United States	May

Environmental Protection Agency 1992
Washington DC 20460	EPA 230-K-92-001

<>EPA Seven Cardinal
Rules of Risk
Communication

-------
here are no easy
prescriptions for
successful risk
communication.
However, those who
have studied and
participated in recent
debates about risk
generally agree on
seven cardinal rules. These rules
apply equally well to the public and
private sectors.

Although many of the rules may
seem obvious, they are continually
and consistently violated in practice.
Thus, a useful way to read these
rules is to focus on why they are
frequently not followed.

Accept and involve

the public as a legitimate

partner

A basic tenet of risk communication
in a democracy is that people and
communities have a right to
participate in decisions that affect
their lives, their property, and the
things they value.

Guidelines: Demonstrate your
respect for the public and underscore
the sincerity of your effort by
involving the community early,
before important decisions are made.
Involve all parties that have an
interest or a stake in the issue under
consideration. If you are a
government employee, remember
that you work for the public. If you
do not work for the government, the
public still holds you accountable.

Point to Consider:

• The goal of risk communication in
a democracy should be to produce an

-------
informed public that is involved,
interested, reasonable, thoughtful,
solution-oriented, and collaborative;
it should not be to diffuse public
concerns or replace action.

I

Plan carefully and
evaluate your efforts

Risk communication will be
successful only if carefully planned.

Guidelines: Begin with clear, explicit
risk communication objectives—such
as providing information to the
public, motivating individuals to act,
stimulating response to emergencies,
or contributing to the resolution of
conflict. Evaluate the information you
have about the risks and know its
strengths and weaknesses. Classify
and segment the various groups in
your audience. Aim your
communications at specific subgroups
in your audience. Recruit
spokespeople who are good at
presentation and interaction. Train
your staff—including technical
staff—in communication skills;
reward outstanding performance.
Whenever possible, pretest your !
messages. Carefully evaluate your
efforts and learn from your mistakes.

Points to Consider:

•	There is no such entity as "the
public"; instead, there are many
publics, each with its own interests,
needs, concerns, priorities,
preferences, and organizations.

•	Different risk communication
goals, audiences, and media require
different risk communication
strategies.

-------
Listen to the public's
specific concerns

If you do not listen to people, you
cannot expect them to listen to you.
Communication is a two-way activity.

Guidelines: Do not make
assumptions about what people
know, think, or want done about
risks. Take the time to find out what
people are thinking: use techniques
such as interviews, focus groups, and
surveys. Let all parties that have an
interest or a stake in the issue be
heard. Identify with your audience
and try to put yourself in their place.
Recognize people's emotions. Let
people know that you understand
what they said, addressing their
concerns as well as yours. Recognize
the "hidden agendas," symbolic
meanings, and broader economic or
political considerations that often
underlie and complicate the task of
risk communication.

Point to Consider:

• People in the community are often
more concerned about such issues as
trust, credibility, competence,
control, voluntariness, fairness,
caring, and compassion than about
mortality statistics and the details of
quantitative risk assessment.

-------
Be honest, frank,
and open

In communicating risk information,
trust and credibility are your most
precious assets.

Guidelines: State your credentials;
but do not ask or expect to be trusted
by the public. If you do not know an
answer or are uncertain, say so. Get
back to people with answers. Admit
mistakes. Disclose risk information as
soon as possible (emphasizing any
reservations about reliability). Do not
minimize or exaggerate the level of
risk. Speculate only with great
caution. If in doubt, lean toward
sharing more information, not
less—or people may think you aire
hiding something. Discuss data
uncertainties, strengths and
weaknesses — including the ones
identified by other credible sources.
Identify worst-case estimates as such,
and cite ranges of risk estimates
when appropriate.

Point to Consider:

• Trust and credibility are difficult to
obtain. Once lost they are almost
impossible to regain completely.

Coordinate and
collaborate with other
credible sources

Allies can be effective in helping you
communicate risk information.

Guidelines: Take time to coordinate
all inter-organizational and
intra-organizational communications.
Devote effort and resources to the
slow, hard work of building bridges
with other organizations. Use
credible and authoritative

-------
intermediaries. Consult with others
to determine who is best abie to
answer questions about risk. Try to
issue communications jointly with
other trustworthy sources (for
example, credible university
scientists, physicians, or trusted local
officials).

Point to Consider:

•	Few things make risk
communication more difficult than
conflicts or public disagreements with
other credible sources.

Meet the needs of
the media

The media are a prime transmitter of
information on risks; they play a
critical role in setting agendas and in
determining outcomes.

Guidelines: Be open with and
accessible to reporters. Respect their
deadlines. Provide risk information
tailored to the needs of each type of
media (for example, graphics and
other visual aids for television).
Prepare in advance and provide
background material on complex risk
issues. Do not hesitate to follow up
on stories with praise or criticism, as
warranted. Try to establish long-term
relationships of trust with specific
editors and reporters.

Point to Consider:

•	The media are frequently more
interested in politics than in risk;
more interested in simplicity than in
complexity; more interested in
danger than in safety.

-------
Speak clearly and
with compassion

Technical language and jargon are
useful as professional shorthand. But
they are barriers to successful -
communication with the public.

Guidelines: Use simple,
non-technical language. Be sensitive
to local norms, such as speech and
dress. Use vivid, concrete images
that communicate on a personal
level. Use examples and anecdotes
that make technical risk data come
alive. Avoid distant, abstract,
unfeeling language about deaths,"
injuries, and illnesses. Acknowledge
and respond (both in words and with
actions) to emotions that people
express—anxiety, fear, anger,
outrage, helplessness. Acknowledge
and respond to the distinctions that
the public views as important in
evaluating risks, e.g., voluntariness,
controllability, familiarity, dread,
origin (natural or man-made),
benefits, fairness, and catastrophic
potential. Use risk comparisons to
help put risks in perspective; but
avoid comparisons that ignore
distinctions that people consider
important. Always try to include a
discussion of actions that are under ,
way or can be taken. Tell people
what you cannot do. Promise only
what you can do, and be sure to do
what you promise.

Points to Consider:

•	Regardless of how well you
communicate risk information, some
people will not be satisfied.

•	Never let your efforts to inform
people about risks prevent you from
acknowledging—and saying—that

-------
any illness, injury, or death is a
tragedy.

• If people are sufficiently motivated,
they are quite capable of
understanding complex risk
information, even if they may not
agree with you.

This pamphlet was drafted by Vincent T.
Covello and Frederick W. Allen, with the
assistance and review of numerous
colleagues in and out of government.
Covello is Director of the Center for Risk
Communication at Columbia University
and is currently President of the Society
for Risk Analysis (SRA). The views
expressed here do not necessarily
represent the views of Columbia
University or the SKA. Allen is Associate
Director of the Office of Policy Analysis
at the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The EPA has published this
pamphlet as a non-binding reference
document, recognizing that the manner
in which the guidance should be applied
will necessarily vary from case to case.
The authors invite your comments.

-------