Demystifying public environmental concerns: Implementing community assessments

Demystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments

Carol J. Forrest

Failure to resolve environmental concerns raised by the public can be costly for both public and private sector organizations. Designing effective community relations programs to address such issues requires an intimate understanding of the community and the stakeholders within it. The community assessment process provides insights into the reasons behind stakeholders’ environmental concerns and how best to address them. Moreover, the assessment process can provide predictive information, so that managers can anticipate both the emergence of environmental concerns and the likely response patterns of stakeholders.

The assessment process, which makes use of both qualitative information and quantitative data, tracks closely with the methodology used in industry analyses conducted by corporate strategic planners. Regrettably, many of the companies that have excellent skills in industry analysis fail to use their expertise to address environmental concerns involving their own plants. This article seeks to aid the reader in understanding how basic analytical skills can be used to understand and effectively address environmental concerns at the community level.

n Urganizations often are at a loss either to identify ahead of time what environmental situations or issues are likely to draw negative public attention, or, once the public has voiced its concerns, to determine how best to work with community residents and other stakeholders to reach sat- isfactory conclusions. Some managers believe that “the public” is one of life’s imponderables, and that predicting stakeholder behavior, much less charting a course of action that will lead to a positive resolution, is not possible. Other managers attempt to plumb the depths of community attitudes, but use methods, such as questionnaires, that are largely ineffective for predicting behavior or for gaining any real understanding of the underlying beliefs, past events, and community dynamics from which stakeholder attitudes are de- rived. Unfortunately, without such understanding, managers often are unable to pre-

vent or resolve serious environmental concerns. The bottom line is that when it comes to addressing environmental issues, most organizations enter the public arena unprepared.

As this article discusses, there is a method for analyzing communities and the stakeholders within them. This method allows managers to predict likely responses to environmental issues, and provides the type of detailed and concrete information necessary to determine how to work effectively with stakeholders.

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT: THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Community relations specialists are frequently called upon by their employers or by prospective clients to “do community relations for us now,” as if effective programs can be summoned spontane-

CCC 1088-191 3198/07O35%14 Q 1998 John Wley & Sons. Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 55

~

The assessment process involves the

gathering and analysis of

information about the issue itself and other

allied issues.

ously from thin air. Instead, effective community relations programs-especially those that must address serious issues- require an intimate knowledge of the community that can only be gained through community assessment.

Community assessment is the process of systematically examining social, political, and economic issues and dynamics in a community and identifying stakeholders, their agendas, and past experiences that may color their views of environmental issues or the organizations connected with them. Properly done, the assessment process provides a detailed profile of the community that enables a community relations specialist to make the following determi- nations necessary to design and implement an effective community relations program:

Who are all of the stakeholders for this particular issue? How do they interact? What aspects of the issue interest or concern them? How do we need to communicate with these stakeholder groups? Might this vary from group to group-or from town to town-if the issues facing the facility, site, or project in question could affect more than the host community? What role should third parties play in the communication about complex issues? What is the perceived geographic extent of interest or concern regarding the facility, site, or project? How do we know we are going far enough afield- without including the whole world- to ensure that we are considering all those who may have serious concerns and want to be included in the dialogue? What are the other sensitivities, issues, or concerns that will influence how stakeholders react to information about the facility, site, or project in question?

The last item is of particular interest, since

“other” issues, especially if they are nonenvironmental in nature, are often over- looked by persons charged with implementing community relations programs if they have not done a thorough assessment. These oversights frequently spell doom for such one-dimensional community relations programs, since environmental issues are almost always intertwined with political, economic, or social issues. While sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, when it comes to environmental issues, “other” issues can at times exert overwhelming influences that, i f not considered in the design of the community relations program, can derail efforts to reach a satisfac- tory resolution.

Assessments constitute up-front effort; however, they typically pay for themselves several times over by helping an organization’s managers determine the likelihood of the emergence of serious concerns, as well as which specific actions will allow them to address the situation effectively. Thus, assessments also fulfill an important management function by helping managers determine how best to allocate resources where they are most needed.

A RIGOROUS PROCESS The assessment process involves the

gathering and analysis of information about the issue itself and other allied issues; the community, its history, and social and political dynamics; stakeholder groups and their agendas; and other forces (including the media) that could affect public perceptions or responses. Information is gathered by conducting interviews of a wide variety of stakeholders, reviewing past issues of local newspaper(s), and reviewing other data (some of which is quantitative, such as census data) and studies conducted about the area in question.

The assessment process attempts to answer the questions listed in Exhibit 1 to create a profile of the community and the stakeholders within it, with an eye toward

56 / Spring 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Carol J. Forrest

Exhibit 1. Questions to Consider During an Assessment*

What are the goals of the community relations program? big., to ensure community support or nonopposition for a permit; to obtain input from stakeholders regarding the methods used to clean up a site; to minimize community concerns regarding emissions) 0 Are there any additional organizational goals or objectives that must also be considered?

