Risk Communication For The Natural Gas Industry

GRI-97/0116
1ep|ca| epert
Risk Communication
for the Natural Gas Industry
Prepared by:
Resource Strategies, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin
0as esearch |ast|tate
Environment and Safety Group
May 1997
Risk Communication
for the
Natural Gas Industry
Prepared by:
Kathryn A. Trudell
Susan M. Tikalsky
634 West Main Street, Suite 202
Madison, WI 53703
Prepared for:
The Gas Research Institute
Under Contract No. 5094-250-3035
Project Manager: Ted A. Williams
May 1997
ii
Disclaimer
LEGAL NOTICE: This report was prepared by Resource Strategies, Inc. of
Madison, Wisconsin, as an account of work sponsored by the Gas Research
Institute (GRI). Neither GRI, members of GRI, nor any person acting on behalf of
either:
a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information
contained in this report, or that the use of any apparatus, method, or
process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report.
iii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE
May 1997
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Topical Report (5/96-5/97)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
RISK COMMUNICATION FOR THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
5. FUNDING MEMBERS
GRI contract number
6. AUTHORS
Kathryn A. Trudell, Susan M. Tikalsky
5094-250-3035
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
634 West Main Street, Suite 202
Madison, WI 53703
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Gas Research Institute
8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chicago, IL 60631-3562
10. SPONSORING / MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
GRI-97/0116
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT
This document serves the natural gas industry as a resource manual on the principles of risk communication and their specific application to
situations involving environmental health or safety issues. Recent research in risk perception has identified non-technical factors that
influence the publics determination of whether a risk is acceptable, such as whether the risk is unfamiliar, involuntary, inspires fear or
dread, and is distributed unfairly. The publics level of trust in the individual or organization imposing the risk is also a key factor. Based on
this knowledge, practical techniques and tools are described which can help the gas industry improve its efforts to communicate about risk,
establish trust, explain complex technical information to lay audiences, and interact with the media and activist groups. The report
concludes with a process for planning and evaluating risk communication programs.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
105
Risk management, risk communication, natural gas safety, natural gas transmission, natural gas
distribution, natural gas end use, environmental health
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102
iv
v
Research Summary
Title Risk Communication for the Natural Gas Industry
Contractor Resource Strategies, Inc.
Principal
Investigator Kathryn A. Trudell
Objective This project is aimed at serving the natural gas industry as a resource manual on the
principles of risk communication and their specific application to situations involving
environmental health or safety risks.
Technical
Perspective Risk communication can enable gas companies to work effectively with policy-makers,
reduce liability, reduce hostility, maintain management flexibility, and reduce costs by
focusing resources on those areas in which real safety and environmental
improvements can be made. Effective risk communication can also reduce the costs
associated with project delays or cancellations.
In the past 15 years, much progress has been made in understanding the
underlying factors which influence the way in which people perceive, evaluate, and
make decisions on issues involving risk. Research has found that in addition to
statistical data, individuals consider non-technical factors, such as whether the risk is
unfamiliar and involuntary, whether it induces fear and dread, and whether risks and
benefits are distributed fairly. In addition, in an increasingly technological society,
individuals must rely on others to manage the technologies that affect them daily. The
level of trust that an individual has in the person, organization, or agency that is
responsible for the technology is also a key factor in whether or not the risk associated
with the technology is deemed acceptable.
Understanding these non-technical factors can improve the ability of
gas companies to communicate to the public, to regulators, to customers, and
to employees.
vi
Technical
Approach The information contained in this document comes from an extensive review of the
risk perception and risk communication literature, from consultation with nationally
recognized risk-communication experts, and from the professional experience of the
authors in applying risk communication in the utility industry.
Results This manual provides the gas industry with:
An overview of risk communication and the potential benefits it offers business,
A summary of the results of academic research in risk perception,
Practical communication tools for addressing the non-technical factors affecting
risk perception and for establishing and maintaining trust among various audiences,
Techniques for explaining complex technical information to lay audiences,
Strategies for dealing with the media and with activist groups, and
A process and checklist for planning and evaluating effective risk communication
programs.
This information includes many examples of successful and unsuccessful efforts
in the gas and other industries to convey information about the potential risks that
accompany technology.
Project
Implications The principles described in this manual can be applied by gas companies in managing
many issues involving health, safety, and environmental risks, including facility siting,
indoor air quality, accidents, and employee safety.
GRI Project
Manager Ted A. Williams
Environment and Safety
vii
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
Case Study: Contrasting Approaches Produce Contrasting Results 2
Risk Communication in Engineering and Operations 6
Risk Communication in Marketing and Customer Service 7
Risk Communication in Employee Relations 7
Benefits of Risk Communication 7
The Managers Perspective 9
The Limits of Risk Communication 10
The Contents of This Report 11
1 An Overview of Risk Communication 13
Case Study: The Power of Public Opinion Shapes Business Outcomes 14
The Basis for Risk Communication 15
Risk Communication and the Natural Gas Industry 16
Characteristics of Risk Communication 16
Chapter 1 Summary Points 19
2 Risk Perception: Understanding and Responding
to the Way People Worry About Risk 21
Case Study: Perceptions Play a Part in Everyones Decisions 22
Technological Risks Past and Present 23
The Elements of Risk Perception 25
Responding to Risk Perception 31
3 Building Trust With the Public 35
Case Study: Open Communication Contributes
to Business Success 36
The Basis of Mistrust of Industry 37
Earning Trust and Credibility 39
viii
4 Explaining Risk 45
Case Study: Effective Communicators Develop the Skill
to See through the Eyes of their Audience. 46
The Influence of Personal Experience on Judging Risk:
The Scientific Perspective and the Public View 47
Providing the Appropriate Information 48
Presenting Information, Explaining Risk 50
5 Working With the Media and Activist Groups 57
Case Study: Skilled Communicators Can Use
the Media as a Conduit to the Public 58
Signal Impact 59
The Benefits of Media Exposure 60
Working With Activists 66
6 Plan Carefully 71
Step 1: Assess the Companys Position 74
Step 2: Plan the Program: Appropriate Tools and Timing 78
Step 3: Evaluate the Program 82
Appendix A: Federal Laws Requiring Risk Communication 85
Appendix B: Historical Incidents 87
Appendix C: Checklist for Preparing a Risk Communication Program 89
References 93
ix
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the following individuals for
their suggestions, comments, and review in conjunction with this document: Mr.
George A. Davidson, Jr., Consolidated Natural Gas Company; Dr. Sharon Dunwoody,
Institute of Environmental Studies and Department of Journalism and Mass
Communication, University of Wisconsin - Madison; Mr. Thomas J. Erstad,
Wisconsin Power & Light Company; Dr. William R. Freudenburg, Social Science
Research Associates, Inc. and Department of Rural Sociology, University of
Wisconsin - Madison; Mr. Daryl L. Hosler, Southern California Gas Company; Mr.
James E. Moylan, Jr., Southern Natural Gas Company; Mr. Raymond S. Pyrcz,
AEGIS Loss Control Services, Inc.; Dr. Peter M. Sandman; Mr. John H. Shafer, ANR
Pipeline Company; Mr. Lee Stewart, Southern California Gas Company; Dr. Chris G.
Whipple, ICF Kaiser Environmental and Energy Group; and Mr. William Wilson, San
Diego Gas and Electric.
x
1
Introduction
2
CASE STUDY
Contrasting Approaches Produce
Contrasting Results
isk communicators often refer to two incidents that are now classics for
illustrating the importance of risk communication. Each involves a crisis that
jeopardized public trust. Each company had credible, competent employees and
trustworthy senior management. The differences lie in each companys approach to
risk communication, particularly in their general preparedness to handle the non-
technical aspects of the crisis. The manner in which they perceived the importance of
and acted upon the factors crucial to maintaining public trust led to dramatically
different social and financial results for the companies and the industries they
represent.
Before the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Plant, Metropolitan
Edison had a policy of issuing weekly press releases to the local media.
While the quantity of information was sufficient, the press struggled to
understand the technical jargon contained in the press releases. Because
the press could not understand the information provided, the releases were
either not used at all or were printed verbatim, with neither method fulfilling
the publics need for information. The public was unintentionally lulled into
complacency. Subsequently, the communication difficulties experienced at
the time of the TMI accident on March 28, 1979, were exacerbated by the
lack of a public outreach plan. A once-complacent public suddenly felt
betrayed and mistrusting of any plant communication. Engineering staff
responded with assurances that the crisis was under control and asked the
public to trust that it had nothing to fear. Even though no fatalities occurred,
the public sense of betrayal resulted in greater public opposition to nuclear
power, reduction in operations of reactors worldwide, tightening of nuclear
licensing, reliance on more expensive energy sources, and, in some states,
moratoriums on future nuclear construction (Slovic, 1987).
Three Mile Island stands in stark contrast to Johnson & Johnsons style of public
involvement and communication:
A classic example of successful risk communication arose in response to a
product-tampering incident that could have destroyed Johnson & Johnson,
a venerable, profitable firm. After seven people died from taking poisoned
Tylenol capsules in 1985, the company launched into full alert as prescribed
by a predetermined communication plan. The company did not try to assure
the public that everything was okay. It did not try to hide behind platitudes
nor attempt to minimize short-term losses. Recognizing that customer trust
was its most important asset, the company developed a strong public
presence and immediately withdrew the product from the shelves. James E.
Burke, the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, appeared frequently on all major
network news programs and initiated abundant, direct communication to the
public. Instead of simply asking the public for trust, Johnson & Johnson
demonstrated its respect for customer attitudes by working to earn that trust
(Swanson, et al., 1991).
R
3
Effectively managed risk influences public acceptance of a company and its
products. A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson relates, Tylenols 35%
market share fell away to 7% soon after the seven people died in
September, 1982, but by May, it had made a near complete market
recovery (Elias, 1997).
This influence is also felt on Wall Street. When considering investment
choices, 7 out of 10 Americans polled revealed that corporate citizenship
makes at least some difference when people decide what to purchase and
thirty percent said it made a lot of difference (Marlin, 1996).
Risk communication is an effective means for gas companies to reach and engender
trust among their customers, their neighbors, and their investors.
4
5
Today, business must be data-driven to survive. We must constantly
balance costs and benefits. However, when handling delicate matters of
public concern, the benefits are not always easy to identify until the costs
of not addressing those concerns are imminent.
Raymond S. Pyrcz, President, AEGIS Loss Control Services, Inc.
When business loses its trial before the court of public opinion, it is
usually forced to accept costly legislative, regulatory, administrative, or
judicial verdicts that severely inhibit the entrepreneurial decision-making
function at the cost of loss of productivity.
B. L. Jones and W. H. Chase (1979)
isk communication is an interactive, pre-emptive communication
technique designed to anticipate public, regulator, or employee concerns and
address them before they become obstacles to meeting business objectives. In
addition to satisfying certain regulatory requirements (see appendix A), risk
communication provides a company with early and accurate information about
public opinion. Properly used, risk communication enhances the likelihood that
public responses to risk are based on sound information and on a confidence that
the company is handling risk in a straightforward and responsible manner.
Scientists, engineers, and risk managers often view risk as a statistical
combination of the frequency of occurrence and the severity of the physical and
financial consequences of an incident. When the general public is presented with a
risk, however, risk perception research shows that people weigh two basic
considerations roughly equally in their decisions about risk acceptance (Swanson,
et al., 1991). The first includes information on the actual statistical risk. The
second, equally important category, includes perceptions of familiarity, sense of
control, fairness, fear, and the relationship with the risk-maker. Offering an
audience statistics and engineering concepts alone will not produce satisfaction on
either side, and may, in fact, contribute to an increase in public concern. The basis
for risk communication is the assertion that if a company addresses only the
factual portion of this equation, it is giving itself only half a chance for success.
Risk communication can enhance the publics understanding of a risk and it
can provide a company with information on the publics perception about its
products, services, or operations. Risk communication, coupled with risk
assessment, provides the gas industry with complementary tools that can be
applied to a companys most sensitive situation and provide a source of
information that risk managers and project engineers can use for ongoing
improvements. Risk communication can be applied in an emergency or be part of
a long-term strategy. Risk communication can be applied in circumstances as
varied as operations (e.g., facility siting and maintenance), end use and marketing
(e.g., carbon monoxide hazards), and managing conflicts that might otherwise
attract the attention of regulators or result in increased liability.
R
6
A risk communication program entails a combination of company
communication activities established to share information with regulators,
employees, or the public. These activities occur in a structured sequence in order
to produce specific outcomes:
T To gain insights on constituencies concerns,
T To provide information on current or proposed activities,
T To address concerns,
T To limit conflict, and
T To develop workable solutions.
Each company is unique and each situation involving risk is unique, and the
response must be tailored to the circumstances. No single approach is perfect for
all occasions. The information presented in this reference document will help
individual companies design a program to suit individual styles and particular
needs for various situations. To identify and address those needs in the most
relevant way, the body of published research has been condensed and applied to
issues that affect the operations within the gas industry. This reference document
is written to provide the gas industry with the tools necessary to meet its business
goals by understanding and implementing risk communication.
Risk Communication in Engineering and Operations
It is not uncommon for a company to follow all environmental and safety
regulations during the course of a venture only to discover that the project has
been derailed by a sudden surge of public opposition. Nor is it unusual for an
industrial accident to result in highly publicized liability suits and calls for stricter
regulation of industry. Such circumstances are unpredictable, yet the potential
liabilities for the gas industry are enormous: loss of income, increased operating
costs, litigation, project delays, and project abandonment. Typically these
reactions stem from a combination of two factors: public misunderstanding of
environmental and safety risks; and industrys lack of information, attention or
both to public or employee concerns about risk. The public wields increasing
power and influence over the policies that directly impact a gas companys
operations and profitability. This influence, paired with the business needs of gas
companies to make large capital investments in complex technological facilities,
creates a scenario ideally suited to benefit from the practice of risk
communication.
From an engineering perspective, risk communication has three goals
(Sandman, 1996):
T To present technical material to the lay person in an understandable
manner,
T To manage nontechnical perceptions of risk so they dont distort peoples
understanding of technical material, and
T To present the companys plans and actions accurately so people can make
informed and balanced decisions.
7
Risk Communication in Marketing and Customer Service
As consumers are given more choices in their energy providers and in the end-use
appliances they purchase, cost will not be the only consideration. The safety of
products and services, and the environmental performance of both the product and
the company that produces it, are of increasing importance to the buyer.
Successful risk communication about natural gas products and services is required
to abate unfounded concerns so that the industry can maintain and expand its
market.
Risk communication affects not only the customers willingness to purchase
natural gas appliances, but how he or she uses those appliances as well. Using
flammable materials around gas water heaters or neglecting to maintain a furnace
to prevent hazardous levels of indoor CO are examples of behaviors that stem
directly from a persons perception about the risk. Because gas companies are
often held partially liable in such cases by the courts, it is in their best interest to
communicate effectively to their customers about risk.
Risk Communication in Employee Relations
Risk communication principles apply to internal communications as well as those
with the public, regulators, and customers. Employees need to be informed about
the risks they encounter in their work and the risks that their work potentially
imposes on others. As discussed in chapter 2, the familiarity of their work may
make employees overcomplacent about the risks and may lead them to circumvent
safety procedures. Understanding how employees perceive risk can make internal
safety programs more effective.
Benefits of Risk Communication
A well-designed risk communication program can accomplish several things for
gas companies. Effective risk communication can aid a company in efforts to
participate in policy decisions, reduce liability, reduce hostility, reduce the costs
of real safety by targeting limited resources, and maintain or create flexibility for
management. This introductory chapter examines the business benefits of risk
communication and addresses management concerns. The remainder of the
reference document discusses the rationale and process for implementing a risk
communication program.
Influence Policy
When regulators are the audience, a risk communication program can produce
significant benefits when applied to efforts on policy development. Risk
communication can help clarify priorities and therefore can affect the order in
which risk management actions are taken. In the same way in which it educates
the public, risk communication can give regulators a closer view of the realities of
8
a business, thereby creating a more open dialogue and more effective (as opposed
to increased) regulation.
Reduce Liability
The goal of risk communication is not to convince a constituency to blindly accept
company actions. Such a goal may in the long run be as dangerous to a company
as interacting with a public that blindly obstructs company actions. Having
fulfilled a duty to warn can prove to be a valuable asset if a company confronts
liability concerns later on.
Reduce Hostility
If potential for risk is substantial, it is advisable to educate people up front rather
than arouse feelings of betrayal when a problem surfaces later on. When a
companys communication program develops clear, thoughtful risk messages and
applies them consistently to the target audience, it helps the company to maintain
a dialogue with its public. A well-developed system can address peoples
concerns before the public becomes hostile, and can mitigate the potential for
public reactions that attract media and regulator attention.
Maintain Management Flexibility
When the public is reassured that its best interests are being fairly considered, it
will more readily accept management decisions and will feel less compelled to
guide or coerce the company with litigation or regulatory action (Sandman, 1993).
Once a company has developed a cooperative attitude, it can harness it to give the
company greater flexibility in choosing among its management options for a given
situation.
Reduce Costs/Target Resources
The level of public concern is not determined solely by the actual risk. Issues of
high public concern have been found to receive more policy attention than those
carrying a statistically higher risk (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).
When the public believes that its concerns are ignored, it is predictable that public
pressure will build for increased regulation to address these concerns. When this
happens, company resources may also be misallocated, causing exposures to real
risk and increased liability. Effective risk communication may enable a company
to make more appropriate risk abatement investments and reduce the cost of real
safety risks.
9
The Managers Perspective
Managers in todays heavily regulated gas industry might wonder why complying
with all environmental and safety rules should not be sufficient. Responsible
managers should consider whether the benefits of a risk communication program
will exceed the costs, how it will affect the bottom line, and whether working with
the public will create more problems than it solves.
Arousing an Unconcerned Public
Many managers may question the wisdom of introducing risk concerns to
employees or the public without provocation. Decisions to do so must always be
made on a case-by-case basis. Yet there is no doubt that successful companies
make extraordinary efforts to consistently listen to their publics. If the public is
not presently concerned about an issue, company efforts to inform and educate
about that issue are unlikely to arouse concern. Indeed, advocacy groups can attest
to the overwhelming task of trying to arouse an apathetic audience.
On the other hand, if the public has had a lingering concern over an issue
associated with company operations and the company fails to address that
concern, the company may encounter unpleasant surprises. As is discussed in
chapter 5, advocacy groups are often effective when they can portray a company
as lying, stonewalling, or leaving out the facts. Advocacy groups can seize upon a
companys disinterest as an ideal opportunity to be the first to inform the public.
A company that fails to adequately communicate its information about a real or
perceived risk can be cast in the role of the antagonist.
Careful assessment of public concerns is an important prerequisite for
developing a risk communication strategy, and in particular for identifying
specific issues that need to be addressed. These planning considerations are
discussed in chapter 6.
Benefits Versus Costs
Managers must weigh the value of establishing a new program within limited
budgets. The quality of a companys technical program and the degree of interest
held by its public will determine whether risk communication is economically
advantageous to implement. A company with an attentive public and a good
technical program has much to gain and little to lose by implementing risk
communication. A company with an inattentive public has less to gain and a
company with a poor technical program has much to lose (Sandman, 1996).
