the intention of flight to when the disembark. Other times, Worksafe's definition applies.

CAANZ's defintion of an incident is: "any occurrence, other than an accident, that is associated with the operation of an aircraft and affects or could affect the safety of operation"