0 What are the specific issues directly affecting the facility, site, or project? Environmental issues? (e.g., history of spills, violations, threat to water supply wells, impact on sensitive ecosystems

0 Nonenvironmental issues? (e.g., labor strife, rezoning, perceived affect on property values, changes in ownership)

0 How might these issues affect perceptions or actions toward the issue in question?

L What are other major issues or concerns in the Community? 9 How might these issues affect perception or actions toward the issue in question?

0 Who are the groups or individuals that are affected by or interested in the issue, or who perceive that they are affected by it? 0 What links stakeholders to the issue and to each other? 0 Can all stakeholders be reached through "formal" groups, or will special efforts be required to reach certain groups

or individuals? What do different stakeholder groups want?

0 What are the demographics of the community, and what bearing mightthese characteristics have on perceptions of, or interest in, the issue in question?

0 How knowledgeable are the different stakeholders about the issue and about the technical and regulatory issues surrounding it?

What are the other environmental concerns or issues in the community?

0 Who are the opinion leaders in the community? What role do these people play in regard to the issue in quesiton?

a How do informal leaders intact with formal leaders, including elected and staff officials?

L What is the history of the community and stakeholder groups within the community? a What does this history suggest in regard to working with stakeholders?

L What are the social and political climate and decision-making dynamics in the community? 0 Is the community's decision-making mode inclusive or noninclusive (are the different stakeholder groups in the

community included or excluded from the power structure that makes decisions in the community)? 0 How do groups within the community interact?

Are some groups essentially disenfranchised from the formal power structure? Is the community one in which ad hoc groups and grassroots initiatives are common? Are "outsiders" welcome or invited into community processes?

How do community residents respond to threats or perceived threats? Who are the spokespersons? Do residents turn to elected and staff officials or to other communiw leaders?

0 How powerful is the elected government relative to other groups in the community?

L What are the most effective channels of communication to reach specific stakeholder groups in the community? 0 Will several channels of communication be necessaryto reach all stakeholders? rn Are there language, cultural, or other barriers that need to be considered to promote a full dialogue?

Are there any particular types of activities for public involvement preferred by stakeholders?

0 What is the likely geographic area of concern regarding the facility, site, or project? 0 What jurisdictions are covered by this geographic area?

0 What sort of media coverage has the issue received? 9 What sort of media coverage have other types of environmental stories received? 0 Are there any media biases that will have to be taken into account during execution of the community relations

program?

0 Is the facility, site, or project located near any residences or "sensitive" land uses?

Carol J. Forrest and Renee Hix Mays, The Practical Guide to Environmental Community Relations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1997.

Demystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENVlRONMENTAL [1UALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 57

The parallel shuuld be clear between

community assessment for

effective community relations and industry

analysis for successful strategic

planning.

identifying typical modes of behavior, attitudes, and beliefs. Information specific to the facility, site, or project in question is gathered, along with more general information that describes the overall context in which the issue in question is viewed. The process is rigorous, and often involves several phases or iterations of information gathering and analysis as the professional conducting the assessment learns more about the community.

Since community assessment uses primarily qualitative data and research methods, such as interviewing, some people who have not seen a completed assessment report or considered the intensiveness of the process may discount it as “touchy feely,” unlike questionnaires, which provide quantifiable data (the shortcomings of which are discussed in the following section). This is unfortunate and somewhat baffling, since many corporations, in particular, have no trouble grasping the value of qualitative methods to provide information used in strategic planning and market research. Moreover, many companies that are well known for their mastery in the marketplace-a mastery based in large part on their ability to “read” their industry, their competitors, and the desires of their customers through the skillful analysis of qualitative information-make absolutely no use of this expertise to determine why stakeholders are up in arms about environmental issues at their plants, or how they might go about remedying such situations.

The methodology for community assessment is, in fact, essentially identical to the methods used by industry analysts and corporate strategic planners seeking to identify “threats and opportunities” in the marketplace for corporate strategic planning purposes. One of the more well- known models for industry analysis, Michael Porter’s Five Forces of Industry Attractiveness,’ provides a framework for examining major determinants of compe- tition within an industry.

In using Porter’s model, persons seek-

ing to analyze an industry gather information to characterize those factors that can influence the potential for profitability, such as the relative bargaining power of buyers and suppliers, and the threat to their product lines from substitute products or services. Analysts gather this information through careful scrutiny of the trade press and other business and technical journals, and from speeches, state- ments, interviews, and conversations with persons who are in the industry, or who are knowledgeable about the industry (and other allied industries). As in community assessment, industry analysts also may look at such quantitative data as census data and average levels of corporate and personal debt; however, as in community assessment, these quantitative data are given an added dimension by qualitative information, such as focus group findings on customer preferences or typical response patterns of competitors to companies that attempt to introduce competing products. The analysis of both the quantitative data and the qualitative information is used to predict competitor behavior and overall potential for profitability within a given industry or industry segment.

