- Email: [email protected]
Sustainable Communication
0957±5820/00/$10.00+0.00 q Institution of Chemical Engineers Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: Implications for Industry J. I. PETTS Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
A
t the dawn of the 21st century, industry, not least the chemical industry, faces new challenges in terms of its communication with the public. Sustainability emphasizes a need for a new relationship between the engineer and society. This paper discusses the basis of this new relationship in terms of the changing expectations of the public regarding opportunities to be involved in decision-making, increasing personal access to information with the development of information technology, and the declining basis of trust in industry and decision-makers. The paper reviews the new processes of public participation which stress the provision of greater opportunities for debate and dialogue. It considers how the industry may utilize sustainable communication, and the implications not least in terms of expertise and the training of engineers. Keywords: risk communication; public perception; trust; public involvement.
INTRODUCTION
deliberative processes. These pressures and challenges are emphasized by sustainable development principles emphasizing a need for sustainable communication. This paper examines these pressures and the communication requirements. By means of introduction the next section provides a brief historical analysis of the changing understanding of communication in the context of what has been learnt about public perceptions and concerns. Throughout the paper the phrase `the public’ is used as shorthand to refer to any person or group who has an interest or stake in the activities of the chemical industry. The phrase suggests a uniformity of interest, knowledge and concern which is rarely, if ever, apparent. The word `communication’ is used to refer to a process which is essentially twoway in that it not only provides for information to be given but also for deliberationÐan underlying principle of Agenda 21.
For over two decades, industry, not least the chemical industry, has been focused on the problem of communication with the public. Broad, mixed and not entirely consistent, motivating sources have been evident, which can be characterized as a set of `desires’, (i) to improve image (ultimately to commercial advantage); (ii) to overcome opposition to decisions, not least to new developments; (iii) to pre-empt or preclude the potential for opposition to form; (iv) to develop effective alternatives to direct regulatory control, (v) to meet the fundamental rights of the public to have information about health, safety and environmental risks which may affect them; and (vi) to respond to speci®c regulatory requirements, for example relating to the Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) Regulations, 1999 (previously Control of Industrial Major Hazard (CIMAH) Regulations, 1984)1. Industry has sometimes viewed its communication as ¯oundering upon a bedrock of public irrationality, lack of scienti®c literacy, agenda-biased opposition, subjectivity, and zero-risk focus. Nevertheless, it has realized the need to continue. Activities have broadened slowly from oneway, passive, public relations-based approaches to communication with a greater degree of dialogue, not least through activities linked to the international Responsible Care Programme which has had the dual goal of improving real performance and demonstrating this to a sceptical public. At the beginning of the 21st century there are some key issues which will continue to challenge industry’s attempts at communication, not least the changing expectations of the public as regards opportunities to be involved in decision-making, increasing personal access to worldwide information with the development of information technology, and the declining basis of trust in industry and decision-makers. These issues will force industry to adopt and also to respond to, and to take part in, more
FROM ASSESSMENT TO INVOLVEMENT Fischhoff’s2 eight stages in the development of risk communication (Table 1) reveal the impact of the developing understanding of the basis of public perceptions of risk and of the factors underpinning the failure of scienti®c and expert presentations. The stages chart progress from a view of communication as a one-way process of educating people about acceptable risks, through recognition that communication has to be a two-way process, to current discussion of how different stakeholders can be involved as partners in decision-making. The concluding stage recognizes the importance of integrating all of the activities, not least because the basis of any dialogue has to be information provision. The concept of risk has been identi®ed as meaning more to individuals than measurable fatalities or injuries, and this is one of the reasons that risk comparisons have 270
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
271
Table 1. Development of risk communication2 . Development stage
Explanation
1. All we have to do is get the numbers right 2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers 3. All we have to do is explain the numbers
8. We must do all of 1±7
Focus on risk assessment as a technical tool Start of communicationÐgetting the message across Concern that communication is hampered by uncertainty and dif®culty of explaining probabilities Reliance on risk comparisons in mistaken belief it will make it easier for people to compare with other risks they are familiar with View that people make cost-risk decisions. Start to see a move away from a discussion focused only on the physical risks Emergence of the `good neighbour’ approachÐtrust becomes an issue Lack of trust in decision-makers makes people want to have a more direct impact on decisions Full complexity of risk communication recognized
been found to be an ineffective means of dealing with the dif®culties and uncertainties which underpin probabilistic data3±5. Risk is socially constructed. A broad range of qualitative characteristics contribute (see Table 2) related not only to the source and nature of potential harm (delayed effects, effects on children, catastrophy potential, etc.), but also to the potential for control, the extent to which institutions can be trusted to manage the risk and concern over equity in risk bearing6±8. The socio-cultural literature provides a view of public responses to risk issues as a re¯ection of the social arrangements or institutions which people identify with or participate in9. The theory of cultural bias, it is argued, can be used to predict how an individual will respond to a risk. For example, will they view technology and emerging technology as largely benign, manageable and importantÐthe view of the `hierarchist’ in cultural theoryÐor as a threat or risk not only to individual well-being but also to that of societyÐthe `egalitarian’ view. Adams’ review of the subject10 has provided a UK boost to the theory, not least that it might provide explanatory power as to `who fears what and why’, although testing of the theory has so far proved inconclusive. The developing understanding of public responses to industrial activities has challenged the concept of communication as an outcome-related activity: i.e., the presentation and justi®cation of information, facts and activities. Whilst this focus is useful, it has tended to detract from an understanding of communication as a process by
which agreed outcomes can be achieved. This is because such an objective for communication presents a challenge to perceived industrial rights to operate and develop and to perceived knowledge superiority and expertise. The UK’s progress to recognition of not only the value of public communication, but also the most effective means, has lagged behind that of the US. It is certain that amongst the reasons for this has been the lack of a freedom of access to information law which has provided a `comfort-blanket’ for both industry and authorities, not least in health and safety issues, where con®dentiality of information has remained important. The rights of public access and the extent of reporting of environmental and safety performance by industry in the US have required industry to respond proactively to public concerns. It is interesting to note that US government guidance on risk communication was published in 198811 whilst it has taken another 10 years for the UK authorities to produce a similar document (which largely draws upon its American predecessor)12. In the US, the extent of development of a scienti®c argument in favour of communication can be seen in the Presidential Commission Report13 on risk assessment and risk management. A new framework is presented which stresses the engagement of stakeholders as active partners in the assessment process. The UK has witnessed a radical and rapid swing from a view of communication as a process of providing `balanced information’14 to one which stresses open and inclusive decision-making and which recognizes the public as rational rather than
4. All we have to do is show them they have accepted similar risks in the past 5. All we have to do is show them it’s a good deal 6. All we have to do is treat them nicely 7. All we have to do is make them partners
Table 2. Factors important in perception and evaluation of risk. Factor Catastrophy potential Reversibility Dread Effects on children Effects on future generations Accident history Media attention Cause Uncertainty Understanding Personal control Voluntariness Familiarity Equity Bene®ts Trust
Conditions leading to increased concern Potential for a large numbers of deaths and/or serious injuries in a population Effects of an accident or event are not reversible Effects are dreadedÐe.g., death; cancer Children are particularly at risk Risks delayed and felt in the future Major and minor accidents or examples of the effects have occurred in the past Major and minor accidents or examples of the effects have received media attention Caused by humans rather than by nature or `acts of god’ Nature and likelihood of harm scienti®cally uncertain Scienti®c and expert knowledge about how the risks might arise is poor No control available to the individual Exposure is not voluntary Events and effects are unfamiliar Inequitable distribution of risks and bene®ts Bene®ts of the activity are not clear Trust in responsible institutions is low
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
272
PETTS
irrational15. It is particularly evident in government views of the need to change the general basis of governance16. The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on environmental standards17 stressed (perhaps to the surprise of many scientists) the need for articulation of values and building of lay knowledge and understanding into debates and decisions. Our understanding of communication has reached a position where the provision of opportunities for involving the public in debate and decisions has become the most important, and challenging, requirement. The argument is that decisions must be based on a combination of technical expertise, rational decision-making and public values and preferences18, not least allowing those with a weak voice to exert in¯uence on decision outcomes19. Support in the risk and environmental ®elds has mirrored the message in relation to `democratizing democracy’Ði.e., providing greater opportunities for enhancing public participation in governmental decision-making, particularly at the local level16. Indeed, in signing Agenda 21 at Rio, governments were agreeing on the need for capacity building, participation, empowerment of the public, particularly at the local level, and consensus-building approaches to decisionmaking. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION Sustainable development is about charting a new course which reconciles economic demands and social needs with the capacity of the environment to assimilate pollution burdens and support life. Agenda 21 places great emphasis on the need for all sectors of society to participate in the formation of effective national and local strategies for sustainable development. Principle 10 of Agenda 21 stresses that (i) environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens; (ii) at the national level each individual should have access to information held by public authorities about the environment; and (iii) everyone should have the right to participate in decision-making processes. Sustainable communication unequivocally demands a deliberative process, which mirrors the progress to recognition of the value of public communication over the last 20 years. The consensual rhetoric of sustainability supports social learning and citizenship. However, it also stresses the transference of in¯uence to those traditionally excluded from decisions. Clift 20 identi®es the need for the `Mark III Engineer’ to respond to the paradigm shift which is evidentÐfrom the techno-centric focus of engineering to one which recognizes and encompasses societal values and concerns. Mitchell21 stresses, however, that this does not require drastic conceptual changes to the tools of the engineers’ trade, merely a new approach to the way that these are used. Sustainable communication is transparent, open and dialogue-based. It responds to societal challenges to industry’s assumptions; operating priorities; process management systems; pollution control systems; risk assessments, lifecycle assessments and environmental impact assessments; and product and technology development. Opposition to greater involvement remains. Usually arguments against are focused in loss of power to perceived interests; the power of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly activist environmental groups
