Policy Analysis Chemical Industry’s Community Advisory Panels: What Has Been Their Impact? FRANCES M. LYNN* AND GEORGE BUSENBERG Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7400 NEVIN COHEN 534 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10036 CARON CHESS Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
The American chemical industry is sponsoring over 300 community advisory panels (CAPs) at plants across the country to repair lost trust and credibility. CAPs are an innovation in community-corporate relations and are increasingly being adopted by other industrial sectors. This paper reports on a national survey of CAP community members and the company representatives that collaborate with them. The survey suggests that CAPs alert companies to community concerns and promote trust between members and sponsoring companies. CAPs are less effective in stimulating changes in environmental performance and, like many citizen advisory groups, have difficulties serving as systematic links back to the community. While business and industry organizations are well represented on CAPs, environmental and community organizations are not and neither are medical or other health or safety professionals. Significantly, these latter groups are most likely to feel that one of a CAP’s main functions is to influence a plant’s health, safety, and environmental performance. A CAP is perceived to be more effective by members when it has a significant commitment by the plant manager, a professional facilitator, and a diverse membership. A majority of community members, but not of company representatives, feel that access to independent technical experts and members with technical background contribute to a CAP’s effectiveness. While new to corporations, CAPs raise many of the same issues as governmental citizen advisory committees, including representativeness, intentions of the institution being advised, and availability of independent technical expertise so that participation is fair and competent.
Introduction In the early l990s, the Chemical Manufacturer’s Association (CMA) launched an innovative public involvement program in response to low public approval ratings. CMA asked its * Corresponding author phone: (919)966-3335; fax: (919)966-9920; e-mail:
[email protected]. 10.1021/es9906599 CCC: $19.00 Published on Web 02/24/2000
2000 American Chemical Society
members voluntarily to establish Community Advisory Panels (CAPs) at facilities. By l999, more than 300 panels had formed in the United States. In 1996, the American Society of Association Executives selected the CMA’s CAP program for its Advance America Honor Roll, as a “perfect example of how associations play a vital role in helping the nation adapt to complex and changing times” (1). Environmentalists are less enthusiastic about the program. One environmental leader contends that CAPs typically “serve as focus groups for corporations ...(which)... give the corporation a sense of a community concern’s about the plant without empowering the committee to participate in relevant decisions” (2). Instead, some environmentalists support an alternate model for corporate-community collaboration, the Good Neighbor Agreement, which usually gives the community a more formal, and often legally mandated, role in reviewing environmental information and overseeing a facility’s environmental performance and economic viability (2). Although CAPs are new to the chemical industry, citizen advisory committees (CACs) are a long-standing and widelyused public participation method. Evaluations of government-sponsored community CACs suggest that, while some have major impacts on decisions, others serve mainly as vehicles for agency-sponsored education or solely to fulfill a legal mandate (3, 4). Factors that seem to explain why some CACs are more influential than others include the following: a well-defined charge or mandate, the clear support of senior decision-makers, adequate resources, diverse representation, access to independent expertise, neutral facilitation, and a specified and mutually determined decision-making process (4). Neither the internal operations of CAPs nor their impact on the chemical industry have been studied extensively. With the exception of anecdotal literature and a CMA-sponsored, nonrandom telephone survey of CAP members (5), almost no empirical data exist. This paper is based on a national survey of 473 CAP members and 146 company officials representing 62 CAPs. The purpose of the survey was to examine CAPs’ goals, activities, and impacts and to determine how factors such as membership, decision-making procedures, and a sponsoring company’s role affect CAPs’ operations and accomplishments. The survey builds on the research team’s prior case studies of two nationally recognized CAPS. An overview of what was learned from these two case studies follows.
