Risk Communication Session 1 Lecturer... · HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RISK COMMUNICATION • Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring • Earth Day ‐1970 • Growth of the environmental

RISK COMMUNICATIONMARK KATCHEN, MS, MBA, CIH

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RISK COMMUNICATION

• Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring• Earth Day ‐ 1970• Growth of the environmental movement

• Media coverage of environmental issues

THE OLD WAY OF NOT COMMUNICATING

• “If we tell them, they’ll just get upset. Why stir the pot?”

• “Hey, the risk of an accident is much lower than that from smoking or driving on the freeway.”

• “It’s only a few dead birds. ”• “No comment.”

INTRODUCTION

•What is risk communication?

•What is the purpose of risk communication?

Environmental Communication

Safety Communication

Health Communication

C a r e C o m m u n i c a t i o n

C o n s e n s u s C o m m u n i c a t i o n

C r i s i s C o m m u n i c a t i o n

Safe Use of Pesticides Industrial HygieneMedical

Communication

EIS Safety Planning Promulgating Health Regs.

Human-Causedor

Natural DisastersIndustrial Plant Accidents

Epidemics orDisease Outbreaks

RISK COMMUNICATION ALONG FUNCTIONAL LINES• Care Communication

• Health care communication‐informs and advises about health risks (e.g., smoking or AIDS)

• Industrial risk communication‐potential H&S risks

RISK COMMUNICATION ALONG FUNCTIONAL LINES (CONT.)

• Consensus Communication

• Informs and encourages groups to work together to reach a decision about how the risk will be managed, prevented, or mitigated

• Also known as stakeholder participation, public engagement, public involvement, public participation, etc.)

• Can lead to conflict resolution and negotiation

RISK COMMUNICATION ALONG FUNCTIONAL LINES (CONT.)

• Crisis Communication• Extreme sudden danger (e.g., Bhopal) • Includes communication during and after emergency

• Communication during planning on how to deal with potential emergencies is either care or consensus communication

RISK AND CRISIS COMMUNICATION

Risk Communication:• Lays the groundwork for routine and crisis communications.

Crisis Communication:• Supports swift and immediate emergency response.

THE RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS

• Risk assessment

• How dangerous is the risk

• Scientific process that characterizes the probability of occurrence and outcomes

• Risk/benefit analysis

• Risk management

• Consensus communication

• Inform, do not manipulate

• Balance needs of competing stakeholders

• Reach a resolution that all parties can live with

THE RISK COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Risk Assessment

Risk Communication

Risk Management

AUDIENCES, SITUATIONS, AND PURPOSES

“Where potential personal harm is concerned, the believability of information provided depends greatly on the degree of trust and confidence in the risk communicator. If the communicator is viewed as having a compromised mandate or lack of competence, credence in information provided tends to be weakened accordingly. Or if the particular risk has been mismanaged or neglected in the past, skepticism and distrust may greet attempts to communicate risk.”

--Roger Kasperson

APPROACHES TO COMMUNICATING RISK

Source Message Receiver

Communication Process Approach


National Research Council’s Approach

Scientific

Organization

Nonscientific

Group

Tech. Info.

Opinions & Concerns


Mental Models Approach

IdentifyAudience

InterviewAudience

CompileMentalModel

Answers


• Crisis Communication Approach• Those communicating the risk should use all available tools to move the audience to appropriate action.

• Give only the information that is absolutely necessary

• Organization knows what is best for audience and act as a firm parent in enforcing its opinion


Convergence Communication ApproachTech. Info.

Organization Audience

Audience Info.


Convergence Communication Approach

Organization

and

Audience


• Three‐Challenge Approach• Knowledge challenge• A process challenge• Communications skills challenge


Social Constructionist Approach

Scientific

Organization

Nonscientific

Group

Tech. Info., values, beliefs, emotions

Tech. Info., values, beliefs, emotions


Hazard Plus Outrage Approach

RISK = HAZARD + OUTRAGE


• Hazard Plus Outrage Approach• Voluntary versus involuntary• Familiar versus exotic• Dreaded versus not dreaded• Diffuse in time and space versus focused in time and space• Controlled by the individual versus controlled by the system• Fair versus Unfair• Morally Irrelevant versus morally relevant

WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE?


Hazard Plus Outrage Approach• Implications

APPROACHES TO COMMUNICATING RISK• Mental Noise Approach• Social Network Contagion Approach• Social Amplification of Risk Approach• Social Trust Approach• Evolutionary Theory Approach• Extended Parallel Process Model Approach

LAWS MANDATING RISK COMMUNICATION

• CERCLA• EPCRA• EO 12898• EO 13045• National Environmental Policy Act

• OSHA• RCRA• RMP• PROP. 65• NRDA

UNDERSTANDING RISK COMMUNICATION

CONSTRAINTS TO RISK COMMUNICATIONETHICAL ISSUESPRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION

WHERE ARE YOU VULNERABLE?

EHSVULNERABILITY FACTORSPhysical cues (odors, noise, visible plumes).History of community or employee health complaints.History of labor disputes.Poor work conditions‐wages.Large volumes of emissions or hazardous wastes.History of unexplained odors and releases.Presence of “dreaded” substances.Poor facility housekeeping or appearance.

EHSVULNERABILITY FACTORS

Human rights issues in region.Close to residential communities.Close to important scenic orcultural sites.