adversely to affect business activities, potential delays to decision making and a challenge to the role of democratically-elected representatives22. However, at the same time there is recognition that direct action by aggrieved public interests is an increasing threat with signi®cant consequences22. The Brent Spar issue provides graphic evidence of what will happen if industry and government attempts to operate in technocentric, top-down mode in the face of sustainability pressures. Deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar rig was declared by both Shell and the Government to be the Best Practicable Environmental Option. Unfortunately, it was evidently also the cheapest option with an outcry that this was merely evidence of the pro®t motive of industry. Throughout the crisis, and particularly when Greenpeace was occupying the rig, Shell and the Government acted arrogantly23 , refusing to engage in dialogue and maintaining that the decision was correct. A `global commons’ issue rose to public prominence with resulting signi®cant ®nancial and public relations impacts on Shell because of the traditional technocentric mindset. Shell’s response to the societal risk assessment (SRA) of the Braefoot Bay operations, Fife, less than two years after Brent Spar, shows a different corporate reaction to potential public concerns about industrial cover-up24. Here it recognized that merely communicating risk levels would be ineffective. It had to tackle head-on the potential adversarial position of the local public: i.e., that the SRA’s ®ndings were the reason for Shell’s withdrawal of plans to extend the natural gas liquids plant. By voluntarily sharing data and explaining programmes for active safety Shell identi®ed that the starting point of dialogue was a common need for safe working and living conditions. Clift 20 portrays the Mark III Engineer as the `honest broker’ of technical information in deliberative decisionmaking. However, this should not be interpreted merely as being honest and open with information. The chemical industry has to understand and respond to the social impacts and dimensions of its operations and new developments. The technocentric concerns at its core are directly limited by socio-economic concerns21. These concerns are not merely based in ecocentric protectionism but in fundamental distrust of the systems of governance and corporations. TRUST Background Trust is recognized as one of the most important in¯uences upon how people perceive risks and respond to communication. Social trust is the process by which individuals assign to other persons, groups, agencies and institutions the responsibility to work on certain tasks. It is a continuous basis for social interaction and is based upon cultural similarity: i.e., we trust people we take to be similar to ourselves25. The cognitive components of trust are known to include characteristics which are relevant to both people and situations, relating to perceived26±27: · Competence (degree of technical expertise; accuracy, level of resourcing); · Objectivity (lack of bias in information; lack of vested interest); Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY · Fairness or procedural equity (acknowledgement and adequate representation of all points of view); · Consistency (predictability of behaviour and communication arguments based on past experience); · Transparency (openness of information, access); · Empathy (a perception of goodwill in composing information; caring, recognition of the validity and strength of other concerns). The message, the communicator and the institution are speci®c but also interrelated targets for trust. The nature of an individual’s or group’s interaction with people in any organization as well as with the institution itself all affect trust. This multi-dimensional basis may mean that trust can be gained on one level (perhaps between two individuals) but lost at a another (i.e., company). Decline in trust in institutions has been a feature of North American and European experience. Numerous surveys3,28 show that industry and government of®cials rank lowest on the trust scale, with more perceived independent sources such as doctors, academics, and non-pro®t making voluntary organizations ranking highest. The media and environmental groups as sources of information do not obtain the highest rankings but occupy a middle ranking. Public distrust in government and industry is grounded in concerns that they are (i) insensitive to public concerns and fears about risks to human health and the environment; (ii) unwilling to acknowledge problems; (iii) unwilling to share information; (iv) unwilling to provide for meaningful public involvement in decision-making; (iv) negligent in performing their responsibilities; (v) motivated only by pro®t3,29. Industry and Trust Three studies of how people react to speci®c information sources illustrate the above de®nition of trust. Firstly, a study30 of the responses of local people to industry and particularly chemical production in two areas of Greater Manchester found that the industry itself was regarded as the most important source of information on its operations, but that few people had actually tried to get information. This did not re¯ect a lack of interest but rather a perception that the industry was not trustworthy. This overall scepticism about the industry as a source of information was equally true whether an individual was sympathetic to the chemical industry or not. Industry was seen as being selfinterested and as offering only partial accounts of the environmental risks from its activities. The second study31 focused on the public perception of risks associated with major accident hazards. People living near to major hazard sites were found to draw on diverse forms of evidence and information including local memories of incidents or developments, ®rst-hand experience of emergencies, various forms of sensory evidence, particularly smells, and their interpretation of information which had been provided to them by the company. Although people appeared to tolerate living near to a site this did not mean that they necessarily had a high degree of trust in either the operation or the operators, nor was it evident that it was based in active recognition of the bene®ts of the industry and con®dence in the control measures. Finally, a small study of members of national and local interest groups known to have sought information Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
273
relating to waste management in the UK identi®ed that few, if any, of the information sources used by the groups were regarded as truly independent, with the waste industry and the central regulator regarded as biased29. Reactions to the regulator appeared to be particularly damaging and seemed to be in¯uenced by a high `background’ expectation of competence, caring and objectivity which the respondents to the survey thought were not con®rmed by actual evidence. It is evident that trust is a highly complex phenomenon, varying between groups and individuals, in different decision contexts (such as strategic decisions versus sitespeci®c decisions), according to the degree of contention which surrounds an issue, and with time. One of the most positive trust characteristics is the openness of an organization or decision process in terms of providing for open debate, access to all information, and being willing to alter proposals and views after public commentÐthe characteristics which underlie the deliberative process of sustainability. DEFINING EFFECTIVE (SUSTAINABLE) COMMUNICATION Objectives There are a range of objectives which may underpin communication, each determining the choice of appropriate method and the effectiveness of the activity. We can consider three general forms of communication32: · Care communicationÐi.e., communication about impacts on the environment, and health and safety and about environmental performance, where information and research are available. · Consensus communicationÐi.e., communication to encourage people to work together to reach sustainable decisions including the setting of standards, product development, siting, safety planning, and the management of natural resources. · Crisis communicationÐi.e., responding to accidents, pollution events, and outbreaks of disease and illhealth, involving communication both during and after emergencies. Inherent in each of these are elements of communication outcome as well as process, and it is to both of these interrelated elements that objectives relate33. Outcome objectives usually focus on the immediate product, and most particularly the achievement of predetermined goals, such as the objective to obtain planning permission for a new operation. However, broader outcome objectives may also be identi®ed, including resolution of con¯ict, gaining support for a viewpoint or action, increasing public con®dence in a decision process, legitimizing decisions taken, enhancing the achievement of sustainable development Obviously such divergent, but interrelated, objectives will encompass different time-frames Ðfrom days to decades. Process objectives might include reducing costs and decision delays; preventing unforeseen situations arising from inaccurate information; identifying concerns before they escalate; identifying opportunities for project modi®cation and impact mitigation. However, such objectives have a technocentric focus. Differing, societal, objectives are less frequently acknowledged and yet they can be
274
PETTS
signi®cant and impact on the effectiveness of the processÐ for example, increasing social knowledge and public in¯uence on decisions. Criteria of Sustainable Communication In considering what is effective communication industry practitioners have tended to focus on their immediate outcome objectives whether in relation to care, consensus or crisis communication. The public participation literature has focused on two general process criteria, (i) fairness and (ii) competence34. Fairness is assessed from the viewpoint of the individual and the extent to which opportunities exist for the expression of legitimate personal interests and contribution to the development of an agreement. The criterion of competence refers to the ability of the process of communication to provide participants with the procedural tools and knowledge needed to make the best possible decisions. Table 3 provides some examples of criteria and indicators in both of these categories. Sustainable communication will have to have regard to such criteria of fairness and competence. The concept of communication which is sustainable stresses having in¯uence over time, a continuous process which supports the objectives of different stakeholders and ultimately the objectives of sustainability. PROCESSES OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Sustainable communication requires deliberative processes as well as traditional, relatively well-known, information provision methods. Many of the new deliberative processes have been used in decision-making by public authorities rather than by industry. However, their fundamental objectives and characteristics can be adapted
readily for use by companies, and opportunities are likely to arise for the latter to be involved in activities organized by either local or central government. Indeed, if industry is to seek to shape sustainability debates it is essential that it becomes involved in these new activities. Table 4 considers the advantages and disadvantages of four methods of involvement which seek to provide for discussion: focus groups and discussion meetings; workshops; community advisory groups (or committees); citizens’ juries. These processes involve face-to-face meetings of different varieties, they presume that people hold different positions about any issue and require all participants to value and respect the views of others even though they may not agree with them. Most importantly these processes provide an opportunity for the organizer to understand better the full dimensions of the public’s views, concerns and knowledge. Community advisory groups (or committees) traditionally involve members of a local community who are selected to be representative of the range of interests in that community (e.g., education; business; religious; environmental; community; health) but they are not asked to represent particular interests. The groups, of maximum size 20, usually meet over several weeks or months to discuss a strategic issueÐfor example, the management of waste in a local area, or how an environmental improvement project should be de®ned and proceed, or effective restoration of a brown®eld area, or management of water resources. The groups are facilitated during their meetings by an independent chairman. The groups agree the issues and agenda of their work, they are given access to any information and knowledge they require and provided with opportunities to visit sites, to listen to any experts they regard as important. There is a commitment to take the recommendations of the groups into account in the ®nal decision. A citizens’ jury also consists of a representative group
Table 3. Example criteria and indicators of fairness and competencex. (i) FAIRNESS Setting the agenda · Does the method provide an opportunity for everyone to suggest issues to be discussed? Facilitation · Is an opportunity provided for different interests to suggest a person to facilitate the discussions? Discussion · Does the method ensure that all those who may have an interest or concern are identi®ed? · Does the method ensure that all of these have an equal opportunity to participate if they wish? · Does the method provide equal opportunities for everyone who wants to express their views? (ii) COMPETENCE Understanding of de®nitions · Does the method ensure that everyone has an opportunity to understand the de®nitions of terms which are relevant to the communication? Access to experts · Does the method ensure that where expert knowledge is important in the communication process that there is an opportunity to challenge this knowledge? · Is the process ¯exible enough to ensure that where other experts are identi®ed their input to the discussion can be provided for? Access to anecdotal and intuitive knowledge? · Does the method promote the consideration of anecdotal and intuitive knowledge? · Does the method provide opportunities for individuals to improve their own intuitive knowledge (e.g., on site visits)? Checking of factual evidence · Does the method provide opportunities by which the uncertainty in relation to factual evidence and predictions can be considered and discussed?
