Looking for a NEBOSH IG2 risk assessment example or a clear template before you submit? This page shows a filled sample table, the IG2 template structure examiners expect, and what changed under GIC2 for 2026.
NEBOSH IG2 Risk Assessment Example (Filled Table)
Below is a practical sample showing how examiners expect hazards and control measures to be detailed in Part 2 of your assessment:
| Hazard Category | Who might be harmed & how? | What are you already doing? | Further action required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibration (Hand-Arm) | Operators using angle grinders daily. Risk of HAVS causing nerve damage. | Anti-vibration gloves provided; equipment inspected annually. | Implement job rotation (max 2 hrs/day per operator) and source low-vibration grinders. |
| Movement of people and vehicles | Warehouse workers could be struck by a reversing forklift, potentially causing crush injuries or fractures. | Trained forklift drivers; marked traffic routes; speed limits; warning signs. | Physically separate pedestrian walkways from vehicle routes where reasonably practicable; add convex mirrors at blind corners. |
Example Priority Action Examiners Accept
Under old IG2, you selected three priority actions from the risk assessment and justified each with moral, legal and financial reasons. Under current GIC2, you select one highest-priority hazard already listed in your assessment and explain why it should be managed first.
Example of a justification examiners can follow (adapted from the vibration row above):
Priority hazard: Hand-arm vibration from daily angle-grinder use.
Why first: Several operators are exposed every shift; existing PPE and annual inspections do not limit daily exposure time. Job rotation plus lower-vibration tools would reduce likelihood of HAVS more effectively than gloves alone. Delaying action risks irreversible nerve damage, lost time and regulatory scrutiny.
What was the NEBOSH IG2 Risk Assessment?
IG2 was the practical assessment unit of the 2018 specification of the NEBOSH International General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety.
Unlike a traditional written examination, IG2 required learners to carry out a practical risk assessment of a real workplace.
The aim was to demonstrate that you could apply health and safety knowledge in practice by identifying hazards, evaluating existing controls and recommending appropriate improvements.
If you are new to the qualification itself, start with our guide explaining what the NEBOSH International General Certificate is. For the four-part layout examiners expected, see the IG2 risk assessment template structure.
IG2 vs GIC2: What Changed for Your Submission
If you searched for NEBOSH IG2, IG2 risk assessment or NEBOSH IG2 assignment, there is an important change for your submission.
The final assessment date for IG2 under the 2018 NEBOSH International General Certificate specification was 6 August 2026.
Under the revised 2025 specification, the practical risk-assessment unit is called GIC2.
IG2 and GIC2 are closely related: both are practical workplace risk assessments. However, the assessment structure and marking system have changed significantly.
If you are starting the NEBOSH International General Certificate now, you should therefore study the GIC2 requirements, not prepare an assessment using the old IG2 rules.
The practical risk assessment has not disappeared. It has evolved.
| Item | IG2 — 2018 specification | GIC2 — 2025 specification |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment type | Practical workplace risk assessment | Practical workplace risk assessment |
| Status | Final assessment: 6 August 2026 | Current practical unit |
| Marking | Pass / Refer using minimum assessment criteria | Marked out of 100 |
| Score | No numerical percentage score | 60 marks required to pass |
| Hazards | At least 10 hazards | Marks awarded across the risk assessment |
| Categories | At least 5 hazard categories | At least 5 hazard categories |
| Prioritisation | Prioritise 3 actions | Prioritise 1 hazard |
| Hazard list | Old grouped hazard categories | 21 individual hazard categories in current guidance |
| Structure | Four-part structure | Four-section structure |
The biggest change is therefore not the idea of doing a workplace risk assessment. The major change is how the work is structured and marked.
GIC2 uses a points-based system. The assessment is marked out of 100, with 60 marks required for a Pass. Section 2, the risk assessment itself, accounts for 65 marks.
IG2 Risk Assessment Template Structure
Use this section as your on-page IG2 template: the four-part layout below is what the old IG2 submission was built around. Copy the structure into your own worksheet, then fill it with workplace-specific detail. Official blank forms (PDF) and candidate guidance are published by NEBOSH — this page does not host a separate PDF/XLS download.
Understanding the old IG2 structure is useful both for former candidates and for anyone mapping a submission to the NEBOSH practical assessment format.
The old IG2 assessment consisted of four main parts:
- Description of the organisation and risk-assessment methodology
- Workplace risk assessment
- Prioritisation of three actions
- Review, communication and follow-up
Under the old rules, learners received either Pass or Refer. NEBOSH set minimum standards that had to be met; missing an essential requirement could therefore result in a Refer.
Part 1 — Description of the organisation and methodology
The examiner needed enough context to understand the workplace being assessed.
