As low as reasonably practicable

A CBA exercise, in the context of ALARP, must have a means of assigning financial values to impacts to the environment, physical assets, production stoppage, company reputation, etc., which also presents significant challenges to the analyst.

[6] Including gross disproportion means that an ALARP judgement in the UK is not a simple cost benefit analysis, but is weighted to favour carrying out the safety improvement.

[7] The ALARP or ALARA principle is mandated by particular legislation in some countries outside the UK, including Australia, the Netherlands and Norway.

Where the ALARP principle is used, it may not have the same implications as in the UK, as "reasonably practicable" may be interpreted according to the local culture, without introducing the concept of gross disproportionality.

[11][12] The ALARP concept can be interpreted to promote financial consideration in higher regard than of the requirements of safety and performance of medical devices[citation needed].

Contradicting this approach, AFAP requires that all ventures of safety must be addressed in the intent of the consumer and effectiveness of the product rather than capital gain of the corporation.

[citation needed] In Australia the Work Health & Safety Act 2011 introduced the term So Far As Is Reasonably Practical (SFAIRP) based on the UK legislation.

[13] A two-year legal battle in the European Court of Justice resulted in the SFAIRP principle being upheld on 18 January 2007.

[14] The European Commission had claimed that the SFAIRP wording in the Health & Safety at Work Act did not fully implement the requirements of the Framework Directive.

[14][15] Had the case been upheld, it would have called into question the proportionate approach to safety risk management embodied in the ALARP principle.