Miljøprojekt, 893 – Risikohåndtering og risikokommunikation

Risk Management and Risk Communication

2 Summary and conclusions

Risk communication is full of paradoxes. One of the largest is that many people, on the one hand, believe that the authorities must report cases as soon as possible if they have reason to suspect that a risk has arisen – e.g. that a specific product is associated with a health hazard. On the other hand, the same people believe that the authorities must investigate things thoroughly before they report about cases, in order not to cause unnecessary concern among the public and to avoid the “cry wolf” effect.

These aspects must be considered by the authorities whenever they decide how to approach an issue, including considerations of what measures they will implement to address a risk and how they will inform the general public about their efforts.

The authorities must often take action on the basis of unclear or inadequate knowledge and a combination of “the quality of the evidence”, the precautionary principle and value-based aspects. With this backdrop, the authorities must take action and advise the public, who expect to be protected from products that are harmful to health and the environment at all times.

Because of their extensive knowledge, in some cases the authorities have to repudiate an unreasonable suspicion that is presented in the media. In such situations the authorities are often operating in a minefield of different interests and concerns where the first, perhaps hasty choice of communication may be crucial for the future process of a case involving risk.

The authorities have to take action quickly and start a dialogue with the wider world when they obtain new knowledge or when others communicate new knowledge of importance to human health and the environment. The authorities must be well prepared when they report new knowledge or when others have indicated a problem, which the authorities must explain and address.

This analysis suggests how, in the future, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Danish EPA) as an authority can best handle cases involving risks and communicate its messages to the public, professionals, and the media.

The analysis covers the experience gathered from a study of the literature and analyses of three previous cases involving risks that have started a debate in the media within the last two and a half years.

An important aspect of the analysis has been to understand the public's requirements and expectations of the authorities' management of and information about potential cases involving risks. This has been obtained through two focus-group interviews and through an omnibus survey (telephone interviews).

The aim of the project has been to develop a set of operational guidelines for the Danish EPA for optimum risk management and communication in the future. The guidelines are primarily presented in the form of an Internet tool for the Danish EPA employees to use via their Intranet. This tool reflects the findings of the individual surveys divided into stages and the recommendation.

2.1 Conclusions

2.1.1 Interpretation and risk concepts

We live in a society where risk is not only part of our consumer society and way of life, it is also a factor that the public is willing to accept for much of the time. Most people have an everyday life that involves a large number of more or less recognised risks; e.g. in traffic, when they choose their food, drink alcohol, or smoke. These are risks that the individual accepts as self-imposed risks, and they are individually weighed against the alternatives.

The public experience other forms of risks which are out of their control. There is news about a meteor with a minimal risk of hitting the earth and destroying all life. Later, there is news that radiation from cell phone antennae may be carcinogenic and there is the story that suntan lotion may contain ingredients causing hormonal imbalance.

These are risks that make the individual citizen feel powerless and which most people expect will be taken care of by the authorities. People expect that the authorities will protect them as much as possible. In such cases the authorities must take action and inform/advise the public.

Risks may be complicated matters that are difficult to deal with and difficult to protect the public from. This is partly because the knowledge for a risk analysis is often limited. A risk analysis is associated with many uncertainties about sources of risks, exposure, and the effects on humans and the environment.

There is no objective truth about the actual risk in a specific case. The authorities must make a balanced consideration of several contradictory factors, including the population's expectations for action, the actual opportunities for action, political and economic factors, and environmental and health aspects.

The public's level of confidence in institutions, science, experts, and their own experience is important in their risk assessment. The ability of the authorities to appear credible is crucial for the outcome of the message.

Moreover, value-based aspects such as ethics, standards, and philosophy of life also play an important role in considerations of risk, including the objectives entered in a risk analysis.

The debate and the interpretation of cases involving risks can be strengthened if the same concepts are applied by different authorities and professionals. The Danish Environmental Risk Council (established by the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences) has issued a report in which they present the definitions and specify the interpretation of different concepts – primarily on the basis of a scientific and technical perception of risk. These definitions are a good starting point, but they need to be reassessed in relation to risks attached to consumer products.

In assessing a given risk, it is important to include aspects other than the scientific ones covering chemical, physical, and biological factors. Social and sociological aspects should also be included, since a risk can be experienced differently by e.g. experts and laymen, and in general a risk is experienced differently by different people and by different cultures.