Particularly for large-scale projects, the cost of implementing a project-specific
risk communication program must be evaluated against the potential costs
associated with project delay or project abandonment due to public opposition, the
potential costs of a lawsuit resulting from poorly managed conflict, or the erosion
of public trust. If these impacts are plausible, a risk communication program
should be considered. For companies in which these impacts are standard
conditions of operation, an ongoing risk communication program should be
10
established as a business practice that continually reinforces a companys
trustworthiness, technical proficiency, and credibility.
Going Beyond Compliance
Risk communication is required by some federal laws (listed in appendix A).
However, from a business perspective, risk communication is not undertaken
solely to achieve compliance; it is about achieving company goals through
increasing public awareness and acceptance of company practices.
Traditionally, regulated industries have responded to public environmental
and health concerns by complying with existing regulations. This serves as a good
starting point, and it is an essential point to make with regulators. However,
history reveals that if the public does not feel adequately protected by the
regulators or by the companys compliance, or if it feels its concerns are not being
heard, it will demand more protection in the form of more regulation. On the
whole, it is usually cheaper to attend to peoples concerns up front than to respond
to regulatory requirements later. Risk communication techniques offer an
approach to finding a balance in this equation.
Chapter 3 explores how going beyond compliance can build trust and help to
enhance the companys image as an exemplary performer. In the event of a serious
industrial accident, a trusted company is likely to be viewed as a caring member
of the community rather than as an outsider that focuses on compliance and the
bottom line. This attribute can be an important asset to business.
Going Beyond the Facts
Companies should not expect disagreements about risk to evaporate in light of
factual evidence. Hard data are an important part of the risk equation, since they
support regulatory and legal decisions. But facts alone do not determine personal,
regulatory, or legal decisions. Research shows audiences will not be receptive to
facts until theyre certain their concerns and feelings have been, or will be,
addressed (Slovic, 1987). These personal, non-technical components of risk
evaluation (personal experiences, concerns about fairness, etc.) are not addressed
when a spokesperson communicates using standard measures of safety (pounds
per square foot, smart-pigging, etc.). Rather, non-technical concerns should be
addressed through a companys written, spoken, and acted-upon commitments to
safe practices, environmental compliance, and being a good neighbor (further
discussed in chapter 2). An effective risk communication plan must address both
technical and social factors.
The Limits of Risk Communication
Because unpredictability is inherent in business, results of risk communication are
often uncertain. Risk communication does not offer a way out of all conflicts with
the public. In fact, avoiding an existing conflict is not a legitimate or realistic goal
for any companys risk communication plan. A regulated business in an open
11
society cannot expect an inequitable solution to rectify a legitimate complaint.
There will be times when concerns over a risk are justifiable and more protective
policy is needed. There will also be times when technical and value disagreements
ensue. These should not be seen as risk communication failures. The job of risk
communication is not to make these disappear but rather to clarify them in order
to lessen the chance of distorting them with anger or misunderstanding.
Communicating and discussing risks will increase mutual understanding between
a company and its public, and may help provide a realistic basis for equitable
solutions. Risk communication may not produce the ideal result, but it will
produce a workable and pragmatic result.
The Contents of This Report
This fully referenced document on the science and art of risk communication
offers the gas industry a guide to achieving risk communication goals. It explores
what risk communication is, the scientific research that supports its principles, and
recommendations for its successful application. Chapter 1 discusses the
characteristics of risk communication and the role it plays in todays business
world. Chapter 2 explains the basis for public perception of risk and suggests
strategies for responding to it. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss practical applications
of risk communication in the business world in general and to the gas industry in
particular. These chapters discuss implementation issues such as establishing your
company as a trustworthy community member, explaining complex information,
and working with the media and with activist groups. Because risk
communication requires careful planning, a step-through process for planning a
program is presented in chapter 6. As demonstrated by Johnson & Johnsons
experience, these strategies can directly and positively affect a companys place in
a competitive market.
12
13
1
An Overview of
Risk Communication
14
CASE STUDY
The Power of Public Opinion Shapes
Business Outcomes
isagreements over risk are common in our society. And, they are not new to the
natural gas industry. It is often difficult to anticipate public reaction to risk, formed
from diverse viewpoints and focused in opposition to a project or a company.
Discussions of risk often originate in perceptions of the severity of risk. They are fueled
either positively or negatively by the nature of a companys relationship with its public. A
failed relationship with the public can result in discrediting sound technology and good
science. Likewise, a companys failure to inform regulators about technological risk may
result in unsound regulatory decisions not grounded in science and economics.
In 1973, Pacific Lighting Corporation and El Paso Natural Gas Company
proposed siting a liquefied natural gas terminal at Point Conception,
California. The gas companies stressed the need for fuel for economic
growth. Local landowners were concerned about property devaluation. The
Sierra Club and a local group, Ventura County Concerned Citizens,
opposed the project on the basis of safety, need, and economics. Further,
Native Americans considered Point Conception to be sacred land. The
debate waged for ten years, complicated by an unclear regulatory agenda
and unclear safety goals. Eventually, after ten years, Pacific Lighting
decided to postpone the development of the plant at Point Conception
indefinitely. The decision came in part because of the decreased demand
for natural gas, in part because of the strong opposition to the project, and
in part because of the general uncertainty surrounding technological
regulation (Edwards and von Winterfeldt, 1986).
D
15
1
The success of any communication program depends on senior
management commitment and support. Executives who understand the
impact of public perception on their companies and who send clear
messages regarding the importance of risk communication give their
company a competitive advantage.
George A. Davidson, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
Consolidated Natural Gas Company
The Basis for Risk Communication
isk communication is a strategy designed both to inform people about
potential health, safety, and environmental risks and to gather information
from the public about the issues they are most concerned about. Risk
communication addresses the reality that, as members of an industrial society,
everyone is exposed to certain kinds of risk (Russell and Gruber, 1987). A risk
communication program must be grounded in an understanding of the varied and
often complicated ways people perceive risk. Approaches that avoid these
complexities or ignore public concern are no longer the most profitable way to
conduct business. Three important facts reveal the growing importance of risk
communication to helping a company meet its business objectives:
T Living in a technological society incurs unavoidable and involuntary risks,
T The public has gained an increasingly strong voice in the regulation and
management of risks, and
T Communicating with the public about risk by minimizing difficulties or by
simply asserting that the public is unreasonably concerned will not usually
meet the publics need for information and it is an approach that may
actually impede progress.
The practice of risk communication is an interactive, two-way approach. A
risk communicator both informs the public about potential risks and listens to
public concerns. A risk communicator recognizes the importance of perceptions
of risk based on non-technical factors. These perceptions, which are explored in
chapter 2, are intrinsic to the definition of risk and they help explain why people
worry more about some risks than they do others.
R
16
Risk Communication and the Natural Gas Industry
The hallmark of a risk communication strategy for the natural gas industry is
acknowledging potential dangers while stressing the industrys efforts,
sophisticated and simple, for preventing accidents. If people arent made aware of
potential problems, they may end up feeling betrayed when eventually they learn
that there are, indeed, real problems that may occur with the transport or use of
natural gas. In the event of an accident, these feelings of betrayal can lead to an
overreaction. This reaction applies to both chronic exposure risks (such as indoor
air contaminants from appliances) and acute exposure risks (such as explosions).
Industry communicators are most effective when they reveal both sides of an issue
to the public.
Despite the exemplary safety and environmental records held by the gas
industry, the potential for harm from a gas industrial accident is real. As one mid-
sized western gas company recently learned during a facility-siting failure, if
mistrust is high enough, people will respond with a demand for zero risk, rather
than a reasonably balanced compromise. Many industries whether
manufacturing, utilities, or service must respond to public sentiment if they are
to maintain and to grow their business. Imagine trying to introduce natural gas to
todays marketplace: a highly flammable gas, pumped cross-country for hundreds
of miles, stored in bulk, and piped into homes. How likely is it that this
technology would gain wide acceptance today? What would it take to gain that
acceptance? Risk communication plays a significant role today in the acceptance
of new technologies and new facilities.
On the other hand, some experts believe that the public actually perceives
natural gas to be safer than it may be from a technical risk perceptive (Sandman,
1996). If the public eventually determines that risks can be substantial, and if they
do not recall having been informed of the risk, the resulting mistrust of the
industry can have long-term effects. A more detailed discussion of building trust
is presented in chapter 3.
Characteristics of Risk Communication
While the need for risk communication in the gas industry is clear, there is no
single formula for a successful program. An understanding of the basic
characteristics of risk communication leads to adopting strategies that will work
for particular companies and situations.
Risk communication messages of many kinds surround us and are sent to
people in all aspects of life: as parents, children, voters, politicians, regulators,
scientists, farmers, industrialists, factory workers, and writers. Examples of risk
communication include the Surgeon Generals warning on every pack of
cigarettes, the safety director of a company explaining chemical handling in the
workplace, and gas company representatives discussing a new liquefied natural
gas terminal with regulators and landowners (Lundgren, 1995).
The National Research Council (1989) describes risk communication as the
interactive process of exchange of opinions among individual groups and
institutions concerning a risk or potential risk to human health or the
17
environment. The particular role of risk communication will differ depending on
specific circumstances. It can be used when a real risk exists and the public is
apathetic, or when a highly motivated public perceives a risk as significant despite
data indicating otherwise. In the first situation, the communicator should
encourage action to reduce the risk, while in the second case, the communicator
should seek to understand the basis of the concern and address the non-technical
factors.
Risk Communication Is Interactive
Sharing information with the public is a necessary function, but listening to
concerns is often the more important task. Two-way dialogue helps a company
gain insight into public concerns. Business communicators find that applying the
scientific principles of risk communication leads to dialogue with the public, and
effective dialogue is more profitable than stonewalling (Marlin, 1996). Two-way
dialogue becomes more important when feelings run high. Angry people are not
likely to listen to company information until theyve had an opportunity to vent
their anger. In the long term, decisions made in cooperation with the public will
be more acceptable and easier to implement.
Risk Communication Is Ongoing
An organizations trust and credibility will be enhanced if it makes a continuing
effort to communicate with the public. Ongoing risk communication can be
considered a maintenance tool. Just as routine maintenance on a pipeline is not
performed in the middle of a hurricane, risk communication is not ideally suited to
be introduced in the middle of a facility-siting imbroglio or immediately following
a serious accident. Instead, it should be applied when the demands on the system
are low. Its diligent use insures that if demands increase, the public will be more
likely to cooperate, thus avoiding a more serious predicament (Sandman, 1993).
Risk Communication Shares Information
Risk communication requires a more interactive role than the more traditional
corporate communication functions. Risk communicators are called upon to meet
a significant challenge that marketers and public relations professionals have been
confronting for years how to inform the public. However, public relations and
marketing typically focus on addressing an audience that is uninterested. Getting
the publics attention is the key task, and attempts to build trust are not
challenged. Risk communicators have to address an audience that is attentive but
skeptical, or one that is highly agitated. Under these circumstances gaining
attention is easy, but building trust is very difficult.
Because there are complex thought processes that contribute to how people
make decisions, an effective approach to risk communication should be broad
enough to accommodate individual characteristics (Whipple, 1996). People use
many methods to arrive at their decisions about risk issues. Some want to be told
18
the facts in order to decide for themselves, some want to know what various
opinion leaders and technical experts think, and others decide based on their trust
and confidence in the operating organization. For example, a public meeting to
discuss facility siting should include the pertinent information about the project
construction methods, size of pipe, demonstrated need, and reason for
construction. Organizers should also consider enlisting support from local
industry, homeowners, and environmental groups. This may be an excellent
opportunity to reinforce the companys commitment to customer service or its
environmental mission statement.
Regardless of how or where it is used, risk communication must meet the
following challenges:
T Knowledge challenge. The audience must be able to understand the
technical information about a risk.
T Process challenge. The audience must feel involved in the process.
T Communication challenge. Communication must be accomplished in a
way that brings together knowledge and process. Further, it must engender
a willingness to listen in order to produce a focused discussion (Rowan,
1991).
Understanding the characteristics of risk communication and then finding the
most appropriate approach is a complicated process. Because the decisions being
made during these interactions with the public or with a group of employees are
not only informational, but also emotional in nature, practitioners of risk
communication must simultaneously inform, empathize, and respond.
The information in this reference document serves to guide a company toward
building a bridge between the groups communicating with one another steps
that require an understanding of business communication in general.
Risk Communication Requires Corporate Commitment
An effective risk communication program will require commitment from senior
management with buy-on and follow-up throughout the corporate structure.
Regina Lundgren (1995) related the following story about her experience at a
research and development firm:
They had a standing policy that any information given to the public
regarding the organization had to be approved of and released by public
affairs. Unfortunately the public affairs staff had the attitude that nothing
but excessively positive information could be released. When I wanted to
add information about the firm to information about an environmental
impact statement which analyzed both the negative and positive aspects of
a risk, the public affairs staff responded, I just cant let you say that.
However, communicating risk often requires that some negative
information about an organization be released.
Corporate commitment to risk communication will help to insure that a
program meets both business and public needs. It will also insure that the risk
communicators have necessary resources at their disposal to plan an effective,
enduring program.
19
Chapter 1 Summary Points
T Risk communication is a strategy designed both to inform people about
potential health, safety, and environmental risks and to gather information
from them about the issues that concern them most.
T Risk communication is not the same as public relations. It is a two-way,
interactive, ongoing process whose basic elements include listening,
informing, empathizing, and responding.
T A risk communicators typical audience is very interested in the subject
being addressed, sometimes to the point of being highly agitated. On the
other hand, public relations communicators must work hard to get the
audiences attention. Thus, the communication techniques these
professions choose often involve very different strategies.
T The high capital costs, complex technical projects, and inherent risks
associated with the transport and use of natural gas, coupled with the
natural gas industrys exemplary environmental and safety record, create
an ideal situation for the benefits of risk communication.
T Enhancing the publics understanding of risk, and building trust between
the public and the company, can help a gas company maintain its
management options and support its business objectives.
20
21
2
Risk Perception:
Understanding and
Responding to the Way
People Worry About Risk
22
CASE STUDY
Perceptions Play a Part in Everyones Decisions
ost people respond to issues in a manner not grounded solely in statistical fact or
engineering solutions, but rather one based on personal experience and perception
be it gun control, welfare, environmental pollution, or the size of the defense budget.
Their reactions stem from the non-technical factors people use to judge risk.
Experts at the Centers for Disease Control estimate that the likelihood of
getting AIDS from a dentist during a lifetime of dental visits is less than 1 in
400,000. It is higher than that if the dentist is confirmed HIV-positive, but not
much higher if the proper precautions are taken. The risk of choosing an
HIV-positive dentist, in other words, is much smaller than many other risks
that an industry may impose on a public. Assume for a moment that HIV-
positive dentists tend to charge less than their healthy colleagues and that
the money saved by employing an HIV-positive dentist could be spent on
vitamins, more regular medical checkups, or a new vehicle with airbags
all resulting in a possible net gain in the health of an entire family. However,
the dread of AIDS, the distrust of numbers, the loss of control that people
experience in the dentist chair regardless of the HIV status of the dentist,
the horrible notion that health care providers could transmit a deadly
disease to a patient, the moral overtones of the disease, the anger over the
fact that some dentists do not want to divulge whether they are HIV-positive
or not all of these add up to a risk that most people would probably not
venture taking, despite the statistical data.
Peter Sandman, a consultant who manages many different kinds of risks,
has this advice for risk communicators: The next time you claim that the
public should be more rational about their favorite risk, consider the factors
that contribute to their perceptions about the risk and consider whether you
would send your children to an HIV-positive dentist (Sandman, 1993).
M
23
2
Weve learned from experience that public concerns often revolve around
issues of control, fairness, trust, and the publics perception accurate or
not of the risks associated with our facilities.
Thomas J. Erstad, Manager, Right-of-Way, Wisconsin Power & Light Company
isk communication would be much simpler if risks were perceived in
black and white. In discussions about risk, a company and its audience will
need to have an exchange that provides technical information and statistics to an
audience that may or may not have a background in science or technology. The
exchange must also address the concerns that are perceived, or felt, by that
audience. Providing technical information alone will not further a companys
cause. The company experts approach to understanding, and then responding, to
risk perceptions has a great effect on the ultimate success of the communication
program.
This chapter contains three sections that address the issue of risk perception.
The first section places risk perception in an historical perspective. The second
section identifies and categorizes the elements upon which risk perceptions are
built. The chapter closes with suggested responses to assist companies and the
public in establishing common ground and mutual trust.
Technological Risks Past and Present
It might seem logical that the fear of technological risk is relatively recent, gaining
significance only in todays high tech world. However, the first modern
technological risks which led to regulation occurred as early as 1858. Robert
Fultons first steamboats experienced frequent disasters, not the least of which
was an occasional catastrophic boiler explosion. As a consequence of media
attention and public outrage, the Boiler Inspection Bill was passed, requiring
tough engineering safety criteria, inspections, and licensing. The bill created the
Board of Directors of Inspectors, which was supervised by presidential
appointees. Arguments presented both for and against the new boiler technology
and its regulation were not unlike arguments heard today regarding risks (Edwards
and von Winterfeldt, 1986).
R
24
Citizens with views on both sides of the 1858 legislation regulating risk are
reported to have commented:
I consider that the only question involved in this bill is this: whether we shall
permit a legalized, unquestioned, and peculiar class in the community to go
on committing murder at will, or whether we shall make such enactments as
will compel them to pay some attention to the value of life.
What will be left of human liberty if we progress on this course much
further? Can a mans property be said to be his own, when you take out his
control and put it into the hands of another, though he may be a Federal
officer? (from Burke, 1965)
Today we hear these same voices when technologies viewed as bringing
unwelcome risks to a community are imposed on an unwilling public. These
controversies have been repeated in countless scenarios with landfills, gas
pipelines, electric transmission lines, factories, and other development pressures.
As members of industrial society, most people are challenged to adapt their
behavior in some fashion to accommodate technology. In fact, the ways these
adaptations are perceived frequently focus less on the potential benefits to society
and more on how the technologies represent a range of uncertainty and
inconvenience (Russell and Gruber, 1987).
Since World War II, the world has seen a proliferation of federal, state, and
local agencies that seek to control risk and public exposure to it despite the fact
that the availability of energy sources, complex technologies, and modern
conveniences pose relatively small risks that are far outweighed by benefits. The
goal of a risk-regulating agency is to seek uniform compliance from all
technologies that pose specific risks. However, the creation of these agencies has
taken the control of risk even further away from the public and placed it in
regulators offices, courtrooms, and legislative chambers. This separation of the
public from personal control over technology has created a further shift in risk
perception. Now the public must not only judge an actual risk but also evaluate
whether or not the regulating agency and the regulated industry can be trusted.
While technology and industrialization have improved the standard of living
and increased human life span, a sense of lost control and other factors used to
judge risk has produced hypersensitivity and distrust for industry and government.
Arguments on either side of a new technology or planned industrial facility remain
the same because, for the most part, public perception and acceptance of risk has
not changed from the past, nor is it likely to change in the future. People continue
to judge risks based on life experience and perception of how that risk will affect
them personally. What has changed is the body of research now available on the
subjects of risk perception and risk communication. Practitioners now can have a
better understanding of why people perceive risk as they do and how these
perceptions can be managed most effectively.
