I like your recommended steps for EnCana to manage outrage about its three recent encounters with eco-terrorism. I agree that the company’s core task is to address people’s fears of a terrorist-induced sour gas explosion with openness and empathy, not just technical information. EnCana needs to validate the outrage.

Let me suggest an edgier strategy as well. I would advise EnCana to take some responsibility for these recent acts of eco-terrorism. Something like this: “We apologize to our Dawson Creek neighbors for provoking terrorism in their community. Obviously if we weren’t here, they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. And maybe if we had done a better job of building community relationships, they would find a less violent way to act out their concerns and convictions.”

The risk communication principle of the “seesaw” predicts that ambivalent people go to the side of their ambivalence that isn’t adequately expressed by others in their communication environment. I suspect many stakeholders are ambivalent about whether or not to blame EnCana for bringing terrorism to Dawson Creek. If EnCana were to start blaming itself a bit more, I would expect community people to get on the other side of the seesaw: “Those terrorists are not your fault! They’re way beyond the range of acceptable controversy! They should be caught and put in prison!”

–Peter Sandman
peter@psandman.com