Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relative uses of decision tools for secondary risks of capital projects. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is a comparison of traditional limited approaches (notably EIA) versus emerging more complex approaches at assessing secondary risks. Findings - In many context, notably in the case of large capital projects, the new and more complex tools are necessary. However, they also apply higher costs and should therefore be applied selectively. Research limitations/implications - One research limitation is that experience with some of the tools being discussed, notably MCDA, is still somewhat limited. Practical implications - The key practical implication is greater use of the most appropriate decision tool for secondary risks in each new individual large capital project. Originality/value - Comparison of risk assessment tools has so far largely focused on risk assessment for primary risks. The present article extends this to an assessment of the relative merits of secondary risks.