Organizational Theory and the Stages of Risk Communication

Abstract

The evolution of risk communication has been described as a series of communication strategies. This article suggests that organizational theory provides another dimension to understanding the evolution of risk communication, and that risk communication can be seen as an organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressure. Following the tragedy in Bhopal the chemical manufacturing sector's loss of legitimacy led to destabilization of its authority and to increased uncertainty in its external environment. Risk communication was one means to increase legitimacy, thereby decreasing uncertainty and potential impact on resources. However, although risk communication may evolve from crises of legitimacy, the concept of "isomorphism"--conformance to norms within a corporate sector--predicts this need not be the case.

Public information seeking, place-based risk messaging and wildfire preparedness in southern California

“…Information dissemination sources and media use before an event and public trust in those sources play an important role in information seeking during wildfire events (Steelman et al 2015) and can therefore influence communication reception and application. As one-way risk communications about disaster inconsistently lead to public action (Neil 1989;Tierney 1993;Fischhoff 1995), recent recommendations focus on the efficacy of targeted messaging appropriate to cultural and social settings that encourage two-way interactions to ensure trust in the message (Chess 2001;Heath et al 2011;McCaffrey et al 2013b). This relies on the idea that trust in the messenger leads to greater trust in the message and will therefore more likely motivate the public to take action (Rowan 1991).…”

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

“…As the field of risk communication continues to evolve, it is likely that new and ongoing research in several related areas will provide additional information that will improve our ability to communicate health risk findings. In particular, a better understanding of public risk perceptions is important because the underpinnings of current risk communication approaches (at least in the field of environmental health) are based primarily on theoretical frameworks developed by psychologists (Chess, 2001). Specifically, the psychological literature suggests that people rely on various mental strategies or cognitive processes to simplify and evaluate complex risk information (Slovic et al, 1979;Fischhoff et al, 1981;Slovic, 1987).…”

“…Risk communication can also be used to influence public opinion or choice, or to arouse or alleviate public concerns about a risk issue (Kasperson et al, 1988;Sandman, 1993). The history of risk communication as applied to environmental and public health risks has not been fully documented, but has clearly evolved through several developmental stages over time (Fischhoff, 1995) and may have been influenced by the desire to gain acceptance for decisions grounded in risk assessment methods (Plough and Krimsky, 1987) or the organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressures (Chess, 2001).…”

“…Risk communication can also be used to influence public opinion or choice, or to arouse or alleviate public concerns about a risk issue (Kasperson et al, 1988;Sandman, 1993). The history of risk communication as applied to environmental and public health risks has not been fully documented, but has clearly evolved through several developmental stages over time (Fischhoff, 1995) and may have been influenced by the desire to gain acceptance for decisions grounded in risk assessment methods (Plough and Krimsky, 1987) or the organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressures (Chess, 2001).Over the last 20 years, various guidelines have been published for communicating environmental and public health risks. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has produced several risk communication reports and case studies as part of their mission to explain the public health hazards associated with hazardous waste (i.e., Superfund) sites across the nation (ATSDR, 1994a-d).…”

Land markets from the bottom up

“…However, informing about potential flood risks and not providing real instruments for individuals to act upon this risk, does not provide a ground for a shared responsibility for risk elimination between government and individuals. (Chess, 2001) or mental model approaches (Kolkman et al, 2007;Wagner, 2007). Special attention is paid to the communication of the risk of natural hazards (Baker, 1990;Lave and Lave, 1991).…”