A key component of successful environmental and health risk management for any industry is an effective community outreach, or social responsibility program. This is even more important today than in the past, given the current explosion in public access and exposure to, and interest in, information regarding local health and environmental issues. The internet provides information on industrial facilities that is available to the public 24‐hours a day; Web sites such as those provided in the United States by the EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund offer up‐to‐date information on the status of local industry to all users at the click of a mouse.
Facilities that have not taken a proactive approach to communication may find a public besieged with a wealth of negative information about a plant’s operations and no positive data or reasons to trust the industry. In fact, in the absence of open communications or a public perception of information accessibility, a company may acquire a negative image even if there are no environmental or health risks associated with facility operations.
The chemical industry offers a good example of the potential divergence between real and perceived risk in the absence of communication. While major reductions in releases of both toxic chemicals and suspected carcinogens were documented between 1991 and 1997, and the accident rate for the chemical industry declined 32%, the public perception of the chemical industry did not improve. In fact, only 25% of people living near chemical plants have a favorable view of the industry. In general, the public does not hear about positive innovation or advances in risk reduction and is skeptical of what they hear. These industries have to work at establishing trust. They actively must improve their public image if they want to mitigate and/or avoid future conflict with neighbors.
A commitment by industry to build and maintain an ongoing dialogue with local communities is essential. This dialogue needs to become an integral part of almost every industrial facility’s day‐to‐day operations, with management providing access to information, in addition to learning and responding to the public’s questions and concerns. As Section 5.5.1 demonstrates, facilities that have not opened the lines of communication with their neighbors may find themselves unwillingly drawn into the process – under circumstances that will leave them on the defensive and subject to public concern, or even outrage. The only effective solution is to build relationships over time with local communities and other key audiences.
From Concern to Outrage: Determinants of Public Response
What is likely to make people concerned or angry about a real or perceived risk? The answer depends on a number of risk perception and environmental vulnerability factors. A number of these environmental vulnerability factors are listed in Table 5.5. Without regular communication between industry and the public, people tend to use their general impressions to form an opinion regarding the acceptability of a facility in their neighborhood. Impressions may be based on the “look” of the plant, for instance, whether the buildings and grounds are well cared for and maintained. If smoke or vapors are emitted, or if neighbors can smell or hear plant operations, a facility’s environmental vulnerability is perceived to be greater. Environmental vulnerability will also be high if the plant has a history of community or employee health complaints or if high‐profile substances such as radioactive materials are known to be on site. And also, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the facility in the community where it is located. People will be particularly sensitive to the risks imposed by the operations of facilities located near schools, hospitals, or important scenic or cultural sites.
The concept of environmental vulnerability helps to identify the factors that heighten public concern. However, environmental vulnerability does not clarify why people become outraged over certain kinds of risks and not others. In his classic discussion of “outrage factors,” Sandman (1993) outlines the characteristics of a risk that help to determine the level of anger or fear in people’s reaction to a risk. According to Sandman, the public’s perception of risk goes beyond the narrow definition favored by scientists and engineers. The latter group uses a technical definition of risk, which can be established by multiplying the magnitude of the hazard by the probability of exposure, as follows:
(5.6)
Table 5.5 List of environmental vulnerability factors.
| Environmental vulnerability factors |
| Things people can see, smell, hear (e.g. odors, clouds of steam, noise)High volumes of emissions or hazardous wastesHistory of community or employee health complaintsHistory of unexplained odors or releasesPresence of “dreaded” substances known to cause cancerPoor facility, housekeeping, or appearanceProximity to sensitive locations, including schools, nursing homes, and hospitalsReports of health problems among school children or staffProximity to important scenic or cultural sitesActive presence of organized environmental groupsHistory of poor community outreachLack of risk and crisis communication program |
In this definition, risk increases with the hazardousness of the process or material (e.g. a chemical’s toxicity) and with the amount and length of exposure by the person affected.
The public’s understanding of risk, however, requires the incorporation into the equation of what Sandman has dubbed “outrage.” Outrage accounts for all factors associated with a risk, not including the technical hazard. These factors, which are extremely important to public perception, include whether the risk is assumed voluntarily, as in smoking or not wearing a seatbelt, or involuntarily, as in dying in a plant explosion, whether the risk is controlled by the individual or by the system, and whether it is industrial or natural. The perceived risk associated with an industry or incident will be high if its effects are dreaded, concentrated in time and space, involuntary, memorable, and have no visible benefits, among other factors. With the incorporation of outrage, the layperson’s view of risk can then be summarized and can be expressed as follows:
(5.7)
where risk and hazard are the same as in Eq. (4.9) and outrage represents the incorporation of outrage factors. While the technical level of risk will also concern people, and they will expect something to be done, the outrage factors will help to determine their level of anger and will influence whether a risk is perceived as more or less dangerous. A qualitative breakdown of Sandman’s outrage factors is given in Table 5.6.
Clearly, it is beneficial to industry to communicate to the public trustworthy information about potential or perceived problems before citizen response has reached the outrage state.
Leave a Reply