It’s not unusual for the terms RAMS, risk assessments, and safety procedures to be used interchangeably in the workplace. They are related, but they are not the same thing, and misunderstanding the difference can lead to gaps in how risk is managed.

Fundamentally, organisations use both to achieve the same outcome – work that is carried out safely, consistently, and in line with legal responsibilities. The difference between RAMS and general safety procedures lies in how the process is documented and applied.

What is a RAMS risk assessment?

RAMS stands for Risk Assessment and Method Statement. A RAMS document, therefore, usually has two parts:

• Risk assessment – A risk assessment is where hazards associated with a specific task are identified, guiding control measures put in place to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
  

• Method statement – The method statement describes how the work will actually be carried out step by step, including the controls that must be followed in practice.

So when people refer to a risk assessment method statement, or just RAMS, they are usually talking about a single combined document that sets out both the risks and the safe system of work for a specific activity.

Importantly, RAMS are task-focused. They are written for a particular job, often in a specific location, and are typically time-limited to that activity.

Related – The 5 steps of risk assessment – complete guide

What are general safety procedures – compared with RAMS?

General safety procedures sit at a different level than RAMS. Rather than being written for one specific task, they describe how safety is managed across an organisation on an ongoing basis. These may be formal procedures, policies, or standard operating practices.

Examples might include manual handling guidance, procedures for reporting incidents, or how employees are expected to set up and use display screen equipment.

Where RAMS are detailed and specific, general safety procedures are broader and more consistent. They apply day to day, regardless of the individual task being performed.

In many workplaces, these procedures form the foundation that RAMS should build upon. Safety aspects developed through RAMS can therefore become part of general safety procedure.

At Cardinus, we can support orgnisations with both risk assessment and the development of standardised safety procedures through our Safety Consultancy services. 

We also deliver Effective Risk Assessment training to help build in-house risk management competency, and, where needed, offer focused individual risk assessments, including:

• Ergonomics Assessments
• Type 1 Fire Risk Assessments
• Types 2 and 4 Fire Risk Assessments

Making the difference between RAMS and general safety procedures clear

The simplest way to think about the difference between RAMS and general safety procedures is that RAMS are written for what is being done, while safety procedures are written for how things are done in general.

To make this clearer, it helps to look at a practical example.

RAMS risk assessment and method statement example 

Consider a contractor preparing documentation for replacing ceiling panels in a live office environment.

In this case, the RAMS would set out the specific hazards associated with the task (i.e. working at height, interaction with building occupants, and the use of access equipment) along with the control measures required to manage those risks safely.

It would then go on to describe, step by step, how the work will be carried out in practice, including the sequence of activities, responsibilities, and any precautions that must be followed on site.

A general safety procedure, by contrast, would not focus on a single task. Instead, it might outline how contractors are expected to behave while on site, or set out how staff should manage shared workspace risks on an ongoing basis.

Both are important, but they serve different functions. One is situational and task-specific; the other is organisational and continuous.

Why RAMS and procedures are both essential to worker safety

Ergonomics is a useful lens for understanding why the distinction between RAMS and safety procedures matters – and why they both play important roles in workplace safety.

In some cases, ergonomic risk is embedded directly into RAMS. For example, a warehouse task involving repetitive lifting may require a detailed risk assessment and method statement to ensure safe handling techniques are used for that specific job.

In other cases, ergonomic risk is managed through general procedures. A typical example is display screen equipment (DSE) use in office environments, where workstation setup guidance and assessments form part of everyday practice rather than a one-off task document.

This is where organisations sometimes struggle. Ergonomic risks don’t always sit neatly in one category. They can be task-specific, ongoing, or a combination of both.

Confusing RAMS with general safety procedures can lead to duplication in some areas and gaps in others. If everything is managed through RAMS, processes can become overly complex and repetitive. If everything is left to general procedures, specific high-risk tasks may not be sufficiently controlled.

Bringing RAMS and procedures together in practice

Managing RAMS, procedures, and ergonomic risk assessments separately often leads to fragmentation, especially in larger organisations or those with mixed office and field-based work.

Risk assessments and method statements may sit in one place, while ongoing processes such as DSE management or workplace procedures sit somewhere else entirely. This creates administrative bloat and introduces the potential for blind spots where critical risks, especially ergonomic ones, go unaddressed.

Our approach at Cardinus is to help organisations bring these elements together so that risk assessments, method statements, and ongoing ergonomic management are aligned within a single framework.

Within our Healthy Working platform, this means supporting both task-based risk assessment processes (such as RAMS) and ongoing ergonomic and DSE risk management in one environment through the use of a central management module called PACE.

The aim is not to treat them as separate administrative exercises, but to create a more connected and consistent way of managing workplace risk over time.

Request a free trial of Healthy Working to see how a more centralised, integrated approach to risk management works in practice.