The parallel should be clear between community assessment for effective community relations and industry analysis for successful strategic planning. As in the case of community assessment, when community relations specialists use the assessment information to determine how best to respond to the “threats and opportunities” posed by stakeholder agendas and attitudes and the overall social, political, and economic structure of the community, industry analysis gives corporate strategic planners the information they need to compete within their industry and anticipate future trends.

AVOIDING QUESTIONNAIRES DISEASE: ASSESSMENT VS. QUESTIONNAIRES

Since questionnaires hold such an en- trenched position as research tools for or-


ganizations seeking to ascertain the nature and extent of community questions or concerns about environmental issues, some discussion of their shortcomings is appropriate. Questionnaires and opinion poll data are, in fact, woefully inadequate-and often provide disastrously misleading data-when it comes to identifying community interests or concerns related to environmental issues, or for predicting how stakeholders are likely to behave if a new issue emerges.

While questionnaires can be helpful for gathering concrete data, such as what newspapers people read, or for following up on communication efforts regarding a facility, site, or project (e.g., asking specific questions about whether stakeholders received or read information and if the information addressed their concerns), they are of little use in providing insights into why people hold the beliefs that they hold, or how people link environmental, personal, and community issues together in their minds. Since no environmental issue exists in a vacuum, effectively addressing an issue requires understanding the many factors that influence stakeholders’ attitudes about it. Thus, although questionnaire results can be quantified (which appeals to the technically oriented), the results can provide only certain types of information-and definitely not the information one needs to implement an effective community relations effort.

For example, in one case the manager of a facility arranged for an assessment to determine whether, as conventional wis- dom (and another plant’s questionnaire results) indicated, the residents of the county in which the facility was located were, indeed, apathetic about environmental issues.

Interviews revealed that residents and officials did indeed tend to state at the outset that they had few concerns about environmental issues, and that they took a dim view of activism. But further conver- sation revealed that residents and officials

alike had a strong and very well articulated interest in environmental protection, and were vigilant regarding the environmental performance of local plants. Moreover, most of the persons interviewed unequivo- cally stated that they would take action in cases in which they believed that the environment-particularly air and surface water quality-was being harmed or threatened by poor environmental performance.

Their responses made sense when placed within the context of the county’s history. The county had a nuclear power plant located within its borders that had been the subject of significant opposition by out-of-town activists. County residents had greatly resented these activists’ intru- sion into their county-hence their negative reactions to the concept of activism (or to sounding like activists by voicing concerns), which they equated with the rais- ing of unfounded concerns by people who had no right to do so. However, many of the persons interviewed said that, in the past, some of the plants in the county had cre- ated serious environmental impacts. No one wanted this to occur again. Thus, local plants were under more scrutiny than they knew, and residents and officials saw themselves as willing to take action in the event of “real” threats to their environment.

The validity of this interpretation of county attitudes was borne out when a company attempted to locate a facility in the county perceived by some residents as “dirty.” Many residents and officials vigor- ously opposed the proposal, which was ultimately withdrawn, in part, apparently as a result of strong public opposition.

As this example illustrates, residents’ attitudes toward environmental issues are often complex. A questionnaire can nei- ther capture nor explain the reasoning behind this complexity, much less help managers understand how best to work effectively with the stakeholders who hold these attitudes-but the assessment pro-

~

Since no environmental issue exists in a vacuum, effectively addressing an issue requires understanding the many factors that influence stakeholders‘ a ftifudes about it

Oemystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 59

Market researchers design

and use questionnaires only after they

have conducted qualitative research.

cess can. It should be noted that the level of complexity that this example illustrates is by no means unique.

Another reason why using questionnaires to obtain information on people’s attitudes toward the environment is so problematic is because people have many different ways of categorizing or defining environmental issues. Often, when people are asked to describe environmental issues in their communities, they will list very different topics. Some will define environmental issues primarily in terms of conser- vation issues and “birds and bunnies.” Others primarily think about garbage and recycling. Some include dust from truck traffic and noise pollution in their defini- tions of environmental issues, while their neighbors never thought of these issues as “environmental” in nature. Such ambigu- ous results can hide questions and concerns that may not be easy for stakeholders to express, but that definitely need to be addressed within a community relations dialogue.

A skilled interviewer has the latitude to explore how stakeholders categorize environmental and community issues- and how they link them together in their minds. Additionally, a skilled interviewer can explore attitudes toward other events or issues to gain insights into how stakeholders would be likely to view similar situations involving their facility, site, or project. No responsible person would include a question in a questionnaire asking how stakeholders would feel about an accident at the facility sponsoring the sur- vey-to do so would be highly alarming to the persons responding to the questionnaire (see Exhibit 2). This is exactly the type of information that one needs, however. Fortunately, it is possible to gain a good idea of likely attitudes toward such hypothetical events during an interview by discussing similar types of incidents or situations elsewhere.