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
275
Table 4. Examples of involvement methods. Process
Advantages
Disadvantages
Small group meetings/Focus groups
· Good for listening and responding to concerns · Good for discussing complex issues · Can promote trust and respect between individuals and groups
· Time-consuming and expensive if representative sample is required
WorkshopsÐfull or half day
· Relatively easy to organize · Can be targeted at speci®c stakeholder groups · Can examine speci®c issues in detail from a variety of alternative perspectives · Allow some feedback
· One-off events are limited in subject coverage · Unlikely to reach a wide audience
Citizen juries
· Allow for understanding of stakeholder concerns · Provide for key issues to be exposed · Can examine speci®c issues in detail from a variety of perspectives · Allow for feedback to decision-makers · Can be run over a few days rather than weeks therefore relatively cheap
· Limited time in which to consider complex issues · Stakeholders do not usually have a chance to choose who they wish to listen to and issues to be covered · Require commitment from participants · Participants may be perceived not to be representative of local opinions
Community advisory groups
· Provide access to key stakeholders and community leaders · Allow exploration of key issues and concerns · Expose the real complexity of environmental, health and management issues · Stakeholders can select issues to be covered in detail and experts to listen to · Can promote trust · Highlight the process by which the decision is made as well as the outcome
· Need careful planning and independent control · Participants require a clear remit from the beginning · Time-consuming · Require signi®cant commitment from participants · Relatively expensive · Participants may be perceived not to be representative of local opinions
of the public who hear evidence, question witnesses and through a process of collective discussion and deliberation make an informed judgement on the issues before it. An independent facilitator has the responsibility to select the jury and the witnesses who will appear before it. The jury is usually completed in a few days. Citizens’ juries are now being used widely by local authorities (some 110 authorities reporting their use in 199716) in service provision debates (e.g., social services), urban planning and waste management. `Visioning’ is a speci®c method which is used with either general public or interest groups (perhaps as a form of focus group or within a community advisory group) where people are asked what they want for the future, and how they vision their area in the futureÐfeatures which they value and those not so important. It is a technique thought to be important in terms of making people come to terms with the consequences (economic, social, environmental) of their ideologies and to focus on practically achievable outcomes whilst still providing for different values and priorities to be addressed. Participatory processes are most effective when key choices have yet to be made. Once an organization is locked into a course of action, and there is no willingness or capability to respond to concerns, participants will be alienated as they realize that their activities are being constrained. This in turn will lead to a decrease in trust. However, formal participatory approaches can also be used to provide for a process of `healing’, for example after an accident or emergency. They ensure that the public do not feel that their concerns are forgotten and are a means by which continuing questions can be addressed. Where problems of continuing minority dissent arise, forms of these processes to provide for airing of, and response to, concerns and views could be important. Whilst they may Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
not `get everyone on your side’ they should enhance perceived openness. Table 5 considers the use of different communication methods in relation to the varying objectives which may underpin elements of crisis, care and consensus communication. The most important message from the table is that different communication methods should be integrated together to ensure that broad process and outcome objectives are achieved and that the full range of stakeholdersÐ including the silent majorityÐare reached. The adoption of one method or a focus on methods with a similar style (i.e., information provision or consultation) limits the achievement of the objectives and not least the range and number of interested parties who are communicated with. Communication has often been focused on representative environmentalist and conservation interests not only because these are perceived as being the important groups to placate but also because they are easy to target and they may need no special communication techniques. The methods identi®ed in Table 5 require a greater emphasis on identifying the range of concerns, including individuals, who may have interests. It cannot be assumed that NGOs represent the views of other members of the public, not least in an increasingly pluralistic society. The internet, although currently only accessed by a relatively small percentage (approximately 20%) of the population, nevertheless even now provides one of the most powerful tools by which people can access information worldwide and both learn about, and also learn to question, industrial and of®cial arguments, knowledge and science. Its potential growth in use over the decade (possibly to over 50% of the population) will broaden still further this means of empowerment not just of the activist but the interested citizenÐas already evidenced in local decision contexts35.
· Telephone hotline to answer questions about proposals · Lea¯ets or newsletter to potentially affected groups · Media brie®ngs · Internet/www to explain proposals and assessment method · Seminars · Staffed exhibitions in various accessible locations · Surveys/questionnaires · Interactive web-based tools to provide for comments to be received
· Small group meetings/focus groups and/or community advisory groups organized by local authority. Purpose to scope issues to be included in environmental assessment, to involve representatives of different interests in ongoing and developing assessment work, to get comments on draft environmental statement
· · · ·
· Surveys of opinionsÐeither general public or speci®cally affected group · Staffed exhibitions · Consultation meetings with key stakeholders
· Small groups/focus groups of general public and other interests to scope concerns about product/ technology and to gauge important criteria relating to performance, design, environmental impacts, sustainability indicators
Information provision
Consultation
Involvement
Press adverts Media press releases Lea¯ets Internet/www
New site/operational process proposal
Product/technology development
Method purpose
· Liaison group/local resident committee to provide for ongoing access, questioning and monitoring of performance · Representative of local community on management committee of site · Local community direct monitoring of impacts and performanceÐe.g., through school projects
· Surveys of components and indicators to include in reports · Visitor centre · Open days · Schools projects and visits · Response forms/questionnaire in environmental report · Consultation meetings with key stakeholders · Interactive web-based tools
· Environmental report, site reportsÐindependently veri®ed · Internet/web-based information systems to allow people to interrogate performance data
Operational/performance reporting
Table 5. Example uses of communication methods in different decision contexts.
· Local resident committee (preferably existing and ongoing group). Can act as a means of disseminating information and also as a means of gathering concerns
· Survey of local residents to identify residual concerns · Response forms in lea¯ets
· Media reporting and brie®ngs · Lea¯etsÐhouse to house distribution · Telephone hotline · Posting of monitoring data on site boundary and in local libraries, etc.