Reports of health problemsamong school children or staff.

Active presence of organized environmental groups.

History of poor community outreach.

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Med

ia

Envi

ron.

Grp

s.

Frie

nds/

Fam

ily

Loca

lG

ov't

Fede

ral

Gov

't

Indu

stry

Rep

s.

Doc

tors

Source: Six Community Survey, Columbia University, 1992

WHOM DO YOU TRUST?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Med

ia

Envi

ron.

Grp

s.

Frie

nds/

Fam

ily

Loca

lG

ov't

Fede

ral

Gov

't

Indu

stry

Rep

s.

Doc

tors


WHO DO YOU BELIEVE HAS THE MOST INFORMATION?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Med

ia

Envi

ron.

Grp

s.

Frie

nds/

Fam

ily

Loca

lG

ov't

Fede

ral

Gov

't

Indu

stry

Rep

s.

Doc

tors


CONSTRAINTS TO EFFECTIVE RISK COMMUNICATION • Constraints on the communicator

• Organizational constraints

• Inadequate resources

• Management apathy or hostility

• Potential roles dichotomy

• Difficult review and approval process

• Corporate protection requirements

• Conflicting organizational requirements

• Insufficient information to plan and set schedules

CONSTRAINTS TO EFFECTIVE RISK COMMUNICATION (CONT.)

• Constraints on the communicator• Emotional constraints

• Unwillingness to see public as equal partner• Inability to see differing value system• Belief the public cannot understand science


• Constraints from the audience• Hostility and outrage

• Panic and denial

• Apathy

• Mistrust of risk assessment

• Disagreements on acceptable magnitudes of risk

• Lack of faith in science and institutions

• Learning difficulties


• Constraints for communicator and audience• Constant changes in information• Disagreement among experts• Changes in knowledge base

ETHICAL ISSUES

• Regulatory compliance• Honesty• Confidentiality• Fairness

ETHICAL ISSUES

• Social ethics• Sociopolitical environment

• Environmental movement of the 60’s and 70’s

• Increased public demand for involvement in risk assessment and management

• Should risk communicators allow this level of public involvement?

ETHICAL ISSUES

INVOLVE THEPUBLIC

DO NOT INVOLVETHE PUBLIC

ADVANTAGES Decision likely to last Project less likely to be affected

by litigation Increase credibility

Organization won’t have to changeway it does business

No loss of control

DISADVANTAGES Loss of control Lack of organizational

commitment can result in loss ofcredibility

Increased time commitment

Increased chance of litigation Project delays and increased costs

because of litigation Decreased organization’s credibility

ETHICAL ISSUES

STAGE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Risk Assessment Planning Less likely to delay project Concerns integrated throughout

project

Risk not fully understood makesintegration difficult

Scenario Development Suggest additional or differentscenarios

Can increase time and cost to exploremore options

Data Collection Suggest additional data sources Can increase time and cost to exploremore options

Analysis Audience-specific review of data Can increase time and cost to exploremore options

Risk Communication More likely to be understood Acceptance less likely if only place ofinvolvement

May require more communicationresources

ETHICAL ISSUES

• Social ethics• Fairness of risk• Consequences of multiple meanings

ETHICAL ISSUES

• Organizational ethics

• Legitimacy of representation

ETHICAL ISSUES

AUDIENCECHARACTERISTICS

SPOKESPERSON TRAINING NEEDS

Interested in technical details Not hostile Basic understanding of risk

Expert Public speaking Media Relations

Interested in who is accountable Are hostile Basic understanding of risk

Risk Manager Public speaking Media Relations Risk Assessment

Wants to pass information on toothers (e.g., news media Not hostile Little understanding of risk

Communications Specialist Public speaking Media Relations Risk Assessment

General knowledge of risk Apathetic or unaware to specific

risk

Celebrity Risk Assessment

ETHICAL ISSUES

Organizational ethics Legitimacy of representation Designation of primary audienceReleasing informationAttitude toward compliance

ETHICAL ISSUES• Personal Ethics

• Persuasion vs. manipulation‐when is it justified?

• Role of the communication• Organizational or personal ethics?

PRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION

The risk communication processKnow your communication limits and purposePretest your messageCommunicate early, often, and fullyPerception is reality

REMEMBER THIS EQUATION

PERCEPTION = REALITY

P = R


• Principles of presentation• Know your audience

• Don’t limit your risk communication methods

• Simplify language and presentation‐not content

• Be objective, not subjective

PRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION• Principles of presentation

• Communicate honestly, clearly, and compassionately

• Listen and deal with specific concerns

• Provide a consistent message tailored to the needs of each audience segment

• Deal with uncertainty


• Principles for comparing risks• Use analogies but don’t trivialize• Use ranges• Compare to standards• Compare to other estimates of the same risk• Compare traits• Don’t compare risk with different levels of associated

outrage• Explain reduction in magnitude

RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH EMPLOYEES WHO HAD CANCER

Gender Cancer Type Latency (From date of occupancy to diagnosis)

Male Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Female Cervical 9 years

Male Melanoma 7 years

Female Throat 6 years

Male Throat 5 years

Female Hodgkin’s Disease 4 years

Risk Communication Session 1 Lecturer... · HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RISK COMMUNICATION • Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring • Earth Day ‐1970 • Growth of the environmental

Documents