When conducted by a skilled interviewer, such discussions provide insight

without scaring the person being interviewed-and experience shows that such information possesses a high level of predictive value. Not only do interviews allow for an exploration of the “whys,” but the information gathered during them also helps the person charged with communi- cating an issue to determine the vocabulary and level of detail that will be necessary in presentations and written materials to promote a substantive dialogue. Question- naires cannot provide this type of detail.

Interestingly, market researchers design and use questionnaires only after they have conducted qualitative research, such as interviews, focus groups, and review of newspaper stones-a step that many corporate and government managers charged with community relations fail to take. This qualitative research is necessary to provide the information that researchers need to construct questionnaires that will yield meaningful and measurable responses based on consistent understanding by re- spondents of what is being asked.

IDENTIFYING CRITICAL FACTORS The following sections discuss some of

the critical factors that must be identified to design and implement an effective community relations program. These include:

What is driving stakeholder concerns? Who must be included in the community relations dialogue-and where do they fit within the social and political structure of the community? Typical community/stakeholder response patterns and preferences for communication and involvement. The messages and the processes that fit the situation.

Community responses can vary tre- mendously, driven as they are by so many variables, including the community’s history, friction among segments of the community, perceptions of how the issue may affect economic prospects for the area, and


Exhibit 2. Important Questions You Can’t Ask in a Questionnaire*

*You obtain probable answers to these questions through the assessment process.

1. On a scale of one to seven, how upset would you be if we had a chemical spill? Very Upset

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. What would you do if w e had a chemical spill? a. b. c. d. e. f. File a lawsuit

It‘s good for the grass

Nothing much, accidents happen and you pay lots of property taxes Nothing much, so long as you tell us what you’re doing to clean it up and prevent future mishaps Join a community or environmental advocacy group Vote for the candidate who is anti-industry and pro-environment Sign a petition to vote down plant’s request for a zoning variance for future expansion

3. Please give us a brief description of how you think you will react when you find out that your house is within the ERPG-3 concentration zone (or “death zone”) of our worst-case accident scenario plume? Be specific.

4. What additional factors will drive your response to this information? (Check all that apply)

- Perceived adverse impact on property value

- Belief that you or your demographic group are being singled out for such risk

- Belief that since you don’t work in this town, you just live here, industry should relocate to somewhere more suitable

- Anger over facility‘s perceived political alliance with a community faction that you don‘t like

(e.g., away from you)

For our Elected Officials: Do you intend to turn the contamination at our site into a political football during the upcoming election?

Yes- No - Undecided -

the like. As a result, the final community relations program must fit within the context formed by these variables. There are some tried and true methods for working with stakeholders. However, which ones will work best, and how they need to be implemented to fit stakeholder preferences, will depend on the specific situation.

Some organizations seek to impose prescriptive, boilerplate community relations programs on all af the communities in which they must work with the public, believing that what works in one community will be equally effective in another. Absent assessment, such one-size-fits-all approaches are little more than menus of activities that may or may not work. Some activities, approaches, or messages may be

viewed in some communities as inappropriate.

Exhibit 3 illustrates some of the possible attitudes or responses that one might find in a given community. A review of even these few possible attitudedbehav- iors clearly demonstrates that messages and activities that would work in one community may be totally inappropriate and ineffective in a community marked by different characteristics or attitudes. It should be noted that these attitudes and behaviors aren’t inherently “good” or “bad.” Rather, they simply provide the context in which one must work. Positive outcomes can be achieved in communities displaying many of the more “difficult” attitudes or behaviors by tailoring an appropriate community relations program.

Demystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 61

Exhibit 3. Variability of Community Attitudes and Reactions

Ch.nctwistia

Ambldrstowsrd indumyand compliancr rnch environmentel mgulabons

A m d e s W a r d -outridan'

bwl or types of concam rbout annron. mental issues

Penons who need to be in the communi cation loop

Pmference regarding third-party authori ties or spokespenons

losicin atihlde, b a l d that indwby adds to c m u n ' w r f i - iiu connection in msidmm'minds belwwn the ban- pm- idd by pbs and pmpercytuas and the prurnca of indurtry n the community.

AndDr ieneml belidthat induslry compliiu wich environmental mgu- ~rand~thrramgub(ionrampm(rc(ivrofhumen haah ind the environment

~~ ~

Iesidem preferto addmss environmental issues Lhernsmlvrr Non't willingly i d in 'oubide au*tancr,' such as rep* ienratiws fmm envimnmenul advocacy organizations, and nay not T i n to such persons (or m y ewn behave wkh hos- i l i ~ r d t h e m i f t h y s h o v r u p l .

h a has not had many serious anvimnmental inpacts of inci- lens. Residam don't aummnically assume the worn when hry hear of an incident (May ba shocked by the disclosum ol nformationonch.micalaccidampoOrnialundertha RiiMon. igement Pmgmm, Section llz(r) of the Ckan Air Act if thy riewed their community as 'far fmm indunry' or -pdina.-I

3bjectiva~porting.seelutoincludoviamofall~ormanylpa~ las.

