« Back to Glossary IndexChatham House Rules are a framework governing the confidentiality of discussions held in meetings, workshops, or forums—originally established by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London—to encourage open and honest exchange of views. Under these rules, participants are free to use the information received, but the identity or affiliation of speakers, or that of any other participant, must not be revealed.
Unlike formal confidentiality agreements, which are legally binding contracts, Chatham House Rules rely on professional trust and mutual respect among participants. Their purpose is to create an environment where individuals can express opinions, share insights, and debate sensitive topics without concern that their statements will be publicly attributed or misrepresented. The rules are frequently invoked in policy discussions, international negotiations, corporate strategy sessions, and risk communication forums where candor and collaboration are essential.
Context
For example, a multinational roundtable on cybersecurity might be conducted under the Chatham House Rules to allow government officials, industry leaders, and researchers to discuss emerging threats and vulnerabilities without attribution. Participants may report on general findings or insights but cannot disclose who made specific statements.
At Risk Sciences International (RSI), the Chatham House Rules are often applied in stakeholder consultations and expert workshops. They support transparent yet non-attributable dialogue on complex risk issues, helping participants share perspectives freely while preserving confidentiality and fostering collective understanding.
Synonyms:
Off-the-record, Closed-door session
Related Articles:
- Ziplines survey
- PCRS/PHAC2024
- Threshold development
RSI supports clients in developing or revising thresholds used in regulation, screening, or monitoring. It combines data modeling, stakeholder input, and expert judgment to define points that are both scientifically grounded and operationally feasible. RSI documents the rationale and implications of threshold choices to support implementation.
- Toxicological profiling
RSI compiles and interprets toxicological data for use in chemical registration, public health policy, and safety evaluation. Its experts apply structure-activity relationships, mechanistic data, and systematic review techniques. RSI ensures that toxicological profiles are current, transparent, and adapted to the specific decision context.
- Toxicological reference value derivation
RSI conducts reference value derivation as part of its toxicological and regulatory work. The firm applies established methodologies, transparently selects uncertainty factors, and prepares documentation suitable for regulatory review. RSI ensures that derived values reflect current science and are communicated clearly to support risk-based decision-making.
- Uncertainty propagation modeling
RSI applies uncertainty propagation in its probabilistic risk models, supporting transparency and insight into the range and likelihood of possible results. RSI carefully documents input distributions, validates outputs, and interprets findings for decision contexts. The method helps RSI clients weigh risk-based decisions with a fuller appreciation of possible variation and confidence.
- Use of expert panels
RSI designs and facilitates expert panels to support structured, transparent deliberation on complex or uncertain risk topics. Its team defines scopes of work, manages conflict of interest declarations, and integrates panel outcomes into formal risk products. RSI’s facilitation ensures both scientific rigor and stakeholder credibility in panel-based methods.
- Use of uncertainty factors
RSI applies uncertainty factors using internationally accepted guidance while adapting to context-specific needs. Its experts justify factor choices based on data quality and assessment objectives. RSI communicates the implications of these choices clearly, helping clients and regulators understand the conservatism built into derived values and models.
- Use of weight-of-evidence criteria
RSI structures WoE assessments using clearly defined inclusion criteria, evidence grading, and decision logic. Whether evaluating carcinogenicity, endocrine activity, or behavioral responses, RSI documents how conclusions are drawn and uncertainties managed. This method strengthens the credibility and defensibility of RSI’s risk determinations across sectors.
- Value of information analysis
RSI applies VoI analysis in research planning, regulatory strategy, and monitoring system design. Its team uses decision-theoretic tools to assess whether new data would materially change conclusions. RSI provides clear reports that help clients decide when additional information is worth pursuing and where existing uncertainty is tolerable.
- Vulnerability analysis
RSI integrates vulnerability analysis into its community risk assessments and foresight work. Using composite indicators, geospatial data, and stakeholder input, RSI identifies priority groups or areas and recommends targeted interventions. The firm ensures that vulnerability findings inform both risk prioritization and strategy development.
- Weighting of lines of evidence
RSI uses structured weighting in integrated assessments, often applying predefined frameworks or stakeholder-informed criteria. Its analysts document rationale and scoring transparently, supporting trust and usability of synthesized results. RSI adapts weighting schemes to each assessment’s context, ensuring balance between methodological rigor and policy relevance.
- Work process documentation
RSI emphasizes process documentation in all engagements, producing structured protocols, audit trails, and technical appendices. The firm’s standardized templates support consistency across projects while allowing customization to client needs. This method ensures RSI’s work can be verified, explained, and transferred across teams or jurisdictions.
- Workshop facilitation for evidence interpretation
RSI designs and leads interpretive workshops for clients in government, industry, and civil society. Its facilitators prepare accessible materials, define goals, and create structured discussion formats. RSI ensures that diverse viewpoints are integrated and that outputs are captured for use in reports, models, or policy briefs.
- Workshop facilitation for risk framing
RSI facilitates risk framing workshops to help clients sharpen assessment objectives and anticipate stakeholder concerns. Its moderators use scenario prompts, structured dialogue, and evidence mapping to guide participants toward a shared framing. RSI ensures that outcomes are documented and operationalized in subsequent analytical or policy work.
- Workshop facilitation for risk identification
RSI designs and runs workshops that draw out both expert and operational perspectives on emerging or systemic risks. Its approach combines participatory mapping, guided brainstorming, and pre-read materials. RSI ensures that identified risks are captured systematically and translated into inventories, matrices, or models that feed into larger risk processes.
- Workshop facilitation for uncertainty characterization
RSI convenes and facilitates workshops to clarify and document uncertainty across risk domains. Participants are guided through structured elicitation, evidence ranking, and discussion of implications. RSI integrates these findings into its models, reports, and stakeholder messaging, ensuring that limitations are appropriately recognized and contextualized.
- Workshop facilitation for vulnerability and adaptive capacity
RSI facilitates adaptive capacity and vulnerability workshops as part of its work in climate risk, emergency preparedness, and health equity. It ensures participation from affected groups, frontline actors, and institutional partners. RSI captures insights in structured outputs—such as risk maps or priority lists—that inform both planning and resource allocation.
- Workshop facilitation to surface tacit and experiential knowledge
RSI includes tacit knowledge workshops in its assessments when working with frontline workers, community members, or multi-sectoral collaborators. The firm uses techniques such as journey mapping, moderated storytelling, and artifact elicitation to draw out hidden insights. RSI integrates these insights into decision support tools and qualitative syntheses, enhancing the depth and relevance of its Understanding Risk methods.
- Risk on Retainer
- Media
- Use of Probabilistic Exposure Models in the Assessment of Dietary Exposure to Chemicals
- Assessing the Impact of Interstudy Variation in LOAELs on Findings of Low-Dose Additivity in In Vivo Studies of Mixtures
- EFSA Framework for Problem Formulation
- Analysis in Support of Risk-Based Decision-Making for the Alberta Safety Codes Council
