Abstract
Chemical plants put neighboring citizens� health and safety at risk. Many community members feel anxiety and concern about the operations at local plants. This paper investigates the idea that risk communication and strong relationships with key publics decrease community uncertainty and increase support of an organization during and after a crisis. Research suggested that excellent risk communication and strong relationships with key publics correlated positively with support of chemical plants. Support of chemical plants increased as levels of community members� uncertainty decreased.
People living and working in communities near chemical plants may feel anxiety about chemical spills, explosions, air or water pollution, and other health and safety risks. Chemical plants affect nearby communities positively by providing jobs, taxes, and business revenue (Diana & Heath, 1995), but impose risks with potentially devastating effects. Incidents such as the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the catastrophic toxic gas leak in Bhopal increased the public�s uncertainty about the dangers associated with the chemical industry (Chess, 2001; Heath, Bradshaw, & Lee, 2002). Heath, Seshadri, and Lee (1998) wrote, �our society suffers from what many have called chemophobia�concern that chemical companies unduly affect health and safety� (p. 51). Within the context of chemical plants, this paper investigates the idea that risk communication and strong relationships with key publics decrease community uncertainty and increase support of an organization during and after a crisis.
The 1984 Union Carbide tragedy in Bhopal, India decreased the public�s trust of the chemical industry (Chess, 2001). The U.S. government responded to the public�s anxiety by passing the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986 (SARA). Title III of SARA authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to direct the creation of nationwide local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) (Heath et al., 2002). LEPCs and other risk communication infrastructures, such as community advisory committees (CACs), offer the general public the opportunity to obtain information and identify, assess and reduce risks (Heath et al., 2002). Heath et al. (2002) suggested that LEPCs and CACs have done little to change peoples� perceptions of the chemical industry and to provide a place for public dialogue. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate risk communication programs in hopes of alleviating the anxiety of people who live and work near chemical plants, and to find the best way to garner support for chemical companies.
The public�s concern about the risks associated with chemical plants and other modern technologies spurred many organizations to establish risk communication strategies (Chess, 2001). Heath, Gay, and Diana (1997) defined risk as �the likelihood (probability) that an event will occur and that it will be tolerable or severe� (para. 25). Risk communication was developed based on studies of risk perception and risk management (Heath & Palenchar, 2000). The concept of risk communication has evolved from a linear model, which emphasized communication about risks from the sender to the receiver and assumed mutual understanding was achieved once the receiver knew the risks (Heath et al., 2002). During the second phase of risk communication, risk-laden organizations tried to ease community members� concerns by being honest about the severity and probability of each risk (Heath & Palenchar, 2000).
Early Studies on Risk Communication
Covello, Sandman, and Slovic (1988) advocated a linear risk communication program that included an all-knowing source. The authors created a manual for plant managers to aid communication programs, which advised risk communicators to dress and behave like their stakeholders, and provide risk comparisons. Palenchar and Heath (2002) argued that such a program does not help risk communicators to understand the organization�s publics, and they suggested looking �at risks more from citizens� perspective and less from that of scientists and manufacturing plant managers� (p. 128).
Diana and Heath (1995) studied the different ways in which technical experts working for the chemical industry and technical experts not working for the industry perceive risks. Because people working for a chemical plant were likely to have a high opinion of the industry, Diana and Heath (1995) reasoned that they could assist risk communicators in informing stakeholders about risks. Coombs (1995) studied how an organization�s image affects the way publics view a crisis. He proposed that publics forgive organizations with a history of problems less willingly than organizations with a good performance history. A good performance history �creates a halo effect for an organization by projecting a positive image� (Coombs, 1995, para. 40).
Heath, Liao, and Douglas (1995) discovered that stakeholders� perceptions of economic benefits or harms of a chemical plant directly influenced the extent to which stakeholders were involved with issues, used information, and took action. They concluded that people had higher involvement when they believed their financial concerns were at stake. Furthermore, the study found that people who had high involvement were likely to take action by lobbying politicians or signing petitions. Heath (1995) wrote that people who support a local chemical plant do so because of the financial benefits it provides.