25
The Elements of Risk Perception
The risk communicator who understands the technical aspects of natural gas and
the potential risks associated with its use possesses only half the information
needed to be effective. A successful risk communicator must accept that the
factors which trigger an emotional response are neither irrational nor immaterial.
These factors are known as the elements of risk perception, and understanding
them may be the greatest challenge for a risk communicator.
Private industry and governmental bodies alike commonly assume that
disagreements about risk result from public misunderstanding of the relevant
statistics. Thus, in the past, industry and government spokespeople communicated
about risk using what was to them a logical approach explaining technical
material to the layman. The rationale was that once people understood the
technology or data (e.g., average annual mortality) associated with the risk, they
would lose their fear of the risk.
This view, however, does not incorporate the factors such as individual
perception, societal values, and other beliefs people may have about the company
or technology imposing the risk (Swanson, et al., 1991). As most people make
decisions about risks, the information they consider is, on average, approximately
half based on the technical data and approximately half based on the following
elements of risk perception: familiarity, sense of control, fairness, fear, and
relationship with the risk-maker (Swanson, et al., 1991). Peter Sandman (1993)
defines risk as a combination of hazard and outrage. The hazard component
comprises the statistical risk and the outrage component is comprised of
combinations of personal perceptions. The ability to communicate risk requires an
understanding of the distinction between a statistically calculated risk and a
perceived risk. Each must be treated fully in discussions about risk.
Risk researchers have identified approximately 30 different elements that
influence the acceptance of a risk (Slovic, 1987; Sandman, 1993). The following
sections of this chapter group these elements into five primary categories relevant
to the gas industry. A section outlining a companys potential responses to each
risk perception category follows.
Category 1: Unfamiliar Risks
This element of risk perception is associated with the publics level of familiarity
with a given risk, whether it is new (versus old), industrial (versus natural), and
whether there is a clear scientific consensus about the nature of the risk.
People are more suspicious of risks that are unfamiliar or unknown. Robert
Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, faced a public that was unfamiliar with and
fearful of this new invention. His technology was not widely understood and the
consequences of its use were infrequent but dramatic accidents that left indelible
sketches of violent explosions and tragic deaths on already skeptical minds.
Today, natural gas vehicles face a similar obstacle. Until they become a familiar
technology to most people, the perceived risk associated with them will likely be
higher than the statistical risk.
26
One way of managing the concerns associated with an unfamiliar risk is to
make that risk more familiar. A southwestern gas company addressed the issue of
familiarity and was able to assure the public regarding the safety precautions built
into their system by holding open houses at their facilities and explaining safety
precautions and construction methods. This technique of making an unfamiliar
technology visually familiar and understandable serves to make it more
acceptable.
When the source of a risk is a natural substance or process, it is also more
acceptable than an unnatural risk. People do not judge natural and human-made
risks equally. When natural gas is in the ground it is a natural phenomenon, but as
soon as it is processed and enters the pipeline, it becomes industrial gas, and the
perceived risks associated with it are higher. Industry is held to a higher level of
responsibility because of the man-made nature of the risk. As a result, when
discussing industrial risks with the public, it is particularly important not to
compare them to natural risks even if the statistical magnitude of the risk is the
same, because in the publics viewpoint, they are very different kinds of risk.
New science and technologies bring risks that are often, at first, undefined by
the scientific community. For a time, there may be opposing opinions among the
experts and a lack of scientific consensus. This scientific uncertainty creates even
further uncertainty in the publics mind. When dealing with a risk in which there
is scientific uncertainty, risk communicators must acknowledge this up front, and
explain the efforts underway to advance the state of knowledge. A companys
literature review or investigations should be described, and government, industry,
and academic research cited.
Inside the workplace, the issue of familiarity takes on a different twist. Here,
the greatest risk communication challenge is confronting workers excessive
familiarity with their work. Workers can become so familiar with the risk that
concern disappears. They may fail to take the precautions necessary to protect
themselves, leading to higher exposure and accident rates. Instead of finding ways
to reduce concern, the dominant risk communication challenge inside an industrial
facility is devising a method to keep people alert and concerned.
Risks can be made more familiar through exposure and involvement, and
some concrete methods for doing this are listed later in this chapter. Working with
uncertain issues is also discussed further in chapter 4.
27
Industrial versus Natural Risk
Regulatory standards are moving toward limiting lifetime cancer risk to 1 in
1,000,000. An industrial facility that represents a cancer risk to the
community of 1 in 10,000 will find itself in a difficult situation with its
regulators and the public. Yet in northern New Jersey, the state department
of environmental protection and energy estimates that 30% of the homes
have enough radon in their basements to represent an excess lifetime lung
cancer risk of somewhere between 1 and 3 in 100, far surpassing most
industrial risks (radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that comes
from naturally occurring uranium in the soil). Many New Jersey residents
who might be concerned about an insignificant industrial risk still resist
spending $20 on a charcoal canister to test for radon. Because radon is a
natural risk it is deemed more acceptable.
Coincidentally, at the turn of the century New Jersey had a luminescent
paint factory where radium (a radioactive metal that decays into radon gas) was
added to paints to make them luminescent. The factorys slag was radium-
contaminated. Eventually the slag was used as landfill and homes were built
over it. The result was a radon problem. Instead of coming from uranium in the
rock and soil, this particular radon was coming from radium in the landfill. It
wasnt considered natural radon, but industrial radon. When the state dug up
some 40,000 barrels of this radium-contaminated soil and tried to move it to an
abandoned quarry in rural New Jersey, it became the governments radon.
The result was widespread civil disobedience in New Jersey. Hundreds of
citizens pledged to lie down in front of the trucks before they would let this
radium-contaminated soil come into their town, even though the level of
radiation in the average basement from natural radon is about the same as the
level of radiation that would have been generated in the quarry where the state
wanted to dispose of the soil. The citizens did not misunderstand the data. Their
concerns were reflected in statements at the hearings such as: Its bad enough
Ive got radon in my basement. Youre not going to move any more of it into my
town (Sandman, 1993).
Category 2: Involuntary Risks
This element of risk perception differentiates between risks that are controllable
(or voluntary) and those that are uncontrollable (or involuntary). When a risk is
voluntary, it is considered to be more easily reduced and to have less of an effect
on the recipient. Voluntary risks are more easily accepted than risks that are
imposed on an individual or risks that pose effects that are not easily reduced.
Public involvement in decisions involving risk can reduce the involuntary
nature of the risk, and hence, the fear. If the public feels that it has no choice when
exposed to a new risk, it is likely to be less open to accepting it than if that risk
has been chosen from a list of options. An audience presented with a final
28
decision has no incentive to listen to the rationale. On the other hand, if several
options are provided, the public will be more willing to hear the data that support
one option over another. People will still form their own preference, but they will
feel more in control. Presenting options also alters the publics view of a risk as
one that can be reduced.
When a gas company is siting new facilities, the affected public will often
feel it is having unwelcome risks imposed upon them. When people are given
only one choice, they will push for more options. A southern gas company was
recently forced to change its routes when residents vehemently protested the
proposed project. One resident asked why the company hadnt consulted the
residents before developing its final plan? Had the company offered a selection of
routes and presented the project to the public as a choice of routes, giving people
an opportunity for input, the company would have helped to demonstrate that the
facility siting process was more voluntary. Regardless of the route selected, the
project would have stood a better chance of moving forward on time and on
budget. If a company selects pipeline routes during the planning process, then
public comment should be solicited in the planning process. If route selection
occurs during engineering, then public involvement should occur at that time.
Soliciting comments early on will not only give the public a sense of greater
control, it may provide the industry with important information local
developments, road improvements, etc. This also creates an early opportunity to
adjust plans to meet local concerns which would need to be confronted later
resulting in a more efficient process. Making the process feel more voluntary will
also result in better informed decisions (National Research Council, 1996).
Companies may feel that if public members are given input into facility
siting, they will obstruct the process to slow it down. Ironically, people become
most active when they will be affected by a decision over which they believe that
they have no control. Having some degree of control offered is often more
important than exercising it. Peter Sandman recalls the battles for student
participation on university committees during the 1970s. Faculty insisted that the
committees were none of the students business, but students insisted on their
right to participate in university governance. Although the students were
victorious, they rarely showed up for committee meetings. The issue was not
actual student control but rather the faculty offering to hear their opinions.
Category 3: Risks That Are Unfair
People believe risks should be equitably distributed in time and space. Risks are
more acceptable if the benefits and risks affect locations similarly and do not
unfairly burden future generations or vulnerable populations.
Equity
Equity figures prominently in peoples decisions regarding whether or not to
accept a risk. Determining equity is inherently complicated by the fact that what
seems fair to a gas company may not seem fair to the public. Companies
frequently respond to risk controversies by demonstrating that the benefits of the
proposed actions outweigh the risks. While it may well be true that the total
29
benefits outweigh the risks, it may be irrelevant if, as often happens, the benefits
will be received by a different population than the recipients of the risks. If people
feel an industry is imposing a risk with little or no benefit to them as individuals
or to their community, they will resist more than if the risks and benefits appear
evenly distributed (the public will make, indeed may insist upon, exceptions made
for vulnerable populations). Perception of unfairness increases public resistance to
risks and decreases public trust in the company.
Public outcry over an unfair distribution of risk and benefit is exacerbated if
the process itself is unfair. At the time of the Bhopal accident (appendix B),
several thousand mostly illiterate people were living in shantytowns across the
street from a pesticide plant. They had no idea how hazardous the plant operations
might be or of the financial condition of the plant (Shrivastava, 1987). In fact,
many people in Bhopal only knew that the plant made a substance that made
plants grow. Siting this facility may have been relatively easy, but liabilities
continue to be the most significant exposure the company has ever faced.
In another example, an eastern gas company encountered opposition from a
rural landowner group that felt they were bearing the burden of a pipeline on their
land in order to benefit a distant metropolitan area. They were also concerned
about the siting process the company used. We were not aware of this project
until the company wanted to survey our land. That was the only time we were
contacted about their intentions.
An unfair outcome (receiving few or no benefits but significant risks) may be
tolerable if there are convincing reasons for one group being burdened by the risk
(Sandman, 1993). However, an unfair process only augments an unfair
distribution of risks and benefits. To the public, a process that considers only
engineering and economic criteria is unfair: it is based on industrys decisions
alone and does not incorporate public sentiment or interests into the project-
planning or decision-making process. However, if members of the public are
asked to play a role in the decision process, they are more likely to be accepting of
both the decision and the process.
Intergenerational Effects
Risks that pose long-term effects for future generations are less acceptable than
those that are not intergenerational. So, for example, while the EPA may consider
air emissions to be the countrys greatest health risk, the public is more concerned
with hazardous waste disposal. The perception is that air emissions disperse with
a puff of wind; hazardous waste facilities remain for generations.
Category 4: Risks That Induce Fear
Many risks induce fear. Generally these risks are catastrophic (versus chronic), or
they evoke a memorable or dreaded experience.
30
Memorability
Memorable events, either experienced personally or captured on film, exacerbate
resistance to a potential risk. Events are made memorable when they create a vis-
ual memory of damage. These images, known as signals and discussed further in
chapter 5, leave an indelible imprint on peoples minds. Signal events or mental
images often come to mind when people consider a given risk. Consider how
Jaws (both the book by Peter Benchley and the 1975 movie) affected
swimmers sense of safety, even though, statistically speaking, the risk of a shark
attack is very low.
Whether the event is represented by signals, symbols, fiction, news, or
personal experience, a memorable risk is going to generate the most outrage. High
memorability is particularly destructive when it is paired with low familiarity.
Memorability also feeds on itself, often by way of media coverage. Memorable
events such as Love Canal and Times Beach, for example, made dioxin a
powerful symbol of toxic horror. The Challenger explosion created an indelible
image of technological fallibility (see appendix B for incident summaries).
Images of explosions, fires, and evacuations are typical signal events for the
gas industry. The news coverage of the Edison, New Jersey, natural gas explosion
(appendix B) revealed the charred remains of peoples homes as fires continued to
burn into the night. Anger or horror justifies media coverage, which makes the
risk more memorable, which leads to more emotion creating an upward spiral
of risk perception (Sandman, 1993). Techniques and information about working
with the media under these circumstances appear in chapter 5.
The easiest way to break this spiral is to acknowledge past events up front
(this will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 3). Past events can be used to
highlight improved operations or enhanced safety practices. The challenge is to
use the event to demonstrate a commitment to prevent the recurrence of such an
event. If the company has a particularly memorable event, the need to communi-
cate about that event is never diminished. Once people associate a particular
company with a memorable event, they will always note if mention of the event is
omitted. Exxons display at Epcot Center in Orlando, Florida, for example, does
not include mention of the Prince William Sound accident (appendix B) yet it
is the environmental catastrophe for which Exxon will be remembered long into
the future. Despite a short-term specific memory, the publics general perceptions
are long-lived. When a memorable event is consistently left out of discussions, the
glaring image of an untrustworthy company is created.
Chronic versus Catastrophic Events
The public is much more concerned about catastrophic risk than it is about
chronic risks. Society will better accept a technology whose harm is spread out
over space and time. This is especially true if that risk is voluntary. The classic
example is the very different reaction people have toward automobile-related
deaths and airplane-related deaths. In the first instance, people are killed a few at a
time, while in the latter, many deaths are contracted into a single accident, often a
memorable one. It is less acceptable to impose a (rare) catastrophic risk on a
small, specific population than a chronic risk on a large population, even though
the total statistical risk may be identical.
31
Dread
A dreaded risk may be one that strikes without warning or discrimination. Even
though heart disease is far and away the leading killer in the United States, cancer
and AIDS are the most dread-inducing. Cancer has such ominous feelings
associated with it because when or where it will strike is unknown. Peter
Sandman (1993) relates an incident dramatizing this:
Three Mile Island was the only time I have ever seen a roomful of reporters
rush a press secretary and demand to be moved farther from the story. I asked
a reporter who had been through endless wars and hurricanes and other risky
situations. Why are you scared here? His answer was very revealing. At
least in a war, he said, you know you havent been hit yet. If only radiation
were purple, Id be a lot less worried.
This is eloquent testimony to the dread induced by the undetectability of
radiation in particular, and of carcinogens in general. When cancer appears, it
doesnt come with a tag that informs of its origin (see appendix B).
Category 5: Relationship Factors
As previously discussed, in a society increasingly dependent on technology, it has
become increasingly important that the individuals or companies that control
technology are deemed to be trustworthy. Effective risk communication requires
the communicator to demonstrate characteristics of responsiveness, courtesy,
compassion, and sharing (not confronting) community values. The publics accep-
tance of risk depends greatly on how a company interacts with its audience. The
audience will weigh how theyve been treated as they form opinions about risk.
Peter Sandman (1993) describes an experiment that was conducted to
evaluate the importance of civility in the process. Hypothetical newspaper stories
were written about a spill of perchloroethylene. Three elements of the story were
systematically varied. The first two were the seriousness of the spill and the extent
to which the underlying technical information was explained or left vague. The
third variable was the relationship variable whether the agency handling
cleanup was expressing compassion or contempt for local concerns, whether
citizens were quoted as satisfied or angry, etc. Participants in the study read one
article, then answered such questions as whether they believed the risk was
important or whether they would be worried about it. The results revealed that
technical detail had no effect whatever on the peoples perception of the risk.
Seriousness had a small effect. The relationship between the community and the
agency had a substantial effect.
Responding to Risk Perception
Once a risk communicator understands the basis for the perception of a specific
risk, the communicator can adapt the companys response. What follows are
concrete examples of actions that gas companies can take to respond to those
factors that are evident in determining the acceptability of risk. Each example
32
must be considered on a case-by-case basis to reflect the conditions and needs of
the situation. The examples are grouped according to the previous five categories.
Category 1 Responses: Unfamiliar Risks
T Use plant tours, mall displays, school curriculum materials, etc. to increase
the audiences familiarity with a risk.
T If an unfamiliar risk is also uncertain, acknowledge the source of uncer-
tainty. Tell what you do know and what youre doing to find out more.
T Express an uncertain risk with a range of estimates which includes
activists estimates.
T Dont compare risks that are familiar or naturally occurring with risks that
are unfamiliar or industrial (see chapter 4).
Category 2 Responses: Involuntary Risks
T Make the risk more voluntary by providing a range of options.
T If you have control, consider sharing it through community advisory
panels, third party audits, negotiation with activists, etc.
Category 3 Responses: Risks That Are Unfair
T To the extent possible, allocate benefits in proportion to risks.
T Negotiate benefits to offset risks. Remember that compensation and
restitution are better hostility reducers than unilateral philanthropy.
T In responding to environmental justice claims, take the injustice seriously
even when you think the environmental damage is negligible.
T Resolve fairness issues before discussing mitigation plans, making sure
there are options for achieving fairness other than excessive mitigation.
Category 4 Responses: Risks That Induce Fear
T Identify sources of memorability. Memorable sources may include
personal experience, news coverage, fiction, signal events (chapter 5) and
symbols.
T If you suspect that past memorable company or industry events are on peo-
ples minds, discuss them preferably before the audience raises them.
T Watch for your own tendency to want to stop talking about the problems
prematurely. Be the last, not the first, to drop the subject.
T Legitimize the dread. If you dont share peoples dread (in other words, if
you dont understand how people could be fearful of cancer, oil spills,
etc.), you are disqualified from explaining that the hazard is low.
T Take low-probability, high-magnitude risks more seriously than your
quantitative risk assessment suggests as you discuss them publicly.
T Discuss the concrete actions you have taken to reduce the magnitude of a
risk.
T Make sure your worst case scenario is really the worst.
33
Category 5 Responses: Relationship Factors
T Respond to the audiences concerns and keep the process responsive.
T Pay attention to the little things return telephone calls promptly, send
promised documents, notify people if deadlines wont be met.
T Treat people with dignity and respect.
T Acknowledge problems when they are real, so your denials (when they are
legitimate) have context and credibility.
T Instead of demanding trust, demonstrate trustworthiness.
T To increase the value of regulators as a source to whom you are
accountable, publicize your negotiations and their enforcement actions.
T Negotiate binding agreements with traditional opponents, so they can
certify that you did the right thing (because they made you) instead of
complaining that you didnt.
T Dont keep secrets relatively benign information often becomes toxic
simply because it is withheld.
T Acknowledge misbehavior or error. Remember that forgiveness always
requires an apology and sometimes requires a penance.
T Treat concerned stakeholders with courtesy, even if they are discourteous.
T Look into complaints seriously, even if you doubt their validity and
suspect a hidden agenda.
T Without being patronizing, try to adjust to the cultural norms of your
stakeholders. For example, dont come to a rural public meeting in a three-
piece suit or a brand new pair of overalls.
T Show compassion, not dispassion. People dont care what you know until
they know that you care.
T Make your interactions personal, not impersonal. Hiding behind
bureaucracy only heightens the controversy.
T (After Sandman, 1993)
It is important to recognize that there is no way to make risk entirely familiar,
voluntary, and fair, but that any honest attempts to make it more so will also make
it more acceptable.
