^aDepartment of Media, Culture and Social Science, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Correspondence: Aud Solveig Nilsen, Department of Media, Culture and Social Science, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway. E-mail: aud.s.nilsen@uis.no

Abstract

The tasks of a supervisory authority (SA) are to guide and inspect municipalities in mitigation, and risk and emergency management. Two municipalities which have shown different responses to the work of SA are compared. Klepp municipality resisted inspections by SA and created its own solution to risk management. Time municipality regarded governmental guidelines as a facilitator to their work and accepted inspections. Despite its negative attitude, Klepp contributed to a mutual learning process between the municipality and the SA by introducing a new strategy and tool (mini risk analysis, MRA) in risk management. MRA is a tool which may lay the foundations for empowerment and involvement in local risk management. It is specially designed for municipal contexts, focussing on daily risks in working processes. Time, on the other hand, passively accepted SA inspections and did not actively contribute to the learning process.