Variables essential to risk communication (Heath, 1995) include: cognitive involvement, knowledge of risks, trust of an organization, and uncertainty. Heath (1995) argued that when key publics face uncertainty about the risks associated with a chemical plant, the success of risk communication programs depends on �the quality of dialogue in a community� (p. 257). Organizations that develop extensive emergency response systems and �proactively help people to know what to do if something unfortunate happens� (Heath & Abel, 1996, p.153) are more likely to be supported by the community.
Risk Communication Programs
The present phase of risk communication �places emphasis on dialogue, conflict resolution, consensus-building, and relationship development among the parties involved with or affected by the risk� (Heath et al., 2002, p. 318). This new model for risk communication has been called �risk democracy� (Heath et al., 2002). All risk communication programs do not successfully create an opportunity for dialogue. Through dialogue, fears, doubts, and suggestions can be discussed. Studies on LEPCs and other government-sponsored risk communication infrastructures found that they do not provide a place for public dialogue because they take a linear, information-based approach (Heath, 1995). Lynn and Busenberg (2000) suggested that many CACs are �vehicles for agency-sponsored education or solely to fulfill a legal mandate� (para. 4).
The American chemical industry has recently created community advisory panels (CAPs) at plants nationwide, but Lynn and Busenberg (2000) found that CAPs often fail to connect panel members with the community. For advisory panels to be more effective, the panels should include a committed plant manager, diverse members, and a neutral, professional facilitator (Lynn & Busenberg, 2000). Heath et al. (2002) recommended that public relations practitioners who engage in risk communication need to communicate with the community through LEPCs and CACs, make the community more aware of these committees, and help technical experts communicate with stakeholders. Even though public relations practitioners may not understand the technical aspects of a risk, Palenchar and Heath (2002) stated that practitioners should be aware of the risks and understand how people perceive the risks. Heath et al. (1997) wrote that technical experts can increase the effectiveness of risk communication infrastructures by disseminating and interpreting technical data, and facilitating �two-way communication between companies, agencies, and the lay public� (Discussion section, para. 1).
Chess (2001) defined �isomorphism� as �conformance to norms within a corporate sector� (p. 184). He reasoned that as more organizations establish risk communication programs, society will expect companies to have risk communication programs, and organizations without such programs will lose the public�s support. An organization�s risk communication program not only reacts to external environmental factors, it can be influenced by the community�s expectations (Chess, 2001). One expectation of community members is that chemical plants are honest and open about potential risks (Heath et al., 1998). Community members perceive organizations as being honest and open when companies �explain the positive and negative effects of their operations� (Heath et al., 1998, p. 44).
Heath and Palenchar (2000) argued for the need to synthesize risk communication programs and community relations programs. They advocated a long-term community relations program that acknowledges and monitors local citizens� fears and concerns, and educates the community about warning systems used during a chemical spill or other emergency (Heath & Palenchar, 2000). Effective community relations and risk communication build strong relationships between an industry and the local community, and help people living and working near high-risk organizations to �recognize the rewards or benefits they enjoy by working and doing business safely� (Heath & Palenchar, 2000, para. 17).
The Importance of Strong Stakeholder Relationships
Many people do not trust the chemical industry (Chess, 2001). Palenchar and Heath (2002) conducted focus groups to determine the dominant messages in communities near chemical plants. One resident�s remark, which expressed �typical fantasy theme chaining� (p. 140) was: ��See these chemical plants cover things up. They keep things in�� (p. 141). Turnbull (2001) wrote that organizations face problems in their stakeholder relations because people distrust organizations, and have different values and worldviews.
Grunig and Grunig (1992) advocated two-way symmetrical public relations that invests in honest, �long-term, stable relationships� (p. 313) with key publics. A basic tenet of two-way symmetrical public relations is openness (Heath et al., 1998). Risk communication programs seek to establish positive, open relationships with stakeholders prior to a crisis (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2001; Coombs & Holladay, 2001). Seeger et al. (2001) stated that positive relationships with stockholders may ease crisis recovery. Heath (1995) used the term �communication infrastructure� to describe committees that focus on �building structures, relationships, understanding and support systems� (Seeger et al., 2001, p. 154).