T In the past, industry and government spokespeople informed the public
about a risk by explaining technical material. Their rationale was that
understanding technology would lead to understanding risk. However, this
view of risk does not consider individual perceptions, societal values, and
other beliefs people may have about the company or technology imposing
the risk. Indeed, if a public appears to ignore the presented facts, they may
be responding to the other factors that contribute to the acceptability of the
risk.
T Two categories of information are used by people making judgment about
risk. Generally each category is weighed equally in the decision. The first
34
category includes the scientific or engineering data on the risk. The second
category includes non-technical factors.
T Risk researchers have identified several characteristics that comprise the
non-technical components of risk perception. These characteristics can be
separated into five major groupings. In general people respond less
favorably to four types of risks: those that are unfamiliar, induce fear, are
involuntary, and do not distribute the risks and benefits evenly. The fifth
risk perception category reflects the fact that people respond less favorably
to a risk if their relationship with the company imposing the risk is
unsatisfactory. A risk may be more easily accepted if the company or
individual imposing the risk is responsive, compassionate, and respectful,
and attempts to reduce the non-technical factors which make the risk
unacceptable.
T There are specific actions risk communicators can take to assist people in
their judgments of risk acceptance.
35
3
Building Trust
With the Public
36
CASE STUDY
Open Communication Contributes
to Business Success
s natural gas company engineers well know, planning a major gas line expansion
can open a Pandoras box of permits, public concerns, and construction difficulties.
Yet, NorAm (formerly Arkla Energy Resources) successfully negotiated the permit
process for a 225-mile pipeline, as it saved the company over $30 million, expanded to
new gas markets, created 2,000 jobs and received several environmental awards for its
efforts, including the first Corporate Wildlife Stewardship Award from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The primary choice for a 225-mile transmission line route required crossing
two wild and scenic rivers, a state park and natural area, three federally
listed endangered species, and creating a right-of-way corridor through a
previously uncut forest that was woodland bird habitat. NorAm came to the
planning table with members of more than 30 government agencies and
special interest groups, including The Nature Conservancy and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Together this team arrived at a final solution that
enabled NorAm to use its primary route. NorAm agreed that in exchange for
permission to suspend the pipe across one of the wild and scenic rivers,
they would construct a pedestrian walkway and purchase 160 acres of
adjoining land and donate it to The Nature Conservancy. In exchange for a
right-of-way in the uncut forest, they purchased nearby acreage and
donated it to The Nature Conservancy. These actions protected three
federally listed endangered species and set aside 1,600 acres of wild lands.
NorAm spent a total of approximately $4 million for the crossing and habitat
to accomplish this work, but saved over $30 million in construction costs.
As important, however, they established trust and goodwill among regulators and the
environmental community. In the end, members of the newly formed planning team
were quoted as saying Anytime they want to sit down at the table and discuss
problems, the table will be available (American Gas Association, 1990).
A
37
3
Conveying information to people is always more effective if you have their
trust. Conveying technical information to non-technical people is
becoming an increasingly important element in implementing our strategy.
James E. Moylan, Jr., President, Southern Natural Gas Company
company may not be able to strongly influence an individuals precon-
ceived notions of risk. However, companies do have control over their
relationship with their target audience. This relationship provides opportunities
for companies to exert a strong influence on risk acceptance.
Chapter 2 discussed the characteristics of risk that influence its acceptability
and outlined how a companys relationships with the audience affects that risk
acceptance. This chapter will discuss the role of trust and the characteristics of a
companys risk communication program that can influence the publics trust. This
discussion is followed by a presentation of methodologically sound techniques
that enhance a companys credibility and promote public trust.
The multidimensional nature of trust can be illustrated by a typical doctor-
patient relationship. A risk from medical treatment is typically a voluntary risk.
Usually the patient has ultimate control over whether or not to accept it. It is also a
fair risk. The patient bears all the risk but also incurs its benefits personally. A
patient and doctor engage in discussions about the problem, the solutions, and the
alternatives. These discussions are characterized by an exchange of facts and
opinions (Boyle and Holtgrave, 1989). Thus, as in many other situations, a
persons acceptance of a risk is influenced by three factors: the nature of the risk,
the process, and the skill of the risk messenger. This chapter focuses on the role
trust plays in all three of these factors, and how those factors are integrated into
techniques for earning trust at every opportunity.
The Basis of Mistrust of Industry
Both trust and mistrust have many dimensions. In order to understand and gain
trust, the primary factors leading to mistrust must be identified.
A
38
The Nature of the Risk
For reasons discussed in chapter 2, mistrust is greater for risks associated with
industry and technology (e.g., genetic engineering, by-products of manufacturing,
and pesticide residues). Technological risks are often associated with the main
elements of risk perception: fear, unfamiliarity, and loss of control. Of all the
types of information people receive, that which is least trusted is information
provided by industry regarding technological risks (Frewer, et al., 1996). In
general, the greater the potential for environmental and human health-related
catastrophes, the less trusted is the risk-producing industry (Sandman, 1993).
The Perceived Loss of Control
Many conflicts and controversies surrounding risk management are the result of
technological and social changes. As individuals become increasingly more reliant
upon sophisticated services and technologies, control shifts away from the indi-
vidual. Consumers cede that control, and the responsibility for managing the risk,
to industry and the governmental bodies that regulate it (Frewer, et al., 1996). The
average individuals limited understanding of how these complex technologies
work contributes further to that feeling of lost control (Freudenberg, 1995).
Chauncey Starr has studied risk perception for the electric power industry. He
describes the feelings of loss of control with the following metaphor:
Imagine yourself slicing a roast. This is an informal occasion so you have no
fork one hand is on the meat and the other is carving. Try to picture how
close to the knife the hand on the meat is as you carve. Now make it a two-
person job. Someone else gets the knife. What happens to the hand on the
meat? You pull it right back or you get a fork (Sandman, 1993).
Trust becomes more important when people feel a loss of control.
The Risk Messenger
In addition to mistrust based on the attributes of a specific risk, an audience may
harbor concerns because it lacks trust in the company. Mistrust may stem from the
companys track record in managing prior risks, or it may be due to the style of
the company spokesperson. Company spokespeople carry a heavy burden for the
success of a companys risk communication program. It is difficult for companies
to build and maintain trust. A critical element is whether or not the company
spokesperson comes across as a caring, thoughtful, and knowledgeable individual.
Spokespeople must relate technical information but also must earn a
reputation as being trustworthy and credible. In addition to possessing the
necessary knowledge and technical competency, it is essential that spokespeople
present a balanced picture. Once a spokesperson assumes a strong position, they
are no longer seen as a credible source of information. An audience will more
willingly work with a spokesperson who clearly represents a company but who is
skilled at balancing this role with the needs of the audience.
39
Spokespeople need not distance themselves from their company. Audiences
accept the reasonable (and necessary) fact that the spokesperson is working on
behalf of company interests. Frewer, et al. (1996) found that an experts increased
independence from a company does not necessarily lead to greater trust in the
information provided. Rather, the most trust is likely to be placed in those sources
that have moderate degrees of accountability. That is, trust will be placed in those
representatives who have a partial vested interest in promoting a particular view
and who are reasonably self-protective, yet who balance this obligation with
moderate accountability to others. These spokespeople demonstrate an under-
standing of the audiences position and a willingness to consider it as a
component in company plans.
Since an audience prefers balance, extreme motivations are suspect. Blind
corporate loyalty leads to mistrust because it can be interpreted as dishonesty or a
lack of personal values. Conversely, a total lack of accountability (as some activist
groups or experts who will testify on seemingly any issue are viewed as having)
can be criticized for slanting or sensationalizing information. The company
spokesperson needs to present his or her case in a way that shows a balanced
picture.
Earning Trust and Credibility
Building trust requires a visible, high standard of integrity over a considerable
period of time; it can tolerate no substantial lapses. The more a company asks to
be trusted, the less it will be trusted (Sandman, 1993). Trust is won by concrete
action. Commitment, both personally and organizationally, evokes trust.
Researchers at Columbia University (Covello, 1984) have developed tech-
niques for maintaining trust and credibility while managing risk. The following
discussion presents eight principles and describes how these business methods,
combined with common sense, work together to build trust. These principles,
adapted from Covellos study, are grouped into three categories based on the
optimal timing or opportunity. While not all of these principles are applicable or
even advisable in each situation, the underlying themes of openness and integrity
are essential in designing risk communication strategies that build trust.
Planning for Trust: Develop Opportunities
Release information early
A company may fear that disclosure of preliminary or incomplete information will
result in misdirected efforts. However, the public will argue that holding on to
information is seldom justified, especially when it concerns health and well-being.
People are understandably anxious when they believe information is being with-
held and this anxiety may lead to anger, particularly if they believe it has been
withheld unnecessarily (Hance, et al., 1988). The most important reason to release
information early is to reduce the opportunities for the audience to develop
hostilities. An atmosphere of openness and responsiveness enhances the ability to
communicate clearly about risk.
40
Involve the audience
Typically, companies hold off involving their public or their employees until it is
certain that they can respond to all of the concerns. This may seem a logical way
to consider the risk communication process, however involving the public in fact-
finding and decision-making allows them to verify that the company is moving in
the promised direction. Companies may be concerned that people who dont
understand the whole picture will push for unreasonable solutions, but the public
is more likely to be unreasonable if they are not given any information. Allowing
people the opportunity to observe and understand how decisions are being made
gives them greater familiarity and confidence in business practices.
Dont delay talking to other organizations
As will be discussed in chapter 6, it is important to identify and include all key
audiences especially those that are likely to be the most difficult. The groups
that a company is most reluctant to involve often represent the most critical
audiences. Engaging in early discussion with groups that are likely to oppose a
project will sharpen a companys ability to consider diverse viewpoints and will
also provide the opportunity to obtain information important to the projects
success. Even outside the context of a specific project or event, it is important to
know who the companys key stakeholders are, and to maintain an ongoing dialog
with them.
Establishing Trust: Use Each Step in the Process
Dont send your most introverted scientist
to discuss risk with the public
The company spokesperson is the linchpin in a risk communication program. Who
the best spokesperson will be depends entirely upon the circumstances; the
options must be weighed carefully. Companies need to impose the same rigor in
selecting the people who work with the public as in selecting those who manage
risks. Ideally a company should choose a spokesperson who has a good
understanding of both the technical data and dealing with the public concerns.
Trusted individuals must be seen as knowledgeable, or at least as sources of well-
researched information (Frewer, et al., 1996). It may be best to choose a
spokesperson with a strong technical background who is good with people
rather than a public relations professional who has no technical background
(Hance, et al., 1990).
There may be situations when a CEO is the best person to instill a sense of
corporate commitment and promise. At times, a familiar face, a local presence, or
someone involved in the community is the best choice. There will be other times
when a voice external to the company (a regulator, community leader, or an
outside expert) has the most credibility. A more detailed discussion of appropriate
company spokespeople appears in the boxed text.
41
Dont ignore peoples feelings
Use empathy when facing a public to discuss risk. Recall the factors that drive the
audiences decision of whether or not to accept a risk. Feelings are often
difficult for corporate personnel to acknowledge, discuss, and handle because they
are consciously barred from the typical corporate environment, but to ignore them
in a risk communication setting is a poor and ineffective practice.
Be accountable, follow through with promises
Accountability includes things that require consistency and honesty, such as
returning phone calls, keeping a list at meetings of unanswered questions that you
will respond to later, or keeping people informed as soon as it is clear that a
deadline is going to be delayed. Lack of follow-through erodes trust.
Maintaining Trust: Interacting with the Public
Admit to uncertainty
As will be discussed in chapter 4, managing uncertainty is difficult, and not being
able to give definitive answers to a hostile audience is frustrating. Admitting to
uncertainty or facilitating public understanding of science as a process can
increase a communicators trustworthiness (Frewer, et al., 1996). When the
audience trusts that the company will acknowledge what it doesnt know, they
will more likely trust what the company does know (Sandman, 1993).
Speak plain English
Words that unduly mask the issue will make the audience feel patronized or that
an attempt is being made to mislead them. As chapter 4 will emphasize, it is
important to avoid jargon, euphemisms, and loaded words. Other rhetorical
mistakes include oversimplifying, omitting, or distorting information.
Because trust plays such a key role in risk acceptance, companies must
consistently promote their trustworthiness. These eight research-based techniques
can be employed in a variety of communication opportunities in order to build and
reinforce a trustworthy reputation.
42
Determining the Most Appropriate
Company Spokesperson
Choosing the Companys Chief Executive Officer as Spokesperson
People want to hear from the person in charge. They want assurances that
they will be protected, and a CEO can make commitments that other
company spokespersons cannot. Sending lower-level officials to speak to the
public on a health and safety issue people find important may indicate that
senior management doesnt think the issue is important. Many CEOs are
reluctant to face a hostile audience because often the presence of the CEO
creates an opportunity for active opponents to turn a meeting into a media
event, but the risks of hiding the CEO must also be considered.
Coaching Scientists and Engineers
If a technically-oriented person speaks for the company, there are some key
points for him or her to consider.
T Public response to risk situations often evolves out of fear of the
unknown.
T The public will accept that interpretations of scientific data vary. An
awareness of various interpretations helps people develop their
opinions.
T Think about what the audience most likely knows and pre-test
technical material with a non-technical person.
T Most people dont respond to numbers or long lists of facts. They
want the information that is important to them.
T Technical information is best organized according to peoples
questions, not according to company answers.
T It is important to recognize the limits of expertise. Engineers are not
accepted as medical experts, and vice versa.
Involving Corporate Communications Officers
The role of this office is critical both during a risk crisis or when planning
any public communication. During a crisis this office will, most likely, be
the focal point of company activities, especially for involvement with the
media. It is important to remember, however, the distinction between public
relations and risk communication. Persons trained to promote a company or
a message may not be effective at the two-way dialogue that risk
communication requires.
Enlisting Voices External to the Company
Wherever possible, give the public an opportunity to hear from qualified
experts other than company representatives. Provide the public with names
of other organizations to which they can turn for information. These may
include regulators, academic experts, special interest groups, or community
advisory panels. These groups do not have a vested interest in the company
but may be seen as technically credible.
43
The conventional wisdom is that physicians, especially from the local
health care facility, are particularly credible if they understand the nature of
the technological risk and if the concern is health and not property values
(Sandman, 1993). A physician who takes care to establish his or her caring
nature can be particularly effective.
Peter Sandman (1993) offers this caution for companies considering
regulatory agency staff as spokespersons:
The 1990s have heralded a period of widespread concern for
environmental and personal health and safety. Concurrent with
this, people no longer inherently trust government to keep industry
honest. Over the years industry has spent considerable time,
money and energy touting that government is poorly run and
disorganized it is no wonder that the public fears for their
personal health and well-being. Now, if the company wants to lean
on regulators as a way to establish trust and credibility they will
need to provide a clear and consistent message that regulators
have high integrity and that their regulations are reasonable and
sound.
Determining the Lawyers Role
Lawyers protect the company and employees from getting involved in a
situation that may produce a legal exposure or liability. However, as
company spokespeople they may give the impression that the company is
more concerned about its legal position and protecting itself than it is about
peoples welfare. Because they are trained to choose their words very
carefully, attorneys language in this dialogue may fail to convey empathy,
caring, or concern.
T Companies can exercise control over their relationships with their target
audiences. Building trust into these relationships is a crucial factor in risk
acceptance.
T Building trust requires a visible, high standard of integrity over a sustained
period of time. The greater the potential for environmental and human-
health related catastrophe, the less an industry or company is likely to be
trusted.
T The knowledge, authority, and risk communication skills of company
spokespeople are critical to success. These representatives should be
selected carefully.
T There are several techniques that can be used to enhance trust. These
techniques may be incorporated into a companys risk communication
strategies:
J Disclose information early.
44
J Involve the public.
J Talk to other, especially opposing, groups.
J Send the appropriate spokesperson.
J Acknowledge peoples feelings.
J Be accountable.
J Acknowledge uncertainty.
J Avoid using jargon or oversimplification.
45
4
Explaining Risk
46
CASE STUDY
Effective Communicators Develop the Skill to See
through the Eyes of their Audience.
he public exerts substantial influence over policy decisions on a variety of
complex issues involving risk. Yet, the publics technical understanding of these
issues is often weak. Technical experts may be surprised to learn how easily technical
issues are confused or misinterpreted by a non-technical audience. For example,
researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University found that even relatively well-educated lay
people did not clearly understand two of the most fundamental facts about global
warming:
1. If significant global warming occurs, it will be primarily the result of an increase in the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere.
2. The single most important source of carbon dioxide addition to the earths
atmosphere is the combustion of fossil fuels, most notably coal and oil.
(Read, et al., 1994)
These findings were reflected in interview responses such as the following:
OK. Lets see. What do I know? The earth is getting warmer because there are
holes in the atmosphere and this is global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Um. I really dont know very much about it, but it does seem to be true. The
temperatures do seem to be kind of warm in the winters. They do seem to be
warmer than in the past. [When asked to elaborate:] I think there are holes in the
atmosphere and the sun is more powerful because of that. I think of what causes
it, I think of Right Guard actually and like, sprays and things that put holes in the
ozone layer.
Even though they knew little about the scientific basis, interviewees in this same study
had many opinions about policy solutions to global warming that included taxes and
pollution control, recycling, forest protection, emission-trading schemes, investing in
mass transit rather than highways, and investing more in research to increase energy
efficiency. Many of the policy options suggested were framed in terms of
chlorofluorocarbon emission reductions (Bostrom, et al., 1992). Explaining technical
material to lay audiences requires an understanding of the risk perception factors
explained in chapter 2 and an ability to execute the skills presented in this chapter.
T
47
4
A presentation steeped in engineering jargon is, for most people, much like
listening to an opera sung in Italian. It may be mildly entertaining, theres a
possibility they wont fall asleep, but it is highly unlikely that theyll
actually learn anything.
Lee Stewart, Senior Vice President Transportation Services, Southern California Gas Co.
discussion about risk is much more than a discussion of statistics and
science. Methods of delivery, understandable explanations, and an aware-
ness of the information that the audience already has about a risk all contribute to
the value of the discussion. This chapter explores why explanations of risk should
take into account risk perception factors and must acknowledge what individuals
already perceive about a risk, whether it is accurate or not. The chapter includes a
discussion of techniques for motivating an audiences interest in technical data
and recommendations for how to best communicate complex information.
The Influence of Personal Experience on Judging Risk:
The Scientific Perspective and the Public View
In chapter 2, the factors that people use to determine the acceptability of a risk
were described. These include non-technical factors that are drawn from personal
judgment. Regardless of the strength of the scientific evidence, people draw upon
their own judgment to interpret findings and determine relevance (Slovic and
Fishoff, 1980). The gap that exists between the data presented by experts and the
concerns of a non-technical audience will not be narrowed by simply forcing more
data on the public (Kasper, 1980). In order to effectively relay technical
information, the communicator must assist the audience in bringing the full range
of resources, both information and non-technical factors, to bear on their decision
making.
In addition to the general risk-perception factors described, people select and
process new information using a personal frame of reference that reflects
individual biases, attitudes, and values. In general, an experts frame of reference
(within that experts own field of expertise) tends to be scientific and objective.
