Environmental Risk Communication

Principles and Practices for Industry

Susan Zummo Forney, Anthony J. Sadar

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367469771
• eBook ISBN: 9781000339826
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Tecnología e ingeniería
• Subtopic: Comunicación empresarial

Modern industry faces many communication challenges, including social media. The second edition of this book is thoroughly updated, expanded, and reorganized to help industry communicators remain effective in addressing these challenges. At the core of this book are foundational building blocks that address the human factors responsible for driving success or failure when communicating about environmental risk.

Features

• 
  
  

• Provides principled guidance for building relationships and engaging in constructive dialogue with stakeholders.

• 
  
  

• Offers straight talk and practical, easy-to-follow guidance on effective risk communication for various situations, stakeholders, and modes of communication.

• 
  
  

• Gives lessons learned from environmental permitting and crisis situations involving risk communication in various industries, including chemical manufacturing, waste management, and the energy sector.

• 
  
  

• Addresses nuanced, recent concerns regarding issues like fake news and social media bullying.

• 
  
  

• Examines the dos and don'ts of communicating effectively during tough conditions like environmental emergencies.

Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry is intended to be both a grounding in enduring principles and a continued resource for best approaches and techniques. Coupled with tools and best practices from decades of experience, this insider's guide provides CEOs, plant managers, environmental compliance professionals, health and safety officers, and others with the direction and the confidence needed to prepare for difficult dialogue and high-pressure encounters.

1
The Art and Science of Risk Communication

Introduction

The ability to communicate effectively is a prized attribute in the work force and in society at large. Even without the high stress and controversy often associated with communicating about environmental risk, challenges abound in transmitting and receiving information. This chapter briefly addresses the broader challenges of communication and then examines the definition and approach to environmental risk communication that will be taken throughout the remainder of this book.

1.1 Challenges of Communication

While communicating about risk requires some special considerations, the practice shares three main attributes with all forms of communication, in that it is:

• Imprecise—We transmit ideas, concepts, and facts imperfectly the first time based on our own biases or filters. And then every time this information is translated by another individual or group, the message is further filtered and eroded.
• Irreversible—Historically, this meant once you say or print something, you cannot take it back. Today it carries a new meaning with social media. This is true today more than ever. Everything and anything is memorialized in an instant with social media, available any time for unearthing and sharing with the world.
• Contextual—We frame information based on our experience and point of view. The framing occurs both when we transmit information and when we process it as receivers.

As the simple illustration in Figure 1.1 shows, you cannot assume that the information you transmit is being received exactly as intended. Both the senders and the receivers experience interference not only from outside influences but also from internal biases that cause them to shape what they say and hear. Among these factors are simple influences such as background noise, current state of mind, tiredness, stress, age, and so on.

FIGURE 1.1Communication is imprecise.

Have you ever played the telephone game where one person whispers a message into the ear of another, and then that person whispers the message to another, and so on, until you get to the last person in line? The message uttered by the final receiver is often quite different from the one shared by the initial sender. This potential for faulty transmission is why people employed in the nuclear industry use three-way communication. When they issue instructions, they ask the receiver to repeat the instructions back, and then they confirm if they are correct or not. This protocol must be followed whether you are uttering two words or multiple sentences—there is simply too much at stake to get it wrong.

While we readily acknowledge that framing and interference occurs, we continue to manage our everyday communications as if everything gets through exactly as we planned. And we are often taken by surprise when something we thought was crystal clear was interpreted differently by others.

In Why Don’t People Listen, Hugh Mackay (2013/1994) dives more deeply into how and why we may miss the mark when communicating with others. Among what he refers to as the ten laws of human communication addressed in his book is the tendency of listeners to interpret messages in terms of their own perspective of the world and their own circumstances; in this way they affirm what already exists in their belief system and discount what does not. He also discusses how listeners who feel insecure in their relationship with the speaker are not likely to listen well.

Mackay further addresses the importance of perceived balance in the relationship between speakers and listeners. When listeners’ attitudes are challenged head-on, they are likely to defend and reinforce those attitudes. In addition, if they are not consulted first about a change that affects them, they are more likely to resist the change for that simple fact.

As we unfold the principles and practices of environmental risk communication throughout this book, you will find evidence of these laws in many of our recommendations.

1.2 Risk Communication Defined

The EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/risk/risk-communication) describes risk communication in this way:

Risk communication is the process of informing people about potential hazards to their person, property, or community. Scholars define risk communication as a science-based approach for communicating effectively in situations of high stress, high concern or controversy.

