Revista de comunicación política e institucional

No. 47 (2022): The changes the pandemic has brought to campaign communication.
Articles

Industry-community crisis prevention: mechanisms of local consensus and dissent

PDF (Español (España))
Arturo Fitz Herbert
Universidad Austral

Keywords

  • asuntos públicos,
  • crisis,
  • consenso,
  • disenso,
  • comunicación,
  • Monsanto,
  • industria,
  • relaciones con la comunidad
  • crisis,
  • Monsanto,
  • community relations,
  • industries,
  • dissent,
  • consensus,
  • public affairs,
  • communication

How to Cite

Fitz Herbert, A. (2022). Industry-community crisis prevention: mechanisms of local consensus and dissent. Más Poder Local, (47), 98-117. Retrieved from https://www.maspoderlocal.com/index.php/mpl/article/view/prevencion-crisis-industrias-comunidades-mpl47

Copyright (c) 2022 Of the author or authors

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Studies on crisis communication tend to focus on periods when the situation has already been defined as a crisis. But no matter how successful the communication strategies, crises between industries and their communities have the characteristic of being very difficult to solve once they have emerged. The question, therefore, has to shift towards crisis prevention: what mechanisms produce consensus towards an industry in a community? This article will compare two communities in Argentina that were linked to Monsanto: in Rojas, the company operated a seed storage plant for more than 20 years. In Malvinas Argentinas, an environmental movement prevented the construction of a similar plant. What intended and unintended actions explain why the same industry experiences rejection in one community and acceptance in another? The article proposes a series of mechanisms linked to communication and the functioning of industries that allow for greater consensus or management of dissent in communities.

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aldrich, D. (2008): Site Fights. Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West. Nueva York: Cornell University Press.
  2. Álvarez, R. N. (2012): La basura es lo más rico que hay. Relaciones políticas en el terreno de la basura. El caso de los quemeros y los emprendimientos sociales en el relleno Norte III de CEAMSE. Buenos Aires: Dunken.
  3. Auyero, J. y Swistun, D. A. (2008): Inflamable. Estudio del sufrimiento ambiental. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
  4. Bennett, A. y Checkel, J. T. (2015): «Process tracing: from philosofical roots to best practices». En: Process Tracing. From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-37.
  5. Boyd, A. (2015): «Examining Community Perceptions of Energy Systems Development: the Role of Communication and Sense of Place». Environmental Communication, 11(2): 184-204.
  6. Brady, H. E. y Collier, D. (2010): Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  7. Bunge, M. (1997): «Mechanism and explanation». Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(4):410-465.
  8. Dear, M. (1992): «Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome». Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3): 288-300.
  9. Driedger, S. M. (2008): «Creating shared realities through communication: exporing the agenda building role of the media and its sources in the E. Coli contamination of a Canadian public drinking water supply». Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2): 23-40.
  10. Elizalde, L. (2006): «La comunicación gubernamental: problemas y soluciones estratégicas». En La construcción del consenso. Gestión de la comunicación gubernamental. Buenos Aires: La Crujía.
  11. Elizalde, L. (2009): Gestión de la comunicación pública. Empresas, grupos e instituciones en el escenario público. Barcelona: Bosch.
  12. Elizalde, L. (2017): Manejando el disenso. Estrategias, tácticas y modelos de gestión. Buenos Aires: Parmenia.
  13. Gerring, J. (2001): Social Science Methodology. A Criterial Framework. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Jenkins Smith, H.C.; Silva, C. L.; Nowlin, M. C. y deLozier, G. (2010): «Reversing Nuclear Oppo-sition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility». Risk Analsys. An International Journal, 31(4): 629-644.
  15. McAdam, D. y Boudet, H. S. (2012): Putting Social Movemevents in their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000-2005. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Scherer, C. y Cho, H. (2003): «A social network contagion theory of risk perception». Risk Analysis, 23(2): 261-267.
  17. Sherman, D. J. (2011): Not Here, Not There, Not Anywhere. Politics, Social Movements, and the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Londres: RFF Press.
  18. Snow, D. A. y Benford, R. D. (1988): «Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization». International social movement research, 1(1): 197-217.
  19. Ury, W. (2000): Alcanzar la paz. Diez caminos para resolver los conflictos en la casa, el trabajo y el mundo. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
  20. Walsh, E. J.; Warland, R. y Clayton Smith, D. (1997): Don't Burn it Here. Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators. Pensilvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  21. Wagner, L. (2014): Conflictos socioambientales. La megaminería en Mendoza, 1884-2011. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
  22. Watzlawick, P.; Bavelas, J. B. y Jackson, D. D. (1981): Teoría de la comunicación humana: interacciones, patologías y paradojas. Onceava ed. Barcelona: Herder.
  23. Wright, R. A. y Boudet, H. S. (2012): «To Act or Not to Act: Context, Capability, and Community Response to Environmental Risk». American Journal of Sociology, 118(3): 728-777.