That same expert, however, will use a different frame of reference when assessing
A
48
risks outside his or her field of expertise. In fact, in those situations, the expert
will use a frame of reference similar to that used by the lay public; one that might
be considered biased, subjective, and more dependent on personal concerns (e.g.,
economic or medical) (Shrivastava, 1987). Because the two frames of reference
for understanding technology and its attendant risks often conflict with one
another, suspicion and mistrust can occur on each side. To communicate technical
information to an audience successfully, the expert must state up front that each
viewpoint is valid and that every contribution to a discussion of risk will
contribute to its interpretation. An expert must acknowledge and accept the
validity of public opinion before the public will accept the science.
If experts disagree over what appear to be minor points, the public develops
an even greater mistrust of them and their emphasis on data and science. By
emphasizing data alone, technical experts may define a problem in an overly
narrow way, as illustrated in the following example.
A site in the Texas panhandle (Deaf Smith County) was considered as a
candidate for a radioactive waste repository. Farmers in the region expressed
concern that the presence of a repository would make it more difficult for
them to sell what they produced or would lower the prices they received. The
Department of Energy (DOE) responded by having a number of experts point
out that, given many geologic barriers, waste would not come in contact with
their groundwater. The likelihood of contamination of their crops was nil.
The farmers response was that while DOE was probably right and knew
what it was talking about, they were concerned, nonetheless, that the prices
they received would be lowered by the presence of the repository and by their
customers perceptions that contamination was possible, even if no
contamination actually occurred. DOE considered this a perceived rather than
a real risk; but the farmers naturally considered anything that would reduce
their income a real risk (Whipple, 1996).
An honest representation of the modest role science can play in strengthening
public confidence will improve the process. The gap between the information that
specialists want their audience to know and what the audience wants to hear can
be bridged by taking a careful approach to communicating complex information to
a lay audience.
Providing the Appropriate Information
The company spokesperson who relays the message must determine the key
information that must be conveyed. He or she must decide what people need to
know in order to achieve the companys communication goals, making certain to
include information that must be released for ethical reasons, to establish long-
term credibility, or to satisfy a duty to warn. It is difficult to teach people things
they dont especially want to know, so it is worthwhile to limit teaching points to
the two or three key points the audience must understand. (For more information
on determining communication goals, see chapter 6.)
In addition, the communicator should anticipate issues about which the
audience is likely to want more information. Answering questions and responding
49
to concerns is more likely to get results than explaining points about which they
have no interest.
Determining What the Audience Knows
Before communicating any information, the communicator must determine what
the audience already knows (versus what they think they may know). The
communicator must weed out and correct what people currently misunderstand. A
misimpression that prevents the audience from understanding key information, or
one that may affect the audiences opinion, needs to be identified, confronted, and
corrected.
An expert who must communicate a complex subject to the lay public is not
well served by relying on intuition about what people already know, because
people often base their decisions on incorrect information. Using mental model
research, risk communication researchers have found that an individuals ability to
grasp the fundamentals of an issue is often encumbered with a large number of
secondary, irrelevant, and incorrect beliefs prohibiting understanding and
informed decision making (Read, et al., 1994). Mental-model interviewing begins
with a general statement such as, Tell me what you know about carbon
monoxide. Follow up questions probe interviewee responses to initial questions
to produce a model of an individuals understanding of an issue. Mental models
often reveal confusion among and linking together of distinctly separate issues.
This confusion should not be interpreted as naivet`e on the part of the public but
rather serves to emphasize that the myriad of issues the public confronts daily are
bound to be confusing. Despite the publics misinformation or misperception,
their views shape public policy.
Perception research provides the following insights:
T Technical experts should not trust their intuitions about public beliefs.
Many controversies in risk communication arise when experts either
underestimate or overestimate public knowledge, and
T Risk communication will be most successful and efficient when it is
directed toward correcting those knowledge gaps and misconceptions that
are most critical to the decisions people face (Bostrom, et al., 1992).
Addressing and Correcting Mental Models
Everyone uses mental models to judge risk. Mental models are the set of
principles from which people generate predictions about a risk. The risk
communication must seek to define these sets of principles in order to determine
what the audience knows about a risk (Bostrom, et al., 1992).
The communicator should assess, in a general way, what an audience knows
or misunderstands. One company spokesperson frequently takes the opportunity
during public meetings to ascertain her audiences knowledge about a general
topical area by simply asking for a show of hands in response to questions such as,
How many of you are familiar with FERC and their role in our business?
50
Peter Sandman (1994) recommends beginning a meeting with the company
spokesperson asking the members of the audience what questions they would like
addressed. This technique is effective because it gives the company a sense of the
issues the audience will raise and their general reactions to these issues. More
important, it focuses the meeting on what the audience wants
to know. Prepared remarks can then be augmented with discussions of audience
concerns.
Admittedly, this makes planning for a meeting more difficult to do, because it
may completely change the focus of discussion. But the goal is to avoid a
discussion of issues that are of no interest to the audience. People come to a
public gathering focused on particular personal questions, often with some
nervousness and embarrassment. They may barely listen to the speaker because
they are busy rehearsing their questions. If a meeting begins by eliciting those
questions, the meeting immediately takes on a more responsive and interactive
tone both for the expert and the audience. After gathering the information about
audience knowledge, the presentation of technical information can begin.
Presenting Information, Explaining Risk
This section discusses techniques for communicating complex information. These
techniques can be applied in any instance where a gap of understanding exists
between technical experts and their audiences.
Motivating the Audience
In order for an audience to learn new information, the audience must want to learn
it. Motivating an audience to care about technical information, even though they
may care intensely about a risk, may be the hardest part of risk communication
(Sandman, 1994). The easiest way to motivate an audience to care about the
technical information is to make it relevant and personal. One way to do this is to
present people with a decision that they must make based on that information.
This technique also conveys to the audience a sense of cooperation, rather than
coercion into accepting a companys solution. When people feel coerced, they
listen to the expert only to use the information to prove themselves right.
Orienting the Audience
The old adage Tell them what youre going to tell them, tell them, and then tell
them what youve told them is especially true when explaining complex
information. During the course of any technical discussion, a primary task is
keeping the audience focused and oriented. Just as orienting tools in a text include
topic sentences, transitions, flow charts and summaries, orienting tools in a verbal
presentation include flip charts, lists, and timelines all used as road maps that
guide the audience as the risk is explained. They keep the audience focused on the
project at hand (Sandman, 1994). Constant references to the material covered and
to be covered helps the audience understand the links between concepts.
51
Simplifying Complex Material
Every risk communicator must determine the level of complexity best suited to
the audience. When the content of a risk message is oversimplified, key
information that the audience needs in order to make a decision may,
inadvertently, be omitted. To strike the balance between presenting
understandable material and leaving out essential information, the communicator
should strive to simplify the way the material is presented but not the material
itself (Sandman, 1993). Complex information can be presented in layers of
increasing complexity. The message can become gradually more complex, similar
to a technical report that begins with an abstract, then describes the problem in
greater detail, and ends with technical appendices. As in a report, the technical
information must support the simplest layer of information presented. It must be
consistent and without contradictions, but it is important not to omit information
that seems overly complex. The audience doesnt have to understand it at the
same level as the risk expert, but they have to understand it well enough to make
an informed decision. Several techniques lead to this goal:
Use graphics
Graphics are useful for presenting statistics or numerical information. They are
also a useful way to compare risks. Well-designed graphics leave a visual memory
of data that is easier to recall than a list of numbers. Some simple rules for
designing graphics include the following:
T Dont simply copy a graph or a table from a report. The format may not be
appropriate for many reasons: the type face or font may not be clear
enough; there could be too much information or not the appropriate
information; the material may contain technical language that will confuse
the information/message; or the numbers may be presented in units that
dont make sense to the audience. A graph or table will be more useful if
accompanied by explanatory text.
T Avoid using charts with logarithmic scales. They may confuse and/or
distort what people think they are seeing (Whipple, 1996). Unfamiliar
units, like unfamiliar ideas, must be explained in an understandable way.
T Keep graphics simple and be sure they illustrate only one point per frame
(Hance, et al., 1988).
Personalize statistics
It is useful to present risk statistics in a way that people can relate to, or that make
sense on a personal level. Numbers or statistics can be made less abstract by the
following methods:
T Use ranges. Instead of simply comparing one number to a standard,
present data in a range from safe to unsafe. This avoids making a standard
into a watershed figure with everything above it interpreted as dangerous
and everything below it safe. In this way, the audience can understand a
determination of what is safe and what is not (Swanson, et al., 1991).
T Dont be afraid to personalize risk numbers and statistics. Risk
calculations are typically done on a macro-level, projecting what will
52
happen to the community as a whole. But citizens concerns are at the
micro-level, What might happen to me and those I love? Address the
questions with specific responses rather than generalizing.
T Consider using concrete images to give substance to abstract data. Avoid
using distant, abstract, unfeeling language about death, injury, and illness.
Enhance the discussion of numbers with more human aspects of the
issue, and listen to people when they express their concerns. Respond in a
way that shows an understanding of the content of their comments and the
emotions they are expressing (Swanson, et al., 1991).
Avoid loaded words, euphemisms, and jargon
In any discussion of risk, word choice is extremely important. Loaded words are
usually those that evoke fear, such as hazardous, toxic, deadly, or cancer
(Swanson, et al., 1991). When the audience is a group of employees, and the
subject is workplace safety, loaded words may be appropriate as they tend to
create attention. When the audience is the general public or the media, however,
loaded words may create perceptions beyond what was intended. Swanson, et al.
(1991) recommend choosing words with an understanding of the associations the
receivers will make based on their individual frames of reference. Communicators
should consider the images the words will conjure up for them based on the
stereotypes often associated with these words. If the audience injects loaded
words, however, the company spokesperson should not ignore them.
At the other end of the spectrum, risk communicators should avoid using
euphemisms, i.e., words or phrases that mask an issue. They may sound cold or
uncaring, and they may suggest that the specialist feels superior or that something
isy being covered up. Swanson, et al. (1991) note the following examples of
euphemisms: hospitals referring to deaths as negative patient outcomes, and the
nuclear power industry referring to Three Mile Island as a nuclear incident or a
nuclear excursion. While the word conservative is not necessarily either a
loaded word or a euphemism, consider the following reasoning behind
substituting the word cautious when discussing matters of risk.
People generally are not aware that the numbers used to set standards are
quite cautious and that, in many cases, state standards or guidelines are more
stringent than federal ones. In addition, they often do not know the type of
buffers built into risk assessments to ensure that companies err on the side of
caution. This is misunderstood by people who think that a conservative
estimate is a low estimate and that a conservative risk assessment procedure
thus means that the agency is not regulating strictly enough. Therefore
substitute the word cautious or protective for the word conservative (Hance,
et al., 1988).
Use appropriate risk comparisons
Technological risks are often compared with other, better-known risks in order to
put them in the context of peoples everyday lives. When used properly, risk
comparisons take people one step closer to understanding risks. When used
improperly, they can sound patronizing (Sandman, 1993). A risk comparison must
53
not trivialize but should be relevant to the question being discussed with the
audience. The risk being imposed on a group should not be compared to
something that will appear too trivial. The audience will feel it is being deceived
by a risk comparison that is designed to make the risk in question seem smaller
than it is.
These rules of thumb are useful:
T Compare risks associated with similar risk perception elements (as
described in chapter 2). For instance, dont compare a risk that is
involuntary (e.g., exposure to electric and magnetic fields from electric
transmission lines) to one voluntarily assumed (e.g., smoking). Even
though the risks from two activities can be compared statistically, in the
publics mind they may have nothing to do with one another.
T Compare risks to a regulatory standard. Comparing performance to
regulatory requirements will show where a companys numbers stand with
respect to regulatory determination of what is safe. Before using this
comparison, the risk communicator should be certain of the audiences
level of trust in that standard. If it is widely viewed that the standard is not
set low (or high) enough, then this would not be a useful risk comparison.
Again, caution should be used to ensure that the regulatory standard is not
interpreted as a strict demarcation of safe and hazardous levels.
T Make comparisons that demonstrate trends with respect to time. For
example, The risk of gas line explosions is 25% less than it was two years
ago, before implementation of new safety technology.
T Present risks associated with action versus non-action. If people adhere to
safety practices, their risk of an on-the-job accident will be A. If they
dont, their risk will be B.
T Compare risks to those experienced in other places. The most serious
problems involving X have been encountered in the Denver area; the X
problem being presented here is about 1/5 as serious as Denvers.
T Dont form judgments. Dont interpret the previous statement for the
audience as The problem being presented is only 1/5 as serious as
Denvers.
T Compare alternative solutions to the same problem. The risk associated
with incinerating waste is X. The risk associated with landfill disposal is
54
Y. The company experts also should bring up alternatives with lower
risks than the one they are advocating.
(Adapted from Swanson, et al., 1991 and Lundgren, 1995)
Dealing With Uncertainty
In most risk situations, statistics are often presented in the form of average annual
mortality, incidence of disease, or event probabilities. It is unlikely that there will
ever be absolutes. Yet the audience wants the answer to a basic question, Is it
safe? If there are relevant regulatory standards, a companys compliance with
them is one basis for answering this question. It is effective risk communication to
be able to say that the companys performance is much better than required by the
standard. It is also good risk communication to say, Were not yet in compliance,
but weve made progress and were close. In situations that are not clear cut,
however, it is necessary to explain to the public how the data were gathered and
analyzed, where the sources of uncertainty are, and how the results are interpreted.
Although people may not like answers that have caveats attached, they will be
more mistrusting if they are given an answer that later turns out to be wrong
because it included faulty assumptions (Lundgren, 1995).
Peter Sandman (1993) provides these suggestions for communicating
effectively in an uncertain situation or about a health risk that is not supported by
conclusive research:
T Dont wait to be confronted. Acknowledge uncertainty up front.
T Explain what you have done or are doing to reduce the uncertainty.
T If the remaining uncertainty is very small or very difficult to reduce
further, say so.
T Report everyones estimates of the risk, even those of advocacy groups,
not just your own.
T Dont perpetuate uncertainty. If there are reasonable actions you can take
to find answers to a question, say so and do so.
T Stress that finding out for sure may be less important than taking
appropriate precautions now.
T Acknowledge that people disagree about what to do in the face of
uncertainty.
T Get people involved in their role to reduce uncertainty.
Even if the data are tentative, it is better to communicate early and often with
credibility and clarity than to wait for absolute certainty. The public will be better
served and the company will begin to build trust. In issues involving uncertainty, a
companys visible commitment to seeking answers is the best asset that a risk
communicator has.
55
T A gap exists between expert and layperson understanding and
interpretation of risk. The technical expert must understand the non-
technical factors that influence public opinion and acknowledge the
validity of public opinion and concern before he or she can expect the
public to accept the science.
T One of the key steps in designing a risk communication strategy is to
determine what the audience already knows and thinks about the issue, and
whether this information is correct or whether misconceptions exist which
will obstruct communication efforts.
T Risk communicators should target the information presented to those few
key points that (a) are needed to address the concerns of the audience, and
(b) are essential for them to make informed decisions regarding the issue.
T To strike a balance between presenting understandable material and
leaving out essential information, the communicator should simplify the
way the material is presented but not the material itself. Methods for
simplifying include: orienting the audience in the midst of complex
information, using graphics, personalizing statistics, choosing words
carefully, and making suitable risk comparisons.
T In uncertain situations, risk communicators should acknowledge that
uncertainty up front, explain what is being done to reduce the uncertainty,
and get people involved in helping to reduce it.
56
57
5
Working With the
Media and Activist
Groups
58
CASE STUDY
Skilled Communicators Can Use the
Media as a Conduit to the Public
ffective media relations take time and effort. Success is influenced by the skills of
the players on both sides from their familiarity with technical issues to their ability
to translate the difficult language of science. Stephen Schneider describes the
strategies he has developed to disseminate public information through the media:
Steering a safe course between scientific respectability and good copy isnt easy,
particularly for a young scientist. Its even tougher when the pen or editing
pencil is not in your hand.
After a decade of experience, I have developed several strategies as a source.
First, I try to anticipate what I believe the public wants and needs to know.
Rather than stress my own work I generally try to present a broad overview of the
entire field with very little specialized detail, then later on I hone in on the particular
specifics to which my own research contributions may be relevant.
Second, I try to get a reporter to include in a story some notion of the longer-term
global-scale policy implication of the scientific research and the recognition that
public decisions to deal with these issues are value judgments for which scientific
expertise is only an input not a special license to choose for society how to act.
Being a source is a two-way street, the reporter is getting information that can lead
to a credible story and I am getting public exposure for ideas that I think are
important and for which the media are my best routes to the public. While I never
expect a writer to hammer out a story that reflects all or even most of what I want
said, I do expect that at least some of the material I want aired will appear.
Third, I use analogies and metaphors that are common to the experience of most
readers but dont do violence to the scientific content that the metaphor is to
illustrate (Schneider, 1986).
There are always some risks in dealing with the media. On the average, however,
helping to inform the public will yield benefits to technology, to your industry or
organization, and even to you, that outweigh the risks (Miller, 1986).
E
59
5
his document has examined many aspects of a risk communication
program: factors that influence risk perception, communicating complex
information, and building trust with the public. As a company undertakes these
activities, risk communicators who are external to the company are also
addressing the risk. These communicators include the media and activist groups.
The importance of developing a relationship with these constituents is accentuated
by a phenomenon called signal impact. This chapter examines signal impact, how
these external communicators work, and how a company might manage its
relationship with them.
Signal Impact
What truly grips us in these accounts is not so much the numbers as the
spectacle of suddenly vanishing competence, of men utterly routed by
technology, of fail-safe systems failing with a logic as inexorable as it was
once indeed, right up until that very moment unforeseeable. And the
spectacle haunts us because it seems to carry allegorical import, like the
whispery omen of a hovering future [In reference to Bhopal] (The Talk of the
Town, New Yorker, 1985).
When a crisis occurs, the public immediately begins to form opinions about
the severity of the event and the responsibility of the company. If the event has
significant consequences, the effect on and of public opinion will begin to extend
beyond the particular event. This phenomenon, sometimes called ripple effect
or signal impact has been likened to a stone dropped in a pond: the ripples
spread outward encompassing first the directly affected victims and the respon-
sible company or agency, and potentially reaching other companies, agencies or
industries (Slovic, 1987). It can amplify and distort the risks associated with an
event. It may ultimately result in increased regulation, opposition to industry
operations, and may ultimately affect a companys profitability.
Signal impacts have occurred many times and have had an impact on many
companies and industries. The two most notable examples are the accidents at
Three Mile Island (TMI) and Bhopal (see appendix B). The accident at TMI
produced no deaths and few, if any, latent cancer fatalities are expected as a result
of it. Yet the accident gave rise to intensified regulation and extensive backfitting
T
60
requirements for other plants, lengthened construction times for new plants
through a tightened permitting process, increased opposition to nuclear power
worldwide, public pressure for alternative energy sources, and as a further
consequence, an increased dependence on traditional fossil fuel sources (Slovic,
1987).
