Improving health and safety

1 health and safety Executive Improving health and safety An analysis of HSE s risk communication in the 21st century Prepared by King s College, London for the health and safety Executive 2010 RR785 Research Report health and safety Executive Improving health and safety An analysis of HSE s risk communication in the 21st century Frederic Bouder Ragnar Lofstedt King s College London Strand London WC2R 2LS What constitutes state-of-the-art risk communication? Which practices may be considered anachronistic? Does HSE use the most effective means to communicate risks?

2 Which theories and tools are most apposite for the appraisal of HSE s risk communication? What policy recommendations would help the Executive to improve its performance in this area? To answer these crucial questions this report develops an in-depth analysis of HSE s communication practices. The researchers explore HSE s risk communication in two specific cases: that of the Buncefield oil storage incident of 2005 and that of the proposed development at the Oval cricket ground in London. The researchers conducted face-to-face interviews of the critical actors involved in each case.

3 These interviews support a robust qualitative analysis of current risk communication practices. The analysis employs the latest theoretical and empirical knowledge from the academic discipline of risk communication. The authors conclude that the HSE has engaged third parties successfully to develop a proactive risk communication when faced with a major incident. For most decisions, however, HSE still relies on communication practices derived from the consensual, expert-led model with which the Executive operates. The authors formulate five critical recommendations to adapt HSE s risk communication towards a more proactive model.

4 This report and the work it describes were funded by the health and safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. HSE Books Crown copyright 2010 First published 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

5 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Mr Geoffrey Podger, Chief Executive, and Mr Patrick McDonald, Chief Scientist, for allowing the project to take place. The authors would also like to thank all those both within HSE and external to it who generously agreed to be interviewed, as well as those who offered advice and support. The authors are particularly grateful to Lord Newton of Braintree and Mr Taf Powell for their crucial support.

6 The authors would also like to thank Professor Baruch Fischhoff and Professor M Granger Morgan at Carnegie Mellon University, Professor Ortwin Renn at the University of Stuttgart, and Professor Adam Finkel at the University of New Jersey and Princeton, all of whom offered scientific advice at various stages of the project. Finally, the authors would like to thank Dr Vicky Warbrick for her help and commitment. ii CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .. 5 2. RISK COMMUNICATION: WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE ART AND WHAT IS NOT? .. 7 KEY EXAMPLES OF GOOD RISK 8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND 3.

7 HSE AND RISK 14 CASE STUDY APPROACH ..15 BUNCEFIELD EXPLOSION CASE ..19 COMMUNICATION OF EVIDENCE .. 20 OVAL PLANNING 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 38 APPENDIX 1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONAIRE .. 46 APPENDIX 2 OVAL CASE QUESTIONNAIRE .. 47 APPENDIX 3 RISK COMMUNICATION: A REVIEW OF THEORETICAL 48 APPENDIX 4 COMMUNICATING RISKS: A CHALLENGE TO PRACTITIONERS .. 80 TABLE 1 - WHY DO YOU (MALMO RESPONDENTS) FEEL THAT BARSEBACK IS SAFE?.. 9 TABLE 2 - KEY CRITERIA FOR 17 TABLE 3 - PADHI DECISION MATRIX.

8 27 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this research project on risk communication has been to contribute to re-establishing HSE's leading role in the risk policy and communication field by sharing up-to-date knowledge on the subject and Improving HSE's application of risk communication. The project translates ongoing theoretical and policy developments from the risk communication field into direct advice to help HSE adapt its risk communication practices to the challenges of the 21st century. This report opens with an introduction followed by key examples of effective risk communication.

9 The report moves on to present the results of two case studies. The first study is a short review of the risk communication of 'onshore oil/gas leaks', focusing on the Buncefield oil storage depot incident of 2005. The second study is an in-depth assessment of the unusual but nonetheless critical case of the proposed development at the Oval cricket ground (London). The report analyses interactions between key stakeholders and the procedures that inform the risk communication process. It does not discuss the technical evidence submitted in relation to the planning enquiry.

10 The analysis and discussion of the specific cases is presented to support the framing of internal HSE discussions about possible solutions to a changing risk communication environment. The main conclusion of this study is that HSE tends to apply a standard approach to risk communication. This approach may be called consensual , because it focuses on forming an agreement among experts and institutions rather than engaging in a debate with lobby groups and the general public.