Two Exemplary CAPs: Lessons Learned We studied companies with track records of responding to CAP’s concerns about environmental issues: the Vulcan Chemical Company’s Community Involvement Group (CIG) in Wichita, KS, and the Shell Oil CAP in Martinez, CA (6, 7). The Vulcan CIG was formed in 1988 in response to community protests over the company’s proposal to construct an onsite hazardous waste incinerator. Shortly after the formation of the CIG, Vulcan dropped its plans to construct the incinerator. Since then, CIG members have convinced Vulcan to stop using deep well injection of hazardous waste and instead to construct a plant that converted the waste to a salt for de-icing. CIG members have also scrutinized the company’s Toxic Release Inventory data for accuracy and clarity. During this time, Vulcan received an award from Renew America, a national group that tracks corporate environmental activity, for its pollution prevention efforts. A former Vulcan plant manager credited the CIG saying that it “helped VOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1881
the company to form its strategy on environmental plans and then helped us to reach good decisions” (6). As with the Vulcan CIG, the formation of the Shell CAP was preceded by controversy, and the group has since helped the company make progress on environmental issues. For instance, members persuaded the company to hold a “report card” meeting at which (a) the regulatory agencies reported how Shell had performed, (b) the company discussed positive actions it had taken, and (c) the public had an opportunity to ask questions and make recommendations about future permits. In addition, CAP members convinced the company to hold public meetings to discuss the company’s plans for a significant facility expansion. CAP members have also reviewed company presentations and brochures. Members of Shell CAP point to a range of factors important for their CAP’s effectiveness, including the following: (a) a focus on problem solving (b) technical expertise among members (c) funding of independent consultants (d) a facilitator (e) data sharing by the corporation (f) support of top management (g) the ability to address conflicts Members of the Vulcan CIG suggest that external factors motivated the company to take them seriously, including the following: (a) negative publicity the companies had been receiving (b) pressure from local environmental groups (c) encouragement from regulators Three issues that Shell CAP members found challenging were as follows: (a) maintaining member interest (b) improving communication between the CAP and the community (c) enhancing communication about the CAP within the company Our survey of 62 other CAPs, analyzed in the remainder of this paper, suggests that the Vulcan and Shell groups have been more effective than most CAPS in having an impact on plant operations. However, prior to reporting our survey’s main findings, we briefly describe our methodology. Methodology. It is CMA policy not to make lists of CAPs publicly available. We therefore used a network of CAP facilitators to obtain our sample. We employed a snowball sampling technique (contacting one facilitator and then asking for the names of others) and assembled a list of close to 40 facilitators, some of whom worked with more than one CAP. We recognize that the unavailability of a complete list of CAPs limits our ability to generalize our findings to all CAPs. We are also aware that our findings represent the subjective evaluations of CAP members and do not address how the larger community evaluates a CAP’s success or whether its opinion of the company has changed. However, our study provides one of the few independent and empirical examinations of CAPs and our survey results, as well as our more detailed cases, should be useful to companies, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and participants in local CAPs. To gather our data, we requested that facilitators ask CAPs if they would complete an anonymous, 15-min survey. If CAP members agreed, facilitators had two distribution options: (a) providing a list of members for us to mail directly or (b) distributing the survey themselves. We obtained a response rate of 68% from the mailed surveys (N ) 387), which included two followups, and a response rate of 33% (N ) 232) from surveys distributed at CAP meetings where followups were not an option. Data analysis revealed no response bias between the two distribution methods. We used two nearly identical surveys for community and company representatives. An initial draft of each survey was 1882
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000