From the risk manager’s perspective, the purpose of risk communication is to help residents of affected communities understand the processes of risk assessment and management, to form scientifically valid perceptions of the likely hazards, and to participate in making decisions about how risk should be managed. Risk communication tools are written, verbal, or visual statements containing information about risk.

The situations of high stress, high concern, and controversy included in the EPA’s definition are often what comes to mind when one thinks of communicating about environmental risk issues. Indeed, these are the components that typically raise sufficient concern for individuals and organizations to seek professional assistance.

Also notable in the EPA’s definition are the words hazard and risk. These terms are often confused or used to mean the same thing. However, when you are communicating about risk, it is helpful to distinguish between them. Hazard is the potential of something to cause harm (sickness, injury, death, damage, etc.). Risk is the mere probability or chance that a particular hazard will cause that harm. For example, concentrated sulfuric acid is a hazardous chemical. However, if it is handled appropriately, the risks it poses are small.

Four basic risk communication challenges (Covello & Allen, 1988):

1. Challenges with the information communicated.
2. Challenges with the source of information.
3. Challenges with the channels of communications.
4. Challenges with the receivers of information.

Interestingly, the challenges of communicating about environmental risks bear great resemblance to the technical model for evaluating risk called the Source-Pathway-Receptor (SPR) model, which describes the flow of an environmental pollutant from a source, through different pathways (or channels) to potential receptors (or receivers).

When engineers, scientists, and executives ran into difficulties communicating about hazards and risks in the late 1970s, the prevailing thought about the source of the problem was that the public was incapable of understanding complex technical information. So, early communication efforts were focused largely on attempting to simplify information and convince members of the public that risks were low. However, the factors that create challenges for risk communication, that is, high stress, high concern and controversy, have little to do with technical knowledge or complexity. In actuality, people generally trust technical professionals to get the science and technology right. It is the emotional dimensions that cause most of the problems.

The art and science of risk communication has grown out of the idea that, instead of just assuming the public is uninformed, there is a logic to how the public perceives risk, and that perception is shaped by a number of factors unrelated to hazard and risk. These factors include:

• Complex issues and conflicting science.
• Lack of trust in the source(s) of information.
• Poor track records or legacy issues.
• Public misperception and fear.
• Emotions that overrule facts.
• Influence from the media and the Internet.
• Personal biases.
• Competing agendas.

1.3 Categories of Risk Communication

Depending on your circumstances, your reason for communicating about risk may differ. For instance, you may be dealing with members of the public who are upset about the real or perceived threats from an operation you are planning. Or, you may be working to get out emergency evacuation orders related to an accidental release. Whatever the situation, there are four general categories of risk communication within which your effort may lie:

• Precaution/Care advocacy—This type of risk communication applies to situations where your organization has a vested interest in elevating the concerns of stakeholders about a risk so that they are more likely to take a desired action. For instance, you may be working to improve employee adherence to personal protective equipment rules.
• Communication upkeep—This category of risk communication applies to situations where no special concerns exist on either the part of the organization or its stakeholders. Under these circumstances, organizations should be continuing efforts to build trust and relationships with stakeholders. They should also be using existing communication channels to monitor for opportunities and potential challenges that may be brewing.
• Outrage management—This type of risk communication describes situations that often come to mind when talking about risk communication, where stakeholders are upset. As discussed in Chapter 5, Address Emotions Before Facts, the key to dealing with these situations is actually to put technical discu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface to Second Edition
• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• Introduction
• 1. The Art and Science of Risk Communication
• 2. Walk the Talk
• 3. Set Goals to Guide Your Communication Investment
• 4. Tailor Your Approach and Messages to Your Audience
• 5. Address Emotions before Facts
• 6. Don’t Skimp on the Public Participation Process
• 7. Tackle the Tough Issues Head-on
• 8. Work with the Media
• 9. Rely on Best Practices for Conveying Information
• Postscript
• Appendix A: Laundry List of Outrage Reducers
• Appendix B: Environmental Risk Communication Archives—Fallout from Three Mile Island (TMI)
• Appendix C: Gauging Level of Public Interest in a RCRA Facility
• Appendix D: Examples of Bridging Statements
• Appendix E: Laundry List of Media Interview Tips
• Appendix F: Laundry List of Tips for Giving an Effective Presentation
• Appendix G: Laundry List of Question-and-Answer Tips
• Appendix H: Templates for Responding to Difficult Questions
• Index