The IRGC risk governance framework presented in Chapter 1 is a work in progress, a new model in Löfstedt’s and van Asselt’s words. Like any new model, its intellectual rigor and ultimately, its progression from the theoretical to the practical are indebted to open debate and constructive criticism. The many contributors to this volume provided a large variety of critical yet constructive comments and suggestions for improving the IRGC framework (Part 2). The diverse case studies in which the framework was applied retrospectively provided valuable insight to the practical utility of the framework (Part 3).

In the following sections, we would like to address first the conceptual issues that were raised in the formal comments because they are fundamental to the purpose of the framework. We then address comments about specific crucial components and phases of the risk governance framework, drawing on both the formal comments and observations from the case studies. In our response to comments, our goal at this point is time is to acknowledge where we may have fallen short and to provide clarification using language that will be more accessible to our readers. We know that there are some substantive issues that will clearly require additional theoretical and practical work but these are beyond the scope of this chapter.