reviewed by facilitators, CMA staff, and staff from corporations and environmental groups knowledgeable about CAPs. A second draft of the survey was pretested with a North Carolina CAP. Both the community members and company representative survey asked respondents to (a) identify the main goals of their CAP, (b) report how often their CAP is involved in specified activities, (c) rate how effective they feel their CAP is in these activities, (d) select and rate factors they feel make a CAP successful, (e) evaluate the role of their facilitator and outside experts, and (f) describe how their CAP sets its agenda and makes decisions. In addition, community members evaluated their sponsoring company on areas ranging from responsiveness to member concerns to the provision of adequate support for CAP operations. Finally, all respondents provided background information including age, gender, ethnicity, education, political views, the group they represent, and in the case of company representatives, the job held in the corporation. Facilitators also completed a fact sheet on each of their CAPs that asked for a CAP’s age, location, company advised, member selection processes, and policies about attendance for non-CAP members. The remainder of this paper analyzes areas in which members feel their CAP is most effective, factors members associate with effectiveness, community members’ views of sponsoring companies, advice members would give to a newly forming CAP, and impact of member’s backgrounds on their views about CAPs. Areas of Effectiveness. The CMA’s Community Advisory Panel Handbook describes a CAP as a “forum for open and honest dialogue between citizens and plant management ...(that)... provides the opportunity for building mutual respect and trust” (8). Our survey suggests that CAPs are indeed a place where community members and company representatives built trust and respect. For instance, 86% of the CAP members and 92% of the company representatives view their CAP as effective or very effective in building trust between the CAP and the company (Figure 1). Similarly, 84% of members and 90% of company representatives feel that their CAP is effective or very effective in establishing communication between itself and the company. In addition, 77% of CAP members feel that their CAP is effective or very effective in making the company aware of community concerns (Figure 1). The CMA also suggests that “panel members can work with facility management to make meaningful changes in the way the plant communicates with the community” (8). However, smaller percentages of the sample (60% of members and 51% of company representatives) feel that their CAP is doing an effective or very effective job in “identifying ways for the company to improve communication with the community”. In a finding that is similar for governmentally sponsored CACs (4), even smaller proportions, 43% of members and 46% of company representatives, feel that CAP members are effective or very effective in communicating about the company to the larger community (Figure 1). Part of this latter finding might be due to the fact, as we found in our Shell case study, that CAP members do not feel comfortable being perceived as a public relations vehicle for the company (7). However, this lack of communication with those outside the CAP may also reflect unrealistic expectations of CAP members’ time and resources for systematically disseminating information to the community at large. To remedy this situation, a number of companies now produce community newsletters or help organize community gatherings or workshops for their CAPS. While the CMA has advocated CAPs as a means of addressing public criticism about the chemical industry’s
FIGURE 1. Evaluation of CAP’s effectiveness by community members and company representatives. environmental performance, environmentalists feel that “while plenty of environmental concerns are discussed, there are few actual improvements, such as pollution prevention or waste reduction” (9). Indeed among survey respondents, only 43% of the members and 27% of company representatives feel that their CAP was effective or very effective in influencing a plant’s health, environmental or safety performance (Figure 1). An even smaller percentage, 26% of members and 20% of company representatives, consider their CAP effective or very effective on providing feedback on proposed changes to the plan (Figure 1) or in evaluating alternatives for reducing pollution from plants (33% for community members and 12% for company representatives). Role of Goals and Membership in Influencing CAP Activities and Effectiveness. When one looks for reasons why CAPs are perceived as more effective in building trust and increasing communications with their sponsoring companies and less effective in having an impact on health safety and environmental conditions, two interrelated factors emerge. One is member and company representative perceptions of their CAP’s main goals, and the second is the types of groups represented on CAPs. With regard to CAPs main goals, close to 90% of members selected “helping the plant improve understanding of community concerns” and “identifying ways for the company to improve communication with the community” as among the main goals of their CAPs (Table 1). By contrast, only 57% of community members and 44% of company representatives selected “making suggestions about how a plant could improve health safety and environmental performance” as one of their CAP’s main goals. In fact, when asked to select the three most important goals of their CAP from the eight listed in Table 1, only 20% of community members and less than 8% of company representatives chose making suggestions about improving health and safety or environmental performance. There were exceptions to this latter finding. Forty-two percent of medical professionals and 30% community and environmental activists selected influencing health, safety, and environmental conditions as one of their top three goals. Significantly, these groups are among those less likely to be represented in a CAP’s membership. To wit, while almost all CAPs (93%) in our sample reported that they had representatives from business; less than half of all CAPs reported they had representatives from environmental groups, community activists, or medical professionals in their ranks (Figure 2). Only 18% of members representing business