Most papers still haw cemin types of norims that they will :owr heavily, or my8 of handrig them 1e.g.. mry ti. newa ol in aecidenttoothrrstoriuaboutacc~e~to buildafeatun in 'chemical thmar in our community; keding to mom c w wage than a specific incident might otherwise mceive.1

Communication pathways fairly sbaighcforward; mayor, amor, pency responders, envimnmental agency personnel, neighbor, hood association leaden. opinion leaders in the area of envi mnmental issues. schwl draict. etc.

Communicatianwith mad~mcognizabk peoplelalthoughonc may haw to dip for names of informal leaden) will ensum ths massages pet outto the public (and that those interviewed b\ the media wil ba able to make informed statementd.

Information readily shared, decision-mating process open k all stakeholders.

Such communities often haw many points of contact or may people asting to be involved in the communication loop. Sucl communities are conducive to community mlations program since they don't Und to be ma&d by angry, dienfranchw stakeholder groups or excea*wly biaer political batlas.

Stekeholden ara well disposed toward state andlor fadera environmental agencies; college pmfesson: medicaVpubCi health pmfassionak They will linen to some or all of thew third-party expem

Residents 'stay put' and do not as a rule, dabble in what i going on in 'other areas..

(Note: How stakeholden define the boundaries of 'their c m munitf can varymmendouslyin some areas. residem con rider the antin county 'their community:)

Additionally. ii an issue or an incident ia perceived as effectin peopk acmss municipal or county boundaries, nakeholder am mom likelyto cross boundaries. Air issuu haw thr abilii to mobilize large numben of paople aemss municipal an countviurisdictionr

Yautnl or nagltivr a t ih ldu towsrd indumy. May be due n p.n labor~,domsiz ing, percepbonrof 'arigme'fmm ha pnsenca of ' d i v indumy. lhii nhude ia frequently lound among new m l d r m who c m u w elsewhere to mrk. and panaive no mnniding wlua fmm local industry in their 'badmom c m u n w . *

AndDr Emerthatindurtrydoosn'tcomplyvdh environmental mgu- hbns unkss forced or that the mgulscionr are not suffi- cmntly prutocrin of human health and the environment

Rasidenkseekwcddesr*rrsncain combatingtheir'prob- IIN. Willingly invim in repmsanCatinr of environmental advocacy groupsand seakto build coaliinswhemwrthey can.

h a hasuperiencod manyorseriousincidantsorimpactr 1e.p.. location of Superfund s i u or major spill). Response to an incident may seem out of pmportnn wilh actual effects due to 'curnubtin angef owr muYpla inpam. Envimn- mental Justice sub frequently arise in such scenarios.

Residents may also assume an impact (e.9.. groundwater invo lvmnt l awn if il ddn't occur based on their expen- ancas with other incidam.

Routinely COWK emironmetal issues in t a m of conflict Educational-infonningfunction d atoryis smcondaryto cast- ing thr stay as pan of an ongoing environmental or community m g g h .

Or Avoids stories about conflict or stones that show business in a negative liiht Thus. camin anvimnmantal stones re- caive no cowraga.

(Note: lhii is actually nota good thing, since, if a major en- wronentalitsuedoesarL.andirn\cowndbythensm- paper, i( will instead be relegated to informal communication channels and rumor, which can u h a t a l y complicate c m u n i t v nlrtions effuml

odd potilical sillmha wilh odd abgiances and atlihabw Uw ordrrin M i infmMtan is &an to p.opls can be crid

en who dmt sham intmnacicn and will u s a h cbnmunica- tion sunwn6ng animidMm'gom Waf wkh an qponent

Or Two or more municipaliies (or other jurisdictions) involved wi(h which them must be communication without stepping on the toes of the 'host' community.

~ ~ l t o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p s o p * . F m n a l ~ n d ' ~ l l e a d -

Information, decumn-making hoarded by a few 'bosses-; can be wry difficult situations in which to perform community outreach. since such communitios frequently have extreme activism among those blocked fmm Fe formal deci- rion-mating process

Or 'Pamllelcommunities.'in which cenaingroups.spliialong aconomic, racial, or kngth of tine in community(e.g., new msidems yz longdmr msidem), haw their own opinion kadm. eaendas. channals of communication. etc.