Accidents/emergencies
276 PETTS
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY Most importantly there should be plans for the internet to be used as a tool of democracy, not merely to cast votes in elections, but to engage in dialogue-based, interactive decision-making on sustainability issues. EXPERIENCE OF EXPERTISE AND INVOLVEMENT To date, participative approaches have been used most frequently in relation to strategic decisions, precisely because they are particularly useful where complex problems and multiple options are apparent. However, evaluation of the processes35 does provide understanding of what happens at the interface between experts and the public when opportunities for discussion and debate are provided. Firstly, it is evident that in relation to many complex environmental and risk issues people have a broad range of information requirements, which are rarely related simply to the potential physical risks of different technical options but also to the status of technology, management experience, regulatory controls, the costs of different options and the long-term impact of policy decisions. The complexity of the information demands re¯ect the concentric view of sustainability presented by Mitchell21. Secondly, in participative fora people tend to employ four types of expert questioning: (i) testing of what is known and what is not; (ii) testing of knowledge certainty; (iii) examination of all the assumptions which underpin risk and environmental assessments; and (iv) questioning of different parties to test credibility and independence. Thirdly, the range of perceived experts in relation to many environmental and risk issues is large and individual experts may be sought not only in the UK but also overseas. People are intuitively aware that presenters package information to convey a message favourable to the interest they represent. Fourthly, traditional expert caution in explaining uncertainties and the evident difference of opinion as to their signi®cance leads to demands for access to a range of expertise and information, some of which may traditionally have been treated as con®dential. This may increase the time required for discussion and decision-making. However, there is evidence that when uncertainty is explicitly acknowledged and management mechanisms to deal with the situation are explained, the majority will not demand zero-risk options and are prepared to balance costs and bene®ts if these have been debated in full. Fifthly, there is some evidence that the public are capable not only of assimilating and balancing different sources of information on the same topic, but actually prefer to have different sources, in the inherent belief that as there are no right answers to many complex environmental issues it is important to listen to as many opinions as possible. Finally, there is evidence that given the opportunity to be involved in participative processes people increase their personal knowledge and that they can come to understand others’ viewpoints even though they may not agree with these. However, there are signi®cant barriers to effective processes of involvement. Additional time and resources are needed. Formal and statutory decision-making processes Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
277
(for example, relating to environmental impact assessment) may not encourage involvement. Experts may be unwilling to admit to uncertainties in public and may not want to acknowledge the range of expertise on particular issues. Some extreme activist groups may refuse to take part in the process. Their networking separate from the main information ¯ows must be responded to rather than ignored. COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND THE NEW MODEL ENGINEER Earlier in the paper the criteria by which an effective communicator is judged were suggested: i.e., competence; honesty; objectivity; empathy and caring. The manner in which people communicate, including the methods they adopt, is often cognitively more important than the information they present. Companies cannot assume the availability of communication skills to meet these criteria: they usually take time and other resources to develop. Experience tells us that the most competent person, perhaps in terms of technical knowledge or scienti®c expertise, may not be the best communicator. They may be particularly vulnerable in involvement processes where questions and debate are important. Therefore any organization needs to identify and to train communicators relevant to the different methods and objectives suggested in Table 5. Traditional media training is never suf®cient to meet the skills required by these methods. Failure of communication is often based in a failure to understand public concerns resulting in an attitude which says that the public are irrational and emotive. Communications training needs to develop the contrary attitude: that questions and concerns are legitimate and that communication is bene®cial. Attitude change usually depends on relevant training; however, empathy with someone expressing concernÐ`if I were in their shoes I would feel the same’Ðis a good starting point. Considering the issue of who is trusted, it is apparent that part of the skill of communication is to use other trusted sources. For industry this could mean identifying and liaising with key independent experts, for example on health risks of chemicals, who can be used directly, or made available to the public. However, a potential lack of trust in the regulator suggests that industry should not rely on the latter as partner. If engineers are to be `in¯uential participants in decisionmaking and sustainability’21, sustainable communication must be a core component of engineering education. Mitchell’s21 comparison between the accreditation syllabus of the Institute of Engineers, Australia and that of the IChemE, in the UK, suggests the potential for the UK system to create a limited and outmoded functional engineer. The argument that engineering undergraduates simply do not have time in their curriculum to learn anything other than core engineering, and certainly not some of the `soft sciences’ that underpin sustainability, will not be sustainable. Unless a fundamental rethink of outcome objectives is made, engineers will be failing in their responsibilities to the sustainable society with consequent declining levels of trust in the engineering profession. For the engineer to be viewed as Clift’s 20 honest broker will require a more sympathetic understanding of societal
278
PETTS
interests and concerns, and a greater transparency and openness of information. Engineers need a fundamental shift in their communication training, which is away from the presentation of outcomes, to the ability to justify the process by which solutions, designs, risk estimates, decisions, etc. have been arrived at. CONCLUSIONS Environmental risks and sustainable development present a signi®cant communication challenge, which is being continually extended by growing societal frustrations with evidence of the failure of industry, science and formal decision processes, and demands to have a say in matters which affect the public. Sustainable development requires sustainable communicationÐa process of proactive, responsive involvement and dialogue. The chemical industry will need to use such processes itself as well as take part in them when organized by public authorities. The participative processes, whether a meeting of representatives of local residents or a process of discussion with representatives from a range of community interests, complement and extend traditional communication activities and are relevant to the different operating contexts of the industryÐthrough from product development to the reporting of operational performance. They provide for understanding of the concerns of different interests, for sharing of values and preferences and for learning. Most importantly, they provide an important opportunity to improve the credibility of the industry and the extent to which it is trusted. However, to achieve this will require recognition of the bene®ts, clear de®nition of the objectives and of effective communication, integrated planning of activities, the proactive development of skills and a fundamental rethink of educational requirements. REFERENCES 1. Petts, J., 1995, Managing public expectations and information needs, in P. Sharratt (ed), Environmental Management Systems, 1±14 (IChemE, Rugby, Warks). 2. Fischhoff, B., 1995, Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process, Risk Analysis, 15(2): 137±145. 3. Covello, V. T., 1992, Risk communication, a new and emerging area of communication research, in Risk Assessment Part 2, Proceedings of an HSE Conference on Risk Assessment, 6±9 October 1992 (Health and Safety Executive, London). 4. Freudenburg, W. R. and Rursch, J. A., 1994, The risks of `putting the numbers in context’: a cautionary tale, Risk Analysis, 14(6): 949±958. 5. Covello, V. T., 1997, Risk communication, in P. Calow (ed), Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, 520±541 (Blackwell Science, Oxford). 6. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. Derby, S. L. and Keeney, R. L., 1981, Acceptable Risk (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 7. Slovic, P., 1987, Perception of risk, Science, 236: 280±285. 8. Slovic, P., 1992, Perception of risk: re¯ections on the psychometric paradigm, in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds), Social Theories of Risk (Praeger, Connecticut). 9. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R., 1992, Risk perception, in Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, 89±134 (Royal Society, London). 10. Adams, J., 1995, Risk (UCL Press, London). 11. Covello, V. T. and Allen, F., 1988, Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (US Environmental Protection Agency, Of®ce of Policy Analysis, Washington DC). 12. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1998, Risk Communication: a Guide to Regulatory Practice (HSE Books, London).
13. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997, Framework for Environmental and Health Risk Management (National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC). 14. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1996, Use of Risk Assessment within Government Departments (HSE Books, London). 15. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1998, Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Improving Policy and Practice within Government Departments (HSE Books, London). 16. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998, Enhancing Public Participation in Local Government (DETR, London). 17. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998, Setting Environmental Standards, Twenty-First Report (HMSO, London). 18. Stern, P. C., 1991, Learning through con¯ict: a realistic strategy for risk communication, Policy Sciences, 24: 99±119. 19. Healey, P., 1997, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Macmillan, London). 20. Clift, R., 1998, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer and her role, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 76(B2): 151±160. 21. Mitchell, C., 2000, Integrating sustainability in chemical engineering practice and education: concentricity and its consequences, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 78(B4): 237±242. 22. Petts, J., 1999, Public participation and environmental impact assessment, in. J. Petts (ed), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1, 145±177 (Blackwell Science, Oxford). 23. LoÈfstedt, R. E. and Renn, O., 1997, The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong, Risk Analysis, 17(2): 131±136. 24. Kemp, R. and Wilkinson, A., 1997, Risk communication in theory and practice: a case study, Risk Decision and Policy, 2(2): 155±163. 25. Earle, T. C. and Cvetkovich, G. T., 1995, Social Trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society (Praeger, Connecticut). 26. Renn, O. and Levine, D., 1991, Credibility and trust in risk communication, in R. E. Kasperson and P. J. M. Stallen (eds), Communicating Risks to the Public (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht). 27. Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T. and McCallum, D. B., 1997, The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study, Risk Analysis, 17: 43±54. 28. Marris, C., Langford, I. H. & O’Riordan, T., 1998, A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm, Risk Analysis, 18(5): 635±648. 29. Petts, J., 1998, Trust and waste management information, expectation versus observation, Journal of Risk Research, 1(4): 307±320. 30. Irwin, A., Dale, A. and Smith, D., 1996, Science and hell’s kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues, in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Construction of Science and Technology, 47±64 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 31. Walker, G., Simmons, P., Wynne, B. and Irwin, A., 1998, Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Hazards (HSE Books, Sudbury). 32. Lundgren, R. and McMakin, A., 1998, Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety and Health Risks (Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio). 33. Petts, J., Gerrard, S., Murrell, L., Delbridge, P. and Eduljee, G., 1996, Perceptions and Communication: Issues for Waste Management, Department of the Environment Research Report, CWM 151/96 (Environment Agency, London). 34. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P., 1995, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht). 35. Petts, J., 1997, The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process, Public Understanding of Science, 6: 359±381.
ADDRESS Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Professor J. I. Petts, Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] The manuscript was received 5 March 1999 and accepted for publication after revision 14 March 2000.
