The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe

The regulation and communication of risk has changed significantly over the past 20 years or so, partially as a result of a number of regulatory scandals in Europe and elsewhere (Lofstedt 2004: Majone and Everson 2001; Sunstein 2005), which have led to public distrust of regulators and policy makers. This increase in public distrust has resulted in a phasing-out of consensual-style regulation, and the emergence of a newer model of regulation based on variables including public participation, transparency, and increasingly powerful non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This paper discusses some of the consequences of adopting this new model of regulation through a series of case studies

Recalibrating pandemic risk leadership: Thirteen crisis ready strategies for COVID-19

Good leadership is widely regarded as a crucial component of risk and crisis management and remains an enduring theme of more than 40 years of inquiry into emergencies, disasters, and controversies. Today, the question of good leadership has come under the spotlight again as a key factor shaping how successfully nations have dealt with the COVID-19 global health crisis. Amidst plummeting levels of public trust, the worst recession of the G7, and the highest death toll in Europe, the UK’s pandemic leadership response has faced especially stern accusations of incompetence and culpability for what has been described as the most catastrophic science policy failure for a generation. Addressing these issues, this paper argues for the adoption of a more pluralised UK leadership approach for handling COVID-19. Particularly, it is contended that as COVID-19 is a multifaceted problem that presents many varied and distributed challenges, UK leadership should employ a differentiated range of strategic mechanisms and processes to help improve substantive understandings and decision-making, support collective resilience, and build adaptive capacities as the crisis continues. The paper accordingly identifies and elaborates thirteen strategies, drawing on lessons and insights from the risk and crisis management field, that are proposed to serve as a useful heuristic to help guide UK pandemic leadership in this endeavour. To illustrate the value and application of each strategy, examples are provided of noteworthy leadership responses to COVID-19 observed internationally thus far, as well as leadership problems that have hampered the UK’s pandemic response. In conclusion, it is suggested that in as far as the conduct expected of leaders during a pandemic, or any other crisis, should maintain and be reflective of democratic values and standards of legitimacy, these strategies may also provide broadly applicable normative criteria against which leadership performance in handling COVID-19 may be judged as crisis ready

Communicating risk under high uncertainty: developing cross-disciplinary knowledge

The primary purpose of this Special Issue is to coalesce different perspectives on the theme of ‘Communicating Risk Under High Uncertainty’ from across a range of subject areas. These areas include environmental studies, international relations, engineering, sociology, psychology, media studies, the health sciences, criminology and anthropology. By bringing different perspectives together, we anticipate that commonalities and points of concurrence will help to identify cross-disciplinary synergies and provide opportunities to explore the potential for a more holistic understanding of risk communication in the academy and beyond

Resilience in the face of uncertainty: early lessons from the COVID- 19 pandemic

The transboundary dynamics of COVID-19 present an unprecedented test of organisational resilience. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS), a talisman of collective fortitude against disease and illness, has struggled to cope with inadequate provision of virus tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment needed to fight the pandemic. In this paper, we reflect on the historic dynamics and strategic priorities that have undermined the NHS’s attempts to navigate these troubled times. We invoke the organisational resilience literature to address ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’ of preparedness in readiness and response to the current pandemic. In particular, we draw on Meyer’s (1982) seminal work on ‘adaptation to jolts’, excavating current preparedness failings. We argue an overreliance on perceived efficiency benefits of ‘lean production’ and ‘just in time’ continuity planning superseded strategic redundancy and slack in the system. This strategic focus was not simply the result of a failure in foresight, but rather a failure to act adaptively on knowledge of the known threats and weaknesses spotlighted by earlier projections of an inevitable pandemic threat. In conclusion, we consider how the UK Government and NHS must now undergo a phase of ‘readjustment’ in Meyer’s terms, in light of these failings. We suggest that independent responsibility for national future preparedness should be handed to the NHS free from political interference. This would operate under the umbrella of a national emergency preparedness, resilience and response public body, enshrined in law, and similar in governance to the current Bank of England. This will help ensure that foresight is accompanied by durability and fortitude in safeguarding the UK against future pandemic threats

State of the art transparency: lessons from Europe and North America

This Special Issue of the Journal of Risk Research was initiated to increase the evidence base supporting critical understanding of the use and impacts of transparency as a policy tool in risk management and regulation in Europe and North America. The lead research articles and perspectives were initially presented at a two-day workshop supported by the Journal of Risk Research and its publisher Taylor and Francis, which took place in Lavandou, Provence, 19th - 20th June 2014. In this editorial we introduce the motivations for the special issue and offer a brief summary of the contribution of each article highlighting key intersections and points of concurrenc