Despite the fact that the Bhopal chemical-fertilizer accident occurred in
another country, it gave rise to federal legislation in the U.S. dealing with
emergency planning and community right-to-know. These acts affected a broad
spectrum of industries beyond the fertilizer industry. The Bhopal accident
triggered sanctions and protests against Union Carbide all over the world. In India
and the United States, public interest and activist groups initiated a variety of
grassroots campaigns against the company. In Scotland, despite a local
unemployment rate of 26%, the city of Livingston rejected Union Carbides
proposal to set up a plant to manufacture toxic gases (Shrivastava, 1987).
From a business perspective, signal impact implies that the costs of a single
industrial accident will extend well into the future. It may be associated with loss
of public trust, increased regulation, future construction delays, and perhaps even
significant process changes. Companies must also be prepared to respond to crises
that are the result of similar operations in another company or industry. A signal
impact has its greatest impact on a companys trustworthiness and its ability to
overcome a negative image. Once an event begins to erode public trust, the
company must exert additional effort and expense to rebuild it.
The Benefits of Media Exposure
Most people dont stop investing in the stock market if they lose a small
amount of money. They do it again and try to improve their odds. That is the
same mind set for dealing with the media, and with practice your investment
pays higher returns with less risk (Swanson, et al., 1991).
Sharon Dunwoody (1996) describes three reasons why media exposure is
warranted.
1. Media As a Major Source of News
A residential consumer attitude survey performed for the American Gas
Association in 1994 found that 73% of respondents depend on television for
information about natural gas. Television, newspapers, and magazines accounted
for the top three information sources on natural gas issues (American Gas
Association, 1994). Because these sources of information are so important, a
company must learn to manage information distributed by them or the company
may lose control of the issue or event.
2. Legitimization by the Audience
Because the media are a widely used source of information, they are continually
legitimized by their audiences continued use. The legitimacy of the media
reinforces the need for a company to develop an effective relationship with the
media.
61
3. Opportunity to Educate
While people dont need to be told what to think, they do need information to use
in decision making. The mass media serve as an alerting mechanism; they
influence what individuals know about topics more than how they feel about
them. A common misconception in risk communication is that the news media are
the primary cause of hostility and misperceptions among the audience. The media
do not create this hostility, but can focus it (Lundgren, 1995). The effort to inform
should not be abandoned for fear of not being able to make convincing arguments
in the face of a media blitz.
Understanding the Media
In most cases, the costs of avoiding the media far outweigh any alarm that a
proactive strategy may provoke. Losing total control over the story, losing
credibility with the media and the public, and losing the opportunity to educate the
media and its audience are some of those costs (Hance, et al., 1990).
Commonly held views that might lead a company to avoid media contact
include the following:
T Journalists are anti-science and anti-technology, and their coverage thus
assumes that any risks posed by scientific and technological
developments are both unnecessary and venal.
T Journalists focus unduly on some risks while ignoring others. That
uneven distribution of attention skews interpretation of scientists
judgments about the relative importance of risks to public safety.
T Journalists are in the business of selling their products to consumers; thus
accuracy might take a back seat to colorful, sensational attributes of risk
situations.
(Dunwoody and Peters, 1992)
Central to these perceptions is the fact that journalists work under different
conditions and with a different educational emphasis than scientists or engineers.
The first step in developing a proactive media strategy is to understand some of
the attributes of American journalism.
Lack of Technical Training and Education
Journalists, like many people, often lack depth in their scientific and mathematical
education. The typical U.S. journalist is less likely to have majored in science or
math than is the average U.S. resident. But, like other people, they believe that the
impacts of science and technology are generally positive ones (Dunwoody and
Peters, 1992). The same holds true for editors. A Canadian study found that of the
49 editors who responded to a survey, fewer than one-third had had any science
courses in college. Only 15 had taken courses in political science. Eleven had
enrolled in sociology, psychology, or business and economics courses. Fewer than
10 percent had taken courses in biology, math, chemistry, physics, agricultural
sciences, or engineering (Friedman, 1986).
Some implications of this lack of technical training are:
62
T Safety- and environmental health-related issues are often reported as
either/or situations. Risk estimates are reported as discreet numbers and
facts, and not as variable phenomena; either you are safe or you are not.
T Because of their lack of background, general assignment reporters are
more likely to portray a story as newer or bigger than it actually is.
T As the technical level of a storys material increases, journalistic interest
decreases.
T When confronted with the complexities of scientific debate, it is easier to
focus on human interest than on technical concerns.
T To reach as many people as possible, science news must be simplified
and translated into lay terms. This can lead to oversimplification and even
distortion, particularly if there are no specialists or science writers
working for the organization (Friedman, 1986). Science writers for the
major wire services relate that they often put out brush fires started by
local reporters who get involved in scientific and medical stories about
everything from unorthodox cancer cures to the latest diets (Russell,
1986).
T Journalists do not see their role as conveyors of technical information.
They convey news.
To accurately report on a complex scientific or engineering issue requires
taking time to uncover and to understand details and background. However, in
journalism, more attention is often given to breaking the story and to seeking a
new angle than to in-depth follow-up of the story (Friedman, 1986).
Deadline Constraints
Journalists for both the print and electronic media work under a rigid set of rules
and deadline pressures. Therefore, if a representative from one side of a technical
debate is more readily accessible for comment, there is greater opportunity for
biased reporting (Swanson, et al., 1991). Among the many decisions the media
must make are: what aspect to emphasize, what material needs explanation, how
much research detail to present, how to translate scientific jargon for the audience
in question, and how to achieve a balanced piece. Influencing these decisions are
deadline and editorial pressures, the need for visuals, the problem of getting
complex material across to a lay audience in a short article or an even shorter
television or radio presentation, and, perhaps, hostility or lack of cooperation from
scientists (Friedman, 1986).
Friedman (1986) recounts the following as told to her by a television
journalist:
If a story breaks at 11:15 AM, I have to do an interview at 12:15 PM. By 2:15
PM the crew and I return from shooting and I write a script. Along with other
reporters reporting science news, I have to beg and scrape for two minutes of
air time, including the introduction and closing. Editors have fits if I ask for
more than three minutes because, excluding commercials, sports, and
weather, there may only be six to eight minutes left for news of the world.
63
How the Media Cover Risk
Journalists choose topics to cover partly based on personal interest and partly
based on organizational priorities, audience needs, and pressure from their
sources. They are often guided by the view that a rare risk is more newsworthy
than a common one, a new risk is more newsworthy than an old one, and a
dramatic risk one that kills many people at once suddenly or mysteriously is
more newsworthy than a chronic, familiar risk (Singer and Endreny, 1987). In a
study conducted between January 1984 and February 1986, Peter Sandman (1994)
performed a content analysis of evening news coverage. He observed these
common characteristics in the way risk is covered in the media:
T When technical information about risk is provided in news stories, it has
little if any impact on the audience. The other elements of a risk story
(i.e., visual prominence, timeliness, or high alarm) are given precedence
when the media cover risk.
T Alarming content about risk is more common than reassuring content or
intermediate content, except perhaps in crisis situations, when the
impulse to prevent panic seems to moderate the coverage. Missing a
problem is a much greater journalistic sin than overstating it. The
possibility that X is dangerous makes the story worth covering. The claim
that X is safe is newsworthy only because someone else claims it is not.
And so the dangerous side naturally gets more attention. As for the
middle, how do you make an interesting story out of further research is
needed?
T A reassuring industry source will have more difficulty getting attention
from a journalist than will an alarming activist source. However, good
coverage depends even more on sources who are skilled at working with
the media.
In a nutshell, Sandman (1996) explains his findings: Coverage of the
alarming perspective is more common than coverage of the reassuring
perspective. This isnt sensationalism, its newsworthiness and a journalistic
analogue to the risk managers conservativeness.
Media coverage of risk may be even more intense and more of a management
challenge to the gas industry in the future. Vierima (1996) identified the following
media trends likely to affect risk reporting:
T Competition and pressure to become more economically efficient. There
are now many more sources of news for the public. In addition to
traditional news shows and publications, people now get news in the form
of news tabloids, talk shows, and from the Internet. While diversity in the
media is on the rise, diversity in news content may diminish with
corporate mergers and chains.
T Focus on ratings. What news to cover and how to cover it are
increasingly being determined by how well it will sell. Marketing skills
are becoming as important as journalistic standards.
T Increased use of news services. Events in one locale will become news
nationwide, and the social and political impacts of an accident will be felt
across a wider area. A single story by a wire or subscription service
64
reporter will have a broad impact. This trend is likely to accentuate the
importance of signal impact.
T Increasing sensationalism. Gas issues are less likely to receive attention
when they are not in the context of an accident or other dramatic event.
Positive stories about natural gas or public service safety messages are
less likely to be of interest to the media.
T Shorter stories. News reporting is increasingly based upon sound bites or
3-line quotes. This loss of narrative means that stories are presented in a
more simplistic manner. Stories on gas safety issues are not likely to
present the public with any information of a complex nature or to present
the issues in a deliberative fashion.
T Emphasis on the visual. Visual images make up an increasing portion of
news stories. Even technical information is more likely to be presented in
terms of illustrations and charts rather than text. Because many gas
accidents have very visual, memorable images associated with them, they
are likely to be prominent in news coverage.
T Increase in news commentary. Stories are more likely to assess blame, in
addition to reporting the facts of an event.
T Shorter deadlines for reporters. In a competitive market, being first may
become more important than being right. Reporters will be pressured to
use sources who are the most accessible rather than those who have the
greatest expertise. There is a need for tools that explain complex technical
issues to non-technical reporters and their public.
Suggestions for Working With the Media
Understanding key aspects of journalists and the media business allows company
communicators to prepare media strategies. The following points are some general
guidelines for working with the media. In addition, there are several techniques
for planning a media strategy and steps to take before, during, and after a crisis.
T Be prepared with background materials that explain and visualize your
industry in non-technical terms. If done well, they may be used verbatim.
T Emphasize only three or four major points during a media interaction.
Keep the presentation simple. As discussed in chapter 4, simplify the way
material is presented, not the material itself. Be careful not to use
technical language; it will only serve to distance the audience.
T Be familiar with media deadlines. The reporter is unlikely to have enough
time to communicate more than the highlights of complex research
material.
T Avoid speculation of an outcome. Company spokespeople must be care-
ful not to over-emphasize the positive, especially if the outcome
is unclear.
T When considering what information to give the media, give them the kind
of information they are good at conveying news such as actions the
company is taking.
T Be prepared for personalized questions. Responding from a personal
perspective reduces the polarity between the company and the audience.
65
T Dont belittle differing views. As discussed in previous chapters, audi-
ence opinions will be based partly on risk-perception factors and existing
mental models and partly on a companys data. Acknowledging the
validity of differing views heightens company credibility in the long run.
T Openly disagree when there are premises in a question you do not accept.
It is appropriate to disagree with an interviewer, as long as a professional
demeanor is maintained.
A Checklist for Working with the Media
When Planning Media Strategy
T Develop a cooperative relationship. Become familiar with the
medias needs and their interests.
T Approach media with good news instead of waiting for them to come
to you when bad news occurs.
T Prepare a media information packet. This packet may contain:
J a fact sheet explaining how natural gas is produced,
transported, and delivered,
J brochures or fact sheets describing your company,
J descriptions of your construction process and
accompanying video if possible,
J fact sheets explaining/describing your compliance with
environmental and safety regulations, and brochures
targeted at specific issues.
T Develop a communication plan for dealing with the media and
designate clear lines of authority.
T Make sure all employees understand your company policy on giving
information to reporters.
T Know what you are authorized to discuss.
When an Incident Occurs
T Dont downplay the seriousness of an emergency or problem.
T Know the technical or scientific knowledge base of the reporters you
are working with. Help them understand the technical issues.
T Volunteer to provide information.
T Assume everything is on the record.
T Recognize and applaud meritorious efforts of incident-response
personnel.
T Be careful not to escalate fears.
T Emphasize what is being done to correct problems.
T Give a reason if you cant talk about a subject. Dont use no
comment.
T Provide a question-and-answer session at the end of a briefing.
T Be aware that the public and the media may trust you during an
emergency situation but trust will decrease after the emergency
subsides.
66
T Provide media with both company and independent sources so
reporters can get more information.
After an Incident
T Offer praise for good media coverage.
T Evaluate communication efforts to determine if they were effective in
conveying information and addressing concerns.
T Correct major media errors quickly so they are not repeated. Do not
complain about minor mistakes.
T If an inaccurate article or news piece has been written, try to
determine what went wrong and set the record straight.
T Do not be afraid to take problems with media coverage higher than
the reporter, but do not approach a reporters supervisor before
discussing the situation with the reporter. Use a low-key approach.
(Adapted from Swanson, et al., 1991, and Lundgren, 1995)
Working With Activists
Most of the time an outside group may not have the communitys best
interest at heart. Then again we may not have either and there is a reason they
[activists] can come in and get set up. I think they get set up where people
havent established relationships. Scarlet Lee Foster, Monsanto (from Hance,
et al., 1990)
Understanding Activism
Although some companies have had running battles with activist groups,
most companies overestimate the power of activist groups. In terms of
membership, contributions, and media coverage, the most profitable outcome
for an advocacy group is to beat the bad guys (Hance, et al., 1990).
Polarization of a situation or an issue is almost always in an activists self-
interest and almost never in the companys. An Exxon Chemical
representative who has worked closely with environmentalists at one of the
companys plants relates, Although the environmentalists may not represent
the community as a whole, they do represent the concerns the average citizen,
even a trusting one, may have in the back of his or her mind (Hance, et al.,
1990).
Setting the Stage for Activism
In most cases, when an audience is angry, that anger began as a result of
something a company has done or proposes to do, and the activist
organization has merely taken the opportunity to make it a cause (Hance, et
67
al., 1988). Blaming an audiences hostility on activists, therefore, is fruitless
and self-defeating. It is much more productive to figure out what the
company might have done that produces anger and what can be done to
diminish it.
Sources of Audience Hostility
Consider these possible reasons for audience hostility:
T The organization communicating the risk is seen as not being
credible. This was the situation for the EPA during the Reagan
administration. The agency was viewed as being more often on the
side of the polluter than on the side of the environment; hence
anything agency officials said was viewed with great suspicion.
T Your risk message is too positive. Most audiences react with hostility
if they feel they are merely being placated, and if the message is full
of trite phrases or facile reassurances, especially in the face of
negative information in the media.
T Audiences can be hostile if they dont understand either the process
or the data being communicated. The information may be too tech-
nical (e.g., full of difficult concepts or laced with acronyms and
jargon) or the presentation may not meet their needs (e.g., a presen-
tation in English for an audience whose primary language is Spanish,
or a presentation that ignores their key concerns). The obvious way to
overcome this reason for hostility is to use language and a medium
that meets the needs of your audience (Lundgren, 1995).
68
Suggestions for Working With Activists
Some companies who have dealt with activist groups successfully have
learned to work toward mutual respect and dialogue rather than agreement.
Kelli Kukura of Du Pont says of a company meeting with Greenpeace, We
really have the same goal in mind, its just that ours is a day-to-day down in
the trenches goal for source reduction and waste minimization. They admitted
theirs is a pie in the sky viewpoint and theyre holding it up for industry to try
to meet (Hance, et al., 1990).
It is important to come up with achievable goals when being confronted by an
activist group. Hance, et al. (1988) suggest some guidelines.
T Dont attempt to beat them. This is emotionally attractive, but it almost
never helps. Polarization is their game and even when you win, you lose.
Gestures of respect and offers to cooperate are much more productive and
will probably bear the most fruit.
T It is not productive to try to convince them to join your side. This rarely
happens.
T Attempt to persuade the rest of the community that you are trying. This is
always a worthwhile goal. An interaction with activists is in part a
performance. You can win over some of the audience even if you cannot
win over your opponent.
T Legitimize the activist group. This is often the most difficult goal for
companies and agencies to accept. Acknowledge that some of the points
the activist group makes are credible. The result will be to reduce the
polarity between the company and the activists.
The importance of establishing good relationships with both the media and
with activist groups in advance of an event or issue cannot be stressed enough.
Your interaction with these groups will directly affect the type and quality of
information that your ultimate audience, the general public, receives. Keeping
audience hostility to a minimum helps to insure flexible management options
which in turn keep business goals within reach.
T Gas companies can expect major, memorable accidents in other gas
companies or related industries to have a signal impact on them through
media coverage. The results may include loss of public trust, increased
regulation, future construction delays, and perhaps fundamental process
changes imposed upon them.
T Existing practices and future trends within the media cause the media to
focus their coverage of risk-related events and issues that are visual,
newsworthy, and often alarming, and to emphasize human rather than
technical aspects of a story.
69
T Some of the practices gas companies can use to increase their effectiveness
in dealing with the media are:
J preparing background materials in advance,
J being accessible to reporters and accommodating their deadlines,
J avoiding speculation,
J responding to personal questions and accepting other viewpoints, and
J disagreeing in a professional manner.
T While activists cant create a situation, they can create a focus for peoples
opinions and direct public energy. They may not represent the community
as a whole, but they often do represent the concerns of the average citizen.
T Gas companies can work more effectively with activist groups by:
J minimizing polarization of the issue,
J acknowledging the legitimacy of the groups role, and
J demonstrating to a larger audience that you are attempting to work
with the group.
70
71
6
Plan Carefully
72
73
6
Its all in the planning...
John Shafer, Director of Environmental Affairs, ANR Pipeline Company
isk communication is not a quick solution. Risk controversies often involve
conflicts in fundamental values. Good communication, which aims at making
values clearer, does not come without effort. Successful risk communication
tackles many tasks: it provides citizens with access, information, and participation
in decision making; it measures citizen perceptions of the risks involved; it
acknowledges and accommodates these perceptions in working with the public;
and it concurrently works with the media and activists. For a risk communication
program to fulfill these roles, it cannot be hastily thrown together when a public
controversy occurs. The management of Johnson & Johnson in the Tylenol
incident (see case study in the introduction) benefited from advance planning and
a risk communication strategy that best fit their company. Before the crisis ever
occurred, a careful plan had been developed.
Since risk communication must be tailored to the specific issue, there is no
single predetermined set of players nor is there a predetermined set of rules
(Swanson, et al., 1991). There are general guidelines, however. Experienced
communicators develop an ability to make sound, intuitive choices during their
interactions with the public. Communicators who have primarily a technical
background may need broader training for an effective risk communication
program: successful risk communication requires an understanding of the big
picture seeing beyond the immediate problem and anticipating additional
problems and hot spots. Similarly, communicators whose experience is in a
traditional public relations role may need to adapt their skills to the two-way
exchange of information that takes place in risk communication. Some companies
have found that an effective risk communication program integrates the skills of
the technical staff with the talents of the corporate communications staff. A risk
communication program designed in this way informs at the proper level of detail
while maintaining technical merit.
This chapter is divided into three sections that describe the steps in planning a
risk communication program.
Step 1: Assess the Companys Position
Step 2: Plan the Program: Appropriate Tools and Timing
Step 3: Evaluate the Program
R
74
Following is a discussion of the activities that comprise each step. Depending
upon the intended application of risk communication, a combination of a few of
these activities may be all that is required. To make that determination, however,
it is helpful to be familiar with all of the steps, beginning with awareness of a
companys strengths and constraints. To assist the communicator with
implementation, a more detailed outline and activity checklists for each step
appear in appendix C.