Reridants don't b a l i i 'government people,' or think that anyone brought in bv a fac i l i i has been 'bought off.- In some communities, msidem haw anlnosity toward 'edu- c a d people,'such as collepe pmferson

k a ruk, docton and mpmsentatives from public health agencies am viewed as credible, even when all othen are scorned.

R d e m mutinelyand willingly cross boundaries and view what goes on in another town or county as 'their business'-md people in the host community thinkthafs per- fectly natural. This can add c o m p l d y m the communication effon. since c m u n i t y relations personnel must con- sidrthe issues that these fdlu might be bringing with them.

Or Stakaholden attempt to cross boundarks and host community stakeholden 'go to war- with them.

62 / Spring 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALlTY MANAGEMENT Carol J. Forrest

WHAT IS DRIVING STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS?

One of the most important questions that must be answered about environmental issues is: What forms the basis for stakeholders’ concerns (or, in the case of issues that have not yet emerged, what attitudes and beliefs do stakeholders hold that are likely to lead to concerns)?

There are three major drivers of concern about environmental issues:

Misinformation or lack of information or understanding about a situation, substance, or process. Differences of opinion or belief as to- for example-the way a facility should be operated, the risk posed by a substance or activity, or the way resources should be used. Incidents, such as spills, adverse effects or threats [or perceived incidents, adverse effects, or threats) to human health or the environment.*

These drivers often work in combination. Designing an effective community re-

lations program requires an understanding of what stakeholders think about the issue, what they know or don’t know, and where these attitudes and beliefs come from. Without this knowledge, responding effectively is a roll of the dice. This seemingly basic concept often eludes managers, who instead craft messages based on their own beliefs of what stakeholders need to know. Such messages often miss the point.

In truth, one never knows what other people think about a topic, or wh&t those thoughts are based on unless one asks them and listens to the answer. Such answers can often hold some real surprises. It is not uncommon to find that stakeholders’ concerns are based in large part on misinformation or lack of information, and that once the appropriate information is supplied, either the concerns are allayed, or a basis has been laid for a substantive dialogue to address those remaining con-

cerns founded on differences of opinion, or incidents, or other adverse effects.

In one case, a company that purchased a facility discovered through an assessment that much of its neighbors’ concerns about the plant were tied to an interesting piece of misinformation. The neighbors believed that the facility was operating an “underground incinerator” on its pre- mises. Efforts to site a real incinerator in the area had led to public outcry. The facility in question had not been involved in the controversy. However, when neighbors made inquiries about construction at the plant that took place shortly after the incinerator siting attempt, and the manager who was then running the plant failed to provide a response, a rumor emerged that the plant had constructed an “underground incinerator.” The neighbors resentfully believed that the plant was “able to get away with” this because it was located in an unincorporated area and was already in existence.

Ultimately, a good community relations program implemented by the plant’s new owners managed to debunk this myth-along with several others-and plant management now enjoys excellent relations with its neighbors.

Apart from blatant misinformation, assessments also uncover the “reference points” that stakeholders are using to form their opinions about a facility, site, or project. For example, if a contaminated site in the community (or that many people know about) caused extensive groundwater contamination, it is likely that, unless they are told otherwise, stakeholders may believe that a “new” contaminated site will also affect the groundwater.

Information about the bases of stakeholders’ attitudes, beliefs, and concerns can be readily gathered through interviews supplemented by newspaper research. None of this information is particularly hidden-but it does have to be gathered systematically and analyzed to understand what it means to the design of an effective

Designing an effective community relations program requires an understanding of what Stakeholders think about the issue, what they know or don‘t know, and where these affitudes and beliefs come from.

Demystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENMRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 63

A major portion of the assessment

prucess is devoted to identi~ing

stakeholders and gaining insights into

their attitudes and agendas.

community relations program. Unfortu- nately, many organizations don’t bother to look beneath the surface of community concerns, make foolish mistakes, and then chalk up their bad experiences to the irra- tionality and capriciousness of the public.

WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Determining who the stakeholders are

in regard to a given issue can be a daunt- ing task. Stakeholders may be formal, readily identifiable groups, such as elected officials (although individual officials may fall within different factions pursuing different agendas regarding an issue), or they may be people who have been inadvert- ently pulled into an issue-such as parents of children at a day care center located across the street from a newly discovered contaminated site, Failure to identify or include persons or groups that have an interest in an issue can have grave conse- quences. Thus, a major portion of the assessment process is devoted to identifying stakeholders and gaining insights into their attitudes and agendas.

