What we did
Our research involved four case studies and a survey. The case studies were with four companies (2 large and 2 small; 2 business-to-business (B2B) and 2 business to consumers (B2C)) and involved in-depth interviews in each with representatives from different functions. This phase aimed to develop detailed understandings of interviewee’s ideas about ‘the public’ and of ‘public environmental knowledge’ and to explore how, if at all, these are related to different preferences for communication with the public. We followed this with a telephone survey of 261 companies to test hypotheses generated within the cases and to explore the prevalence of different strategies for public engagement and the factors that best predict their use.
What we found in the case studies…
Our respondents’ focus was firmly upon ‘consumers’ and/or factory ‘neighbours’; discussion of ‘the public’ only really arose in response to direct questioning. Interviewees did not necessarily view the public in just one way (just as consumers for instance), some recognised that there are many publics and reflected that any one individual may occupy multiple roles. Consumers and neighbours were regarded not as groups with knowledge meriting engagement but as having concerns which should be allayed.
The public were viewed as largely ignorant in terms of their understanding of the chemical industry and of the science behind products. While interviewees were keen to right misconceptions about the industry (for instance, by inviting the public into factories) lack of knowledge about the science behind the product was accepted and defended on a number of grounds (the public can trust industry to ensure product safety; the science is complex; why would the public want to acquire this knowledge?).
The B2C companies used a range of methods to understand public concerns, these mostly focused on consumers’ views about their products. Public contact was understood in terms of people simply ‘wanting to make their point’, so engaging with the public was seen in terms of making sure that people feel that they are being taken seriously rather than as a potential source of new ideas or useful knowledge for the company.
Neighbours’ interests were always assumed to be local - about factory risks and nuisance. These concerns were often described as ‘perceptions’ which needed to be righted with education and the presentation of the industry as friendly and open. B2B companies interacted with local people in a range of informal ways which could provide the basis for building trust and mutual understanding.
Some of our interviewees recognised that public engagement made business sense but a number of barriers to engagement were noted. Alongside concerns about the time and expense involved and the question of who is a legitimate participant, interviewees argued that there was little public demand and also questioned whether broader dialogue with the public was really their job.
We asked our interviewees whether they could think of any instance where information, ideas or concerns raised by members of the public had actually changed something within the company. Few could think of any such examples but it was thought that lay environmental knowledge might make a difference if:
- there were enough people saying the same thing;
- issues were raised by NGOs or influential individuals;
- issues attracted media interest;
- issues could affect the market;
- allergy/safety issues were raised;
What we found in the survey…
We conducted telephone interviews with representatives of 261 companies within the chemical sector. We explored patterns of contact with and attitudes to consumers, local residents and NGOs. For these three ‘publics’ we asked interviewees about the relevance of each, and about their attitudes to them, how they communicated with them and what they thought their ability was to influence the company.
Key findings are that willingness to engage with the public varies systematically with company size, and is partly a function of who is seen as the most relevant public. Those who identified local residents as their most relevant public were significantly more willing to engage than those identifying NGOs or consumers as most relevant. The perceived relevance of consumers, local residents and NGOs varies by company size and industry sector.
Academic achievements and dissemination activities
We have presented papers based on this research at International conferences. In addition the Royal Society of Arts in London ran a special one-day seminar where we presented our findings to a business audience, and our project is to be discussed at a seminar for science communicators run by the British Association for the Advancement of Science later this year.
Impacts on Policy and Practice
- If companies do not acknowledge ‘public environmental knowledge’ exhortations for them to engage with it are unlikely to be heard.
- Large, profitable companies may have the resources and motivation to invest in public engagement initiatives, but small companies usually do not. Encouraging public engagement requires consideration of company resources and likely motivations.
- Calls for greater industry engagement assume that there is a public who are eager to be engaged, but interviewees saw little evidence of this.
- Companies have channels for engagement with consumers about products and with neighbours about local issues. Rather than recommending the introduction of new processes and practices engagement might better be encouraged by thinking about how these points of contact might be used to facilitate engagement with the public as ‘citizens’ around broader issues.
- Companies are most willing to engage with local people. This may provide the most productive access point for engagement initiatives.