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: Implications for Industry J. I. PETTS Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
A
t the dawn of the 21st century, industry, not least the chemical industry, faces new challenges in terms of its communication with the public. Sustainability emphasizes a need for a new relationship between the engineer and society. This paper discusses the basis of this new relationship in terms of the changing expectations of the public regarding opportunities to be involved in decision-making, increasing personal access to information with the development of information technology, and the declining basis of trust in industry and decision-makers. The paper reviews the new processes of public participation which stress the provision of greater opportunities for debate and dialogue. It considers how the industry may utilize sustainable communication, and the implications not least in terms of expertise and the training of engineers. Keywords: risk communication; public perception; trust; public involvement.
INTRODUCTION
deliberative processes. These pressures and challenges are emphasized by sustainable development principles emphasizing a need for sustainable communication. This paper examines these pressures and the communication requirements. By means of introduction the next section provides a brief historical analysis of the changing understanding of communication in the context of what has been learnt about public perceptions and concerns. Throughout the paper the phrase `the public’ is used as shorthand to refer to any person or group who has an interest or stake in the activities of the chemical industry. The phrase suggests a uniformity of interest, knowledge and concern which is rarely, if ever, apparent. The word `communication’ is used to refer to a process which is essentially twoway in that it not only provides for information to be given but also for deliberationÐan underlying principle of Agenda 21.
For over two decades, industry, not least the chemical industry, has been focused on the problem of communication with the public. Broad, mixed and not entirely consistent, motivating sources have been evident, which can be characterized as a set of `desires’, (i) to improve image (ultimately to commercial advantage); (ii) to overcome opposition to decisions, not least to new developments; (iii) to pre-empt or preclude the potential for opposition to form; (iv) to develop effective alternatives to direct regulatory control, (v) to meet the fundamental rights of the public to have information about health, safety and environmental risks which may affect them; and (vi) to respond to speci®c regulatory requirements, for example relating to the Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) Regulations, 1999 (previously Control of Industrial Major Hazard (CIMAH) Regulations, 1984)1. Industry has sometimes viewed its communication as ¯oundering upon a bedrock of public irrationality, lack of scienti®c literacy, agenda-biased opposition, subjectivity, and zero-risk focus. Nevertheless, it has realized the need to continue. Activities have broadened slowly from oneway, passive, public relations-based approaches to communication with a greater degree of dialogue, not least through activities linked to the international Responsible Care Programme which has had the dual goal of improving real performance and demonstrating this to a sceptical public. At the beginning of the 21st century there are some key issues which will continue to challenge industry’s attempts at communication, not least the changing expectations of the public as regards opportunities to be involved in decision-making, increasing personal access to worldwide information with the development of information technology, and the declining basis of trust in industry and decision-makers. These issues will force industry to adopt and also to respond to, and to take part in, more
FROM ASSESSMENT TO INVOLVEMENT Fischhoff’s2 eight stages in the development of risk communication (Table 1) reveal the impact of the developing understanding of the basis of public perceptions of risk and of the factors underpinning the failure of scienti®c and expert presentations. The stages chart progress from a view of communication as a one-way process of educating people about acceptable risks, through recognition that communication has to be a two-way process, to current discussion of how different stakeholders can be involved as partners in decision-making. The concluding stage recognizes the importance of integrating all of the activities, not least because the basis of any dialogue has to be information provision. The concept of risk has been identi®ed as meaning more to individuals than measurable fatalities or injuries, and this is one of the reasons that risk comparisons have 270
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
271
Table 1. Development of risk communication2 . Development stage
Explanation
1. All we have to do is get the numbers right 2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers 3. All we have to do is explain the numbers
8. We must do all of 1±7
Focus on risk assessment as a technical tool Start of communicationÐgetting the message across Concern that communication is hampered by uncertainty and dif®culty of explaining probabilities Reliance on risk comparisons in mistaken belief it will make it easier for people to compare with other risks they are familiar with View that people make cost-risk decisions. Start to see a move away from a discussion focused only on the physical risks Emergence of the `good neighbour’ approachÐtrust becomes an issue Lack of trust in decision-makers makes people want to have a more direct impact on decisions Full complexity of risk communication recognized
been found to be an ineffective means of dealing with the dif®culties and uncertainties which underpin probabilistic data3±5. Risk is socially constructed. A broad range of qualitative characteristics contribute (see Table 2) related not only to the source and nature of potential harm (delayed effects, effects on children, catastrophy potential, etc.), but also to the potential for control, the extent to which institutions can be trusted to manage the risk and concern over equity in risk bearing6±8. The socio-cultural literature provides a view of public responses to risk issues as a re¯ection of the social arrangements or institutions which people identify with or participate in9. The theory of cultural bias, it is argued, can be used to predict how an individual will respond to a risk. For example, will they view technology and emerging technology as largely benign, manageable and importantÐthe view of the `hierarchist’ in cultural theoryÐor as a threat or risk not only to individual well-being but also to that of societyÐthe `egalitarian’ view. Adams’ review of the subject10 has provided a UK boost to the theory, not least that it might provide explanatory power as to `who fears what and why’, although testing of the theory has so far proved inconclusive. The developing understanding of public responses to industrial activities has challenged the concept of communication as an outcome-related activity: i.e., the presentation and justi®cation of information, facts and activities. Whilst this focus is useful, it has tended to detract from an understanding of communication as a process by
which agreed outcomes can be achieved. This is because such an objective for communication presents a challenge to perceived industrial rights to operate and develop and to perceived knowledge superiority and expertise. The UK’s progress to recognition of not only the value of public communication, but also the most effective means, has lagged behind that of the US. It is certain that amongst the reasons for this has been the lack of a freedom of access to information law which has provided a `comfort-blanket’ for both industry and authorities, not least in health and safety issues, where con®dentiality of information has remained important. The rights of public access and the extent of reporting of environmental and safety performance by industry in the US have required industry to respond proactively to public concerns. It is interesting to note that US government guidance on risk communication was published in 198811 whilst it has taken another 10 years for the UK authorities to produce a similar document (which largely draws upon its American predecessor)12. In the US, the extent of development of a scienti®c argument in favour of communication can be seen in the Presidential Commission Report13 on risk assessment and risk management. A new framework is presented which stresses the engagement of stakeholders as active partners in the assessment process. The UK has witnessed a radical and rapid swing from a view of communication as a process of providing `balanced information’14 to one which stresses open and inclusive decision-making and which recognizes the public as rational rather than
4. All we have to do is show them they have accepted similar risks in the past 5. All we have to do is show them it’s a good deal 6. All we have to do is treat them nicely 7. All we have to do is make them partners
Table 2. Factors important in perception and evaluation of risk. Factor Catastrophy potential Reversibility Dread Effects on children Effects on future generations Accident history Media attention Cause Uncertainty Understanding Personal control Voluntariness Familiarity Equity Bene®ts Trust
Conditions leading to increased concern Potential for a large numbers of deaths and/or serious injuries in a population Effects of an accident or event are not reversible Effects are dreadedÐe.g., death; cancer Children are particularly at risk Risks delayed and felt in the future Major and minor accidents or examples of the effects have occurred in the past Major and minor accidents or examples of the effects have received media attention Caused by humans rather than by nature or `acts of god’ Nature and likelihood of harm scienti®cally uncertain Scienti®c and expert knowledge about how the risks might arise is poor No control available to the individual Exposure is not voluntary Events and effects are unfamiliar Inequitable distribution of risks and bene®ts Bene®ts of the activity are not clear Trust in responsible institutions is low
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
272
PETTS
irrational15. It is particularly evident in government views of the need to change the general basis of governance16. The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on environmental standards17 stressed (perhaps to the surprise of many scientists) the need for articulation of values and building of lay knowledge and understanding into debates and decisions. Our understanding of communication has reached a position where the provision of opportunities for involving the public in debate and decisions has become the most important, and challenging, requirement. The argument is that decisions must be based on a combination of technical expertise, rational decision-making and public values and preferences18, not least allowing those with a weak voice to exert in¯uence on decision outcomes19. Support in the risk and environmental ®elds has mirrored the message in relation to `democratizing democracy’Ði.e., providing greater opportunities for enhancing public participation in governmental decision-making, particularly at the local level16. Indeed, in signing Agenda 21 at Rio, governments were agreeing on the need for capacity building, participation, empowerment of the public, particularly at the local level, and consensus-building approaches to decisionmaking. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION Sustainable development is about charting a new course which reconciles economic demands and social needs with the capacity of the environment to assimilate pollution burdens and support life. Agenda 21 places great emphasis on the need for all sectors of society to participate in the formation of effective national and local strategies for sustainable development. Principle 10 of Agenda 21 stresses that (i) environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens; (ii) at the national level each individual should have access to information held by public authorities about the environment; and (iii) everyone should have the right to participate in decision-making processes. Sustainable communication unequivocally demands a deliberative process, which mirrors the progress to recognition of the value of public communication over the last 20 years. The consensual rhetoric of sustainability supports social learning and citizenship. However, it also stresses the transference of in¯uence to those traditionally excluded from decisions. Clift 20 identi®es the need for the `Mark III Engineer’ to respond to the paradigm shift which is evidentÐfrom the techno-centric focus of engineering to one which recognizes and encompasses societal values and concerns. Mitchell21 stresses, however, that this does not require drastic conceptual changes to the tools of the engineers’ trade, merely a new approach to the way that these are used. Sustainable communication is transparent, open and dialogue-based. It responds to societal challenges to industry’s assumptions; operating priorities; process management systems; pollution control systems; risk assessments, lifecycle assessments and environmental impact assessments; and product and technology development. Opposition to greater involvement remains. Usually arguments against are focused in loss of power to perceived interests; the power of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly activist environmental groups
