Who ya gonna believe?

Companies' efforts to engage the Great British Public are often fraught with difficulty.  How much more challenging when the company is steeped in science that is daunting for much of the public, and impacts on daily lives in a largely unseen way?  And what happens when the issues up for debate are potentially momentous, while public trust in the corporate side of the argument is signally lacking? Here it is often the best course for companies to influence the debate through engaging other expert commentators.

Our approach to reputation measurement focuses on the relationship of a company or industry with its key stakeholders - which can include the general public, as well as expert opinion formers such as politicians, regulators, journalists, analysts, investors, academics and its own employees.  But of course it is not just the company's direct communications with its stakeholders that count - the interaction of these stakeholders with each other also contributes to the context within which the company or industry must operate. For science-based industries, where personal experience or "common sense" alone are not enough to understand the impacts and consequences of the industry's activities, stakeholders may rely on each other for the information in order to hold an opinion at all. The nature of the information (technical, scientific, hypothetical) means that certain types of stakeholder carry naturally greater credibility: scientists and doctors tending to lead the field. For any particular industry, it is possible to observe a hierarchy of information sources by credibility, and an implied priority for the attentions of communications professionals.

Occasionally, it is the pattern of this hierarchy that indicates some of the problems an industry faces. In 2000, our research for the chemical industry showed that environmental pressure groups were the most commonly trusted information source by the public on the issues of the safety of chemical products in the home and their effects on the environment. The chemical industry itself was the least trusted source of information. This was a clear call to action, since the environmental groups were effectively driving the issues agenda. It prompted the industry to re-examine its communications and to make use of the support from more credible sources such as academics and the media.

The nuclear energy industry is one also mired in highly technical, often quite esoteric (but nonetheless controversial) debates over the impacts and benefits of its activities, particularly now it has become enveloped in the arguments over fighting climate change. The nuclear industry, too, is dependent for its public reputation on the relative credibility of the different "expert" stakeholders. The debate over nuclear newbuild has truly become a battle of the messages, with each side channelling new "facts" through the media, hoping to influence a groundswell of opinion. Evidence of the ebb and flow of the debate, and the relative credibility of sources, can be seen in some public blogs and internet forums, where the arguments used by contributors reveal which messages, and sometimes which sources are getting through. For example, arguments from the environmental lobby about potential exhaustion of uranium reserves, about the percentage difference nuclear energy makes to carbon reduction and about the willingness of the public to reduce energy use are currently all being strongly refuted by people with engineering or technical expertise.

An illustration of how primary information sources on nuclear energy influence stakeholders who have decision-making power is in the House of Commons. Our research shows that MPs on each side of the House have differing views on the credibility of nuclear information sources. Labour MPs are more likely than Tories to trust Government scientists, for example, though it seems likely that Conservatives would still pay attention to their views, given their capability to modify Government policy, even if they do perhaps doubt their independence from the Government.  Nevertheless, Conservative MPs are more willing to believe academics or industry scientists on this issue.

In general terms, however, the hierarchy of the credibility of sources in relation to nuclear issues changes very slowly. Our research in 2007 showed that scientists in universities were most credible for the public, with Government ministers least credible (see chart below). This presents the industry with a significant issue; since scientists working for energy companies are much less likely to be believed by the public, the debate is effectively at the mercy of competing packs of like-minded academics, many of which are difficult to influence. It also makes the debate vulnerable to maverick views of prominent individuals such as those of James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. The Government's position is worst of all in the debate; it has become effectively a whipping boy for all sides, though this contrasts starkly with its actual ability to influence future events through regulation.

This highlights the need to consider all three aspects of a source's potential influence together: its reach (how many people get its message), its credibility (how likely people are to believe it) and also its power to effect change (its potential to influence events and get people to act on its messages).  Very few information sources by themselves can fulfil all these functions.  An academic who advises the Government is a case in point: Dr Dieter Helm of OXERA is treated by the media as a high credibility source of information and opinion, yet his only power to alter nuclear events is through the Government. Similarly, a newspaper has limited ability to influence events, despite its wide reach, because of its relatively low credibility.  Powerful communications often come from combining the strengths of different information sources: for example, a newspaper's credibility can be augmented by a partnership with authoritative information (e.g. a poll by Ipsos MORI!) and its persuasive power can be enhanced by a call to action from a respected authority figure.

The message to corporate communicators is clear; for science-based industries the public, and to some extent also MPs, are influenced by the views of "experts", and these experts are differentiated by credibility, by their reach and by their ability to influence events. It is important to consider the synergistic effects of interactions between stakeholders, and to plan strategies that exploit combinations of sources which bring different qualities to influence the debate.

For more information, please contact robert.knight@ipsos-mori.com.