Calcul Casing

Journal of Risk Research 8 (7–8), 679–691 (October–December 2005)

Greenpeace v. Shell: media exploitation and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF)
VIAN BAKIR* University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, Wales

Abstract
This paper examines the usefulness of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) in understanding the media’s role in risk communication. Since the SARF was created in 1988, it has been both further developed and critiqued for (amongst other things) its: static conception of communication; lack of attention towards how key actors use the media; lack of systematic attention towards the media as an amplification station; and simplistic assumptions of how the media operate as an amplification station. A complex heavilymediated risk communication case study—the battle between Greenpeace and Shell over the deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar oil rig (1995)—is used to explore whether the SARF in its current stage of development stands up to these critiques. It is concluded that these critiques are more a consequence of how researchers have used the SARF rather than a fault of the SARF itself. Using the SARF framework with a qualitative case study methodology enabled systematic analysis of the role of relevant media in the social amplification of risk in the Spar issue, exposing how Greenpeace used the media to successfully communicate three risk signals, together with the inadequacies of Shell’s reactions; and revealing the layering within amplification stations, including the media itself.
KEY WORDS :

Social Amplification of Risk Framework, risk signals, Greenpeace, Shell, news media

Introduction
This paper examines the usefulness of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) in understanding the media’s role in risk communication. The SARF aims to examine contextually how risk and risk events interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that amplify or attenuate risk perceptions and

References: Bate, R. (1999) The Environment: Greenpeace Provides No Public Benefit, Economic Affairs 19(4), 52. Bourdieu, P. (1998) On Television and Journalism, London: P1uto. Burns, W. J. (1990) Introducing Structural Models and Influence Diagrams into Risk Perception Research: Their Value for Theory Construction and Decision-Making, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Decision Sciences, University of Oregon. Burns, W. J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., Renn, O. and Emani, S. (1993) Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: implications for theory construction and decision making, Risk Analysis 13(6), 661–623. Cracknell, J. (1993) Issue arenas, pressure groups and environmental agendas, in A. Hansen (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues, pp. 3–20. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Dale, S. (1996) McLuhan’s Children: the Greenpeace Message and the Media, Toronto: Between the Lines. Dickson, L. (1996) Shell, the Brent Spar and Greenpeace: a Doomed Tryst? Environmental Politics 5(1), 122–129. Eldridge, J. and Reilly, J. (2003) Risk and relativity: BSE and the British media, in N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 138–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Financial Times (1995a) UK Under Fire On Oil Platform Disposal, Financial Times, 9 June 1995. Financial Times (1995b) Brent Spar Dents Oil Giant’s Pride Rather Than Its Profit, Financial Times, 20 June 1995. Financial Times (1995c) Company struggles to accept disaster, Financial Times, 21 June 1995. Gee, D. (1996) Role of the EEA and the Media in Shaping Perceptions. Reporting the Environment Conference, Centre for Journalism Studies, University of Wales, Cardiff, 19–21 May 1996. Greenpeace (1995) No Grounds for Dumping: the Decommissioning and Abandonment of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms, Greenpeace. Guardian Education (1997) The Guardian, 11 February 1997. Hansen, A. (1991) The media and the social construction of the environment, Media, Culture and Society 13, 443–458. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O. and Slovic, P. (1988) Social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework, Risk Analysis 8, 177–187. Kasperson, R. E. and Kasperson, J. X. (1991) Hidden hazards, in D. C. Mayo and R. Hollander (eds) Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, pp. 9–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasperson, R. E. (1992) The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework, in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 153–178. Westport, CT: Praeger. Greenpeace v. Shell 691 Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D. and Tuler, P. (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks, Journal of Social Issues 48, 161–187. Kasperson, R. and Kasperson, J. (1996) The social amplification and attenuation of risk, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 545, 95–105. Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N. and Slovic, P. (2003) The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory, in N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 13–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knight, P. (1998) Profits and Principles—Does There Have to be a Choice? The Shell Report, Shell International Limited. Layder, D. (1998) Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research, London: Sage. Lofstedt, R. E. and Renn, O. (1997) The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication ¨ gone wrong, Risk Analysis 17(2), 131–135. Murdock, G., Petts, J. and Horlick-Jones, T. (2003) After amplification: rethinking the role of the media in risk communication, in N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 156–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neale, A. (1997) Organisational learning in contested environments, lessons from the Brent Spar, Business Strategy and the Environment 6, 93–103. OSPAR Convention (1992) Annex III of the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution and Elimination of Pollution from Offshore Sources. Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: the Media and the Public. HSE Books. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. (2003) Introduction, in N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rayner, S. (1988) Muddling through metaphors to maturity: a commentary on Kasperson et al, ‘The Social Amplification of Risk’, Risk Analysis 8(2), 201–204. Regester, M. and Larkin, J. (1997) Risk Issues and Crisis Management: a Casebook of Best Practice, London: Kogan Page. Renn, O. (1991) Risk communication and the social amplification of risk, in R. E. Kasperson and PJ. M. Stallen (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, pp. 287–324. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Renn, O. (1992) Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public, Journal of Hazardous Materials 29, 465–519. Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. (1992) The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications, Journal of Social Issues 48, 137–160. Rip, A. (1988) Should Social Amplification of Risk be Counteracted? Risk Analysis 8(2), 193–197. Rose, C. (1998) The Turning of the Spar, London: Greenpeace. Rose, C. (1993) Beyond the Struggle for Proof: Factors Changing the Environmental Movement, Environmental Values 2, 285–298. Rudall Blanchard Associates (1994) Brent Spar Abandonment BPEO. Shell Exploration & Production. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Svenson, O. (1988) Mental models of risk, communication, and action: reflections on social amplification of risk, Risk Analysis 8(2), 199–200. The Battle for Brent Spar, BBC2, 3 August 1995. The Economist, 24 June 1995. Tsoukas, H. (1999) David and Goliath in The Risk Society: Making Sense of the Conflict Between Shell and Greenpeace in The North Sea, Organisation: Actor Network Theory and Managerialism 6(3), 499–528.