Step 1: Assess the Companys Position
Recognizing both a companys strengths and its constraints is critical to
communicating effectively. A primary strength of the natural gas industry is its
delivery of a desired commodity and its proven track record of sound
environmental and safety performance. These strengths are further enhanced when
company personnel can acknowledge and work within their particular companys
constraints. Constraints may be organizational, personal, or they may relate to a
companys past practices.
Recognizing Strengths
Customers and others directly affected by natural gas facilities may question the
process companies use to site facilities, viewing it as unfair. However, the
publics desire for energy options and, in particular, the publics desire for access
to natural gas, places a companys business goals in general alignment with
consumer desires. This is a strength. It is beneficial to frequently remind public
members of the companys purpose and continued commitment to providing
reliable energy on demand, as well as the companys intent to include the public
as a partner. Commitments may be contained in corporate mission statements,
environmental and safety policies, and in performance, environmental, and safety
awards.
The gas industry is already heavily regulated, and in risk communication, this
can be an asset. Much can be gained from explaining to the public just how
heavily regulated the industry is. In addition, gas companies operate safely and are
generally environmentally friendly. If people are reminded of these facts,
especially before an incident, they are less prone to overreact to a specific safety
or environmental problem. Emphasizing the role of regulators can be
accomplished by distributing written material on their behalf (after consulting
with them) or having regulators available at public gatherings to explain their role.
Recognizing Constraints
Inevitably, there are constraints that will hamper even the most well-planned
program. Being aware of the types of constraints communicators face can help
overcome the problems they pose.
75
Lack of organizational support
A first step in the planning process is responding to the concerns of senior
management and eliciting their involvement and support. Some issues will require
participation from several company spokespeople, and they must all support and
understand the mechanics of the risk communication program. The best laid plans
are easily derailed by company representatives who are not aware of the
companys risk communication goals and policies. There may be times when it is
more prudent not to undertake a risk communication program than to attempt it
without executive support.
The importance of senior management support of risk communication
activities cannot be overstated. Support of a program from the top down helps to
ensure that proper resources are available to risk communicators and that risk
communication messages are delivered in a consistent manner.
Past practices
Utility companies have been permanent fixtures in peoples lives for nearly a
century, and carry with them both positive and negative images. Many companies
and individuals recognize the significance of past mistakes when it is too late
after theyre already embroiled in another crisis. When past mistakes have
occurred, it is important to be able to demonstrate that the company has fully
investigated and can explain its causes. The company spokesperson must assume
responsibility for past company mistakes, while offering a commitment to move
ahead in a way that avoids a repetition. Apologies, no matter how late in coming,
are meaningful and preferable to denial of any wrongdoing.
Public values and beliefs
As discussed in chapter 2, public perception is often the major driver behind risk-
based regulation; therefore, relying solely on science or the facts to drive
decisions ignores the non-technical factors and the audience values. An effective
communicator must be perceived not only as a company representative, but also
as an individual who respects, if not shares, the audiences values and concerns.
Respect is a key component of risk communication.
Identifying Communication Goals
Business and company goals for example a pipeline expansion or reduced
liability exposure will direct communication goals. Before entering into a
dialogue with the public about risk, a company must clearly understand what it
hopes to achieve. A risk communication program can then be framed to meet
those goals.
Even the simplest communication effort, for instance a telephone call to a
government official, can be a step toward furthering a business goal and thus
consideration should be given to any such conversation and its desired endpoint.
Hance, et al. (1988) identified four communication goal categories to consider
when developing goals and a structure for risk communication plans.
76
T Organizational goals benchmark the credibility and communication ability
of the company. Examples of organizational goals may include enhancing
the credibility of the company in the minds of the public or coordinating
activities within the company to ensure a consistent response.
T Information goals benchmark both the information the public receives
from the company and that which the company receives from the public.
For example, a companys information goal could be to strive to provide
data in an understandable and caring manner. The stated goal should
concisely describe the process the company uses both to provide
information to the public (for example, the need and preferred site for new
facilities) and to receive information from the public (for example,
information from landowners about known problems with the site).
T Legally mandated goals include compliance with applicable regulations,
mandated communications, and contractual responsibilities.
T Process goals benchmark the process for communicating risk, follow-
through, and relationship building. These might include providing routine
updates on construction progress, following through on commitments to
landowners and regulators, and being certain to involve all key decision-
makers and audiences (even the hostile ones).
Lundgren (1995) recommends framing communication goals with respect to
overall company goals and getting concurrence from everyone involved in the
project, especially from senior management. Company communicators must
understand the concrete company goals that their communication efforts are
designed to achieve.
After company goals and communication goals have been established, a
program can then be developed to meet audience requirements. The nature and
tenor of your audience interactions are the primary variables that will determine
how your goals can be achieved.
Knowing the Audience and How It Perceives Risk
A key to successful planning is identifying and including potentially affected
parties early. A forgotten group may quickly fall into the opposition camp. If a
company excludes a segment of the public, communication of facts and building
trust will become extremely difficult (Hance, et al., 1988). The audiences primary
need is to know that the company is aware of the risks and that it is working to
protect people. However, the diversity of concerns that underlie the needs of the
audience makes answering these needs a complicated process.
Audience identification
Internally, an organization may be affected by shareholders, management,
and employee associations. External pressures come from the mass media,
government, special interest groups, customers, and landowners (Grunig, 1994).
Commonly, the audiences that are most difficult to deal with are the ones a
company most wishes to avoid. Yet, these are in fact those with whom a company
should begin its initial work.
77
Most utilities and energy providers are frequent communicators with the
public. The following groups are among those with which the company should
establish early and ongoing, two-way communication.
T Government: All levels and many branches federal, state, and county
agencies, local elected officials, regional and local plan commissions, and
emergency responders
T Environmental groups: Local special interest groups, national, statewide
and local groups, groups associated with specific activities or features
(e.g., Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, The Sierra Club)
T Affected landowners and customers
T Employees
T Civic organizations (e.g., Kiwanis, Rotary)
T Educational and academic organizations
Identifying affected publics is an ongoing process. Even if a companys
projects all take place in one geographic area, each project will differ with respect
to affected demographics and public values, opinions, and perceptions. Risk
communicators should identify the groups or individuals that the company can
work with best, as well as those that may be opponents. Messages must be tailored
to fit the needs of all of these groups (Swanson, et al., 1991). Including the most
difficult audiences in the planning process may bring them on as potential allies
later. Efforts to identify new audiences (as well as updating information about
known ones) should be conducted on a routine basis. The checklist in appendix C
provides more guidance on identifying new audiences.
Anticipation of audience concerns
As described in chapter 4, it is important to have some sense in advance of the
following:
T What the audience already knows,
T What incorrect information and misperceptions may exist,
T What information the audience needs to make an informed decision, and
T What information they will want, based upon their most pressing concerns.
It is important to clarify the audiences true, underlying concerns. There are,
for example, many underlying issues at work in the NIMBY (Not In My Back
Yard) syndrome, many of them rooted in the non-technical factors described in
chapter 2: some parties may unfairly bear uncompensated risks, the consequences
of the risk may be catastrophic, or the organization imposing the risk is not trusted
because of poor past performance.
78
One issue may sometimes screen other issues that may appear negligible to
many regulators but is extremely important to those concerned. The electric utility
industry found that concerns about the health effects from electric and magnetic
fields (EMF) were often used as a screen by people who didnt want an electric
transmission line near their homes for aesthetic reasons, ranging from concerns of
property devaluation to simply not wanting their trees removed or trimmed to
accommodate a transmission line. In some cases, when the utility was able to
work with landowners to identify and reduce their real concerns, EMF became a
non-issue. Typically, these types of concerns are best revealed in one-on-one
meetings, especially if an audience seems hostile.
Concerns from the public or from employees that appear to be based on faulty
scientific information and misperceptions, or that seem to the risk communicator
to be peripheral to the real issue, should be examined and addressed, not
discounted (Lundgren, 1995).
Its also important to keep a clear understanding of the big picture as you
inform the public about the details. An example from Lundgren (1995) shows why
this is important. A scientist was asked to speak about atmospheric fallout at a
public meeting. After explaining the process and associated risks, a man from the
back of the room rose and identified himself as a local farmer. You tell me that I
have this plutonium stuff all over my crops. What exactly does that mean? Can I
still sell my crops? Can I eat them myself? Should I let my children play outside?
I dont know who to trust anymore! The scientist responded, Excuse me, sir, but
its strontium-90, not plutonium. The big picture that the farmer was
concerned about who to trust was lost.
Step 2: Plan the Program: Appropriate Tools and Timing
Determining the Appropriate Tools
After establishing goals and assessing audience needs, the next planning step is
determining the set of tools most appropriate for the job. There are two main
categories of tools to consider those that involve a risk communicator in a two-
way dialogue with the audience and those that provide information to the audience
without personal interaction. The types of messages that fall within these major
categories are oral, written, visual, audience interaction, and computer
applications. In most situations, what will work best is an integrated package, for
example, a written brochure that supports an oral message. In the following
discussion, each tool is described and followed by a discussion of those situations
where its use is most advantageous and those where it may be inappropriate.
Oral messages
Oral discussions of risk may take place in many different forums. Examples may
be presentations at club meetings, coffee klatches, or public meetings. Personal
speeches, oral testimony, and question-and-answer sessions can be the most
effective tools available to a company. They also carry the most risk. When this
form of communication fails (usually because of an inappropriate setting or lack
79
of training or experience by the communicator) it can seriously set back efforts to
achieve communication goals.
The primary advantage of communicating orally is that there is an identifiable
human representative presenting information in a credible, personal way. It
implies that there will be two-way dialogue. This method enhances effectiveness
through audience interaction. Feedback provides an opportunity for the company
to learn about and respond to the audiences immediate concerns. A successful
oral presentation demonstrates a high level of technical credibility and reflects
caring and concern.
Among the difficulties associated with an oral risk message is
misunderstanding. If the audience is hostile, it can be especially difficult to clarify
those misunderstandings. In these situations, it is particularly helpful to
accompany an oral presentation with an informational brochure that can be read
later, after tempers have cooled.
Because of the emotional memorability associated with personal messages, a
communicator who is seen as distant or stonewalling can leave a long-lasting
negative impression upon the audience. Without a good verbal communicator, one
who is technically credible and who understands principles of risk
communication, this medium may not be successful. However, when done well
and by a credible and skillful risk communicator, oral communication can be the
quickest and most successful way to advance communication goals.
Written messages
Risk messages presented in text format include press releases, fact sheets,
brochures, question-and-answer sheets, and newsletters. Written documents can
carry more complex risk messages and can inform in detail. They may be
distributed for future reference during open houses, or in situations where an
audience may forget important details of the oral or visual message. A well-
written brochure will strengthen the consistency of an oral message. Written
materials are usually inexpensive to prepare, quickly developed, and can be easily
modified to address a number of issues or projects. A risk communicator may
have the feeling of greater control with a written message. However, an oral
discussion allows the communicator to course-correct if the audience doesnt
understand the presented material (Sandman, 1996).
As with an oral message, care must be taken to avoid using excessively
technical language or jargon that only professionals in the field understand. A
message that is difficult to understand, or that is too long, will not be received
well.
Visual messages
Examples of visual messages include posters, symbols, slide presentations, tours,
open houses, or television spots, that is, anything that leaves your audience with a
visual image of the information you need to communicate. The use of graphic
elements like shape, color, or imagery bring very simple messages to life.
Examples include a company logo or the orange triangle that designates a slow
moving-vehicle. Raising awareness at a very basic level is easily accomplished
80
with a visual message. The goal is to leave the audience with an easily
remembered symbol.
The greatest advantage (or disadvantage if used unwisely) of an effective
visual message is its memorability. Because visual images are so powerful, they
can leave a lasting impression. If critics use an image that portrays a company in a
negative way, the company would be wise to use that image with an
accompanying verbal or written explanation. Visual messages should only be used
when it is possible to direct additional, sufficient attention to the details through
other means of risk communication.
Despite the advantage of communicating information in a memorable way,
visual messages cannot easily communicate complex technical information. They
can also be time-consuming and costly to produce. Furthermore, the overuse of a
visual can cause it to lose its impact. This is especially important to remember
when risk messages contain information critical to employee or consumer safety.
Audience interaction
Audience interaction involves the audience in discussion, analysis, or
management of the risk. It may be in the form of advisory committees, focus
groups, community-operated environmental monitoring, or formal hearings where
the audience is invited to give testimony.
An interactive forum allows the audience to witness firsthand and participate
in the process that companies and regulatory agencies use to evaluate company
options that may pose risks. A prime advantage of audience interaction is that
decisions reached in consensus with the public at an early stage are more likely to
result in a lasting, equitable decision that meets a wider variety of audience needs
than those reached by company members alone. If risk management of an issue
occurs over a long period of time, audience interaction is an effective means to
incorporate a diverse array of opinions. Care must be taken to distinguish between
consulting with people (listening) and negotiating (bargaining) with them.
A disadvantage of this communication tool is that company decision makers
may fear a loss of control over the decision-making process. It requires a firm
commitment to listening, incorporating audience suggestions, and a willingness to
stay with the process for the long haul. One of the surest ways to turn an audience
hostile is to make them believe they will be participants in the decision, and then
to ignore their input. Audience interaction is not appropriate for crisis situations
where decisions must be made on the spot.
Computer-based applications
Computer-based applications fall into two categories: computer information
stations, and use of an Internet home page and e-mail. Computer information
stations display an issue-specific computer program developed by the company.
The audience has access to the program through a company computer, usually
located at a customer service or safety training center. Home pages are web sites
to which an audience can gain access from a home or workplace computer with a
modem and Internet access. The Internet also provides options for feedback from
the public through electronic mail.
81
Despite their benefits, computer-based programs can be expensive to produce
and complicated to use. Computer information stations are an impractical
technique for mass dissemination. The medium can be intimidating to some
people and cost-prohibitive for issues of lesser importance. In addition, the time
required to develop a suitable program makes this an impractical communication
tool for projects that require a quick response or involve rapidly changing
information.
While not enabling real-time audience interaction, an e-mail link can provide
a direct pipeline for viewer feedback and a direct response by a company
representative. E-mail makes it possible for a company representative to respond
to individual inquiries.
Disadvantages to using a home page and associated e-mail applications center
around limited public access, demands on the time of company personnel, and
audience passivity. An Internet home page is a vehicle only for those with an
interest and with access, and it creates a general expectation that information on a
computer is up-to-date. Text will need to be updated regularly, even daily if there
is a high level of activity associated with the issue of interest. Immediate response
will also be an expectation with e-mail unless a response time is specifically
stated. In addition, e-mail correspondents may intentionally or unintentionally
consume an inordinate amount of attention. Finally, purveyors of information
through electronic means must account for audience passivity: a home page will
be seen by only that portion of the target audience that actively seeks the
information. Therefore, organizations with the obligation to provide risk
information to a target audience will need to use additional forms of
communication.
Timing the Message Appropriately
Each step of a project timeline should consider when the public can and must be
part of the process and when the risk messages can be most effective. There are
two primary considerations influencing the timing of a message: the companys
specific goals (including regulatory, financial, operational, and safety), and legal
and regulatory communication requirements.
Numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations mandate public
communication as part of the risk assessment and risk management process.
Despite the fact that these laws can run to several volumes, risk communicators
need to be aware of which laws affect risk communication efforts. A list of federal
requirements most commonly applied to the gas industry is contained in appendix
A.
Many organizations accept that to achieve company goals it is good business
to keep communities, shareholders, and employees aware of potential risks. When
risk communication is not mandated by regulation, the question of when to release
information becomes a matter of company choice. The two most common reasons
for not releasing information are fear of getting the public stirred up for no reason
and fear of going forward with incomplete or potentially inaccurate information.
However, research shows that companies rarely make the mistake of releasing the
information too soon. Under some circumstances, it is advantageous to release
82
provisional information early and ask for feedback, rather than to wait to release
information that people are already demanding or that they will later resent a
company for having withheld (Sandman, 1993).
Step 3: Evaluate the Program
Because business organizations will nearly always be involved in activities that
necessitate some form of risk communication, it is important to have a plan for
evaluating the communication program, and creating an ongoing system for
refining communication policies and practices. Information gained about what
worked and what didnt in one effort can be used to strengthen future efforts
(Lundgren, 1995). If, during the course of a specific communication effort, the
program doesnt seem to be working, a procedure will be in place for evaluating it
in a timely manner and providing corrective measures if necessary.
Evaluation efforts provide important documentation for demonstrating
compliance and outreach. In addition, thoughtful evaluation can lead to an
understanding of whether or not the communication effort has contributed to
reaching the operational goal it was designed to achieve.
Because risk communication is a two-way process, soliciting feedback from
those with whom the company is communicating is an important element of
evaluation. This can take two forms. Formal, statistically valid surveying is
comparatively more costly and methodologically difficult, but is typically used to
evaluate major efforts. The other alternative, a more informal interview process, is
methodologically easy, reasonably inexpensive, and can be used to adjust an
ongoing program. In either case, the evaluation must be conducted with the
assumption that the results of the evaluation will be considered and change will be
implemented. While there may be some chaos with mid-stream changes to an
ongoing program, the benefits of evaluating, and perhaps revising, a program will
be beneficial to satisfying the companys operational goals. A more detailed list of
suggested evaluation activities is included in appendix C.
If evaluation results show that the communication effort has met
organizational goals, future efforts are more likely to warrant support and
continued funding. If results show that efforts have failed to successfully
communicate about risk, perhaps at the expense of a major project, the
information gained in the evaluation will show where improvements and support
are needed (Lundgren, 1995).
In summary, the three steps necessary for planning a risk communication
program assessing the companys position, planning the program, and
evaluating the results all require careful thought and decision making. The
effort is worthwhile when the end result is not only an effective way to
communicate risk, but also a deeper understanding of a companys position: its
various audiences, its operational, financial, and regulatory goals and constraints,
as well as the strengths it brings to its regulators, employees, shareholders,
customers, and the broader community.
83
T Designing an effective risk communication program entails three steps:
J assessing the companys position,
J planning the program, and
J evaluating the program.
T In assessing the companys position, the risk communicator should:
J identify its strengths, such as the fact that natural gas service is viewed
as desirable,
J identify its constraints, such as a lack of organizational support or a
history of past mistakes,
J identify organizational, informational, legally mandated, and process
goals, and
J identify its audiences and anticipate their concerns.
T Planning the program consists of selecting the appropriate communication
tools and determining the optimum timing for their application. There are
two main categories of tools to consider those that involve a risk
communicator in a two-way dialogue with the audience and those that
provide information to the audience without personal interaction. Within
each of these categories, messages can be delivered orally, visually, by
computer, and as text. Each situation will have distinct advantages,
disadvantages, and preferred tools.
T Periodic program evaluations will help benchmark a risk communication
program, document its successes and shortcomings in meeting the stated
goals, and allow the company to revise and improve its risk
communication efforts.
