Document 2kBMbZ99ja9zQby5qED7m2Rp

Executive Summary During March 28 to April 8, 1989, the Center for Communication Dynamics conducted telephone interviews with 2,209 adults in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The 1989 survey replicated and expanded on a survey of 2,001 area residents conducted in November of 1986. Several major changes were found in public opinion: Overall Standing (1) A dramatic surge in environmental sensitivity has doubled concern about local air pollution and increased concern about local chemical plants. This has prompted new reservations about the plants among supporters who previously had none. (2) Monsanto's higher profile reached a new audience of people (about 12%) who have learned about Monsanto since 1986. These people are cautious and tentative toward the company. (3) A large decline occurred in people calling Monsanto "very good" for the area -- down 18% from 54% in 1986 to 36% in 1989. (4) Areawide, this big drop in the "very good" category has not been due to increases in those saying the plants are "bad" for the area. No change has occurred in the size of the small minority of 6% who believe the plants are "bad." Increases have come among those calling the plants "somewhat good" (up 14%) or who hold "mixed" or undecided views (up 5%). (5) Attitudes toward the plants are best predicted by people's assessments of Monsanto's environmental commitment and performance, the long-term health risks, the company's role as an employer, and its community contributions. Increased environmental sensitivity predicts increased pessimism about the long-term health risks from the plants, which, in turn, lowers support for the plants. DSW 135267 Canter for Communication Dynamics Page 1 STLCOPCB4035244 Changed Plant Standings Chesterfield and Headquarters: Since 1986, in the Chesterfield and Headquarters areas, there has been little net change in the percent who say the plants are "good," but there was a large shift (-20%) from "very good" to "somewhat good." WGK and Queeny: Public support for the WGK and Queeny plants has weakened more than elsewhere in the metro area -- with net losses of about 15% in those areas saying the plants are "good." Those calling these two plants "bad" increased by 9% in the Belleville and Queeny areas. Carondelet: The Carondelet plant, found to have some problems in the 1986 survey, experienced the least erosion (-6%) of any plant among those calling it "very good." Carondelet had virtually no change in those calling it "bad." Trends Among Subgroups The 1986-89 trends hit all age groups fairly evenly and were nearly identical for men and women. Two factors correlated with opinion trends were (1) knowing Monsanto workers and (2) length of residence in the area. Since 1986, losses in support were somewhat greater among residents who do not know any Monsanto employees. The number of years people have lived in the St. Louis area made a large difference in their reassessments of the company since 1986. "Very good" ratings have fallen nearly twice as much among newcomers (down 29%) as among long-time residents (down 16%). ~ Increased Awareness of Monsanto Two developments radically changed the context of the 1989 findings in contrast to 1986: (1) Monsanto's higher profile in St. Louis and (2) the surge in local environmental concern. - Areawide, awareness of Monsanto's presence has hit 95% -- up sharply from the 83% awareness found in 1986. - " ~ The WGK plant underwent the largest growth in public recognition. Awareness of WGK increased from 79% to 94% in East St. Louis, and from 70% to 89% in Belleville- DSW 135268 Center for Communication Dynamics Page 2 STLCOPCB4035245 Awareness of other facilities increased about 5% to 9%. Women caught up with men in awareness of Monsanto. Also, the less-educated made big gains (+24% awareness) to reduce the knowledge gap with high SES (socio-economic status) groups (+10%). Novices -- the 12% who learned about Monsanto between 1986 and 1989 -- are split evenly between giving tentative approval of the company as "somewhat good" and more indecisive positions. Because of the increased awareness, combined with the novices giving at least lukewarm support to Monsanto, there was an increase in the percent of the total public saying Monsanto is at least "somewhat good" for the area in 1989 over 1986 (based on the total sample, including unaware and aware). In 1989, 75% give Monsanto a "good" rating compared to 69% in 1986. (However, there are still fewer people in 1989 willing to call the plants "very good.") Increased Environmental Sensitivity Worry about the local environment increased dramatically between 1986 and 1989. The biggest change concerned local air pollution. The view that local air pollution is a "major problem" grew from a minority of 29% in 1986 to a majority of 53% in 1989. Those who dismiss local air pollution as "not a problem" declined from 17% to just 6%. In 1986, residents of the East St. Louis and Sauget areas were far more concerned about air pollution than were people living elsewhere. They remain the most concerned -- but, by 1989, the rest of the metro area has narrowed the gap. In the two areas