217
9.3.3 The Role(s) of the Public
Our results clearly show that actors differ in their views on public risk communication. While some consider involvement of the public fundamental, others underline
the importance of expert knowledge. These positions partly refl ect different national
cultures and thus most likely refl ect different ideals of democracy and the role of the
public in different countries. The role of the public is, for example, often underplayed by interviewees from Russia, who instead underline the importance of expert
knowledge (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It is mostly NGOs who highlight the importance
of communication and public involvement, something that is particularly evident in
the overfi shing case (Sellke et al. 2010 ) and in the case of hazardous chemicals
(Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It could be argued that NGOs, in general, build on the idea of
public information and involvement.
From our case studies, it is also obvious that the public generally is not involved
or addressed in the risk assessment phase but rather (if at all) in the risk management or implementation phase. Risk assessment generally does not include dialogue
with the public, and the communication phase is mainly about informing the public.
Take for example the overfi shing case, which otherwise has the most advanced
system for stakeholder interaction: ‘Overall, interviewees did not see a need for
more specifi c public participation within the governance process. Communication
with the public was mainly seen in terms of information providing’ (Sellke et al.
2010 : 32). The importance of informing the public – often framed in terms of the
public’s ‘right-to-know’ (RTK) – has received increased attention in risk governance processes of BSR. In the case of information provision regarding chemicals,
the pollutant release and transfer registers can be seen as examples of legally binding implementation of RTK (Udovyk et al. 2010 ).
Risk assessment has become an important tool for informing risk managers and
the general public about the different options for protecting public health and the
environment (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). Some of the interviewees, for example, from DG
Mare, saw the different national parliaments as representatives of the public, emphasising that there is no need for further public involvement in the governance process
(cf. Sellke et al. 2010 ).
A main fi nding is that the public is mainly addressed and thought of in their role
as consumers and less so as in their role of political citizens . For example, several
actors in the chemical case, in the overfi shing case and in the IAS case see the
responsibility of citizens in terms of them being consumers. In the case of hazardous chemicals , consumers are often portrayed as responsible for speeding up the
process of change (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It appeared from our interviews that the
topic of ‘sustainable consumption’ is gaining importance and becoming a central
part of future risk communication. Today, the topic of ‘sustainable consumption’
seems to be of most importance in public risk communication in the overfi shing
case (Sellke et al. 2010 ). Food/eco-labels like MSC have become highly infl uential
in the last decade.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
9.3.3 The Role(s) of the Public
Our results clearly show that actors differ in their views on public risk communication. While some consider involvement of the public fundamental, others underline
the importance of expert knowledge. These positions partly refl ect different national
cultures and thus most likely refl ect different ideals of democracy and the role of the
public in different countries. The role of the public is, for example, often underplayed by interviewees from Russia, who instead underline the importance of expert
knowledge (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It is mostly NGOs who highlight the importance
of communication and public involvement, something that is particularly evident in
the overfi shing case (Sellke et al. 2010 ) and in the case of hazardous chemicals
(Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It could be argued that NGOs, in general, build on the idea of
public information and involvement.
From our case studies, it is also obvious that the public generally is not involved
or addressed in the risk assessment phase but rather (if at all) in the risk management or implementation phase. Risk assessment generally does not include dialogue
with the public, and the communication phase is mainly about informing the public.
Take for example the overfi shing case, which otherwise has the most advanced
system for stakeholder interaction: ‘Overall, interviewees did not see a need for
more specifi c public participation within the governance process. Communication
with the public was mainly seen in terms of information providing’ (Sellke et al.
2010 : 32). The importance of informing the public – often framed in terms of the
public’s ‘right-to-know’ (RTK) – has received increased attention in risk governance processes of BSR. In the case of information provision regarding chemicals,
the pollutant release and transfer registers can be seen as examples of legally binding implementation of RTK (Udovyk et al. 2010 ).
Risk assessment has become an important tool for informing risk managers and
the general public about the different options for protecting public health and the
environment (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). Some of the interviewees, for example, from DG
Mare, saw the different national parliaments as representatives of the public, emphasising that there is no need for further public involvement in the governance process
(cf. Sellke et al. 2010 ).
A main fi nding is that the public is mainly addressed and thought of in their role
as consumers and less so as in their role of political citizens . For example, several
actors in the chemical case, in the overfi shing case and in the IAS case see the
responsibility of citizens in terms of them being consumers. In the case of hazardous chemicals , consumers are often portrayed as responsible for speeding up the
process of change (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). It appeared from our interviews that the
topic of ‘sustainable consumption’ is gaining importance and becoming a central
part of future risk communication. Today, the topic of ‘sustainable consumption’
seems to be of most importance in public risk communication in the overfi shing
case (Sellke et al. 2010 ). Food/eco-labels like MSC have become highly infl uential
in the last decade.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…