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

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

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

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

The prophecy of Ulrich Beck: signposts for the social sciences

This special issue on the legacy of Ulrich Beck is aimed to stimulate reflection both on the specific uses to which Beck’s conceptual and theoretical apparatus can be put within risk studies and the wider significance of his academic project for the social sciences. In this end-piece, we draw out the key themes which surface in the different contributions relating to five particular areas: the nature of risk; advancements in methods; issues of non-knowledge and uncertainty; the development of cosmopolitan risk communities; and the situated character of individualization. We discuss the implications of the accounts contained in this special issue and reflect on the impact and influence of Beck’s sustained engagement with colleagues around the globe, concluding that the concepts and methods that Beck bequeathed the social sciences are set to live on and thrive

COVID-19:the winter lockdown strategy in five European nations

European lockdown strategies over the winter of 2020 have brought into sharp relief the need for effective strategies to reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission and lower the rate of hospitalisations and deaths. Understanding exactly how European nations have arrived at this point, and the process by which they have done this, is key to learning constructive lessons for future pandemic risk management. Bringing together experience from across five European nations (the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland), this paper outlines what has occurred between September 2020 and mid-January 2021. Our analysis draws out several themes important to understanding the different national risk management approaches adopted, namely: the extent to which lessons were learned or overlooked from the first wave of the pandemic; the relationship between science and policy; the speed and responsiveness of policy decisions; and differing levels of reliance on individual responsibility for safeguarding public health. Subsequently, we recommended that: there is more involvement of decision scientists and risk analysts in COVID-19 decision making, who have largely been absent thus far; the epidemiological science should be followed where possible, but when value judgments are made this should be clearly and transparently communicated; proactive measures avoiding policy delay should be followed to reduce the rate of infection and excess deaths; governments must avoid confusing or inconsistent regional implementation and communication of interventions; rebuilding public trust is key to promoting public compliance and support for COVID-19 health measures; overreliance on individual responsibility as the focus of non-pharmaceutical interventions should be avoided; public compliance with COVID-19 restrictions requires pre-tested simple messages; open and consistent engagement with local leaders and officials should become a mainstay of government ef