The rise of risk in 2020 – Lessons for risk communication in 2021
Risk is, by no means, something new. In fact, risk is inherent in every facet of life and this has been the case since time began. However, perhaps more than ever before, 2020 saw the rise of risk in our collective consciousness and this is likely to have a dramatic impact on the way risk is perceived and communicated as we move forward in 2021.
Taking stock of risk in 2020
In a single year, a global pandemic wreaked untold health, economic and social devastation. Trade tensions left the multilateral trading system in tatters, exposing governments as well as many exporters and importers to considerable uncertainty about their trading futures. Climate change asserted itself with a vengeance. In Australia alone, the year commenced with catastrophic bushfires along the east coast and ended with heavy rainfall and the real prospect of flooding in the north.
The materialisation of these risks is, arguably, unsurprising as none of them are unknown and, by some measures, they were relatively likely to occur. Public health experts, journalists and even Presidents have been warning about the likelihood of a global pandemic long before COVID-19 appeared (for example, in 2005, George W. Bush ominously warned that “If we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare” and put in place a National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza). Support for the multilateral trading system has been waning for some time, in line with declining public support for globalisation, dramatic shifts in geopolitical forces, and a growing emphasis on regionalism and nationalism rather than multilateralism. As for the risks associated with climate change, these have been documented at an international level by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for three decades and there is a high confidence that many impacts of climate change will likely occur in the foreseeable future and will become more frequent and severe with time.
Why then has the materialisation of these risks in 2020 been so shocking and seemingly unexpected – at least for the general public? The answer lies in part in how risk is perceived and this, in turn, is affected by how information about risk is communicated in practice.
What is risk?
Risk is generally understood to be a measure of the probability and associated consequences of an adverse event or outcome. It is a useful concept in practice because it can be used to modulate future actions and behaviour based upon what has happened in the past and, thereby, help to pre-empt risk before it materialises.
However, risk is, at least partly, a mental construct. Therefore, the way in which it is assessed (and consequently, responded to) is linked to how risk is perceived. The particular physical, political, cultural and social context within which risk has arisen will affect the way it is perceived. Consequently, the perception of risk is likely to differ – sometimes markedly – between countries, governments, businesses, communities and individuals based on these contextual factors.
How do we perceive risk?
Risk perception is complex and typically subject to inherent biases.
In the case of individuals, risk perception is likely to be shaped by a broad array of factors including socio-economic background, education, ethnicity, religion, gender, age and familiarity with or direct experience of risk. These factors often form the foundation of a person’s “world view”. The perception of risks by businesses is likely affected by commercial imperatives that could result in important risks to be discounted as well as experience (or inexperience) of risks when engaging in commercial activity in the past. At a government level, risk perception may be affected by factors including political ideology, the perspective of dominant, vested interests, and other competing priorities.
Ideally, alignment will exist between a government’s response to a particular risk and the perception of that risk by relevant stakeholders, including business, communities and individuals. However, misalignment – which can result from differences in perception of risk – can lead to distrust in government and in the government’s response to risk.
The impact of 2020 on our perception of risk
As previously noted, the dramatic risks that materialised in 2020 were not unknown. On the contrary, they are all relatively well-known and documented. Nevertheless, there are high levels of uncertainty and complexity associated with each of these risks which can make them difficult to understand and process in practical terms, particularly in the absence of direct experience of such risks.
The lived experience of major, existential risk in 2020 will, undoubtedly, affect the lens through which risk is assessed and perceived by all segments of society moving forward. The year has sensitised us all to the reality of what may have previously seemed remote and unlikely risks. This would suggest that, were there to be a repeat performance of 2020 (perish the thought!), we will all be better prepared to deal with risk – psychologically and, hopefully, also practically.
How will the events of 2020 affect risk communication?
The events of 2020 have highlighted the importance of risk communication as a means to raise awareness of existential risks that do, will or could have a dramatic impact on society.
Risk communication relates to the way risk assessments and risk management decisions are communicated. Risk communication between government and the public is particularly important. Communication about risks by experts, sectoral specialists, academics and journalists also has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the perception of risk among all segments of society is aligned with the latest available facts, information and analyses.
As a concept, risk communication may seem straightforward. However, misperception of risk can be hard to shift, particularly when it is hard-wired to a person or entity’s world view. In fact, the specific form and content of communication may need to be carefully crafted based upon the context in which the communication occurs, including the political context, dominant values and perspectives among stakeholders, and the status of pre-existing trust relationships between the various actors involved. Risk communication should ideally focus on providing relevant, meaningful and accurate information, in clear and understandable terms, and in a manner that is accessible.
Some key issues for consideration in deciding what and how to communicate about risk include:
Uncertainty: The manner in which uncertainty is explained – including the practical implications of such uncertainty for relevant stakeholders – may have a significant impact on behavioural response to risk.
Engagement: A simple one-way transfer of information is unlikely to shift risk perceptions so risk communication may need to be combined with an engagement strategy to interact with stakeholders so that societal concerns and existing (mis)perceptions of risk can be identified and addressed.
Mode: The mode of communication will affect the extent of dissemination of information about risk. Different modes may need to be employed and the content of messaging within each mode may need to differ depending upon the likely audience for each mode.
What can we expect in 2021?
The rise of risk in 2020 will likely affect discourse around risk in 2021 and beyond in a broad range of contexts – in the home, in the workplace, in the context of commercial operations, and in relation to the business of government. Stakeholders will probably expect more information about risks, including what the key risks are, how they are proposed to be handled, and the assessment underlying any proposed response. This is a positive development. As a society, we cannot afford to be ignorant nor apathetic about risk – particularly existential risks of the kind that dominated 2020. Enhanced communication about risk will raise awareness, help to build trust, and improve preparedness for risks if and when they arise.
References
Maxmen, A. (2021) Why did the world's pandemic warning system fail when COVID hit?
US National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza: Implementation Plan (2006)
Warner, D. (2020) The World Trade Organization and the demise of multilateralism
Dadush, U., Wolff, G. B. and Bruegel (2019) Life after the multilateral trading system
Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change