The organisation description included information such as:
- the organisation;
- location;
- number of workers;
- products or services;
- typical work activities;
- working or shift patterns;
- the area covered by the risk assessment.
The methodology explained how the assessment was carried out.
For example:
- Which sources of information were consulted?
- Which employees or managers were spoken to?
- How were hazards identified?
- How were existing controls evaluated?
- How were further controls selected?
A vague statement such as “I walked around the workplace and identified hazards” would provide far less useful information than a clear description of the process used.
The examiner needed to understand that the risk assessment was based on a genuine and systematic review of the workplace.
Part 2 — The IG2 Risk Assessment
This was the central part of IG2.
Under the old specification, candidates were required to record at least 10 different hazards from at least five different hazard categories.
For each hazard, the assessment considered:
- hazard category;
- specific hazard;
- who might be harmed and how;
- controls already in place;
- additional controls or actions required;
- timescale;
- person or job role responsible.
The key point was that the assessment needed to be specific to the workplace.
A risk assessment should describe what is actually happening rather than simply list general safety topics.
Sample Hazard Description (Weak vs Strong)
One of the most common weaknesses in risk assessments is describing a category instead of describing the actual hazard.
Weak:
Working at height
That identifies a subject, but it tells the reader very little about the actual situation.
Strong:
Maintenance employees use a portable stepladder to access lighting approximately four metres above the warehouse floor.
The second description tells us:
- who is carrying out the task;
- what equipment is involved;
- what activity is taking place;
- where exposure occurs.
That gives someone reviewing the risk assessment enough information to understand the situation.
Another example:
Weak:
Manual handling
Strong:
Warehouse employees manually move 25 kg cartons from incoming deliveries onto low-level pallets several times during each shift.
Again, the aim is not to write as many words as possible. The aim is clarity.
Hazard vs risk: understand the difference
These terms are often mixed up.
A hazard is something with the potential to cause injury or ill health.
A risk considers the likelihood and consequences of that harm occurring.
For example:
Hazard: An employee working from an unsecured ladder.
Possible harm: The employee could fall and suffer fractures, head injury or other serious injuries.
Separating these concepts makes a risk assessment clearer and makes it easier to decide whether existing controls are adequate.
Who might be harmed — and how?
Simply writing:
Employees
is usually not enough to understand the risk.
A useful assessment considers both who is exposed and what could happen to them.
Depending on the workplace, groups could include:
- employees;
- contractors;
- maintenance personnel;
- cleaners;
- drivers;
- visitors;
- members of the public;
- temporary workers;
- young or inexperienced workers.
You should then consider the mechanism of harm.
For example:
Warehouse workers could be struck by a reversing forklift, potentially causing crush injuries or fractures.
This connects the person, exposure and potential consequence.
Existing controls vs further controls
Another important distinction is the difference between:
What the organisation already does
and
What should be done next.
Suppose a warehouse has forklift traffic.
Existing controls might include:
- trained forklift drivers;
- marked traffic routes;
- speed limits;
- warning signs.
The risk assessment then asks whether those controls are sufficient.
If pedestrians and vehicles can still enter the same space, a stronger additional control might involve physical separation rather than simply adding another warning sign.
That is where the hierarchy of control becomes important.
Use the hierarchy of control
Good risk management tries to control hazards as close to the source as reasonably possible.
A commonly used hierarchy is:
- Eliminate the hazard
- Substitute it for something less hazardous
- Use engineering controls
- Use administrative controls
- Use personal protective equipment
PPE can be important, but it should not automatically be the first answer to every hazard.
For example, if employees regularly walk through an area used by moving vehicles, issuing high-visibility clothing may help drivers see them.
But physically separating pedestrians and vehicles can provide a much stronger level of protection.
The old IG2 guidance specifically expected candidates to consider the hierarchy of control when deciding on further measures.
The old IG2 hazard categories
Under the 2018 specification, the hazard categories were based on Elements 5–11 of the syllabus.
They covered:
| Element | Hazard areas |
|---|---|
| 5 | Noise, vibration, radiation, mental ill-health, violence at work, substance abuse |
| 6 | Work-related upper-limb disorders, manual handling, load-handling equipment |
| 7 | Hazardous substances |
| 8 | Health, welfare, work environment, working at height, confined spaces, lone working, slips and trips, workplace transport, work-related driving |
| 9 | Work equipment and machinery |
| 10 | Fire |
| 11 | Electricity |
Candidates needed hazards from at least five different categories, not simply ten variations of the same problem.
For people working in logistics, terminals or industrial environments, our page about NEBOSH for European ports also gives useful context on the types of workplaces where broad hazard identification skills are particularly relevant.
What are the GIC2 hazard categories now?
The current GIC2 guidance presents the hazard categories individually.