TABLE 1. Main Goals of CAPS % selecting as a main CAP goal goal help plant improve understanding of community concerns identify ways for company to improve communications with community convey info from company to community make sure plant responds to community concerns learn how the plant works make suggestions about how plant could improve health, safety or environmental performance provide feedback on proposed changes to plants before changes are implemented make suggestions about economic relationships between the company and the community
community company members reps 87
92
87
90
82
82
70
78
65 57
67 44
42
51
41
37
ranked improving health, safety, and environmental performance as one of their top three goals. CAP members themselves seem aware of the issue of diversity as only 57% of members and 45% of company representatives feel that their CAP is effective or very effective in representing the diversity of community viewpoints (Figure 1). In addition, 65% of community representatives and 61% of company representatives felt that it was important or very important to have members on the CAP that are community or environmental activists (Figure 3). Activities Associated with Effectiveness. We were interested in the how CAPs’ activities and internal operating procedures influenced perceptions of effectiveness. We constructed a list of activities in which CAPs engage, drawn from our case studies of Vulcan and Shell, and from the shorter cases described in CMA’s Community Advisory Panel Handbook (8). We not only queried members as to whether they engaged in an activity but also asked how frequently they engaged in that activity. We found considerable consistency in the types of activities in which CAPs engage. For example, over 95% of our respondents report that their CAP heard presentations by plant managers, listened to talks by company staff about VOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1883
FIGURE 2. Groups represented on CAPs.
FIGURE 3. Factors important for a CAP’s success. environmental issues, discussed both emissions data and emergency response procedures, and considered “how to improve their CAP”. Over 75% reported that their CAP took questions from members of the public, discussed the economic impact of the company on the community, commented on proposed changes in plant operations, and participated in their company’s community outreach activities. Sixty-two percent responded that their CAP advised the company on its publications, 60% reported conducting community surveys, and just over half (56%) reported listening to presentations by independent scientists. However, we found variations in the amount of time a CAP devoted to an activity. Not surprisingly, the more often a CAP engaged in an activity, the more likely a member was to feel that the CAP was effective in performing that activity. For instance, we found that CAPs that engage more frequently with the public, including taking questions from community members at CAP meetings or holding community workshops, are perceived to be more effective in communicating about the company to the community and in making the company more responsive to community concerns. Similarly, CAPs in which members play a more active role in suggesting agenda items are more likely to feel effective in making the company 1884
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000
aware of community concerns than those CAPs in which members contribute less frequently. In addition, we found that members who indicated their CAPs more frequently discuss emissions data are more likely to feel that their CAPS are effective in influencing the environmental performance of the plant. For example, 43% of member respondents whose CAP discusses emissions data four times a year or more feel that their CAP is effective or very effective in evaluating alternatives for reducing pollution (Table 2). By contrast, only 16% of members who said that their CAPs never discuss emission data rated their CAP completely effective or very effective in evaluating alternatives for reducing pollution (Table 2). Advice to a Company Starting a CAP. We asked our respondents what advice they would give to a company wanting to start a CAP. Majorities of both members and representatives feel that factors that are key to a CAP’s success include a significant commitment on the part of the plant manager, use of a professional facilitator, adoption of ground rules or bylaws, and members who are community or environmental activists (Figure 3). There was less consensus on the need for independent technical experts or members with a technical background.
TABLE 2. Impact of Frequency of Discussion of Emission Data on CAP’s Ability To Evaluate Alternatives for Reducing Pollutiona effectiveness in evaluating alternatives for reducing pollution (%) frequency of discussion of emissions data
completely ineffective/not very effective
somewhat effective
effective/very effective
58 54 30 23
26 29 33 34
16 16 36 43
never (n ) 18) once a year or less often (n ) 89) 2-3 times per year (n ) 199) 4 or more times per year (n ) 126) a
p < 0.001.