A good rule of thumb during an assessment is to seek to identify:

Those who are directly involved because of their proximity to a facility, site, or project, such as neighbors. Those who have an interest in the issue because of the positions they hold, such as elected and appointed officials and other local government staff. Those whose “level of interest” suggests that they would likely want to be part of the dialogue concerning the issue. The “level of interest” category may include persons or groups that have actively ex- pressed interest or concern, or persons or groups that have some other tie or connection, such as employment at or near the facility, site, or project in question. “Level of interest” may be inten- tional, as in the case of environmental- ists, or it may be incidental, as in the case of employee^.^

Once stakeholders tentatively are identified, the assessment process explores their goals with an eye toward discovering where these goals coincide, complement, or conflict with those of the organization responsible for the facility, site, or project in question. Especially in the case of “activists,” who are frequently viewed as ad- versaries, organization managers often over look opportunities for establishing positive dialogues founded on common goals. Acknowledging common goals can often lead to creative solutions that can, at best, satisfy all parties, or, at least, minimize the burden that any one group has to bear.

Determining how stakeholder groups interact-what “roles” they play in the social, political, and economic structure of the community, and their “strength” relative to other stakeholder groups-is also an important part of the analysis conducted during the assessment process.

A Word About “Activism” and Community Dynamics

It is a mistake to believe that community residents are either activists or they aren’t. As many companies discovered with the advent of TRI reporting-and many organizations have discovered in regard to spills, contaminated sites, or attempts to permit landfills or incinerators- “mainstream” community residents may adopt activist behaviors if they believe that their health or property values are imper- iled. Just as there are no atheists in fox- holes, most people will take action if concerns are sufficiently serious. Thus, a community assessment can provide insight into how best to work with newly “activised” residents to address their concerns by examining common modes of community response when residents and other stakeholders are faced by threats or perceived threats, whether environmental in nature or not. This concept is discussed in the following section.

Additionally, the community assess-

64 / Spring 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY MANAGEMENT Carol J. Forrest

ment process provides valuable insight into community decision-making dynamics, and the role of well-known activists (or “concerned citizens”) in the community. Organization managers frequently view “activists”-those who are willing to step up, voice concerns, and, at times, make demands, but who are typically not members of the formal community power structure-as extremists who make a lot of noise, but are out of sync with “average” residents and officials. This one-dimensional view of community activism fails to consider the role that these people or groups often play within the community as a whole.

Activists frequently fulfill vital func- tions in their communities by asking the “tough questions” that everyone would like to know the answers to-but that most are reluctant to ask. This is readily appar- ent during community interviews when officials or “average” community residents make comments such as, “I don’t always agree with him (her), but he (she) raises some good points.” Such comments are, in fact, frequently made during assessments. Failure to recognize the role of activists within the fabric of the community is to court disaster. Not only might one inad- vertently tread on community expectations as to these people’s role, but one will also lessen the chance of engaging in a positive dialogue.

TYPICAL CO M M U NITYBTAKEH OLD ER RESPONSE PAllERNS AND PREFERENCES FOR COMMUNICATION AND INVOLVEMENT

Community response patterns don’t come out of the blue. Another important component of the assessment process is to determine how people in a community are likely to behave when faced with a concern. This is an area that readily lends itself to prediction, since persons conducting an assessment can easily research past community response to other threats or perceived threats.

Do residents form ad hoc groups? Do they line up behind elected officials or other opinion leaders? Do they recruit the assistance of out-of-town “experts” or activists, or do they resist “outside” interfer- ence? Do they immediately file lawsuits, call for public meetings, or set up committees to explore the issue? Every established community has a typical pattern of behavior. Managers who know what this pattern is can design their community relations program accordingly, so that the program clips into the “positive” behaviors (such as requesting public meetings or setting up committees to study an issue) and hope- fully prevents “negative” behaviors (such as filing a lawsuit).

The assessment process also should look at stakeholders’ preferences for re- ceiving information, or for engaging in a dialogue about the issue in question. In some highly participative communities, residents and officials may want lots of opportunities for interaction by many people, such as large and small group meetings or workshops to explore issues related to the facility, site, or project in question. Other communities may prefer to have a handful of “formal” leaders do most of the interaction and then report back to residents and other stakeholders. Prefer- ences regarding written information and the level of detail of that information can also vary widely, with stakeholders in some communities wanting numerous fact sheets and report summaries, while stakeholders in other communities want only “bottom line” information along with an occasional face-to-face briefing.

Response patterns and preferences for communication and involvement are typically very accessible once one knows to look for them and uses the systematic ap- proach of the assessment process.

MESSAGES AND PROCESS Another important benefit of assess-

ment is the information it can provide to ensure that both the process of community

Another important component of the assessment process is to determine how people in a community are likely to behave when faced with a concern.

Demystifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 65

relations (e.g., who is included, how they are included, etc.) and the messages provided in the communication effort fit the community and the issue. In community relations, one has to pay as much attention to the process of communication as to the messages themselves. In other words, it is possible to say all the right things and still drop the ball as far as stakeholders are concerned.

The message aspect of community relations involves determining:

What do people want to know? What level of detail do you need to provide to ensure that you have answered stakeholders' questions (how "sophisticated" is your audience)? What terms, examples, or explanations will work (or could cause people to make assumptions that aren't true)?