Coombs and Holladay (2001) explained that it is important to consider the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders when evaluating a crisis. Good relationships with stakeholders signify that the organization has a good reputation (Coombs & Holladay, 2001). Coombs and Holladay (1996) explained that it is important for an organization to establish positive relationships with stakeholders because an organization with a negative reputation �can be translated into financial damage and even threaten the organization�s survival� (p. 280). The quality of established relationships also affects how stakeholders interpret a crisis and the organization in crisis (Coombs & Holladay, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2001). Coombs and Holladay (2001) explained this idea by using an analogy. They wrote that if a relative spills a drink on your favorite chair and stains it, whether or not the accident causes you to have ill feelings depends on your relationship with the relative. They reasoned, �if your relationship with that relative is positive, the accident will have little impact on the relationship� (p. 324).
Ulmer (2001) stressed that high-risk organizations need to cultivate strong stakeholder relationships because in a crisis situation, stakeholders may support the organization and provide resources to aid crisis recovery. Prior to a crisis, organizations should develop communication channels with stakeholders �to build reservoirs of good will, alliances, and shared understanding� (Ulmer, 2001, para. 8). If an organization lacks strong, positive stakeholder relationships, then stakeholders may turn against an organization in a crisis situation (Ulmer, 2001).
Identifying Key Publics
When developing risk communication programs, it is important to identify the key publics at which communication efforts will be directed. Before strong stakeholder relationships can be developed, organizations must identify key publics (Ulmer, 2001). Ulmer (2001) identified primary and secondary publics with which an organization should seek to establish strong relationships. Primary publics included local community members and the organization�s employees, who are trained what to do in the case of an emergency (Ulmer, 2001; Heath & Palenchar, 2000). An organization�s secondary publics consist of customers and the media (Ulmer, 2001). The media is an important public because of its role in �disseminating information to the larger public before or after a crisis� (Ulmer, 2001, para. 25).
Heath et al. (2002) suggested that key publics of a risk-laden organization include local citizens and regulators. Heath et al. (1998) found that residents in neighborhoods high in proximity to chemical plants were more likely to support the plants than residents in low-proximity communities, or communities that are at least twenty miles away from the plants. Heath et al. (1998) stated that organizations need to identify low-proximity communities as key publics and include them in risk communication efforts.
Uncertainty
Community members living and working near chemical facilities may experience uncertainty. Heath et al. (1997) stated that risk is closely linked with uncertainty. Heath et al. (2002) defined uncertainty as �the extent to which people believe they can predict that a risk will occur and whether they are confident in their ability to communicate about the risk� (p.321). Heath et al. (1998) reasoned that a risk with potentially disastrous effects, such as a chemical spill, �adds fear to uncertainty� (p. 42). Scientists often disagree on types or levels of risks (Heath et al., 2002). In doing so, they generate uncertainty. Heath et al. (2002) calls this form of uncertainty �scientific uncertainty� (p. 321).
Organizations seek to reduce uncertainty surrounding their operations (Chess, 2001). An excellent risk communication program reduces the uncertainty about risk-laden technologies by exchanging information about risks, and teaching key publics appropriate safety measures (Seeger et al., 2001). Ray (1999) wrote that information usually alleviates uncertainty, but Heath et al. (1997) suggested that information alone does not alleviate people�s uncertainty. Heath et al. (1998) found that people�s level of uncertainty decreased when they trusted a chemical plant and perceived it to be honest and open. In an evaluation of the airline industry�s crisis management strategies, Ray (1999) concluded that organizations should be honest and open with the media to prevent negative news coverage. She argued that failing to �communicate in a timely, open, and sufficient way increases uncertainty about the company in question� (p. 88). Ray (1999) based her evaluations only on the airline industry, but King (2000) wrote that her cases can be generalized to many other organizations.