adversely to affect business activities, potential delays to decision making and a challenge to the role of democratically-elected representatives22. However, at the same time there is recognition that direct action by aggrieved public interests is an increasing threat with signi®cant consequences22. The Brent Spar issue provides graphic evidence of what will happen if industry and government attempts to operate in technocentric, top-down mode in the face of sustainability pressures. Deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar rig was declared by both Shell and the Government to be the Best Practicable Environmental Option. Unfortunately, it was evidently also the cheapest option with an outcry that this was merely evidence of the pro®t motive of industry. Throughout the crisis, and particularly when Greenpeace was occupying the rig, Shell and the Government acted arrogantly23 , refusing to engage in dialogue and maintaining that the decision was correct. A `global commons’ issue rose to public prominence with resulting signi®cant ®nancial and public relations impacts on Shell because of the traditional technocentric mindset. Shell’s response to the societal risk assessment (SRA) of the Braefoot Bay operations, Fife, less than two years after Brent Spar, shows a different corporate reaction to potential public concerns about industrial cover-up24. Here it recognized that merely communicating risk levels would be ineffective. It had to tackle head-on the potential adversarial position of the local public: i.e., that the SRA’s ®ndings were the reason for Shell’s withdrawal of plans to extend the natural gas liquids plant. By voluntarily sharing data and explaining programmes for active safety Shell identi®ed that the starting point of dialogue was a common need for safe working and living conditions. Clift 20 portrays the Mark III Engineer as the `honest broker’ of technical information in deliberative decisionmaking. However, this should not be interpreted merely as being honest and open with information. The chemical industry has to understand and respond to the social impacts and dimensions of its operations and new developments. The technocentric concerns at its core are directly limited by socio-economic concerns21. These concerns are not merely based in ecocentric protectionism but in fundamental distrust of the systems of governance and corporations. TRUST Background Trust is recognized as one of the most important in¯uences upon how people perceive risks and respond to communication. Social trust is the process by which individuals assign to other persons, groups, agencies and institutions the responsibility to work on certain tasks. It is a continuous basis for social interaction and is based upon cultural similarity: i.e., we trust people we take to be similar to ourselves25. The cognitive components of trust are known to include characteristics which are relevant to both people and situations, relating to perceived26±27: · Competence (degree of technical expertise; accuracy, level of resourcing); · Objectivity (lack of bias in information; lack of vested interest); Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY · Fairness or procedural equity (acknowledgement and adequate representation of all points of view); · Consistency (predictability of behaviour and communication arguments based on past experience); · Transparency (openness of information, access); · Empathy (a perception of goodwill in composing information; caring, recognition of the validity and strength of other concerns). The message, the communicator and the institution are speci®c but also interrelated targets for trust. The nature of an individual’s or group’s interaction with people in any organization as well as with the institution itself all affect trust. This multi-dimensional basis may mean that trust can be gained on one level (perhaps between two individuals) but lost at a another (i.e., company). Decline in trust in institutions has been a feature of North American and European experience. Numerous surveys3,28 show that industry and government of®cials rank lowest on the trust scale, with more perceived independent sources such as doctors, academics, and non-pro®t making voluntary organizations ranking highest. The media and environmental groups as sources of information do not obtain the highest rankings but occupy a middle ranking. Public distrust in government and industry is grounded in concerns that they are (i) insensitive to public concerns and fears about risks to human health and the environment; (ii) unwilling to acknowledge problems; (iii) unwilling to share information; (iv) unwilling to provide for meaningful public involvement in decision-making; (iv) negligent in performing their responsibilities; (v) motivated only by pro®t3,29. Industry and Trust Three studies of how people react to speci®c information sources illustrate the above de®nition of trust. Firstly, a study30 of the responses of local people to industry and particularly chemical production in two areas of Greater Manchester found that the industry itself was regarded as the most important source of information on its operations, but that few people had actually tried to get information. This did not re¯ect a lack of interest but rather a perception that the industry was not trustworthy. This overall scepticism about the industry as a source of information was equally true whether an individual was sympathetic to the chemical industry or not. Industry was seen as being selfinterested and as offering only partial accounts of the environmental risks from its activities. The second study31 focused on the public perception of risks associated with major accident hazards. People living near to major hazard sites were found to draw on diverse forms of evidence and information including local memories of incidents or developments, ®rst-hand experience of emergencies, various forms of sensory evidence, particularly smells, and their interpretation of information which had been provided to them by the company. Although people appeared to tolerate living near to a site this did not mean that they necessarily had a high degree of trust in either the operation or the operators, nor was it evident that it was based in active recognition of the bene®ts of the industry and con®dence in the control measures. Finally, a small study of members of national and local interest groups known to have sought information Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
273
relating to waste management in the UK identi®ed that few, if any, of the information sources used by the groups were regarded as truly independent, with the waste industry and the central regulator regarded as biased29. Reactions to the regulator appeared to be particularly damaging and seemed to be in¯uenced by a high `background’ expectation of competence, caring and objectivity which the respondents to the survey thought were not con®rmed by actual evidence. It is evident that trust is a highly complex phenomenon, varying between groups and individuals, in different decision contexts (such as strategic decisions versus sitespeci®c decisions), according to the degree of contention which surrounds an issue, and with time. One of the most positive trust characteristics is the openness of an organization or decision process in terms of providing for open debate, access to all information, and being willing to alter proposals and views after public commentÐthe characteristics which underlie the deliberative process of sustainability. DEFINING EFFECTIVE (SUSTAINABLE) COMMUNICATION Objectives There are a range of objectives which may underpin communication, each determining the choice of appropriate method and the effectiveness of the activity. We can consider three general forms of communication32: · Care communicationÐi.e., communication about impacts on the environment, and health and safety and about environmental performance, where information and research are available. · Consensus communicationÐi.e., communication to encourage people to work together to reach sustainable decisions including the setting of standards, product development, siting, safety planning, and the management of natural resources. · Crisis communicationÐi.e., responding to accidents, pollution events, and outbreaks of disease and illhealth, involving communication both during and after emergencies. Inherent in each of these are elements of communication outcome as well as process, and it is to both of these interrelated elements that objectives relate33. Outcome objectives usually focus on the immediate product, and most particularly the achievement of predetermined goals, such as the objective to obtain planning permission for a new operation. However, broader outcome objectives may also be identi®ed, including resolution of con¯ict, gaining support for a viewpoint or action, increasing public con®dence in a decision process, legitimizing decisions taken, enhancing the achievement of sustainable development Obviously such divergent, but interrelated, objectives will encompass different time-frames Ðfrom days to decades. Process objectives might include reducing costs and decision delays; preventing unforeseen situations arising from inaccurate information; identifying concerns before they escalate; identifying opportunities for project modi®cation and impact mitigation. However, such objectives have a technocentric focus. Differing, societal, objectives are less frequently acknowledged and yet they can be
274
PETTS
signi®cant and impact on the effectiveness of the processÐ for example, increasing social knowledge and public in¯uence on decisions. Criteria of Sustainable Communication In considering what is effective communication industry practitioners have tended to focus on their immediate outcome objectives whether in relation to care, consensus or crisis communication. The public participation literature has focused on two general process criteria, (i) fairness and (ii) competence34. Fairness is assessed from the viewpoint of the individual and the extent to which opportunities exist for the expression of legitimate personal interests and contribution to the development of an agreement. The criterion of competence refers to the ability of the process of communication to provide participants with the procedural tools and knowledge needed to make the best possible decisions. Table 3 provides some examples of criteria and indicators in both of these categories. Sustainable communication will have to have regard to such criteria of fairness and competence. The concept of communication which is sustainable stresses having in¯uence over time, a continuous process which supports the objectives of different stakeholders and ultimately the objectives of sustainability. PROCESSES OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Sustainable communication requires deliberative processes as well as traditional, relatively well-known, information provision methods. Many of the new deliberative processes have been used in decision-making by public authorities rather than by industry. However, their fundamental objectives and characteristics can be adapted
readily for use by companies, and opportunities are likely to arise for the latter to be involved in activities organized by either local or central government. Indeed, if industry is to seek to shape sustainability debates it is essential that it becomes involved in these new activities. Table 4 considers the advantages and disadvantages of four methods of involvement which seek to provide for discussion: focus groups and discussion meetings; workshops; community advisory groups (or committees); citizens’ juries. These processes involve face-to-face meetings of different varieties, they presume that people hold different positions about any issue and require all participants to value and respect the views of others even though they may not agree with them. Most importantly these processes provide an opportunity for the organizer to understand better the full dimensions of the public’s views, concerns and knowledge. Community advisory groups (or committees) traditionally involve members of a local community who are selected to be representative of the range of interests in that community (e.g., education; business; religious; environmental; community; health) but they are not asked to represent particular interests. The groups, of maximum size 20, usually meet over several weeks or months to discuss a strategic issueÐfor example, the management of waste in a local area, or how an environmental improvement project should be de®ned and proceed, or effective restoration of a brown®eld area, or management of water resources. The groups are facilitated during their meetings by an independent chairman. The groups agree the issues and agenda of their work, they are given access to any information and knowledge they require and provided with opportunities to visit sites, to listen to any experts they regard as important. There is a commitment to take the recommendations of the groups into account in the ®nal decision. A citizens’ jury also consists of a representative group
Table 3. Example criteria and indicators of fairness and competencex. (i) FAIRNESS Setting the agenda · Does the method provide an opportunity for everyone to suggest issues to be discussed? Facilitation · Is an opportunity provided for different interests to suggest a person to facilitate the discussions? Discussion · Does the method ensure that all those who may have an interest or concern are identi®ed? · Does the method ensure that all of these have an equal opportunity to participate if they wish? · Does the method provide equal opportunities for everyone who wants to express their views? (ii) COMPETENCE Understanding of de®nitions · Does the method ensure that everyone has an opportunity to understand the de®nitions of terms which are relevant to the communication? Access to experts · Does the method ensure that where expert knowledge is important in the communication process that there is an opportunity to challenge this knowledge? · Is the process ¯exible enough to ensure that where other experts are identi®ed their input to the discussion can be provided for? Access to anecdotal and intuitive knowledge? · Does the method promote the consideration of anecdotal and intuitive knowledge? · Does the method provide opportunities for individuals to improve their own intuitive knowledge (e.g., on site visits)? Checking of factual evidence · Does the method provide opportunities by which the uncertainty in relation to factual evidence and predictions can be considered and discussed?