They include:
- Noise
- Vibration
- Radiation
- Mental ill-health
- Violence at work
- Substance abuse at work
- Work-related upper-limb disorders
- Manual handling
- Load-handling equipment
- Hazardous substances
- Welfare and working environment
- Working at height
- Confined spaces
- Lone working
- Slips and trips
- Movement of people and vehicles
- Work-related driving
- Hand-held tools
- Machinery
- Fire
- Electricity
Current GIC2 guidance requires hazards to be selected from at least five different hazard categories.
This is one reason candidates should not simply reuse old IG2 advice without checking whether it still applies to the current GIC2 assessment.
Part 3 — The three priority actions in IG2
Under the old IG2 specification, candidates selected their three highest-priority actions from the risk assessment.
These could relate to different hazards or, where appropriate, the same hazard category.
Each selection needed justification.
The old guidance expected candidates to consider:
Moral reasons
Why should the organisation act to protect workers and others?
A serious workplace injury can affect far more than the injured employee. It can affect colleagues, families and the wider organisation.
Legal reasons
The International General Certificate required legal arguments based on relevant international frameworks, including applicable ILO Conventions, Recommendations and Codes of Practice.
Financial reasons
Poor health and safety management can create direct and indirect costs, including:
- lost production;
- sickness absence;
- damaged equipment;
- investigation time;
- replacement labour;
- reputational damage;
- legal and insurance costs.
Candidates also needed to consider likelihood, severity and how effectively the proposed action would control the risk.
GIC2 now prioritises one hazard
This is one of the most important differences between IG2 and GIC2.
In the current GIC2 assessment, the learner selects one hazard from the risk assessment as the highest priority to manage.
The hazard must already appear in the risk assessment. Introducing a completely new hazard in the prioritisation section does not meet the purpose of that section.
Current GIC2 guidance awards marks for areas including:
- legal reasons;
- moral reasons;
- business or financial reasons;
- general reasons for prioritisation;
- explanation of how the proposed actions will reduce risk.
Section 3 is worth 17 marks.
This is a substantial difference from the old IG2 “three actions” approach.
Part 4 — Review, communicate and check
A risk assessment is not useful if it is written, filed away and never looked at again.
The final part of the old IG2 assessment therefore considered three questions.
1. When should the assessment be reviewed?
The review date should be realistic.
A risk assessment may also need to be reviewed earlier following significant changes such as:
- new equipment;
- new substances;
- workplace redesign;
- changed work processes;
- an accident or near miss;
- significant staffing changes;
- new information about a hazard.
2. How will the findings be communicated?
Different groups may require different communication methods.
Examples could include:
- team briefings;
- toolbox talks;
- safety meetings;
- email;
- noticeboards;
- supervisor discussions;
- revised procedures.
The important question is not merely how the information will be communicated, but also who needs to know.
3. How will actions be checked?
Someone needs to verify that agreed actions were actually completed.
Examples include:
- management action logs;
- follow-up inspections;
- safety meetings;
- responsible-person reporting;
- scheduled review checks.
The old IG2 guidance explicitly required candidates to address the review date, communication and follow-up process.
Common IG2 mistakes
The official old IG2 guidance makes clear why apparently small omissions could cause problems.
Typical issues included:
Fewer than 10 hazards
IG2 required at least 10.
Fewer than five hazard categories
Ten hazards were not enough if they came from too narrow a range of categories.
Missing hazard categories
The category itself had to be identified.
Incomplete methodology
The examiner needed to understand how the assessment was carried out.
Empty or incomplete table cells
The assessment needed realistic information throughout the table.
Vague hazards
“Fire”, “electricity” or “manual handling” are topics, not useful descriptions of workplace situations.
Unrealistic controls
Recommendations should address the actual risk and be proportionate.
Only using PPE
PPE may be necessary, but stronger controls should be considered first where reasonably practicable.
Unrealistic timescales
Not every action can realistically be completed “immediately”.
Selecting only two priority actions
Under old IG2 rules, three were required.
Introducing unrelated information in Part 3
The priority actions needed to come from the risk assessment itself.
Weak communication planning
Explaining that results would be communicated without explaining who needed the information could fail to meet the old minimum criteria.
How to choose realistic timescales
Timescales should reflect both the seriousness of the risk and the practical work involved.
For example, there is a difference between:
- stopping an obviously unsafe activity;
- ordering replacement equipment;
- installing physical guarding;
- redesigning a production line.
Writing “immediately” for every action does not demonstrate prioritisation.
A good risk assessment distinguishes between measures that require urgent intervention and improvements that need planning, procurement or engineering work.
The important principle is that the timescale should be appropriate to the level of risk.