The experience of a risk depends on a number of aspects such as:

the individual person's knowledge about the risk of more or less serious health impacts
confidence in experts, authorities, industry etc.
seeing a visible utility value in the risk factor
if exposure to the environmental factor can be controlled by the individual
is the risk caused voluntarily or involuntarily?
the risk is seen as an actual threat, and is it well-known or unknown?
the risk appears natural or unnatural/created by man
the moral and ethical issues surrounding the risk – is it reasonable?
the person's general and individual threshold for concern
who are exposed to an environmental factor – is it yourself or others?
trade-off compared to other risks (e.g. exposure to health hazards in the working environment compared to the risk of unemployment).

2.1.2 Choosing a communication strategy

Risk communication can be divided into three stages that reflect a historical development in the dialogue between experts, authorities, and the public.

The educational stage reflects an attitude where the layman's perception of the risk in a particular case is wrong. The aim is to ensure that the public, through proper information, accepts the experts' and the authorities' assessment and management of the risk and follows their recommendations.

The PR and advertising stage reflects that the layman has another perception of risk because he takes other factors into account in his assessment. The aim is to make people change their attitude and behaviour through different influences.

The dialogue and network stage reflects a recognition of the layman's perception of risk and that the layman also has experience that is useful in risk assessment and risk management. The aim is to create the proper conditions for a dialogue to find the best way to handle risks.

The way the authorities handle a case involving risk varies depending on the case and depending on who is raising the issue, the approach of the media in describing the case, how the risk is perceived by the consumer etc. In each case the individual authority must analyse its opportunities to act and how to plan communication to the general public and other players. A combination of the three stages above will often be chosen.

As part of the communication strategy, it may be a good idea to carry out a feasibility study to prepare for the different players. The study provides a sketch of the issues to be included in the analysis. The sketch can be used for an analysis of specific cases and as a guide for handling the risk communication.

The sketch is based on three main themes that form a central part of the risk communication.

Strategic communication

The initial steps in a case involving risks are decisive for the future process of the communication – not least because they enjoy considerable attention from the general public. The parties can either position themselves in relation to each other as partners in an alliance or as opponents. This is why the strategic communication must be settled from the beginning.

Establishment and re-establishment of credibility and reliability

The credibility of the authority – including its competency, honesty and openness – is a crucial factor for the success of communication to the general public. The credibility of the authority is the platform for communication. Unlike previously, public confidence in scientific institutions can no longer be taken for granted; it has to be won and recreated because it is no longer attached to the science or the authority itself. Public confidence is often only on loan – when it is broken, it is lost. Credibility and public confidence is difficult to achieve, easy to lose and even harder to regain. Building up public confidence and credibility takes place both during a specific case and between cases – i.e. in relation to the way the authority acts and communicates in general.

Communication in the media

To a great extent, the media are “joint-creators” of messages, and they help influence the general public's picture of what should give cause for concern. The media is the place where claims about risks are made, tested and encountered and, finally, put into political action.

Some media will cover the case as objectively as possible with the aim of giving the general public all the available information. Others will undertake a more active part in the case and produce stories with a human-interest angle {1> ^[2], encompass the views of the public, pose questions that suggest yes/no answers or certain/uncertain answers and put more emphasis on bad rather than good news.<1

The role of the media in risk communication can be described in accordance with the following two models:

The information model – the media are objective communicators of the “objective” risk from the authorities. The dialogue is characterised by short simplified messages.

The arena model – the media form an arena for different perceptions of risk that are debated in an open forum between all players. There is room here for broader messages.

The media are not only messengers, however, they also have a commercial interest. It is not only a question of neutral communication since the media may have their own messages to promote.

An important and difficult task for the Danish EPA and other authorities is therefore to create confidence in dialogue about cases involving risks on the basis of the given premises.

2.1.3 Perception of the Danish EPA and expectations of the efforts

The vision and mission of the Danish EPA is specified in the annual report of 2002.

“The vision of the Danish EPA is to work on achieving a sustainable development where humans and the environment are protected against pollution – first and foremost through prevention.”

“The mission of the Danish EPA is … to safeguard clean products, clean air, water and soil and thus healthy living conditions for humans, flora and fauna”. Under the objectives of the Danish EPA and specification of the basis of decisions it follows, among other things, “that they must support solutions on the basis of environmental, legal, technical, economic, social and international aspects”. This means that their concern should be broader than simply protecting humans and the environment against pollution.

The omnibus survey shows that many people believe that the Danish EPA must safeguard the interests of the consumers. Only a few people expect the Danish EPA to make a balanced consideration of the economic and the health-related interests.

If new products are introduced to the market, nine out of ten expect that the authorities will make a preliminary approval of the products, that the authorities are responsible for ensuring that products contain no ingredients which are harmful to human health, or that the authorities are responsible that the products include proper instructions for use and labels.

Few people are aware that actually the producers and not the authorities are responsible for safeguarding that products contain no ingredients which are harmful to human health. And likewise the producers are responsible that the labels and instructions for use of the products are correct.

