Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Soft modelling in risk communication and management: examples in handling food risk

  • Case-Oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Our aim in this paper is to explore the use of soft modelling in an integrated risk communication and management process for managing uncertainties and ‘scares’ in the public domain, particularly in the area of food risk and safety. Much has been written in the past 20 years on the issues relating to the management and communication of food risks and safety issues to the public. Most of this research has been based upon post hoc studies of what went wrong—or, occasionally, right. Here we survey those findings briefly, and draw these into a general framework for risk management and communication. By integrating these into a coherent common framework, we believe that public authorities, food producers and industry may develop more effective strategies for managing and communicating risks which, in turn, will enable the public to make more informed decisions on their diet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Harris P and O'Shaughnessy N (1997). BSE and marketing communications myopia: daisy and the death of the sacred cow. Risk, Decision Policy 2: 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord Phillips (2000). The Phillips Report on the BSE Crisis. HMSO: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (1998). Computer Simulation in Management Science, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S and Maule AJ (1999). Improving risk communication: scenario based workshops. In: Bennett PG and Calman KC (eds). Risk Communication and Public Health: Policy Science and Participation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S, Kelly GN and Morrey M (1992). Decision conferencing as a group interview technique in the international Chernobyl project. Insight 5: 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A and Wade-Benzoni K (eds). Environment, Ethics and Behaviour. New Lexington Press: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis 10: 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann H (1997). When you can't do it right: ethical dilemmas of informing people about risks. Risk, Policy and Decision 2: 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowitcz SO and Ravetz JR (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, and Golding D (eds). Social Theories of Risk. Praeger: Westport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis 15: 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health (1998). Communicating About Risks to Public Health: Pointers to Good Practice. HMSO: London.

  • Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (1998). Risk Communication: A Guide to Regulatory Practice. Health and Safety Executive: London.

  • Breakwell G (1997). Risk Communication: factors affecting impact. Br Med J 56: 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PG, Cole RA and McDonald A (1999). Risk Communication as a decision process. In: Bennett PG and Calman KC (eds). Risk Communication and Public Health: Policy, Science and Participation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossman KL and MArchant GE (2002). The precautionary principle and radiation protection. Risk: Health, Safety Environ 13: 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mythen G (2004). Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. Pluto Press: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic and Social Research Council (1999). The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust. Special Briefing Note. SPRU: University of Sussex.

  • Douglas M (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. Routledge: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (ed) (2004). Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health and Safety Executive (1998). Reducing Risks, Protecting People. Health and Safety Executive: London.

  • Renn O, Webler T and WIedermann P (eds) (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models and Environmental Discourse. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT (1983). The perception of technological risks: a literature review. Technological Forecasting Social Change 23: 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236: 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton D (1999). Key Ideas: Risk. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintyre S, Reilly J, Miller D and Eldridge J (1998). Food choice, food scares and health: the role of the media. In: Murcott A (ed). The Nation's Diet: the Social Science of Food Choice. Longman: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (1998). The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management. Risk, Decision Policy 3: 3–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford I, Marris C and O'Riordan T (1999). Public reactions to risk: social structures, images of science and the role of trust. In: Bennett PG and Calman KC (eds). Risk Communication and Public Health: Policy, Science and Participation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J and Slovic P (1995). Expert and public evaluations of technological risks: searching for common ground. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 10: 333–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE (1992). The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. In: Krimsky S and Golding S (eds). Social Theories of Risk. Praeger: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisk D (1999). Perception of risk—is the public probably right? In: Bennett PG and Calman KC (eds). Risk Communication and Public Health: Policy, Science and Participation. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox D and Darby S (eds) (2003). The communication of risk. J R Stat Soc 166: 203–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Academy of Engineering (1998). Note of a Seminar on Risk: a Scale for the Public and the Media. Royal Academy of Engineering, London.

  • Social Issues Research Centre (2000). Code of Practice on Science and Health Communication. Social Issues Research Centre: Oxford.

  • Bennett PG and Calman KC (eds) (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health: Policy Science and Participation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S and Rios Insua D (2000). Statistical Decision Theory. Kendall's Library of Statistics: Arnold, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S and Smith JQ (eds) (1997). The Practice of Bayesian Analysis. Arnold: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S (2002). Utility theory. In: El-Shaarawi AH and Piegorsch WW (eds). Encyclopaedia of Environmetrics. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, pp 2302–2309.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S (2003). Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity analysis. TOP 11(2): 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Chan K and Scott EM (eds) (2000). Sensitivity Analysis. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V and Stewart TJ (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Press: Boston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ten Have S, ten Have W, Stevens F and van der Elst M (2003). Key Management Models. FT Prentice-Hall: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield AJ and Hippel KW (2002). Risk and systems theory. Risk Analysis 22: 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford T and Cooke R (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD (1984). A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychologica 56: 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL and Raiffa H (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickards T (1999). Brainstorming. Encyclopaedia of Creativity. Academic Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells GE (1982). The use of decision analysis in Imperial Group. J Opl Res Soc 33: 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Maule AJ, Maule S, Mythen G, Shaw D, Schofield J and Wales C (2003). Understanding Stakeholder Concerns in relation to Communications on Food Safety: Summary Report. Manchester: Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to many colleagues for discussions. In particular, we thank Peter Bennett, Derek Burke, Neale Kelly, Jacques Lochard, Simon Maule, Christine Murphy, Nick Pidgeon, Ben Rich, Jim Smith, Pat Stewart and many participants at an RSS/RSC meeting on Food: Understanding and Explaining Risk held on March 20, 2002 at the Royal Statistical Society, London.

We have been funded in a number of projects relating to the work reported here by the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and the European Framework R&D programmes. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the organizations mentioned above nor those of Manchester and Leeds University Business Schools.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    S French

  2. Leeds University, Leeds, UK

    A J Maule

  3. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    G Mythen

Authors
  1. S French
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A J Maule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G Mythen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S French.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

French, S., Maule, A. & Mythen, G. Soft modelling in risk communication and management: examples in handling food risk. J Oper Res Soc 56, 879–888 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601901

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601901

Keywords

Search

Navigation