Issues, interests and identity: communicating biotechnology

Abstract

Communicating and consulting with the general public is often a statutory requirement for public sector organizations. In this paper we examine the issues faced by public sector organizations when that communication or consultation involves the introduction or regulation of a controversial technology. To illustrate these issues in practice, we draw upon the public consultation and communication processes undertaken by New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) following the lifting in 2003 of a moratorium on field trials for genetically modified (GM) organisms. ERMA is charged with the oversight of biotechnology research and the introduction of new organisms and dangerous substances into New Zealand. Following the lifting of the GM moratorium, ERMA identified a need to communicate with the general public, rather than just scientific organisations or those that identified strongly with anti-GM activist groups, about the way in which it would perform its role in the new environment. Drawing on a mobilization model from stakeholder theory that categorises stakeholder groups that take action with regards to a focal organization as being either interest-based or identity-based (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003), we explore the ramifications for organizations like ERMA of attempting to engage with the general public. According to Rowley and Moldoveanu (2003), interest-based stakeholder groups act to protect their interests while identity-based stakeholders mobilize as an expression of their identity. Consultation processes around issues, processes and events are usually designed to elicit views from publics and thus to awaken latent perspectives. As the threshold for mobilization is much lower for identity-based than interest-based groups (Ibid), communication strategies are more likely to mobilize members of the general public who have not yet taken a position, towards identity-based positions. This response, which is likely to increase rather than reduce public dissatisfaction with the organization and/or resistance to the technological issue, raises a number of potential challenges for organizations