While many industrial facilities may recognize the benefits of communication, many are reluctant to devote the necessary time and money to initiating community outreach programs. Some managers believe that if people are already getting information in ways over which industry has no control, there is no point in fighting the process. In fact, they are wise not to challenge the technical basis of environmental groups’ statements: industry does not have the credibility that these groups have, and such challenges are likely to be seen as obfuscatory, further damaging the industry’s image. However, the absence of communication espouses a negative perception. Communication should not be approached as a reaction to negative publicity or as combative. It needs to become an essential component of day‐to‐day operations in order to be effective.
Table 5.6 Outrage factors.
Source: From Sandman (1993).
| More risky | Less risky |
| Involuntary | Voluntary |
| Industrial/artificial | Natural |
| Exotic/unusual | Familiar |
| Memorable | Not memorable |
| Dreaded | Not dreaded |
| Concentrated in time and space | Not concentrated in time and space |
| Unfair | Fair |
| Morally relevant | Morally neutral |
| Untrustworthy | Trustworthy |
| Closed process | Open process |
| No visible benefits | Visible benefits |
Breaking Down the Barriers to Communication
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place
– George Bernard Shaw.
Industry commonly uses the following rationalizations to defend a position of noncommunication.
We’re Too Small to Do Outreach
A low‐profile or “no‐profile” facility can actually find itself subject to increased public scrutiny because it lacks a history of outreach. Companies without a budget, activities, or personnel allotted to community outreach may feel this is appropriate to their size and risk‐potential. However, even a small chemical facility can be the object of the public’s wrath, especially if people feel the risk has been hidden from them.
Our Facilities and Operations Are Environmentally Sound
A solid environmental performance is certainly essential to a facility’s efforts to be a good neighbor. However, a successful relationship can be achieved only when environmental performance is joined with regular communication and trust. Especially, if there is no record of communication between industry and the public, people will base an opinion about whether a given operation is a good neighbor on the basis of general impressions of its facilities. Every facility is vulnerable in some way to public questions, concerns, and even outrage (Sheader 2014).
If We Talk to People, They Will Just Get Upset
Sometimes after years or even decades of silence, an industrial facility will suddenly find itself engaged in an active and heated dialogue with its neighbors. The event precipitating the communication could be a minor chemical release, something that poses a small risk but requires a large response from the fire department and other emergency responders. While the technical level of risk will influence public response, the level of outrage will be in a large part determined by prior experiences with the company. Communication outrage per se does not create. Anger results when the appearance of unfairness leads to distrust and the perception that risks cannot or will not be controlled.
Our People Are Already Overworked
Risk communication and community outreach need to be part of each facility’s day‐to‐day business plan and its employees’ job descriptions. Section 5.5.2.2 discusses how these goals can be achieved. In the long run, time and money can be saved if public outrage is kept low and confrontation is avoided. A risk communication program should be thought of as a form of insurance against future problems with neighbors. By keeping in touch with community concerns, industry can largely avoid being blindsided by reactions to circumstances that should not be causes for alarm.
Building a Communication Program
Having characterized the risk of exposure to constituents of criteria and hazardous pollutants and the degree of uncertainty associated with the risks, next move is to use the information to improve the basis for making decisions. This often involves the public, or at least embraces public concerns and attitudes.
The rationale for an effective risk communication program has been discussed, as have the theoretical underpinnings for determining public response or outrage to risk. On a practical level, industry needs to operationalize these concepts. While each facility will develop its own approach, three key steps to building sustainable strategies for risk communication are applicable to all operations.
- Step one: Begin with facility employees
While the commitment to communication comes from top management, the success of an outreach program must involve employees at all levels. Employees are the best communication resource. They affect the way the facility is perceived, whether or not they have a specific responsibility for communication procedures. In fact, frontline employees, who themselves are exposed to whatever risk a facility might pose, possess greater credibility with the public than does management. If these employees do not believe the workplace is safe and environmentally sound, or that top management is responsive to their concerns, the community will have a similar outlook.
Employees also need to be the first audience for communications. If the goal is consistent communication with the public at large, the employees need to be informed about risks. Frontline employees must be provided with risk and crisis communication training. They need the tools that will allow them to feel comfortable in fulfilling their communication responsibilities. Communication is a skill that can be learned, and if employees are expected to take an active role in the process, they need to be given a solid foundation for addressing public concern.
- Step two: Make communication a daily and ongoing commitment
Building trust and credibility with the public takes time. People reluctant to change long‐held opinions of industry will do so only when they are satisfied that a new viewpoint is merited. To build trust, a company must make itself accountable to the public. This means establishing a track record of reaching out, following through, and hearing and responding to people’s concerns.
It is better to begin outreach with a series of small events rather than trying to address all audiences at one time. It is beneficial to seek out informal, as well as formal ways to interact, such as through meetings of civic organizations or homeowner’s associations, and presentations at local schools or conferences. These interactions demonstrate an interest in the community and a willingness to participate on the public’s terms and to relinquish control over communication infrastructure.
- Step three: Focus on listening and understanding
The key to communication is hearing what the public has to say. People want to receive information, but they also want to know that a company will listen to them and respond to answers. Never should conversation be limited to technical risk issues. A facility must be prepared to address a wide range of other issues and to take them seriously. Only then can industry construct a record of accountability.
Leave a Reply