I think that the kind of article that triggered this thread uses the word "risk" in a more emotional way than is really necessary.
For the vast majority of the time, a fuel shortfall at some stage in flight means that you have to land somewhere else, refuel, then continue to destination (or not). The "risk" is a purely
commercial one, that you're going to have to spend more on fuel, landing fees, etc. than you would if you'd made it in one hop.
I'm quite happy to take 90-95% SCF (which can be 5mins) as long as I have options en-route. My company has worked out that this saves money overall but they also ask me to take more, should I decide that it is needed to make my arrival at the correct airport more of a certainty.
If crews have a plan (an a plan B, C...) and stay within the boundaries of EU OPS or whatever, I can't see an issue. If pressure is being applied by the operator to carry on outside the rules when fuel is tight, then that's a totally different matter and should be brought to the attention of the regulator immediately.
AFAIK that isn't what's happening here?