In recent years there has been a great deal of discussion on the potential for a shift away from modernistic or technocratic approaches to decisionmaking on risk towards more open, inclusive, and deliberative approaches. The authors consider (a) the reasons why some companies have taken the first step in this transition by exploring the potential of more open and communicative approaches to environmental risk management, and (b) the effects that opening up can have, particularly on perceived levels of trust between corporations and stakeholders on matters relating to environmental risk. For the companies surveyed, the nature of their activities, the significance of formative events, and the failure of more traditional forms of risk communication to reduce conflict and to build trust amongst stakeholders have impelled them to experiment with new approaches to risk communication. It is found that, in the short term, such experiments are seen by managers to have had mixed effects: in contexts where trust had already been lost, open engagement can lead to an initial deterioration in relations between companies and stakeholders. However, it is also argued that in the longer term trust can be built through such open engagements. It is suggested, therefore, that opening up and engaging on matters relating to environmental risk may lead to a ‘j-curve effect’, with an initial deterioration in levels of trust being followed by a gradual improvement in levels of credibility and shared understanding over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckU, 1992Risk Society Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London).
2.
BelzerR B, 2001, “Getting beyond ‘grin and bear it’ in the practice of risk management”Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety72137–148.
3.
BickerstaffKWalkerG, 2001, “Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’ of environmental risk”Global Environmental Change11133–145.
4.
BrehmerB, 1987, “The psychology of risk”, in Risk and Decision Eds SingeltonW THovdenJ, (John Wiley, New York) pp 25–39.
5.
BrownJ, 1988, “Environmental and nuclear threats”, in Handbook of Life Stress, Cognition and Health Eds FisherSReasonJ, (John Wiley, New York) pp 115–134.
6.
CampbellD, 2000, “Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer plc corporate reports, 1969–1997”Accounting Forum2480–100.
7.
ChessC, 2001, “Organizational theory and the stages of risk communication”Risk Analysis21179–188.
8.
CoglianeseC, 1999, “The limits of consensus”Environments3128–33.
9.
CookeBKothariU, (Eds), 2001Participation: The New Tyranny (Zed Press, London).
10.
DakeK, 1992, “Myths of nature; culture and the social construction of risk”Journal of Social Issues48(4) 21–38.
11.
DouglasMWildavskyA, 1983Risk and Culture (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
12.
EC, 2001White Paper on Governance: Report of the Working Group on Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems May (European Commission, Brussels).
13.
EdmundsDWollenbergE, 2001, “A strategic approach to multi-stakeholder negotiations”Development and Change32231–253.
14.
ESRC/GEC, 2000, “Risky choices, soft disasters”, Economic and Social Research Council, Global Environmental Change, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex.
15.
FinucaneMSlovicPMertzC KFlynnJSatterfieldT, 2000, “Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect”Health, Risk & Society2159–172.
FombrunCGardbergNBarnettM, 2000, “Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk”Business and Society Review10585–106.
18.
FreudenburgW, 2001, “Risky thinking: Facts, values and blind spots in societal decisions about risks”Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety72125–130.
19.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ, 1990Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Kluwer, Dordrecht).
20.
GibbonsMLimogenesCNowotnyHSchwarzmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London).
21.
GiddensA, 1990The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge).
22.
GiddensA, 1994, “Living in a post-traditional society”, in Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order Eds BeckUGiddensALashS, (Polity Press, Cambridge) pp 56–110.
23.
GlickenJ, 2000, “Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls”Environmental Science and Policy3305–310.
24.
GouldsonA, 2004, “Risk, regulation and the right to know: Exploring the impacts of access to information on the governance of environmental risks”Sustainable Development12136–149.
25.
GunninghamNKaganRThorntonD, 2003Shades of Green: Business, Regulation and the Environment (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).
HansenS, 1988, “Elite information and theoretical guidance in policy analysis”, in Handbook of Political Theory and Policy Science Eds PortisE BryanLevyM BLandauM, (Greenwood Press, London) pp 199–211.
28.
HöijerBLidskogRUgglaY, 2006, “Facing dilemmas: Sense-making and decision-making in late modernity”Futures38350–366.
29.
HoodCRothsteinHBaldwinR, 2001The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
30.
HowellDMoffattSPrinceHBushJDunnC, 2002, “Urban air quality in North-East England: Exploring the influences on local views and perceptions”Risk Analysis22121–130.
31.
IrwinA, 1995Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (Routledge, London).