Do not leave controls as generic statements
Another common weakness in workplace risk assessments is writing controls such as:
Provide training.
or:
Use PPE.
Those statements may sometimes form part of the solution, but they do not explain enough.
Ask:
- Training in what?
- For whom?
- How frequently?
- To address which risk?
- What physical or engineering measures are possible?
- Who will implement the measure?
- How will you know it has been completed?
The stronger the link between the hazard and the control measure, the more useful the risk assessment becomes in real safety management.
Can you use your own workplace?
For practical NEBOSH risk assessments, using a real workplace allows the learner to apply risk-management principles to real activities and conditions.
The workplace needs enough scope to identify an appropriate range of hazards.
If a learner does not have access to an appropriate workplace, the correct route is to discuss this with the accredited Learning Partner rather than inventing an organisation or assessment.
NEBOSH’s current GIC2 guidance likewise states that the assessment should normally be carried out in the learner’s own workplace so that it reflects real-world conditions.
Can your tutor check your IG2 or GIC2 before submission?
There is an important distinction between teaching and pre-marking an assessment.
A tutor can teach the principles of risk assessment, explain the assessment requirements and provide general guidance.
However, the learner’s submitted assessment must remain their own work.
Under the old IG2 guidance, tutors could advise whether a learner was broadly heading in the right direction, but were not allowed to pre-mark or comment on the specific details of a draft submission.
That is also why SafetyXAcademy uses these pages to explain NEBOSH concepts and assessment structures rather than writing or pre-marking candidate submissions.
IG2 Submission Checklist
If you are reviewing an old IG2 assessment for learning or reference purposes, the core requirements included:
- Organisation and workplace clearly described
- Assessment scope clearly explained
- Methodology included
- At least 10 hazards
- At least 5 hazard categories
- Hazard category stated for every hazard
- Who could be harmed identified
- Method of harm explained
- Existing controls described
- Further controls identified
- Hierarchy of control considered
- Responsible job role identified
- Realistic timescales included
- Three priority actions selected
- Moral justification considered
- Legal justification considered
- Financial justification considered
- Review date included
- Communication method identified
- Relevant people to communicate with identified
- Follow-up method included
Important: This checklist describes the former IG2 2018 specification. It should not be treated as the current GIC2 assessment template.
NEBOSH IG2 and GIC2 FAQ
Where can I find an official NEBOSH IG2 risk assessment template?
Download the official blank forms and candidate guidance from NEBOSH. SafetyXAcademy does not host a separate PDF/XLS file; this page provides an on-page IG2 template structure, a filled worked example and a submission checklist.
What changed between NEBOSH IG2 and GIC2 for 2026?
GIC2 replaced IG2 under the 2025 NEBOSH IGC specification. Core risk-assessment principles remain, but GIC2 uses updated hazard categories and asks you to justify one highest-priority hazard instead of three separate priority actions.
Is NEBOSH IG2 still available in 2026?
The final IG2 assessment date under the 2018 International General Certificate specification was 6 August 2026. The current practical unit is GIC2.
What replaced NEBOSH IG2?
GIC2 replaced IG2 under the 2025 specification of the NEBOSH International General Certificate.
Is GIC2 still a risk assessment?
Yes. GIC2 remains a practical workplace risk assessment in which learners assess risks and develop an action plan.
What is the GIC2 pass mark?
GIC2 is marked out of 100. The pass mark is 60 marks, or 60%.
How many hazard categories are required for GIC2?
Current NEBOSH guidance states that the risk assessment should cover at least five different hazard categories.
Did IG2 require 10 hazards?
Yes. Under the 2018 IG2 specification, the practical assessment required at least 10 different hazards from at least five hazard categories.
Does GIC2 still require three priority actions?
No. Current GIC2 guidance asks the learner to select one highest-priority hazard from the risk assessment and justify why it should be prioritised.
Can someone write my risk assessment for me?
No. The assessment is intended to demonstrate the learner’s own ability to apply health and safety knowledge to a real workplace.
Continue learning about NEBOSH
If you are researching the International General Certificate, these SafetyXAcademy resources may also help:
- What is the NEBOSH IGC?
- Complete NEBOSH IGC Guide 2026
- NEBOSH IGC exam changes for 2026
- 20 free NEBOSH IG1 practice questions
- Free NEBOSH practice quiz
- NEBOSH IGC course in the Netherlands
- HSE jobs and contracting after NEBOSH
SafetyXAcademy publishes practical information about NEBOSH qualifications, international HSE careers and professional safety training.
Preparing for GIC2? English-taught NEBOSH coaching in Rotterdam.
Last updated: 11 August 2026. IG2 / GIC2 assessment rules are based on NEBOSH guidance for the 2018 and 2025 International General Certificate specifications; always check the latest official candidate guidance for your assessment window.