TABLE 3. CAP Members’ Evaluation of Sponsoring Company CAP members’ evaluation of company (n ) 473) (%) statements about sponsoring company company is committed and provides adequate support company does a good job of explaining technical information to CAP people who represent the company at CAP meetings are in a position to make changes the CAP recommends company responds to concerns voiced by CAP I trust the information the company provides company tells CAP everything it needs to know company does good job of informing CAP about proposed changes in plant operations before they are made company is pressured by activists in community to improve environmental performance there are some important issues which do not get discussed in CAP
In fact, community members were almost twice as likely (58% vs 32%) as company representatives to feel that it was important or very important that their CAP have access to independent technical expertise (Figure 3). Similarly, community members are more likely than company representatives (52% vs 38%) to feel that members with technical backgrounds are important or very important for a CAPs’ success (Figure 3). Views of Sponsoring Companies. We asked members to evaluate their sponsoring company, and on most items the companies received high ratings. For example, over 90% of the CAP community representatives agreed or strongly agreed that their sponsoring company provided them with adequate support (Table 3). Over 75% of members felt that the people who represented the company were in a position to make changes the CAP recommended and agreed or strongly agreed that the company was responsive to CAP concerns (Table 3). Seventy-six percent of members agreed or strongly agreed that they trusted the information that the company provided. However, a lower percentage (61%) felt that the company told the CAP everything the CAP needed to know and that the company did a good job of informing the CAP about proposed changes in plant operations before they were made (60%) (Table 3). How CAP Members’ Backgrounds Influence Attitudes. We asked respondents about their organizational affiliation, age, gender, ethnicity, and education. We found little or no difference in attitudes and beliefs between males and females or among different age groups. Political self-identification (conservative, moderate, or liberal) did not make a significant difference in how members evaluate their CAP’s effectiveness or view their sponsoring company. However, political identification did make a difference in how company representatives evaluated their CAP’s ability to understand technical information and to influence the health, environmental, or safety performance of the plant. Company
strongly disagree/disagree
somewhat disagree
somewhat agree
agree/strongly agree
1
1
9 12
91 86
1
3
13
83
1 2 4 6
3 2 5 6
18 20 29 28
78 76 61 60
37
16
25
22
60
22
16
12
representatives who self-identified as conservatives were less likely to believe that their CAP was effective in understanding technical information and influencing economic relationships than moderates. Organizational affiliation influenced members’ attitudes toward the company and CAP’s performance. For instance, while 75% of members who represent business interests agree or strongly agree that the company tells the CAP everything it needs to know, only 43% respondents affiliated with environmental and citizen groups do. Similarly, while 60% of business representatives agree or strongly agree that the company does a good job at informing the CAP about changes in the plant before they happen, only 40% of environmental and citizen groups concur. Citizen and environmental groups are also less likely than other groups to feel that their CAP is effective in understanding technical information and the risks associated with the plant. For example, while 75% business representatives feel that their CAP is effective or very effective in understanding the risks associated with plant operations, only 49% of environmental and citizen groups believe that to be the case. Interestingly, company representatives concur with the environmentalistssonly 39% of company representatives feel that CAP members are effective or very effective in understanding the technical information the company presents. An intriguing finding is that 51% of CAP members with high school or less education perceive their CAP to be effective or very effective at influencing the health, environmental, or safety performance of the plant as compared with 29% of those with a college degree.