Support of an Organization
A chief goal of chemical facilities is to obtain the local community�s support (Heath et al., 1998). An absence of community support translates into higher costs of doing business (Heath and Palenchar, 2000). Increasing support for the industry is an extensive, long-term effort (Heath and Palenchar, 2000). Heath et al. (1998) defined support as �positive feelings toward an organization and the desire to have it operate in the community� (p. 45). They wrote that the key dependent variable in risk communication studies is the support or opposition of an organization. Palenchar and Heath (2002) stated that understanding people�s perceptions of risks and support of chemical plants is vital to improving risk communication programs. Heath et al. (1998) found that people were more likely to support an organization when they perceived it to be honest and open, when they trusted the organization, and when they had knowledge about safety procedures. As uncertainty about a chemical plant decreased, support increased (Heath et al., 1998).
Heath and Palenchar (2000) discovered that citizens were more likely to support a local chemical plant if they knew about LEPCs, and if they believed the plant adequately prepared for emergencies. They suggested that an excellent company seeks to build strong relationships with the local community �on the assumption that they will enjoy support rather than opposition� (para. 20). Palenchar and Heath (2002) stated that symmetrical communication enables organizations to establish relationships �on co-created risk estimates� (p.133).
Coombs and Holladay (1996) wrote that community members are less likely to support an organization that has a history of crises than an organization without a history of crises. Heath and Palenchar (2000) found that an organization�s commitment to quality, such as maintaining high air and water quality, is more of a determining factor of community support and therefore �precedes the importance and, thus, effectiveness of quality community-relations risk communication� (Support and opposition section, para. 1). In an analysis of environmental quality standards at chemical facilities in Russia, Porfiriev (2000) argued that risk managers not only need to warn adjacent communities of risks, but also need to �reduce the risk of effects to acceptable levels� (p. 219).
Researchers have performed numerous studies on community members� feelings and attitudes toward local chemical facilities. Many of the studies analyzed for this paper examined the correlation between variables such as support of an organization, uncertainty, openness, trust, proximity, and relationships. None of the studies, however, included income or education level as key variables. Heath (1995) stated that the chemical industry has been accused of locating chemical plants near low-income neighborhoods, an action known as �environmental racism� (p. 255). The lower-income neighborhoods surrounding chemical plants may include citizens with lower educational levels. Future research needs to analyze whether people�s education level affects their perceptions of risks, uncertainty, and whether they are able to comprehend emergency response instructions. Research of this kind could ensure that risk communication programs benefit all citizens near chemical facilities. Likewise, content analysis of risk communication messages is needed to determine at which education or intelligence level the messages are targeted. This is important because information about operations at chemical facilities is generally very technical.
Risk communication in its infancy was linear, and stressed giving the necessary information to stakeholders, but current research places more emphasis on relationships with local citizens and community-relations efforts. The theories presented in this paper interplay with the two-way symmetrical theory of public relations. Current research has revealed that characteristics associated with two-way symmetrical public relations, such as honesty, openness, devotion to relationship building, and dialogue, correlate highly with support of an organization. Risk communication that focuses on honest relationships and symmetrical communication will contribute to more excellent public relations by giving the organization insight into key publics� opinions and concerns. By gaining insight, organizations can make the necessary changes needed to maintain the support of the community. Future research will most likely seek to understand the dynamics of two-way symmetrical relationships between high-risk organizations and their key publics.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, America�s chemical plants were placed on a heightened state of alert. This greatly intensified the fears of citizens living and working near plants. An area that has not yet been addressed in relation to chemical company�s risk communication programs is people�s confidence that the plants are secure from terror attacks or sabotage. Future research on risk communication should study people�s perceptions of security at chemical plants and how this affects their uncertainty and support of the plants.
The thesis statement presented in the introduction was supported by research throughout the paper. Research demonstrated that organizations are more likely to be supported when they honestly communicate about risks and establish strong relationships with key publics. Furthermore, risk communication was shown to reduce uncertainty, which led to increased support of an organization. Research confirmed that stakeholders are more likely to support an organization during and after a crisis when strong, positive relationships have already been developed with stakeholders.
Nevertheless, the thesis statement could have been reinforced by incorporating research on the importance of including a public relations practitioner in the dominant coalition. Without representation in the dominant coalition, it would be more difficult for the public relations department to initiate policy changes. It is important that risk communicators not only inform stakeholders about risks, but also try to reduce risks associated with the organization.