where there had been the least concern -- the Chesterfield and World Headquarters areas -- the share of those saying there is a "major problem" more than doubled -- from less than 20% to more than 40%. The largest surges in concern about air pollution came in the Queeny area (up 33%) and in the Belleville area (up 30%). Center for Communication Dynamics OSW 135269 Page 3 STLCOPCB4035246 Monsanto's Environmental Concern Respondents were asked "how concerned" they thought Monsanto was regarding "the effect of their operations on the environment." Areawide results are very close to those found previously -- 37% say Monsanto is "very concerned" and 43% say "somewhat concerned." Now that many people are themselves "very concerned," it is probably not a positive sign for a company to be characterized as merely "somewhat concerned" by 43%. On the other hand, only 14% assert Monsanto is "not concerned." Plant neighborhoods are more critical. The view of Monsanto as "very concerned" declined in all plant neighborhoods, except in the Carondelet area. The harsh judgment that Monsanto is "not concerned" increased in all plant areas, especially in Queeny -- 23% (up 10% from 13% in 1986) -- and in East St. Louis -- 24% (up 8% from 16% in 1986). Overall ratings of Monsanto (as good or bad for the area) correlate strongly with ratings of Monsanto's environmental concern. Long-Term Health Risks Concern has increased about the extent to which the plants may "endanger" the "long-term health" of residents. Again, the metropolitan totals do not reflect as much change or concern as is found in the areas near the plants. All areas now have fewer people who confidently say there is no risk "at all." The "no risk at all" group shrank most at - Queeny, falling 21% from 48% to 27%. Even for Chesterfield, rated least risky, the "no risk" group fell from 59% to 42%. Even residents of the suburban area near the World Headquarters show increased. concern. When asked if the -- Monsanto plants in the area endanger their long-term health, a majority say at least slightly (47%) or seriously (10%). Only 31% say "not at all." DSW 135270 Center for Communication Dynamics Page 4 STLCOPCB4035247 The Impact of Greenpeace Larger environmental trends rather than Greenpeace account for most of the heightened concerns. Only 26% recall that a group recently criticized Monsanto, and only 11% of all area adults recall that the group was Greenpeace. (Around Queeny, 19% recall the name.) Of the 26% who say they recall that some group recently criticized Monsanto, half say they tend to agree with the critics. Community Contributions Monsanto's reputation for doing "extra things" for the community has not changed very much. Monsanto's ratings in St. Louis are still the highest CCD has ever found for any company in any city. Seven out of ten people areawide say that Monsanto "often" or "sometimes" does extra things. Only 12% deny that Monsanto does much to help besides providing jobs. Most plant areas showed increases in those saying Monsanto at least sometimes does extra things for the community -- up 10% in Carondelet and up 12% in Queeny, for example. Community Communications . Only 13% of those aware of the Monsanto plants believe that the plants keep the community "very well" informed about their operations. Another 41% say the plant keeps them "fairly well" informed; about one-third (31%) say "not well informed." " Lowest marks go to the Chesterfield facility, which otherwise . ranks at or near the top for most issues. When asked "how - well," 41% reply "not well" and only 10% say "very well." The better educated tend to be more critical of Monsanto on this issue. Of those in the Very High SES group, 34% rate Monsanto low -- compared to 15% in the Low SES group. To tap impressions of Monsanto as open and responsive, residents were asked if they thought the plants would, if requested, give them additional information about their products and their processes. Answers are favorable. Three-fourths answer in the affirmative that "yes" (38%) or "probably" (37%) Monsanto would give them more plant information if asked; 12% are negative. Center for Communication Dynamics OSW 135271 Page 5 STLCOPCB4035248 Product Knowledge Areawide, product familiarity is virtually unchanged since 1986. In 1989, 37% claim to be familiar with plant products, mirroring the 36% who said that in 1986. In the immediate vicinity of most plants, "aware" percentages are up slightly. When asked to specify what the products are, . most people say "chemicals," and are unable to be more precise. Only near the Chesterfield facility are many residents able to name anything more specific than "chemicals." In that area, 25% cite "pesticides" and "pesticide research" as the product of the facility. On the question of whether the products are "beneficial to society" there was virtually no movement areawide. Most people do not know exactly what the products are, but a majority (54%) still call the products "very useful." Another 34% consider them "somewhat useful." In 1989 as in 1986, only 1% dismiss the products as "not useful and beneficial to society." Emergency Response Plans Areawide, St. Louis