Risk Communication An integral part of chemical regulation under REACH SETAC 2008, Brussels Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gemeinnützige GmbH
Part 1 Towards an integrative view of risk RISK GOVERNANCE
Requirements for Integrated Concepts Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception and socio-cultural processing of risk Avoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social constructions of risks Link between risk assessment, management and communication Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial, economic and social risk; Explore social amplification pathways Consider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity building and management competency Systematic use of management sciences and decision aiding Emphasis on risk communication between and among agencies and professionals
WHAT IS RISK GOVERNANCE? Governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and institutions by which authority is exercised and decisions are taken and implemented. Risk governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and institutions by which decisions about risk handling are prepared, taken and implemented Best practice in risk governance integrates the principles of good governance within the processes of risk identification, assessment, management and communication and includes criteria such as effectiveness, accountability, efficiency, fairness and social and ethical acceptability
CONVENTIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT Understanding Deciding Appraisal Communication Management Most risk management processes do not go beyond these steps
IRGC s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Understanding Getting a broad picture of the risk Pre-assessment Deciding Who needs to know what, when? Appraisal The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions Communication Characterisation and evaluation Management Who needs to do what, when? Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?
RISK GOVERNANCE Model (IRGC) Pre-Assessment Problem Framing Early Warning Risk Risk Management Implementation Decision Making Communication Risk Appraisal Risk Appraisal: Risk Assessment Concern Assessment Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement Risk Evaluation Risk Characterisation
Part 2 Perception of risks and benefits What do we know?
Principles of Risk Perception Human behavior depends on perceptions, not on facts Perceptions are a well-studied subject of social science research: they differ from expert assessments, but they follow consistent patterns and rationales There are four genuine strategies to cope with threats: fight, flight, playing dead, experimentation
Qualitative Risk Characteristics with respect to the nature of risk: dread familiarity personal experience (perceptible by human senses) natural versus artificial risk source with respect to the application and situation: voluntariness controllability fair distribution of risks and benefits confidence in risk management
Qualitative Benefit Characteristics with respect to the nature of the benefit: Exclusiveness or commonly agreed social need Perceived Functionality (based on folklore wisdom) Personal experience (familiarity) Natural versus artificial material (bio- eco-material) with respect to the consumption situation: Embedding in positive social setting Consumption habits and life style Fair distribution of risks and benefits Credibility of communicator
Five dominant risk perception clusters Emerging danger: randomness as threat Creeping danger: confidence in science or zerorisk Suppressed danger: myth of natural cycles Weighing risks: only applied to betting Desired risks: personal challenge
Chemicals: Creeping Danger I are perceived as artificial rather than natural, the negative side effects are regarded as hideous and creeping into the body, negative images pertaining to big industry, lack of personal control and missing governmental oversight Dependence on third party information
Chemicals: Creeping Danger II concern about long-term impacts Positive: familiarity with chemicals and functionality Negative: people are scared if they learn about chemical ingredients and processes Key variable trust: If yes: risk-benefit balancing accepted If no: request for zero risk (no benefits considered) If maybe: orientation on external criteria
Perception of multiple stressors Public exposure to combined noxious substances triggers a particularly high degree of fear Most people perceive the combined effects of noxious substances in the environment as being super-additive. They are convinced that the long-term risks are not known to society and that combined effects are hardly ever studied They believe that public regulators are usually overtaxed if they attempt to regulate combined effects.
Part 3 Risk and Benefit Communication What do we know?
Objectives of Risk-Benefit Communication Enlightenment: Making people able to understand risks and benefits (and their interactions) Behavioral changes: Making people aware of potential risks and benefits help them to make the right choices Trust building: Assisting food standard agencies agencies to generate and sustain trust Conflict resolution: Assisting risk managers to involve major stakeholders and affected parties to take part in the risk-benefit evaluation
Important Contextual Aspects Levels of risk-benefit debates Factual evidence and probabilities Institutional performance, expertise, and experience Conflicts about worldviews and value systems Types of audiences Peripheral versus central Cultural subgroups: entrepreneurial, egalitarian, bureaucratic, individualistic
Some Major Insights from Research Risk-benefit communication starts with an excellent record of management Communicators need to specify in advance: Purpose of communication (orientation, behavioral advise, involvement) Aspects of risk-benefit debate (risk challenges, benefit problems) Types of audiences to be approached Available communication resources and channels Follow-up after the communication program is completed Design for evaluation
Some Major Insights II Risk-benefit communication needs to address: Difference between risk and hazard Difference between random event and faulty behavior The process of management decision making The trade-offs and value conflicts when making management decisions (risk-benefit-balancing) The meaning of standards and the respective protective goal behind them Trust and credibility cannot be produced or manufactured but only earned in terms of performance and effective communication
Part 4 Conclusions Insights and actions
Conclusions I Science-based risk assessments are not sufficient for evaluating and managing risks What is really needed is a mutual crossfertilisation between technical risk assessment, management sciences and social/psychological disciplines. Risk communication is a necessary step towards bridging the gap between risk analysis and perception.
Conclusions II People behave according to perceptions not facts Perceptions follow consistent patterns, but their expression may vary from culture to culture There are dominant perception clusters that govern the intuitive evaluation of risks and benefits Within the cluster of creeping dangers, trust and confidence in risk and benefit management are key to risk acceptance Evaluation of risks and benefits needs to address perceptions
Conclusions III Risk-benefit communication serves the needs of enlightenment, behavioral advise; trust building and conflict resolution Risk communication needs to address the specific risk levels and different audiences There is no recipe book, but good advise available to improving risk communication Risk-benefit communication needs to be integrated in a larger risk governance framework
Quote: What man desires is not knowledge but certainty Bertrand Russel Risk-benefit communication cannot produce certainty but can help people to develop coping mechanisms to deal prudently with the necessary uncertainty that is required for societies to progress