Mastering the process aspect of community relations for a given community and issue involves determining:

Exhibit 4. Common Examples of Communication Gone Wrong: "Process Faults" Penalty Points

Failed to include key official in briefing-Minus 10Points(Person had unobtrusive t i t le-we didn't realize person had so much clout.)

Failed to answer public questions of community activist-Minus 20 Poinfs(We never knew that residents and officials informally looked to this person to "ask the tough questions" on their behalf.

Failed to meet with the neighborhood association because you already told the mayor what was happening-Minus 30 Points(Neighbors call in the crusading reporter) (We never knew that these people were considering circulating a petition against our plant. They never said anything to us.)

Failed to explain how the incident at your plant differed from an incident at another plantthat community members are using as their point of reference-Minus 20 Points (The other incident caused serious surface water contamination from run-off-your spill was contained. However, based on what residents know about the harm caused by the other incident residents may well assume otherwise, and be very upset.)

0 Brought in the wrong "credible" source who stakeholders did not find credible-Minus 10 Points (for the communication failure~Minus20Poinfs(for the irritation stakeholders experienced regarding the fact that you have aligned yourself with a know-nothing or a source they perceive as 'bought")

Failed to understand that "those activists from out of town" were invited in by an important faction within the community; plant refused to "talk to outsiders"-Minus 3Opoinfs (for violating a community norm that supports working with outside 'experts"-Major fault-plant looks like it is trying to keep the community from learning "the truth.")

Fortunately, you can often prevent these types of 'process faults" by gaining a better understanding ahead of time of the community, its behaviors, stakeholders, and preferences.

Who should managers communicate with-and is there an order in which people need to be notified for political reasons?

Formal leaders Informal leaders

How do the different groups with which one needs to communicate want to receive information (meetings, press releases, phone calls, etc.)? Who would the various stakeholders in the community consider a "credible source" that an organization can bring in to help with the communication process?

Crafting effective messages can be difficult to impossible without the information provided by an assessment; however, avoiding "process faults" can be even tougher without assessment information. This fact is even more sobering, given that "process faults" can often cause greater problems in community relations (and in crisis communication) than "message


Demptifying Public Environmental Concerns: Implementing Community Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 67

faults.” Exhibit 4 lists common process faults with which most managers who have had public dealings can relate, often out of personal (and painful) experience. The information provided by a good assessment can prevent many, if not all, of these process faults.

IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES FOR POSITIVE RELATIONS

This article has discussed the doom and gloom of predicting adverse community responses, as well as the importance of avoiding mistakes that may range from simply embarrassing to catastrophic. Although this is all very important, assessments also almost always unearth encouraging information, by identifying opportunities for establishing positive links with stakeholders.

For example, in one community marked by extreme and bitter activism over a number of serious issues, an assessment revealed several factors that were important to stakeholders that could be used to promote a positive dialogue. One facility had done just that, and although it had an issue of community concern (an odor problem), its management had fig- ured out how to initiate a positive dialogue with area officials, residents, and activists. Despite the continued turmoil in the community about other environmental issues, the facility was well thought of by area activists, who could speak with great specificity about the efforts that its management was taking to address the plant’s problem.

Not only did this assessment reveal that it was possible to work productively with stakeholders, even in this highly sen- sitized community, it also identified those goals common to stakeholders and management, on which a positive dialogue

could be built. Thus, assessment can provide the most

important benefit of all: insights into what is possible in a given community. The best courses through the minefield of public sensitivity are well marked after a thorough assessment, and managers who may be timid about stepping into the public arena, lest they make the situation worse, have somewhere reasonably safe to walk. Both the organizations responsible for a facility, site, or project, and the communities that are experiencing environmental concerns benefit from the effective ap- proach that community assessment af- fords.

It should be noted that the assessment process is itself a positive and powerful community relations activity. Stakeholders are almost always impressed that an organization is willing to take the time to learn about their community, their questions, and their concerns. Thus, the assessment can lay the groundwork for a positive dialogue.

NOTES Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Anelyling industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York, 1980. Carol J. Forrest and Renee Hix Mays. The Precticel Guide to Environmentel Community Relations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1997. Id.

Carol J. Forrest is president of Equinox Environmental Consuttants, Ltd., of Wheaton, Illinois. She specializes in community relations and environmental communication andhas worked on projects for public and private sector clients throughout the United States. An expert in community assessment and community relations program planning, Ms. Forrest holds a Master‘s of Management from the J. L Kellogg Graduate School of Management Northwestern Universe. She is co- author of the 6ookThe Practical Guide to Environmen- tal Community Relations, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

68 / Spring 1998 / ENWRONMENTAL llUAUTY MANAGEMENT Carol J. Forrest

Demystifying public environmental concerns: Implementing community assessments

Documents

Transcript of Demystifying public environmental concerns: Implementing community assessments