residents express confidence in Monsanto's capacity to handle an emergency. Over three-fourths say they are "very confident" or "somewhat confident." Only 12% express no confidence in Monsanto. Areawide, nearly 4 in 10 (37%) say they were aware of Monsanto's emergency response plans for its plants. Awareness is highest around Queeny (40%) and WGK (38%), and lowest near -Chesterfield (19%). ' __ Among those who say they were aware of Monsanto's plans, the plans are widely thought to be "good" (47%) or "somewhat good" (37%). Only 6% suppose that they are poor plans. OSK 135272 Center for Communication Dynamics Page 6 STLCOPCB4035249 Top Ranked Companies in St. Louis Respondents were asked to name the two "big companies located in St. Louis" of which they have the best overall opinion. Monsanto is named one of the top two companies by 39% of the metro area residents surveyed -- 20% rank Monsanto number one and 19% rank it number two. Despite the heightened environmentalism and the number of backsliders, Monsanto's relative standing remains at least as strong as in 1986 when 36% ranked Monsanto in the top two. A close three-way race exists among Anheuser Busch (ranked first), and McDonnell Douglas and Monsanto (nearly matched for a close second). Intensity Index An Intensity Index was constructed from seven key questions. It was designed to measure attitudinal intensity across a series of issues and determine the proportion of "hard-core" critics and fans. Supporters with uniformly strong, pro-Monsanto opinions comprise 16% of those aware of the plants. Sympathizers who lean in Monsanto's direction but temper their enthusiasm in some areas are 35%. Straddlers who rarely express very strong opinions about the plants (either pro or con) comprise 38%. Skeptics with a somewhat negative and selectively critical view of the plants constitute 10%. Splenetics who see no good in the plants constitute 1 % of those who know about the plants. Center for Communication Dynamics DSW 135273 Page 7 STLCOPCB4035250 O PIN IO N Implications The 1986 survey documented the deep reservoir of trust and support Monsanto had built in St. Louis. That report observed that such deep support would help Monsanto weather more difficult times. The years that immediately followed proved to be more difficult. The news media and the public turned to environmental issues with renewed attention and scrutiny. Chemical plants became a chief target for that concern. Monsanto's depth of support has been crucial in retaining its basic trust in a community context that has changed greatly since 1986: Monsanto now operates in a setting of sharply increased worry about the local environment, particularly air pollution. The company now has a higher profile among area residents. Since 1986 another 12% have become aware of Monsanto's presence. These newly aware "Novices" are not as strong in their support of the plants as are those who have been familiar with Monsanto over a longer period of time. Monsanto has suffered a loss in the strength of support of a significant group of "Backsliders." These 11% still believe Monsanto is good for St. Louis on balance, but they now have more reservations about the plants. Complaints about pollution from the plants have increased, particularly near the Queeny and WGK plants. Anxiety about long-term health risks from the plants has increased as well. Thanks to Monsanto's prior good standing, these changes have not brought about a surge in enemies. Citizens are generally hyper critical of most corporate environmental efforts. However, Monsanto's strong positive image in St. Louis acted as a shield. Increases in overt criticism of Monsanto tracked but ran far behind the increases in environmental alarm. A "model of opinion dynamics" was constructed to show the way - key factors interact to influence overall opinions toward Monsanto. As the chart below shows, environmental variables outdistance other factors in predicting overall opinions. Center for Communication Dynamics Page 8 OSW 135274 STLCOPCB4035251 "Environmentalism" did not prove to be a single dimension. Three different aspects of environmentalism added independent contributions in predicting overall opinions of Monsanto plants: (1) environmental danger (long-term health risks from plants); (2) environmental commitment (Monsanto's degree of concern); (3) environmental performance (handling of chemical wastes). These three factors are themselves influenced by the magnitude of environmental sensitivity. People who see severe problems with local air and water pollution are more likely to think there are long term health risks from Monsanto's plants. They are also more likely to doubt Monsanto's environmental commitment and performance. Monsanto's reputation as a good neighbor (doing "extra things" for the community) appears to establish the company's decency, concern, and good faith in other ways as well. This factor of generosity has a positive impact on evaluations of Monsanto as an employer and on perceptions of Monsanto's environmental commitment and performance. Model of Opinion Dynamics Center tor Communication Dynamics Page 9 DSW 135275 STLCOPCB4035252 In addition