84
85
Appendix A
Federal Laws Requiring
Risk Communication
This appendix contains a list of some of the federal
laws requiring risk communication, including brief
explanations of the relevant requirements. It is not
intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather a
sampling of federal requirements for risk
communication that affect the natural gas
industry.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)
This act requires states to allot time for public
comment, or to hold public hearings, when the
issuance of air emission permits for new facili-
ties or changes in existing permits are pro-
posed. In addition, under the Accidental Re-
lease Prevention portion (Section 112(r)(7)) of
CAAA, facility owners or operators with an
amount of regulated hazardous substance above
a threshold level must develop risk manage-
ment plans which include an emergency res-
ponse plan in case of accidental release. This
must include specific plans for contacting the
appropriate responding agencies and the public,
a hazard assessment, and worst-case scenario
estimates of damage to the community health
and the environment. Sources must submit the
plan to a central point specified by EPA, and
make it available to state and local govern-
ments and the public (U.S. Federal Register:
June 20, 1996, Vol. 61, No. 120, pp. 31667-
31730).
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization
Act (SARA)
SARA requires the organization responsible for
clean up of a toxic waste site to develop a commu-
nity relations plan including meetings with com-
munity representatives to hear their concerns. In
addition, the Administrative Record and
Information Repository requires that documents
and information used in making decisions
regarding the clean-up process are made publicly
available. The public must also be given
opportunity for involvement in the decision-
making process through the Advertisement of
Public Involvement Opportunities (42 U.S.C.
9601-9657; P.L. 99-499; October 17, 1986; 100
Stat. 1613).
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (Title III of SARA)
This act contains requirements for public
notification of storage of hazardous chemicals in
the community, and procedures for emergency
planning and public communication if
accidental releases of toxics and other chemicals
occur. Businesses generating hazardous
chemicals must produce an annual list of
chemicals stored at each site and make it
available to the public and regulatory agencies
(40 CFR, Sections 350, 355, 370, and 372).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
This act requires federal agencies to conduct en-
vironmental assessments prior to taking a major
action. Public communication is required
throughout the process, but actions with a larger
level of impact on the environment require more
opportunities for public comment and more
extensive communications (40 CFR, Part 1503).
86
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 as
amended (49 U.S.C. 1671 et. seq.)
In addition to developing detailed emergency
plans, pipeline operators must establish a
continuing educational program on pipeline
emergencies. The purpose of this program is to
enable customers, the public, and others to rec-
ognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to
the pipeline operator or appropriate officials
(Pipeline Safety Regulations, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Research and Special Pro-
grams Administration, Part 192, 192.615).
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
The Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration (established under the act) has issued a
Hazard Communication Standard requiring em-
ployers to explain to employees any work-place
threats to employee health and safety (29 CFR
1910.1200).
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
This act gives EPA the responsibility for
regulating the cradle-to-grave management of
hazardous wastes. The EPA recently released a
new rule requiring expanded opportunities for
public participation in the RCRA permitting
process which has an effective date of June 11,
1996. This rule requires prospective applicants
(for permits to hold and treat hazardous wastes)
to hold an informal public meeting before
submitting a RCRA permit application. The rule
also gives the permitting agency the authority to
require a facility owner to establish an
information repository at any time during the
permitting process or permit life (in cases with
significant public interest). The rule requires
that combustion facilities notify the public prior
to conducting a trial burn (for facilities that burn
hazardous wastes) (U.S. Federal Register,
December 11, 1995, Vol. 60, No. 237, pp.
63417-63434).
87
Appendix B
Historical Incidents
This appendix contains brief descriptions of
seven incidents which occurred between 1977
and 1994 which are used as illustrations in the
text.
Bhopal, India
On December 23, 1984, toxic gas leaked from a
Union Carbide chemical-fertilizer plant in
Bhopal, India, killing thousands of area res-
idents and injuring or affecting hundreds of
thousands more. Those exposed but not killed
outright when the 40 tons of methyl isocyanate
gas leaked out and escaped into the air were left
with lingering disabilities or diseases. (Trade
and Environment Database Homepage, Case
233, Bhopal Disaster, <http://gurukul.ucc.ameri-
can.edu/TED/BHOPAL.HTM>. No date.)
Love Canal, New York
Following flooding of the Niagara River in 1977,
hazardous substances began seeping into
residences in Love Canal, a residential area of
Niagara Falls, New York, raising fears of
adverse health effects. Love Canal was built over
an old hazardous waste disposal site. In addition
to the obvious smells of chemicals in basements,
drinking water tasted and smelled strange, and
rocks struck against the sidewalk gave off
colorful sparks. Widespread ground-water
contamination was soon discovered. Over 200
dangerous chemical compounds were identified
in the groundwater and 1,004 households were
evacuated. (Mazmanian, Daniel, and David
Morell, Beyond Superfailure: Americas Toxics
Policy for the 1990s, Boulder, Colorado,
Westview Press, 1992, p. 3.)
Times Beach, Missouri
In February 1983, the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency, in a joint action
with the State of Missouri, announced that
residents of Times Beach, Missouri, would be
permanently relocated because of dioxin
contamination in the community. The Centers
for Disease Control advised that the hazard
posed by the contamination was a continuing
threat to the community, and relocation of
residents was necessary to protect the health and
safety of people in the flood hazard area. The
EPA determined that a local developer had used
dioxin contaminated material for residential fill.
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Joint
Federal/State Action Taken to Relocate Times
Beach Residents, Press Release, February 22,
1983.)
Space Shuttle Challenger
On January 28, 1986, the Challenger shuttle
crew of seven astronauts was killed in the
explosion of their spacecraft shortly after launch.
The explosion was caused by a leak in one of the
solid rocket fuel boosters that ignited the main
liquid fuel tank. (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Home Page, The Crew of
the Challenger Shuttle Mission in 1986, p.1,
<http://venus.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Bio
graphies/ challenger.html>. No date.)
Edison, New Jersey
On March 24, 1994, a natural gas pipeline
ruptured and exploded in Edison, New Jersey,
88
causing a giant fireball and leveling eight
apartment buildings. Approximately 80 people
were injured, and one person died of a heart
attack during the incident. Following the blast,
flames shot 200 feet into the air and were visible
20 miles away. (Fainaru, Steve, and Colum
Lynch, Gas Line Ruptures, Explodes in NJ,
The Boston Globe, March 25, 1994, p. 3, and
Plevin, Nancy, Disaster Relief, Probe of N.J.
Blast Under Way, The Boston Globe, March
26, 1994, p. 3.)
Exxon Valdez
Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, the
tanker vessel Exxon Valdez ran aground on
Bligh Reef, in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
The grounding punctured the hull, spilling
approximately eleven million gallons of crude
oil into the water. When temperatures warmed,
oil moved along the coastline of Alaska,
contaminating over 600 miles of the shoreline,
including a National Forest, four National
Wildlife Refuges, three National Parks, five
State Parks, four State Critical Habitat Areas,
and a State Game Sanctuary. (Oil Spill Public
Information Center, What Happened on March
24, 1989, Anchorage, Alaska, <http://www.al-
aska.net/ ~ospic/>. No date.)
Three Mile Island
In March 1979, on Three Mile Island near
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a nuclear power plant
suffered a near catastrophic reactor meltdown.
The plant was within 30 to 60 minutes of a
meltdown which would have required at least the
precautionary evacuation of thousands of
residents. Investigations of the nuclear industry
following the incident, by a panel hired by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, showed that
similar nuclear accidents could have happened in
many other areas in the U.S. (Associated Press,
More N-Accidents Likely, Says Panel, The
Boston Globe, January 24, 1980.)
89
Appendix C
Checklist for Planning a Risk
Communication Program
The key to using risk communication effectively
is planning ahead. Thoughtful planning can help
a company allocate appropriate resources to risk
communication. A well-designed risk
communication program can help a company
integrate risk communication with other
company efforts, such as system expansion and
compliance planning (Chess, et al., 1989). The
information that follows outlines specific steps,
and offers examples and other considerations, to
guide risk communication planning.
STEP 1: ASSESS THE
COMPANYS POSITION
1. Recognize Company Strengths and
Constraints.
A companys commitment to environmental and
safety initiatives is portrayed throughout a com-
panys business plan and historical record.
T Use those documents that demonstrate
community service, environmental
commitment, and employee safety.
Annual report
Mission statements
Union contracts
Employee safety manual
Membership or involvement in
environmental or civic groups
T Develop a track record that demonstrates a
consistent resolve to maintain commitments.
T Emphasize the regulated nature of the
industry in the areas of environment and
safety.
Other factors unique to a company and its
spokespeople comprise the focus and strength of
risk communication.
T Elicit organizational support.
Support from senior management
Financial and human resources
Company goals
Review and approval procedures
Employee training
T Recognize past practices.
Relationships with regulators
Commitments to landowners
Previous accidents
Safety record
T Recognize audience beliefs and values that
may impede communication.
Skepticism about the communicator
Lack of trust in company commitments
Mistrust of regulators
T Recognize the personal beliefs and values of
the risk communicator that may impede
communication.
Belief that regulations are unreasonable
and that compliance is impossible
Mistrust of regulators
Resistance to sharing control
Lack of trust in public process
90
2. Identify Communication Goals.
Company support and dedication of resources
are more likely if a risk communication program
is integrated with overall company goals.
T Identify specific company goals.
T Develop communication objectives that
support overall company goals.
T Integrate audiences concerns with
communication objectives.
(Swanson et al., 1991)
3. Know the Audience and How it Perceives
Risk.
The next step is to gain a clear picture of the
audience.
T List the different aspects of the issue and the
types of organizations that might be
concerned.
T Contact organizations and interest groups
with which the company is familiar.
T Ask these groups the names of others who
might have an interest in the issue.
(Hance et al., 1988)
T Some audiences are obvious, others are not.
Consider expanding a companys list of
audiences.
Groups that are likely to be affected
directly or who think they are
affected directly
Groups that are likely to be confronta-
tional if they are not consulted or
alerted to the issue
Groups that would be helpful to consult
with to gain important information,
ideas, or opinions
Groups that others seek out for their
opinions on the companys action
Groups that have responsibilities relevant
to the companys action
Groups that may not especially want
input, but need to know what the
company is doing
Groups that the company would prefer
not to deal with These may be the
most important people to involve.
They may be the likeliest to derail a
project at the 11th hour.
(Swanson et al., 1991)
Anticipate the questions and concerns an
audience is likely to raise.
T Anticipate concerns most likely to be raised
(e.g., company past practices, current issues).
T Identify concerns and objections that may be
felt but not expressed.
T Determine how risk perception factors may
shape an audiences concerns (see chapter 2).
T Identify concerns that may be based upon
misinformation or misperceptions.
STEP 2: PLAN THE PROGRAM
1. Determine the Appropriate Tools.
The goal of the communication program will
play a role in choosing the most appropriate
way to deliver a message. The following infor-
mation has been adapted from Lundgren (1995).
Refer to chapter 6 for a more detailed
explanation of the tools.
T Increase audience awareness of the risk.
Oral messages
Visual messages
T Inform the audience.
Oral messages
Written messages
Computer-based applications
T Build consensus between the audience and
the organization assessing or managing the
risk.
Oral messages
Written messages
Audience interaction
T Change behavior for the risk.
Oral messages
Written messages
Visual messages
2. Time the Message Appropriately.
A company may have several reasons for
holding onto information. However, most
professional risk communicators advocate for
early release of information. Timely release of
information can lay the groundwork for
successful risk communication.
T Earn the publics trust through meaningful
public involvement in decision-making.
T Set the pace for resolution of the problem.
91
T Increase control of the accuracy of
information (if the company is the first to
present it).
T Require less work than responding to
inquiries or attacks that may result from
delayed release.
Withholding or delaying release of information
may result in barriers that must be overcome
later on.
T The public may feel angry and resentful
about not learning of the information earlier.
T Interested parties may tend to overestimate
the risk.
(Hance, et al., 1988)
STEP 3: EVALUATE THE PROGRAM
1. Review the General Aspects of the
Companys Plan for Risk Communication.
T Evaluate the situation.
The degree and strength of organizational
support in place
Compliance with regulatory requirements
Recognition of audience needs and
concerns
The use of appropriate tools and timing
2. Evaluate the Results of Specific
Messages.
T Evaluate safety programs.
Reductions in lost time accidents
Awareness of safety practices throughout
the company
Clarity of safety/risk messages
T Evaluate facility siting.
Representation of audience sectors
Public understanding of the risk
Success in implementation of projects
T Evaluate industrial accident response.
Consistency of information
Level of informed decision-making
Representation of audience sectors
3. Review Entire Efforts for Methodology
and Process.
T Evaluate process with a combination of
tools.
Public opinion polling
Focus groups
Meeting evaluation forms
Observation and debriefing
Assessment of communicator style
92
93
References
American Gas Association. Arklas New
Pipeline Brings More Than Gas to Ozark
People. The Natural Resource: A Quarterly
Newsletter on Energy and the Environment, 4: 3-
4, Winter, 1990-91.
American Gas Association. 1994 Residential
Attitude Survey. Arlington, Virginia: American
Gas Association, 1994.
Bostrom, Ann; Fischoff, Baruch; and Morgan,
M. Granger. Characterizing Mental Models of
Hazardous Processes: A Methodology and an
Application to Radon. Journal of Social Issues,
48: 85-100, 1992.
Boyle, Michael, and Holtgrave, David.
Communicating Environmental Health Risks:
Using the Doctor-Patient Model.
Environmental Science and Technology, 23:
1335-7, 1989.
Burke, T. G. Bursting Boilers and the Federal
Power. Technology and Culture, 1-23, 1965.
Chess, Caron; Hance, Billie Jo; and Sandman,
Peter M. Planning Dialogue with Communities: A
Risk Communication Workbook. New Brunswick,
New Jersey: Rutgers University, 1989.
Covello, Vincent T. Actual and Perceived Risk:
A Review of the Literature. In Technological
Risk Assessment, edited by Ricci, Paolo F.;
Sagan, Leonard A.; and Whipple, Chris G., pp.
225-45. The Hague/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 1984.
Dunwoody, Sharon, and Peters, Hans Peter.
Mass Media Coverage of Technological and
Environmental Risks: A Survey of Research in
the United States and Germany. Public
Understanding of Science, 1: 99-230, 1992.
Dunwoody, Sharon. Professor, School of
Journalism, University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Personal communication, June, 1996.
Edwards, Ward, and von Winterfeldt, Detloff.
Public Disputes About Risky Technologies
Stakeholders and Arenas. In Risk Evaluation and
Management, edited by Covello, V. T.; Menkes, J.;
and Mumpower, J., pp. 69-92. New York, New
York: Plenum Press, 1986.
Elias, David. Arnotts agenda/ <http://www.
theage.com.au/news/970222/nspbikki.txt.htm>.
Saturday, February 22, 1997.
Freudenburg, William R. Professor, Department
of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin -
Madison. Personal communication, June, 1995.
Frewer, L. J.; Howard, D.; Hedderley, D.; and
Shepherd, R. What Determines Trust in
Information About Food-Related Risks?
Underlying Psychological Constructs. Risk
Analysis, 16: 473-86, 1996.
Friedman, Sharon M. The Journalists World.
In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science
as News, edited by Friedman, Sharon M.;
Dunwoody, Sharon; and Rogers, Carol, pp. 17-
41. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
94
Grunig, James E. A Situational Theory of
Publics: Conceptual History, Recent Challenges,
and New Research. Paper presented to the
International Public Relations Research
Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, July 8-11, 1994.
Hance, Billie Jo; Chess, Caron; and Sandman,
Peter M. Improving Dialogue with Communities:
A Risk Communication Manual for Government.
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers
University, 1988.
Hance, Billie Jo; Chess, Caron; and Sandman,
Peter M. Industry Risk Communication Manual:
Improving Dialogue with Communities. Boca
Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers, 1990.
Jones, B. L., and Chase, W. H. Managing
Public Policy Issues. Public Relations Review,
2:
3-23, 1979.
Kasper, Raphael G. Perceptions of Risk and
Their Effects on Decision Making. In Societal
Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?,
edited by Schwing, R., and Albers, W., pp. 71-
80. New York, New York: Plenum Press, 1980.
Lundgren, Regina E. Risk Communication: A
Handbook for Communicating Environmental,
Safety and Health Risks. Columbus, Ohio:
Battelle Press, 1995.
Marlin, Alice, Executive Director, Council on
Economic Priorities. Speech: Social
Responsibility: Key to Business Success.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, November
12, 1996.
Miller, Neal E. The Scientists Responsibility for
Public Information. In Scientists and Journalists:
Reporting Science as News, edited by Friedman,
Sharon M.; Dunwoody, Sharon; and Rogers, Carol,
pp. 239-53. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
National Research Council. Improving Risk
Communication. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1989.
National Research Council. Understanding Risk:
Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society,
edited by Stern, Paul C., and Fineberg, Harvey V.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
Read, Daniel; Bostrom, Ann; Morgan, M.
Granger; Fischoff, Baruch; and Smuts, Tom.
What Do People Know About Global Climate
Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated
Laypeople. Risk Analysis, 14: 971-82, 1994.
Rowan, K. E. Goals, Obstacles, and Strategies
in Risk Communication: A Problem-Solving
Approach to Improving Communication about
Risks. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 300-329, November, 1991.
Russell, Christine. The View from the National
Beat. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting
Science as News, edited by Friedman, Sharon
M.; Dunwoody, Sharon; and Rogers, Carol, pp.
81-94. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
Russell, Milton; and Gruber, Michael. Risk
Assessment in Environmental Policy Making.
Science, 236: 286-90, 1987.
Sandman, Peter M. Responding to Community
Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk
Communication. Fairfax, Virginia: American
Industrial Hygiene Association, 1993.
Sandman, Peter M. Quantitative Risk
Communication: Explaining the Data.
(videotape) Fairfax, Virginia: American
Industrial Hygiene Association, 1994.
Sandman, Peter M. Risk Communication
Consultant. Personal communication, March,
1996.
Schneider, Stephen H. Both Sides of the Fence:
The Scientist as Source and Author. In
Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as
News, edited by Friedman, Sharon M.;
Dunwoody, Sharon; and Rogers, Carol, pp. 215-
20. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
Shrivastava, Paul. Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing
Company, 1987.
95
Singer, E. and Endreny, P. Reporting Hazards:
Their Benefits and Costs, Journal of
Communication, 37:10-26, 1987.
Slovic, Paul. Perception of Risk. Science, 236:
280-85, 1987.
Slovic, Paul, and Fischoff, Baruch. Facts and
Fears Understanding Perceived Risk. In
Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe
Enough?, edited by Schwing, R., and Albers, W.,
pp. 181-216. New York, New York: Plenum
Press, 1980.
Swanson, Steven; Friedman, Sharon; Bridger,
Pamela; Covello, Vincent; Slovic, Paul; and
Cohn, Jennifer. Risk Communication Manual for
Electric Utilities. Palo Alto, California: Electric
Power Research Institute, 1991.
The Talk of the Town. New Yorker, 60: 29,
1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Policy Analysis. Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems. Washington, D. C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, February,
1989.
Vierima, Teri L. The Future of Gas Safety
Issues: Views from Outside the Industry.
Chicago: Gas Research Institute, 1996.
Whipple, Chris G. Vice President, ICF Kaiser.
Personal communication, March, 1996.
Headquarters
8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chicago, IL 60631-3562
312/399-8100
Washington Operations
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 730 North
Washington, D.C. 20004-1703
202/662-8989

Risk Communication For The Natural Gas Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Risk Communication For The Natural Gas Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRI-97/0116

You might also like