When handling and communicating cases involving risks it is important that the Danish EPA is aware of the expectations of the public, and that these are actually quite different from the actual responsibilities and tasks of the Danish EPA.

Many people have blind faith in being protected by the way authorities handle cases, so that they do not need to take an active part themselves. Many people expect that the authorities will demand that suspicious products with harmful ingredients be removed from the shelves.

However, the focus group interviews show that not all people want suspicious products with harmful ingredients removed from the stores. Some people believe that the public themselves must to a certain extent decide on the basis of the information that is included with the product. It should be mentioned that hardly anyone reads the instructions for use before things go wrong. Almost everyone uses the products as shown on the packaging and in the advertising.

When people have no real choice, everyone expects that the Danish EPA will pay extra attention and protect the public. This is for example the case with drinking water supplies.

Many participants in the focus groups express more scepticism towards the number of cases involving risks rather than the actual content of the cases. Many people believe that the authorities should examine the cases in more detail before they report them in order to avoid the “cry wolf” effect. The authorities should examine both suspicious products and associated products thoroughly, and they should approach the neighbouring countries to see if they have any experience in the case in question so that the public gets an overall picture of the information. Most people believe that if an ingredient is not acutely toxic or harmful, then it will not make a major difference.

Others, and often the same as those described above, believe that the authorities should inform the public as soon as possible when they become aware of suspicious ingredients or products. If the authorities hesitate to report a case, and it is actually a problem, then it may cause a major setback.

It is often the player who first brings a case to the light who will enjoy most confidence from the public. If the authorities wait until they have examined a case more thoroughly, they may risk that others will report it and they will then find themselves in a position of defence.

2.1.4 The public's recollection and experience of the cases involving risks

Many people recall cases involving risks – even though they date back a couple of years. More women than men tend to recall such cases. There are also slightly more women than men, who are concerned about cases involving risks, who independently search for information, and who follow the authorities' recommendations.

More parents (25 to 50 years old) recall the case about harmful ingredients in suntan lotion two and a half years ago than among young people and senior citizens. The reason might be that this problem especially affected children and that the case started just before the beginning of the summer.

Most of the participants in the focus groups keep moderately up to date when a case starts rolling in the media. But generally they are not particularly concerned. In contrast, the omnibus survey shows that three out of four people have some concerns about cases involving risks.

It is uncertain whether this difference is a reflection of the method or an actual difference between the participants. The participants in the omnibus survey were asked to take a position based on two cases, whereas the participants in the focus groups were informed about the details of three cases and they had a discussion about the cases. The participants in the omnibus survey represent a broader spectrum of the public than the focus groups. The participants in the focus groups were primarily well-informed, resourceful people who were generally active in other social matters.

Almost everyone from the focus groups expected that they could buy groceries without having to worry about risks or read the instructions for use. Even so, especially risks in food and cosmetics continue to cause concern, particularly among women.

2.1.5 Assessment of how the authorities handle cases involving risks

In terms of the cases that were discussed by the participants in the focus groups, most of the participants were not satisfied with the way in which the Danish EPA had handled these cases. In the two cases concerning the Danish EPA, the public experienced that the Danish EPA was too weak because it focussed more on whether the rules were observed than whether there was actually a problem. The Danish EPA was more a defender of a system instead of a protector of the public.

When consumers observe that women who have used the hair removal product VEET suffer injuries despite the fact the product complies with the rules, the Danish EPA fails to meet the public's expectations of full protection.

Almost all the participants in the focus groups are satisfied with the way that the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration handled the case on ingredients in olive oil that may be carcinogenic. The Administration made some clear recommendations and removed the products when there was great doubt. Thus the Administration demonstrated that it was better able to protect the public.

The participants in the focus groups emphasised that the Danish EPA should be quick in reporting, for example where rules for labelling regarding the same problem ingredients are stricter for cleaning detergents than for cosmetics. This paradox is very difficult to understand and seems unreasonable to the consumers. Therefore the Danish EPA should announce that they are working intensely on changing it. The Danish EPA should also ensure good information for special target groups – young people were mentioned in particular in this context because they do not always keep up with the news.

2.1.6 Confidence and information

In the debate about cases involving risks, both the focus groups and the omnibus survey showed that the public has most confidence in the consumer organisations (61%), followed by researchers from universities (41%). The confidence in the Danish EPA is more modest (21%); at the same level as environmental NGOs. In general confidence in producers and politicians is the lowest.

In the focus groups the participants explained that they have most confidence in the players who raise the issues. In two cases the Danish EPA was on the defensive since others raise the issues – the Danish Consumer Council and a researcher at the Technical University of Denmark, respectively.