The focus of risk communication research in this paper was on stakeholders outside of an organization. There is a void in research on another group of key stakeholders, employees. How employees� perceptions of risks and emergency procedures affect their daily operations should analyzed. It is also important to examine levels of uncertainty, fear, trust, and support among employees because they directly affect the success of their organization.
Excellent risk communication exchanges information about risks for information on stakeholders� feelings and concerns. Such dialogue benefits both an organization and its stakeholders. Risk communication increases stakeholders� knowledge of risks and knowledge of what to do in an emergency, and increases the organization�s knowledge of its stakeholders opinions. Through dialogue, stakeholders can also make suggestions that may save an organization money. Lynn and Busenburg (2000) wrote that dialogue among representatives from a Dow Chemical facility, an environmental group, and community members reduced millions of pounds of wastes and emissions and saved Dow five million dollars a year.
Chemical plants and other organizations that jeopardize people�s health and safety bear the responsibility of educating people about risks. Their responsibilities include testing communication programs to ensure that they are effective. High-risk organizations are more likely to be supported by local residents if they seek to establish positive relationships. Key components of two-way symmetrical public relations, such as honesty, openness, and the willingness to listen, contribute to the formation of strong stakeholder relationships. High-risk organizations should not close themselves off from the community, but should integrate with nearby businesses, schools and neighborhoods. With recent federal warnings of possible terrorist attacks on chemical plants, the plants now more than ever need to cultivate strong relationships with their neighbors. Local citizens are the eyes and ears of the community, and can serve as watchdogs against possible terrorist attacks.
Chess, C. (2001). Organizational theory and the stages of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 179-188.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447-477.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 279-295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4), 321-340.
Covello, V. T., Sandman, P., & Slovic, P. (1988). Risk communication, risk statistics, and risk comparisons: A manual for plant managers. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufactures Association.
Diana, C., & Heath, R. L. (1995). Working with technical experts in the risk management infrastructure. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 211-225.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, R. L. (1995). Corporate environmental risk communication: Cases and practices along the Texas Gulf Coast. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 18, (pp. 255-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Heath, R. L., & Abel, D. D. (1996). Proactive response to citizen risk concerns: Increasing citizens� knowledge of emergency response practices. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(3), 151-171.
Heath, R. L., Bradshaw, J., & Lee, J. (2002). Community relationship building: Local leadership in the risk communication infrastructure. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(4), 317-353.
Heath, R. L., Gay, C. D., & Diana, C. (1997). Risk communication: Involvement, uncertainty, and control�s effect on information scanning and monitoring by expert stakeholders. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 342-372.
Heath, R. L., Liao, S. H., & Douglas, W. (1995). Effects of perceived economic harms and benefits on issue involvement, use of information sources and actions: A study in risk communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(2), 89-109.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2000). Community relations and risk communication: A longitudinal study of the impact of emergency response messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(2), 131-162.
Heath, R. L., Seshadri, S., & Lee, J. (1998). Risk communication: A two-community analysis of proximity, dread, trust, involvement, uncertainty, openness/accessibility, and knowledge on support/opposition toward chemical companies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(1), 35-56.
King, G., III. (2000). Strategic communication in crisis management: Lessons from the airline industry. [Review of the book Strategic communication in crisis management: Lessons from the airline industry]. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 257.
Lynn, F. M., & Busenberg, G. (2000). Chemical industry�s community advisory panels: What has been their impact? Environmental Science & Technology, 34(10), 1881- 1886.
Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk communication model: Analysis of communication processes and message content. Journal of Public Relations, 14(2), 127-155.
Porfiriev, B. (2000). Preparing for creeping crises: The case of the Samara region. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 8(4), 218-222.
Ray, S. J. (1999). Strategic communication in crisis management: Lessons from the airline industry. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Public relations and crisis communication: Organizing and chaos. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp.155-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Turnbull, N. (2001). Issues and crisis management in a convergent environment. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(1), 85-92.
Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 590-612.