32.
IrwinAWynneB, (Eds), 1996Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
33.
IrwinASimmonsPWalkerG, 1999, “Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards”Environment and Planning A311311–1326.
34.
JonesGGeorgeJ, 1998, “The experience and evolution of trust”Academy of Management Review23531–546.
35.
JonesR, 2002, “Challenges to the notion of publics in public relations implications of the risk society for the discipline”Public Relations Review2849–62.
36.
KrückenG, 1997Risikotransformation: Die politische Regulierung technisch-ökologischer Gefahren in der Risikogesellschaft (Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen).
37.
LeissW, 1996, “Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science54585–94.
38.
LevinsonRThomasJ, (Eds), 1997Science Today: Problem or Crisis? (Routledge, London).
LidskogRSundqvistG, 2004, “On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management”Journal of Risk Research7251–268.
41.
LidskogRSonerydLUgglaY, 2005, “Knowledge, power and control—studying environmental regulation in late modernity”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning789–106.
42.
LöfstedtR, 2003, “Swedish chemical regulation: An overview and analysis”Risk Analysis23411–421.
43.
LöfstedtR, 2004, “Risk communication and management in the twenty-first century”International Public Management Journal7335–346.
44.
LöfstedtR ERennO, 1997, “The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk communication gone wrong”Risk Analysis17131–136.
45.
LöfstedtRIkedaSThompsonK, 2000, “Risk Management across the globe: Insights from a comparative look at Sweden, Japan, and the United States”Risk Analysis20157–162.
46.
MoirL, 2001, “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility”Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society1(2) 16–22.
47.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM, 2001Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Polity Press, Cambridge).
48.
OtwayHWynneB, 1989, “Risk communication: Paradigm and paradox”Risk Analysis9141–145.
49.
OwensS, 2000, “‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy”Environment and Planning A321141–1148.
50.
OwensS, 2004, “Siting, sustainable development and social priorities”Journal of Risk Research7101–114.
51.
Oxley-GreenAHunton-ClarkeL, 2003, “A typology of stakeholder participation for company environmental decision-making”Business Strategy and the Environment12292–299.
52.
PalmerC, 1996, “Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct”Risk Analysis16717–723.
53.
PattenD, 1992, “Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory”Accounting, Organisations and Society17471–475.
54.
PettsJ, 2001, “Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case studies”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management44207–226.
55.
RCEP, 199818th Report on Environmental Standard SettingRoyal Commission on Environmental Pollution (HMSO, London).
56.
RennO, 1998a, “Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges”Journal of Risk Research149–71.
57.
RennO, 1998b, “The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management”Risk Decision1(3) 5–30.
58.
RennO, 2001, “The need for integration: Risk policies require the input from experts, stakeholders and the public at large”Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety72131–135.
59.
RothsteinH, 2003, “Neglected risk regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon”Health, Risk and Society585–103.
60.
RydinY, 2003Conflict, Consensus and Rationality in Environmental Planning (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
61.
SadlerD, 2004, “Anti-corporate campaigning and corporate social responsibility: Towards alternative spaces of citizenship”Antipode36851–870.
62.
SantosSChessC, 2003, “Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications”Risk Analysis23269–279.
63.
SjöbergL, 2000, “Perceived risk and tampering with nature”Journal of Risk Research3353–367.
64.
SjöbergL, 2001, “Political decisions and public risk perception”Reliability Engineering and Safety Systems72115–123.
65.
SlovicP, 1987, “Perceptions of risk”Science236280–285.
66.
SlovicPPetersE, 1998, “The importance of worldview in risk perception”Risk Decision and Policy3165–170.
67.
SpashC L, 2001, “Broadening democracy in environmental policy processes”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19475–481.
68.
SwiftT, 2001, “Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders”Business Ethics: A European Review1016–26.
69.
TodtO, 2003, “Designing trust”Futures35239–251.
70.
TsoukasH, 1999, “David and Goliath in the risk society: Making sense of the conflict between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea”Organization6499–528.
71.
UNECE, 1998Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 25th JuneUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
72.
van MarrewijkM, 2003, “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion”Journal of Business Ethics4495–105.
73.
WilmhurstTFrostG, 2000, “Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory”Accounting, Auditing and Accountability1310–26.
74.
WoodC, 1995Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review (Longman, Harlow, Essex).
75.
ZadekS, 2004Tomorrow's History (Greenleaf, Sheffield).
