ProfePsrosfieossnioanall DDeevevloepmloenpt ment RRiisskk && CCrriissiiss CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn Essential skills for today’s SH&E professional By Pamella Ferrante THE TERM RISK COMMUNICATION was first Communication says that risk communication is a attributed to William Ruckelshaus, the first adminis - “science-based approach for communicating effective - trator of EPA in 1970, who marshaled the agency ly in high concern situations” (Covello, Peters, Tthrough its early years, establishing its role in pro - Wojtecki, et al., 2001). tecting the environment and assisting community The U.S. Department of Health and Human organizations (Covello, Peters & McCallum, 1997). In Services (2002) says: the 1980s, the Superfund program incorporated the Risk communication is an interactive process concept in its public participation process, and it also of exchange of information and opinion appeared in the emergency planning and communi - among individuals, groups and institutions; ty right-to-know provisions of Title III of the often involves multiple messages about the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of nature of risk or expressing concerns, opinions 1986 (Covello, et al.). The theories and the roots of the or reactions to risk messages or to legal and risk communication process come primarily from the institutional arrangement for risk manage - environmental arena and from working with the ment (p. 4). public and other stakeholders. In recent years, how - ever, the concepts have been successfully According to National Research Council (1989), Pamela Ferrante, CSP, CHMM, used to deal with any type of hazardous risk communication “often involves multiple mes - is president of JC Safety & situation or disaster. sages about the nature or risk or expressing concerns, Environmental Inc. in Pittsburgh, PA. opinions or reactions to risk messages” (p. 322). She is a professional member of Key Definitions It is also important to note the subtle, yet critical ASSE’s Western Pennsylvania Several definitions provide a frame - difference between risk communication and crisis Chapter, of which she served as work for building common understand - communication, that is, when the communication president in 2006-07, and is the ing about key terms. Risk is defined as the occurs. Risk communication is an ongoing process Assistant Administrator of ASSE’s probability of undesired effects (or health that helps to define a problem and solicit involve - Consultants Practice Specialty. She outcomes) arising from exposure to a haz - ment and action before an emergency occurs. Crisis received the Safety Professional of ard. It is often expressed as an equation: communication encompasses those messages deliv - the Year Award from ASSE’s Risk = Probability x Consequences. ered to stakeholders during an emergency event that Consultants Practice Specialty in Manuele (2003) defines risk as “the poten - threatens them. According to Fearn-Banks (2007), 2006. Ferrante is chair of the tial for realization of unwanted, negative crisis communication “is concerned with transfer - Society’s Technical Publications consequences of an event” (p. 59). ring of information to significant persons (publics) to Advisory Committee, and a member According to Lundgren and McMakin either help avoid or prevent a crisis (or negative of the Leadership Conference Task (2004), risk communication is “the interac - occurrence), recover from a crisis, and maintain or Force and Student Activities tive process of exchange of information enhance reputation” (p. 2). Committee. A regular presenter at and opinions among individuals, groups safety conferences and a frequent and institutions concerning a risk or a Theoretical Foundations author, Ferrante holds a B.S. in potential risk to human health or the envi - Much of the applicability of risk communication Environmental Protection Science. ronment” (p. 438). The Center for Risk comes from understanding how the general public 38 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JUNE 2010 www.asse.org 7) Certainty. Risks that are known to science are more readily acceptable. 8) Dread. Risks that are perceived to evoke limit - ed emotions such are fear, terror and anxiety are more readily acceptable. 9) Trust in institutions. Risks associated with institutions or organizations that have a high degree Abstract: Risk commu - of public trust are more readily acceptable. nication and its sister 10) Reversibility. Risks that are perceived to have process, crisis communi - reversible effects are more readily acceptable. cation, are essential 11) Personal stake. Risks perceived to have limited skills for SH&E profes - direct or personal threat are more readily acceptable. sionals. This article 12) Ethical/moral nature. Risks perceived to have examines several key limited ethical or moral concerns are more readily concepts, including acceptable. common theoretical 13) Human versus natural origin. Risks perceived foundations and defini - to be caused by “acts of God” are more readily tions; evaluation of acceptable. risk in various scenarios; 14) Victim identity. Risks that produce no or lim - goals for the process; ited human victims are more readily acceptable. development of a writ - 15) Catastrophic potential. Risks perceived to ten risk/crisis communi - have limited potential for catastrophe are more read - cation plan; and ily acceptable. common problems Each situation has a unique combination of these and pitfalls. 15 factors. They may be strong or weak, or may have no relevance. In addition, the varying strength of perceives risk. By understanding these perceptions, each factor combines to create a moving target for SH&E professionals can determine how to tailor risk SH&E professionals. Given all of these variables, messages. Numerous models have been proposed and because perceptions are typically highly indi - and they provide a framework for understanding vidualized, crafting risk and crisis messages requires how risk and crisis messages are perceived. a skilled communicator. Covello, et al. (2001), offer four theoretical models that help practitioners understand how information is Mental Noise Model processed, how perceptions are formed and how risk The mental noise model provides a means for decisions are made. By understanding these models understanding how the public processes information and how they apply in various situations, SH&E pro - in periods of high stress and anxiety (Covello, et al., fessionals can better prepare their messages and coor - 2001, p. 7). As the perceived threat rises, an individ - dinate their communication in high-risk situations. ual’s consequent ability to process information de- creases. The creation of mental noise effectively blocks Risk Perception Model the individual’s ability to hear the message and affects The risk perception model theorizes that the pub - his/her willingness and ability to process it. lic’s perception of risk comes from the strength of 15 Risks associated with a lack of control, which are different factors, each of which can alter perceptions perceived to be low in benefits or are thought to be in varying degrees of magnitude (Covello, et al., unfair, create the highest levels of mental noise. An 2001, p. 6). These factors determine the public’s level individual’s ability to engage in rational discourse of concern and elevate or decrease worries, anger, has substantial implications for SH&E professionals fear, hostility and outrage. Understanding the attempting to deliver a message dedicated to chang - strength or weakness of these levels affects the abili - ing attitudes and behaviors. ty to alter perception, change behavior and modify attitudes and factors based on the messages deliv - Negative Dominance Model ered. These factors are: The negative dominance model addresses how 1) Volunteerism. Risks that are perceived to be the public processes negative and positive informa - voluntary are more readily acceptable. tion in high-concern situations (Covello, et al., 2001, 2) Controllability. Risks under the control of the p. 7). The model suggests that the relationship be- individual are more readily acceptable. tween the two messages is asymmetrical; the nega - 3) Familiarity. Risks perceived to be familiar are tive messages receive substantially more weight more readily acceptable. than the positive ones. In other words, the public 4) Equity. Risks perceived to be evenly and equi - places more value on their losses than on their gains. tably distributed are more readily acceptable. This has implications on how the message is deliv - 5) Benefits. Risks with perceived benefits to the ered. It also reflects the importance of balancing pos - individual are more readily acceptable. itive messages with negative ones to counteract the 6) Understanding. Risks that are well understood intensity given to the negative messages. or self-explanatory are more readily acceptable. It also has implications for the message’s word - www.asse.org JUNE 2010 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 39 ing. Negative words (e.g., not, cannot, never, noth - munication. It can be a potential future event that the ing, none) are heard better, have a greater impact message is attempting to prepare a receiver for, or an and can effectively drown out positive messages actual event that is occurring or is about to occur. regardless of how well they are crafted. To counter - Hazards or hazardous events, therefore, can fall any - act this, the positive messages must provide a level where along the continuum from negligible to cata - of detail that highlights