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY
275
Table 4. Examples of involvement methods. Process
Advantages
Disadvantages
Small group meetings/Focus groups
· Good for listening and responding to concerns · Good for discussing complex issues · Can promote trust and respect between individuals and groups
· Time-consuming and expensive if representative sample is required
WorkshopsÐfull or half day
· Relatively easy to organize · Can be targeted at speci®c stakeholder groups · Can examine speci®c issues in detail from a variety of alternative perspectives · Allow some feedback
· One-off events are limited in subject coverage · Unlikely to reach a wide audience
Citizen juries
· Allow for understanding of stakeholder concerns · Provide for key issues to be exposed · Can examine speci®c issues in detail from a variety of perspectives · Allow for feedback to decision-makers · Can be run over a few days rather than weeks therefore relatively cheap
· Limited time in which to consider complex issues · Stakeholders do not usually have a chance to choose who they wish to listen to and issues to be covered · Require commitment from participants · Participants may be perceived not to be representative of local opinions
Community advisory groups
· Provide access to key stakeholders and community leaders · Allow exploration of key issues and concerns · Expose the real complexity of environmental, health and management issues · Stakeholders can select issues to be covered in detail and experts to listen to · Can promote trust · Highlight the process by which the decision is made as well as the outcome
· Need careful planning and independent control · Participants require a clear remit from the beginning · Time-consuming · Require signi®cant commitment from participants · Relatively expensive · Participants may be perceived not to be representative of local opinions
of the public who hear evidence, question witnesses and through a process of collective discussion and deliberation make an informed judgement on the issues before it. An independent facilitator has the responsibility to select the jury and the witnesses who will appear before it. The jury is usually completed in a few days. Citizens’ juries are now being used widely by local authorities (some 110 authorities reporting their use in 199716) in service provision debates (e.g., social services), urban planning and waste management. `Visioning’ is a speci®c method which is used with either general public or interest groups (perhaps as a form of focus group or within a community advisory group) where people are asked what they want for the future, and how they vision their area in the futureÐfeatures which they value and those not so important. It is a technique thought to be important in terms of making people come to terms with the consequences (economic, social, environmental) of their ideologies and to focus on practically achievable outcomes whilst still providing for different values and priorities to be addressed. Participatory processes are most effective when key choices have yet to be made. Once an organization is locked into a course of action, and there is no willingness or capability to respond to concerns, participants will be alienated as they realize that their activities are being constrained. This in turn will lead to a decrease in trust. However, formal participatory approaches can also be used to provide for a process of `healing’, for example after an accident or emergency. They ensure that the public do not feel that their concerns are forgotten and are a means by which continuing questions can be addressed. Where problems of continuing minority dissent arise, forms of these processes to provide for airing of, and response to, concerns and views could be important. Whilst they may Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
not `get everyone on your side’ they should enhance perceived openness. Table 5 considers the use of different communication methods in relation to the varying objectives which may underpin elements of crisis, care and consensus communication. The most important message from the table is that different communication methods should be integrated together to ensure that broad process and outcome objectives are achieved and that the full range of stakeholdersÐ including the silent majorityÐare reached. The adoption of one method or a focus on methods with a similar style (i.e., information provision or consultation) limits the achievement of the objectives and not least the range and number of interested parties who are communicated with. Communication has often been focused on representative environmentalist and conservation interests not only because these are perceived as being the important groups to placate but also because they are easy to target and they may need no special communication techniques. The methods identi®ed in Table 5 require a greater emphasis on identifying the range of concerns, including individuals, who may have interests. It cannot be assumed that NGOs represent the views of other members of the public, not least in an increasingly pluralistic society. The internet, although currently only accessed by a relatively small percentage (approximately 20%) of the population, nevertheless even now provides one of the most powerful tools by which people can access information worldwide and both learn about, and also learn to question, industrial and of®cial arguments, knowledge and science. Its potential growth in use over the decade (possibly to over 50% of the population) will broaden still further this means of empowerment not just of the activist but the interested citizenÐas already evidenced in local decision contexts35.
· Telephone hotline to answer questions about proposals · Lea¯ets or newsletter to potentially affected groups · Media brie®ngs · Internet/www to explain proposals and assessment method · Seminars · Staffed exhibitions in various accessible locations · Surveys/questionnaires · Interactive web-based tools to provide for comments to be received
· Small group meetings/focus groups and/or community advisory groups organized by local authority. Purpose to scope issues to be included in environmental assessment, to involve representatives of different interests in ongoing and developing assessment work, to get comments on draft environmental statement
· · · ·
· Surveys of opinionsÐeither general public or speci®cally affected group · Staffed exhibitions · Consultation meetings with key stakeholders
· Small groups/focus groups of general public and other interests to scope concerns about product/ technology and to gauge important criteria relating to performance, design, environmental impacts, sustainability indicators
Information provision
Consultation
Involvement
Press adverts Media press releases Lea¯ets Internet/www
New site/operational process proposal
Product/technology development
Method purpose
· Liaison group/local resident committee to provide for ongoing access, questioning and monitoring of performance · Representative of local community on management committee of site · Local community direct monitoring of impacts and performanceÐe.g., through school projects
· Surveys of components and indicators to include in reports · Visitor centre · Open days · Schools projects and visits · Response forms/questionnaire in environmental report · Consultation meetings with key stakeholders · Interactive web-based tools
· Environmental report, site reportsÐindependently veri®ed · Internet/web-based information systems to allow people to interrogate performance data
Operational/performance reporting
Table 5. Example uses of communication methods in different decision contexts.
· Local resident committee (preferably existing and ongoing group). Can act as a means of disseminating information and also as a means of gathering concerns
· Survey of local residents to identify residual concerns · Response forms in lea¯ets
· Media reporting and brie®ngs · Lea¯etsÐhouse to house distribution · Telephone hotline · Posting of monitoring data on site boundary and in local libraries, etc.