Effectiveness of communications in enhancing adherence to public health behavioural interventions: A COVID-19 evidence review

Health communication has relevance for virtually every aspect of health and well-being, including disease prevention. This review explored the effectiveness of communications in enhancing the adoption of or adherence to behavioural interventions (non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)) related to COVID-19. The review takes the UK as a case study and focuses on self-reported behaviours (e.g. social distancing). It also reviews the psychosocial determinants of adherence. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, CINAL, ASSIA and iCite databases. Eleven thousand five hundred records were identified and 13 were included in the final sample. Included studies suggest that NPI adoption or adherence was generally high, and communication had significant impacts, with key themes including clarity and consistency, trust and control. Based on the evidence in this review, features of effective communication in the context of NPI adoption or adherence are (i) information should be conveyed clearly and conflicting (mixed) messages should be avoided; (ii) information should be conveyed by trusted sources (e.g. health authorities) and (iii) communication should strike a balance between being authoritative but avoiding language seen as controlling (e.g. \u27you must\u27). Future research should prioritize quantitative, experimental and longitudinal study designs, that focus specifically on communication as an intervention, and which measure behaviour. This article is part of the theme issue \u27The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence\u27

Dumber energy at home please: Perceptions of Smart Energy Technologies are dependent on home, workplace, or policy context in the United Kingdom

Smart energy technologies (SETs) are being developed around the world to support using energy more efficiently and to smooth our consumption over time, helping us to meet our carbon reduction targets. Notably, SETs will only be effective with support and engagement from the public. Previous literature has focused on evaluating SETs within a residential context, however, results here may differ from a workplace or policy context. We note that surrogate decision making (SDM [1]) theory indicates we make decisions differently for others than for the self. Study one (N = 213) comprises a survey using a UK population sample that examines public perceptions and support for SETs in different contexts. Study two (N = 12) utilises interviews to explore perceptions in more depth, probing the nature of support using socio-cognitive constructs relating to SDM. We find that people are more likely to support SETs in a workplace or policy context, compared to residential contexts. In addition, we note that support for SETs is related to different socio-cognitive constructs in different contexts, and also that impulsivity of decision making differs across contexts. Decision making within workplace and policy contexts is characterised by higher levels of impulsivity than in a residential context, as well as a sense of shared responsibility. Our results indicate that translational research is needed when considering evidence based on residential studies in making decisions within workplace and policy contexts

Toward a critical discourse on affect and risk perception

Editorials and commentaries in academic journals can perform a useful function in the social sciences, by bringing different ideas and perspectives to the fore they may help to punctuate academic discourse and lead to a more focused debate about the development, validity and utility of a particular concept or theme of research. In this respect, Sjoberg’s (2006) editorial of this issue, ‘Will the real meaning of affect please stand up?’ is a timely critique of a burgeoning area of risk perception research

’All we have to do is be uncertain’: assessing the ‘amplification of institutional incertitude’ in European food safety and risk governance

This paper addresses efforts made by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in recent years to foreground the identification, representation, and public disclosure of scientific uncertainty in its risk assessment procedures and communications, a process aptly characterised in this paper as the ‘amplification of institutional incertitude’. We argue that while the introduction of EFSA’s novel uncertainty reforms has opened a welcome space for academic and policy dialogue, this strategic initiative will nevertheless struggle to reconcile ongoing stakeholder concerns about the legitimacy, direction, and authority of the agency’s scientific opinions and expert advice. We observe that the instigation of EFSA’s uncertainty reforms is prefigured by a longstanding policy tension running at the heart of the agency’s directives requiring officials to be both open and transparent on the one hand, whilst being free from political influence and remaining distanced from risk management decisions on the other. The uncertainty reforms adopted may accordingly be understood as a way for EFSA to reconcile a current ‘uncertainty paradox’ facing the agency by accommodating wider concerns about uncertainty and opening itself up to further scrutiny of its risk assessment processes without relinquishing independence. We argue that prior policy tensions are unlikely to be resolved by simply ‘being uncertain’ however, because this prescriptive ‘solution’ offers only limited congruency with the wider problem diagnoses facing the agency. Moreover, we caution that as institutional incertitude is increasingly amplified, EFSA will in turn be further prompted to rethink and refresh its stakeholder engagement initiatives in order to improve its standing in the food safety field amidst ongoing criticisms and calls for greater inclusion, oversight, and input that follow. Finally, we offer some policy recommendations and highlight the need for future lines of research inquiry to take greater account of the socio-political context in which the assessment and communication of uncertainty takes place