Abstract
This case study examines the communication and management strategy of both Shell and the British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) during the proposed dumping of the redundant oil storage buoy, Brent Spar, in the North Sea in the spring of 1995, and its occupation by Greenpeace demonstrators. A technocratic form of risk management was used, with virtually no involvement of the public or special interest groups in the policy-making process. In addition, a top-down form of risk communication strategy was put in place rather than a dialogue form. It is an example of an unsuccessful technocratic approach. Both in the UK and elsewhere the public sided with Greenpeace against the DTI and Shell. These results, however, are not particularly surprising. Following a series of scandals running from salmonella in eggs to mad cow disease, the British public has little trust in government regulators or of industry as a whole.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Society (London: The Stationary Office, 2000).
From J.E.S. Hayward, ‘National aptitudes for planning in Britain, France and Italy’, Government and Opposition, 9:4 (1974), 397–410,
reprinted in G. Jordan and J. Richardson, ‘The British policy style or the logic of negotiation?’, in J. Richardson (ed.), Policy Studies in Western Europe (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982), 81.
R. Macrory, ‘The United Kingdom’, in G. Enyedi, J. Giswijt and B. Rhode (eds), Environmental Policies in East and West, (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997), 87,
quotation taken from John McCormick, ‘Environmental policy in Britain’, in U. Desai (ed.), Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialised Countries (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002), 124.
See, for example, House of Lords, Science and Society; RCEP, Setting Environmental Standards (London: The Stationary Office, 2000);
UK Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit Report, Risk: Improving Government’s Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty (London: Strategy Unit, The Cabinet Office, 2002).
For a great review on the history of UK environmental regulation please see David Vogel, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
E. Ashby and M. Anderson, The Politics of Clean Air (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981); Lord Asquith 1949, Edwards v. National Coal Board 1KB;1949. 1AII ER 743, p. 712 and p. 747, a case interpretation of S. 102 (8) of the Coal Mines Act 1911.
J. McCormick, British Politics and the Environment (London: Earthscan, 1991).
A.E. Dingle, The monster nuisance of all: landowners, Alkali manufacturers and air pollution 1858–1862’, Economic History Review, 35 (1982), 529–48.
Martin Weiner, English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850–1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
David Storey, ‘An economic appraisal of the legal and administrative aspects of water pollution control in England and Wales, 1970–1974’, in T. O’Riordan and Ralph C. D’Arge (eds), Progress in Resource Management, Vol. 1 (New York: Wiley, 1979), p. 263; quotation taken from Vogel, National Styles of Regulation, p. 89.
J. Hayward and R. Berki, State and Society in Contemporary Europe (Oxford: Robertson, 1979).
Timothy O’Riordan and Brian Wynne, ‘Regulating environmental risks: a comparative perspective’, in Paul Kleindorfer and Howard Kunreuther (eds), Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987).
For a recent example see Holly Welles and Kirsten Engel, ‘Siting solid waste fills: the permit process of California, Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands’, in Robert A. Kagan and Lee Axelrad (eds), Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Jim Skea, Acid Politics (London: Belhaven Press, 1991);
Sheila Jasanoff, Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986);
Sheila Jasanoff, ‘Cultural aspects of risk assessment in Britain and the United States’, in Branden B. Johnson and Vincent T. Covello (eds), The Social Construction of Risk (Leiden: D. Reidel, 1987), 359–97.
W.G. Carson, The Other Price of Britain’s Oil: Safety and Control in the North Sea (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1982).
Brian Wynne, The Hazardous Management of Risk — Comparative Institutional Perspectives (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1986).
Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity, 1990);
Barbara A. Misztal, Trust in Modern Societies (Cambridge: Polity, 1996),
Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Putnam, Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000);
Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
Ragnar Löfstedt, Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations and Practical Experiences with a Special Emphasis on Energy Systems (Stuttgart: Centre for Technology Assessment, 1997);
Philip Lowe and Stephen Ward, British Environmental Policy and Europe: Politics and Policy in Transition (London: Routledge, 1998).
House of Lords, Science and Society; House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Society: Evidence (London: The Stationery Office, 2000).
Cabinet Office, Open Government (London: HMSO, 1993).
R. Macrory, ‘Environmental Law: shifting discretions and the new formalism’, in O. Lomas (ed.), Frontiers of Environmental Law (London: Chancery Law, 1991).
H. Buller, ‘Reflections across the channel: Britain, France and the Europeanization of national environmental policy’, in P. Low and S. Ward (eds), British Environmental Policy and Europe (London: Routledge, 1998).
S. Jasanoff, ‘Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996’, Public Understanding of Science, 6 (1997), 221–32.
NERC, Scientific Group on Decommissioning Offshore Structures First Report (Swindon: NERC, 1996);
NERC, Scientific Group on Decommissioning Offshore Structures Second Report (Swindon: NERC 1998).
Rudall Blanchard Associates, Brent Spar Abandonment BPEO, prepared for Shell U.K. Exploration and Production (London: Shell, 1994);
Rudall Blanchard Associates, Brent Spar Abandonment Impact Hypothesis, prepared for Shell U.K. Exploration and Production Limited (London: Shell, 1994).
Eggar, quoted in C. Rose, The Turning of the Spar (London: Greenpeace, 1998).
Quotations taken from G. Jordan, ‘Indirect causes and effects in policy change: the Brent Spar case’, Public Administration, 76 (1998), 717.
NERC, 1996 Scientific Group on Decommissioning Offshore Structures,
NERC 1998 Scientific Group on Decommissioning Offshore Structures.
Derek Osborn, ‘Some reflections on UK environmental policy, 1970–1995’, Journal of Environmental Law, 9 (1997), 10.
De Ramsey 1995, cited in Ragnar E. Löfstedt and Tom Horlick-Joness, ‘Environmental regulation in the UK: politics, institutional change and public trust’, in George Cvetkovich and Ragnar E. Löfstedt (eds), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (London: Earthscan, 1999), 83.
Rose, The Turning of the Spar; T. Rice and P. Owen, Decommissioning the Brent Spar (London: Routledge, 1999).
It should be noted that Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have tried to discredit science, arguing that a broad range of deliberation is needed, so they too can participate in the risk management process J.S. Gray, ‘Statistics and the precautionary principle’. Marine Pollution Bulletin (1990) 21: 174–6; J.S. Gray and J. Brewers, ‘Towards scientific definition of the precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 1996 26: 768–71;
J.S. Gray, D. Calamari, R. Duce, J.E. Portmann, P.G. Wells and H.L. Windom, Marine Pollution Bulletin 1996 26: 768–71;
J.S. Gray, D. Calamari, R. Duce, J.E. Portmann, P.G. Wells and H.L. Windom, ‘Scientifically based strategies for marine environmental protection and management’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 1991, 22: 432–40.
For a discussion regarding the policy vacuum and risk communication please see Douglas Powell and William Leiss, Mad Cows and Mothers Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997).
Copyright information
© 2005 Ragnar E. Löfstedt
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Löfstedt, R.E. (2005). Risk Management in the UK: The Case of Brent Spar. In: Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503946_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503946_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52594-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-50394-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)