Accidents/emergencies
276 PETTS
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRY Most importantly there should be plans for the internet to be used as a tool of democracy, not merely to cast votes in elections, but to engage in dialogue-based, interactive decision-making on sustainability issues. EXPERIENCE OF EXPERTISE AND INVOLVEMENT To date, participative approaches have been used most frequently in relation to strategic decisions, precisely because they are particularly useful where complex problems and multiple options are apparent. However, evaluation of the processes35 does provide understanding of what happens at the interface between experts and the public when opportunities for discussion and debate are provided. Firstly, it is evident that in relation to many complex environmental and risk issues people have a broad range of information requirements, which are rarely related simply to the potential physical risks of different technical options but also to the status of technology, management experience, regulatory controls, the costs of different options and the long-term impact of policy decisions. The complexity of the information demands re¯ect the concentric view of sustainability presented by Mitchell21. Secondly, in participative fora people tend to employ four types of expert questioning: (i) testing of what is known and what is not; (ii) testing of knowledge certainty; (iii) examination of all the assumptions which underpin risk and environmental assessments; and (iv) questioning of different parties to test credibility and independence. Thirdly, the range of perceived experts in relation to many environmental and risk issues is large and individual experts may be sought not only in the UK but also overseas. People are intuitively aware that presenters package information to convey a message favourable to the interest they represent. Fourthly, traditional expert caution in explaining uncertainties and the evident difference of opinion as to their signi®cance leads to demands for access to a range of expertise and information, some of which may traditionally have been treated as con®dential. This may increase the time required for discussion and decision-making. However, there is evidence that when uncertainty is explicitly acknowledged and management mechanisms to deal with the situation are explained, the majority will not demand zero-risk options and are prepared to balance costs and bene®ts if these have been debated in full. Fifthly, there is some evidence that the public are capable not only of assimilating and balancing different sources of information on the same topic, but actually prefer to have different sources, in the inherent belief that as there are no right answers to many complex environmental issues it is important to listen to as many opinions as possible. Finally, there is evidence that given the opportunity to be involved in participative processes people increase their personal knowledge and that they can come to understand others’ viewpoints even though they may not agree with these. However, there are signi®cant barriers to effective processes of involvement. Additional time and resources are needed. Formal and statutory decision-making processes Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000
277
(for example, relating to environmental impact assessment) may not encourage involvement. Experts may be unwilling to admit to uncertainties in public and may not want to acknowledge the range of expertise on particular issues. Some extreme activist groups may refuse to take part in the process. Their networking separate from the main information ¯ows must be responded to rather than ignored. COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND THE NEW MODEL ENGINEER Earlier in the paper the criteria by which an effective communicator is judged were suggested: i.e., competence; honesty; objectivity; empathy and caring. The manner in which people communicate, including the methods they adopt, is often cognitively more important than the information they present. Companies cannot assume the availability of communication skills to meet these criteria: they usually take time and other resources to develop. Experience tells us that the most competent person, perhaps in terms of technical knowledge or scienti®c expertise, may not be the best communicator. They may be particularly vulnerable in involvement processes where questions and debate are important. Therefore any organization needs to identify and to train communicators relevant to the different methods and objectives suggested in Table 5. Traditional media training is never suf®cient to meet the skills required by these methods. Failure of communication is often based in a failure to understand public concerns resulting in an attitude which says that the public are irrational and emotive. Communications training needs to develop the contrary attitude: that questions and concerns are legitimate and that communication is bene®cial. Attitude change usually depends on relevant training; however, empathy with someone expressing concernÐ`if I were in their shoes I would feel the same’Ðis a good starting point. Considering the issue of who is trusted, it is apparent that part of the skill of communication is to use other trusted sources. For industry this could mean identifying and liaising with key independent experts, for example on health risks of chemicals, who can be used directly, or made available to the public. However, a potential lack of trust in the regulator suggests that industry should not rely on the latter as partner. If engineers are to be `in¯uential participants in decisionmaking and sustainability’21, sustainable communication must be a core component of engineering education. Mitchell’s21 comparison between the accreditation syllabus of the Institute of Engineers, Australia and that of the IChemE, in the UK, suggests the potential for the UK system to create a limited and outmoded functional engineer. The argument that engineering undergraduates simply do not have time in their curriculum to learn anything other than core engineering, and certainly not some of the `soft sciences’ that underpin sustainability, will not be sustainable. Unless a fundamental rethink of outcome objectives is made, engineers will be failing in their responsibilities to the sustainable society with consequent declining levels of trust in the engineering profession. For the engineer to be viewed as Clift’s 20 honest broker will require a more sympathetic understanding of societal
278
PETTS
interests and concerns, and a greater transparency and openness of information. Engineers need a fundamental shift in their communication training, which is away from the presentation of outcomes, to the ability to justify the process by which solutions, designs, risk estimates, decisions, etc. have been arrived at. CONCLUSIONS Environmental risks and sustainable development present a signi®cant communication challenge, which is being continually extended by growing societal frustrations with evidence of the failure of industry, science and formal decision processes, and demands to have a say in matters which affect the public. Sustainable development requires sustainable communicationÐa process of proactive, responsive involvement and dialogue. The chemical industry will need to use such processes itself as well as take part in them when organized by public authorities. The participative processes, whether a meeting of representatives of local residents or a process of discussion with representatives from a range of community interests, complement and extend traditional communication activities and are relevant to the different operating contexts of the industryÐthrough from product development to the reporting of operational performance. They provide for understanding of the concerns of different interests, for sharing of values and preferences and for learning. Most importantly, they provide an important opportunity to improve the credibility of the industry and the extent to which it is trusted. However, to achieve this will require recognition of the bene®ts, clear de®nition of the objectives and of effective communication, integrated planning of activities, the proactive development of skills and a fundamental rethink of educational requirements. REFERENCES 1. Petts, J., 1995, Managing public expectations and information needs, in P. Sharratt (ed), Environmental Management Systems, 1±14 (IChemE, Rugby, Warks). 2. Fischhoff, B., 1995, Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process, Risk Analysis, 15(2): 137±145. 3. Covello, V. T., 1992, Risk communication, a new and emerging area of communication research, in Risk Assessment Part 2, Proceedings of an HSE Conference on Risk Assessment, 6±9 October 1992 (Health and Safety Executive, London). 4. Freudenburg, W. R. and Rursch, J. A., 1994, The risks of `putting the numbers in context’: a cautionary tale, Risk Analysis, 14(6): 949±958. 5. Covello, V. T., 1997, Risk communication, in P. Calow (ed), Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, 520±541 (Blackwell Science, Oxford). 6. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. Derby, S. L. and Keeney, R. L., 1981, Acceptable Risk (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 7. Slovic, P., 1987, Perception of risk, Science, 236: 280±285. 8. Slovic, P., 1992, Perception of risk: re¯ections on the psychometric paradigm, in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds), Social Theories of Risk (Praeger, Connecticut). 9. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R., 1992, Risk perception, in Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, 89±134 (Royal Society, London). 10. Adams, J., 1995, Risk (UCL Press, London). 11. Covello, V. T. and Allen, F., 1988, Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (US Environmental Protection Agency, Of®ce of Policy Analysis, Washington DC). 12. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1998, Risk Communication: a Guide to Regulatory Practice (HSE Books, London).
13. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997, Framework for Environmental and Health Risk Management (National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC). 14. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1996, Use of Risk Assessment within Government Departments (HSE Books, London). 15. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment, 1998, Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Improving Policy and Practice within Government Departments (HSE Books, London). 16. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998, Enhancing Public Participation in Local Government (DETR, London). 17. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998, Setting Environmental Standards, Twenty-First Report (HMSO, London). 18. Stern, P. C., 1991, Learning through con¯ict: a realistic strategy for risk communication, Policy Sciences, 24: 99±119. 19. Healey, P., 1997, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Macmillan, London). 20. Clift, R., 1998, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer and her role, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 76(B2): 151±160. 21. Mitchell, C., 2000, Integrating sustainability in chemical engineering practice and education: concentricity and its consequences, Trans IChemE, Part B, Proc Safe Env Prot, 78(B4): 237±242. 22. Petts, J., 1999, Public participation and environmental impact assessment, in. J. Petts (ed), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1, 145±177 (Blackwell Science, Oxford). 23. LoÈfstedt, R. E. and Renn, O., 1997, The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong, Risk Analysis, 17(2): 131±136. 24. Kemp, R. and Wilkinson, A., 1997, Risk communication in theory and practice: a case study, Risk Decision and Policy, 2(2): 155±163. 25. Earle, T. C. and Cvetkovich, G. T., 1995, Social Trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society (Praeger, Connecticut). 26. Renn, O. and Levine, D., 1991, Credibility and trust in risk communication, in R. E. Kasperson and P. J. M. Stallen (eds), Communicating Risks to the Public (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht). 27. Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T. and McCallum, D. B., 1997, The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study, Risk Analysis, 17: 43±54. 28. Marris, C., Langford, I. H. & O’Riordan, T., 1998, A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm, Risk Analysis, 18(5): 635±648. 29. Petts, J., 1998, Trust and waste management information, expectation versus observation, Journal of Risk Research, 1(4): 307±320. 30. Irwin, A., Dale, A. and Smith, D., 1996, Science and hell’s kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues, in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Construction of Science and Technology, 47±64 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). 31. Walker, G., Simmons, P., Wynne, B. and Irwin, A., 1998, Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Hazards (HSE Books, Sudbury). 32. Lundgren, R. and McMakin, A., 1998, Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety and Health Risks (Batelle Press, Columbus, Ohio). 33. Petts, J., Gerrard, S., Murrell, L., Delbridge, P. and Eduljee, G., 1996, Perceptions and Communication: Issues for Waste Management, Department of the Environment Research Report, CWM 151/96 (Environment Agency, London). 34. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P., 1995, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht). 35. Petts, J., 1997, The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process, Public Understanding of Science, 6: 359±381.
ADDRESS Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Professor J. I. Petts, Centre for Environmental Research and Training, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] The manuscript was received 5 March 1999 and accepted for publication after revision 14 March 2000.
Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000