Discussion Our survey suggests that both the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), who gave the CMA an award for the CAP program, and environmentalists, who question CAPs impacts, are both correct. CAPs enhance communicaVOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
1885
tion and build trust between community members and company representatives. They help a company anticipate issues that could generate community concern. CAPs are not perceived by members as successful in serving as systematic links back to the community or in influencing a plant’s environmental operations. Our study suggests, however, that CAPs that engage more frequently with the public such as taking questions from community members or holding community workshops feel more effective in communicating about the company to the community. Similarly, CAPs that more frequently discuss environmental issues such as toxic emissions data and pollution prevention options are more likely to feel effective in influencing a plant’s environmental performance. The issue of representativeness and diversity is critical to any discussion of citizen participation. Our data suggest that, while most CAPs have representatives from local businesses and fenceline neighbors, environmental and citizen activists, medical professionals, and public safety officers are less likely to be represented. These latter groups are more likely to want a CAP to focus on improving a plant’s environmental performance and to address issues such as pollution prevention. We understand that inviting environmental and community activists to join a CAP does not come naturally to a corporation. We also know that even when companies do invite activists they are not always eager to join, particularly if they feel that a CAP has “no decision-making authority and lacks the resources to bring in outside advisors or to technically analyze information provided by the company” (9). We are concerned, however, that without a more diverse membership CAPs may continue to focus primarily on communication rather than substantive problem-solving and that, because of this focus, interest among members and the company may wane, potentially causing CAPs to atrophy. In recent years, the use of community advisory groups has expanded beyond the chemical industry. In some instances, the Federal government and states are offering industry regulatory flexibility in exchange for, among other things, company sponsorship of stakeholder involvement processes (11). Often this is an advisory body similar to a CAP. Our study of CAPs suggests for such bodies to be effective they must include environmental and community activists and health and safety professionals so that substantive issues are addressed. In addition, for the activists and other community members to be effective, they must have adequate resources, including access to independent expertise. As seen in the case of the Vulcan CIG and the Shell CAP, citizens can alert companies not only to community concerns
1886
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 34, NO. 10, 2000
but also to alternative technologies. In fact, a recent 2-year collaboration between Dow Chemical, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and five community activists and environmentalists (which relied heavily on independent technical expertise) reduced nearly 7 million pounds of wastes and emissions at Dow’s Midland plant. Dow is also saving over 5 million dollars annually (12).
Acknowledgments This project was funded by a grant from the Hazardous Substances Management Research Center, an Advanced Technology Center of the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology grant and a National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research grant.
Literature Cited (1) Chemical Manufacturer’s Association. Responsible CAER Newsletter; 1991, August. (2) Lewis, S. The Good Neighbor Handbook: A Community Based Strategy for Sustainable Industry; The Good Neighbor Project: Acton, MA, 1992; pp 2-50. (3) Lynn, F. M.; Kartez, J. D. The Redemption of Citizen Advisory Committee: A Perspective from Critical Theory. In Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation; Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedermann, P., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995. (4) Lynn, F.; Busenberg, G. Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know What’s Left to Discover. Risk Anal. 1995, 13 (2). (5) Wirtlin Group. A Nationwide Survey of Community Advisory Panel Members; Chemical Manufacturers Association: McLean, VA, 1992. (6) Cohen, N.; Chess, C.; Lynn, F.; Busenberg, G. Fostering Environmental Progress: Case Study of Vulcan Chemical’s Community Involvement Group; Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ, 1995. (7) Cohen, N.; Chess, C.; Lynn, F.; Busenberg, G. Improving Dialogue: A Case Study of the Community Advisory Panel of Shell Oil Company’s Martinez Manufacturing Complex; Center for Environmental Communication: New Brunswick, NJ, 1995. (8) Chemical Manufacturer’s Association. Community Advisory Panel Handbook; CMA: Arlington, VA, 1994. (9) Baker, B. Environ. Action l995, Fall. (10) Trust Us, Don’t Track Us; U.S. PIRG: Washington, DC, 1998. (11) U.S. EPA. Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers, Communities and Regulators; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, 1999. (12) Natural Resources Defense Council; Dow Chemical Company; Citizens For Alternatives to Chemical Contamination; Ecology Center; Herbert, D.; Sinclair, M. Preventing Industrial Pollution at Its Source; Meridian Institute: Dillon, CO, 1999.
Received for review June 9, 1999. Revised manuscript received January 4, 2000. Accepted January 10, 2000. ES9906599