The Danish EPA was also judged by the focus groups when, during a television appearance, they failed to show empathy with the women who had been injured when using the hair removal product. It might be that the sequence was cut out, but the consumers did not know this when they watch the items.

The public receives its information about cases involving risks in the media. Only a few mentioned that they use the Danish EPA's website to find information.

There is some scepticism about the way the media communicate cases involving risks. The public finds that the messages are filtered and turned upside down, and that it is difficult to get an overview of cases. If the public has less faith in the media than in a “story” then some of the distrust affects the players involved in an article.

Many of the participants in the focus groups indicate that the Danish EPA has to ensure that any piece of information about cases involving risks can be transmitted complete and unfiltered, both while they are topical issues and also later when there may be uncertainty as to how a specific case was settled. This could be through a page with cases involving risks on the Danish EPA's website, and through a kind of environmental information television programme. Alternatively, the Danish EPA could participate in consumer programmes.

2.1.7 Recommendations

The Danish EPA must consider carefully who is responsible when a case involving risks is being debated in the media. It is important that the individual is articulate and does not elaborate in too much detail using technical jargon. It is also important that the individual is able to give an overall conclusion so that it is difficult to cut out important aspects if and when the reports are edited. Finally, it is important how the individual is perceived by others. Is the individual able to show enough empathy without becoming too emotional? It is very important that the individual does not get too involved in a heated debate but retains a balanced attitude and concentrates on the case and the person.

It may be an advantage if the same person is chosen to communicate a case throughout the whole process. This will create recognition and thereby confidence.

Since most people's expectations regarding the role and responsibilities of the Danish EPA are wrong, it is very important that the Danish EPA stresses its role and scope of actions in each case. The Danish EPA should also make an extra effort between cases to ensure that the public understands the Danish EPA's actual tasks, role, and responsibility. If the Danish EPA wants to increase the public confidence, it is important in any communication that the public continues to have the best possible understanding of the actions which the Danish EPA in reality is able to take.

The Danish EPA should work on its double role as an agency in a political system and an authority with several clear goals for protecting the citizens. There are clear expectations from the public that government officials are not political but on the contrary are the public's advocates towards the political system. As an authority they should inform the politicians and inform the public of rules and legislation which ought to be changed.

The Danish EPA should be aware that it will lose public confidence if it primarily concentrates on whether rules are being followed or not, especially if – in the public's view – such rules are unreasonable or deficient.

Before the Danish EPA reports about a risk it could be an advantage to consider who else might be a player in the case, any viewpoints these may wish to present, how they might perform, and their motives. The better prepared the Danish EPA is, the easier it will be to handle the case in a sound, confident and credible manner.

This project has developed an Intranet tool in a preliminary version which should be adjusted and further developed to become as serviceable as possible for Danish EPA employees. It will also be necessary for the Danish EPA to decide on the management of various cases – for example, when to decide that products should be removed from the shelves.

It will be advantageous if the Danish EPA systematically ensures gathering of experience of actual cases involving risks. This experience should be used to constantly update the Intranet tool. It should be considered how to train employees in using and producing the various parts of the tool. Moreover, it would be advantageous not only to know how best to manage a case, but also to try this knowledge out in practice.

The public has asked for a website where actual cases may be followed and where the status of previous cases involving risks can be accessed. The Danish EPA normally opens a debate forum on its website when an actual case is in the news. It is recommended that the Danish EPA ensure continuous updating of both current and older cases involving risks in order to make it easier for interested parties to get a view of the status of a particular case. At the same time it will be a good idea to give links to other relevant homepages, for example, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, the Danish National Board of Health and other relevant bodies with the corresponding up dates of cases involving risks.

Most people do not need or want to be heard about actual cases involving risks. Many indicate that it might be a good idea to form an ethical council represented by business. The council could discuss actual cases involving risks and recommend management and communication of such cases. One of the aims of the council could be to estimate both the short-term risk of the individual cases as well as long-term perspectives, and review the total risk considerations which may affect humans and the environment.

The Danish EPA should be very aware of its communication strategy and how to broadcast specific messages both to the general public and to specific target groups. Not everyone reads the papers, watches the news, or listens to the radio news and the information in the news media cannot always be expected to report objectively. The news media review the various messages and they have their own agendas to promote. Moreover, it is generally not enough just to report a risk, either informatively or educationally, in order to bring about a change of behaviour in the general public. It is also necessary to motivate the public through a mutual dialogue and on the basis of the public's view of the risk. One way of creating a basis for a mutual dialogue about risks is through network communication where the debate with the public takes place in their own fora.

Fodnoter

[2] Human-interest angle means that the media will feature a human approach to make more people take notice and read the stories.