How to Respond

Differences in how people perceive risk can lead to considerable difficulties for those involved in the communication of nuclear issues. Good communication is essential to gaining public trust and confidence. This requires all those involved to understand the need for long term planning and coordination, especially in:

• Developing strategic partnerships
• Collaborating on problem solving
• Developing a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of risk analysis
• Providing consistent messages, and
• Using appropriate tools for both internal and external communication.

Recognition of this difference in understanding and perception of risk is vital, and will determine how a communication strategy is developed and implemented.

Undertaking a situational analysis early in the process will provide crucial information on the level of understanding amongst the likely target audiences and help inform the ways information should be provided.

Comprehensive awareness of target audiences makes communication easier. Knowing the different attitudes and perceptions of the risk associated with the issues that need to be communicated allow communicators to better avoid conflict. To keep interaction positive and constructive, communicators rely on a few basic principles:

Honesty

Ensure the information you provide is true. In the Internet age, audiences demand immediate answers. Moreover, misleading or incorrect statements will be immediately verified and commented upon. To build trust and remain a reliable source, start with correct information – if that means saying, “We don’t know.” An honest response can easily be amended and expanded as more information becomes available.

Openness and Transparency

As indicated in INSAG-20, restrictions on the information provided should be limited, although it is recognised that sensitive nuclear security information cannot be released to the public. It is also acceptable to withhold information of a proprietary nature, whilst explaining the reasons for this. Regulatory information, such as final safety evaluation reports or inspection findings, should be made public as soon as possible.

Credibility

Brief statements by government representatives or nuclear experts are not adequate to provide credibility on estimates of nuclear risk or on measures to control those risks [INSAG-20]. The information should be factual, timely, complete and understandable.

Acknowledging Differences among Points of View

Different points of view regarding the risks associated with the use of nuclear technology often emerge in media headlines. While the media is a stakeholder, it is also a way to communicate with other audiences. Newspapers and broadcasters recognise conflict as “newsworthy” and strive to report on how different stakeholders may approach a topic in opposing ways. This kind of coverage can help audiences understand the issue and bring visibility to relevant issues, but can also cause difficulties in getting your message across.

Nuclear communicators can balance media coverage with complementary activities such as input to editorial board meetings, which aims to build trust and accountability between the news outlet and the people and organizations covered. Publishers, both online and in print, may also publish opinion and editorial pieces that can allow a more reasoned discussion to take place.

Government representatives and elected officials also present important stakeholders with distinctive points of view. These individuals may have roles of authority or responsibility that isolate them in some ways from a nuclear project. They may be regulators, hold fiduciary duties or have jurisdiction over intersecting concerns. Communicators often find differing points of view among these stakeholders appear first in news headlines. Whilst others resolve policy challenges, nuclear professionals can remain active in communicating the facts and details relevant to both sides.

Coping with Conflict

Communication may not eliminate the potential for conflict between those with opposing viewpoints, but it can minimize the impact of disagreements. However, thoughtful communication plans that emphasize stakeholder relationships can create more productive environments for these discussions to take place. One-on-one meetings and small group discussions are important communication tools in conflict situations. Websites, white papers and other resource documents also help keep focus on the goals of a nuclear project and reassure audiences that the project’s organisers are creating opportunities for discussion, carefully evaluating all options and developing a worthwhile decision-making process. Public meetings may also be appropriate.

Town hall meetings, roundtables and seminars can build positive reputations for nuclear professionals in terms of their openness and transparency. However, the large-scale nature of these can make negotiations difficult. In some cases, acknowledging different points of view can provide project organisers an opportunity to give arguments supporting their position and show respect to those who may have a different stance.

Dispute resolution may be a long and difficult activity, but active communication throughout the disagreement can improve outcomes for everyone involved. When preparing to listen to concerns and face disagreeing parties, communicators can help representatives by having relevant information at the ready, for example:

Prepare answers for administrative questions. These details will reassure stakeholders their concerns are valid and the organization has mechanisms in place to consider them. Information should include details such as:

• Who can be contacted for further questions?
• Where may additional resources be available?
• How will the public be kept informed in the future?

These questions may seem simple, but go a long way towards ensuring satisfaction and trust among stakeholders. The above aspects can be applied practically in “Talking about risks” in Actions. 

The widespread availability of information through the internet and social media means that dissemination of information and engagement with interested stakeholders on nuclear matters must use all available channels and means. Anyone wishing to understand nuclear issues should be regarded as an important stakeholder and as such be invited to take part in a dialogue where their views and concerns are recognised as valid and important. This can help organizations develop better solutions that are acceptable to all parties, and to demonstrate that decisions are made with the full involvement of all concerned. That said, popular acronyms exist to describe stakeholder characterisations, such as:

• NIMBY: Not In My Backyard (used to describe opponents within a potentially impacted area)
• NIMTOO: Not In My Term of Office (referring to elected politicians who see a controversy as a threat)
• BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (describing those who do not wish to see any new developments)
• PIMBY: Please In My Backyard (the ideal preferred outcome following an open dialogue process)