to these indirect impacts, opinions of Monsanto's community contributions show a direct impact on overall opinions of Monsanto. Monsanto's reputation as a good employer and as a good neighbor play crucial roles as predictors of opinions toward the plants. They partially offset the powerful impact of the three environmental forces. Among the leading predictors shown on the model, no one factor overwhelms all others. The model confirms and illustrates what is clear throughout the report: Momentous shifts in the environ mental climate have had a profound impact on Monsanto, but Monsanto's reputation as a good neighbor and a good employer (and as being at least somewhat conscientious about the environment) have minimized the damage. Despite this buffer, Monsanto's reservoir of support has been depleted since 1986. Losses in the strength of Monsanto's support are cause for concern, for a variety of reasons: Monsanto's environmental ratings and concern about long term health risks are the strongest predictors of overall opinions toward the plants. When environmental apprehensions soar, Monsanto is heavily exposed. The heightened visibility and weakened support for Monsanto tend to increase the company's vulnerability to criticism and intensified environmental worry in the future. Erosion in the strength of Monsanto's support extended throughout the entire metropolitan area and was not confined to nearby plant areas. The areas close to the Queeny and WGK plants underwent not only a loss in strength of support, but also an increase in outright hostility toward Monsanto. Although Monsanto scores relatively well on several measures of good will (e.g., doing extra things for the community, willingness to provide information if asked), the company receives poor ratings on keeping the community informed about its operations. -- DSW 135276 Center for Communication Dynamics Page 10 STLCOPCB4035253 The research findings suggest numerous opportunities to strengthen Monsanto's standing in the St. Louis area: Monsanto's environmental reputation is crucial to its community standing. Thus, communicating Monsanto's environmental concern and activities should be a top priority. Monsanto has a respectable base on which to build and very few residents think the company is indifferent to the environment. CCD's survey in the summer of 1988 found that Monsanto's emissions reduction initiative was enormously helpful among those who had heard about it, but that only about 17% in the St. Louis area heard about it. (See The Impact ofMonsanto's Environmental Initiative, July 1988.) It may also be helpful to target community contributions toward environmental improvements. Monsanto should identify itself with environmental progress. Support for neighborhood parks, for example, can link Monsanto to environmental improvements. Plant beautification offers another such opportunity. Many residents volunteered comments about the beautiful landscaping of the Headquarters. Such efforts are appreciated. People who are aware of the magnitude of Monsanto's community contributions are much more favorably disposed toward the company. Gaining greater recognition of these contributions is extremely worthwhile. One of Monsanto's lowest ratings comes on keeping the community informed. Since familiarity mostly strengthens Monsanto's support, improved communications should pay extra dividends in increasing familiarity with Monsanto's good works. Those who know Monsanto employees did not withdraw support to the degree that others did since 1986. To build on this strength, public relations activities and other forms of public recognition could usefully feature individual Monsanto workers. "Novices" and newcomers are among the least strongly committed to Monsanto's presence. Novices and newcomers are not hostile- to Monsanto. They are open to persuasion. Thus, community relations efforts would be well served for looking for opportunities to reach these individuals. Center for Communication Dynamics - Page 11 OSW 135277 STLCOPCB4035254  The community relations challenges for Monsanto in East St. Louis now characterize the situation in the Belleville area as well. All of the Illinois portion of the metro area is now deserving of special attention. While the Post-Dispatch still dominates this area, the Belleville News-Democrat offers another important vehicle for reaching a large share of the public (39%). It should be helpful to target informational activities, particularly about environmental and plant emergency issues, to the more affluent group. This group also is critical of Monsanto's performance in informing the community about its operations. These higher SES citizens are more interested in local affairs, and more likely to get their information from newspapers than are others. This suggests op-ed pieces and other information conveyed through the St Lotus Post-Dispatch are well-positioned. Moreover, as opinion leaders, these citizens are crucial to sustaining Monsanto's good reputation in the St. Louis area. Monsanto's reputation for environmental concern and awareness of its community contributions are vital to maintaining and strengthening its standing in St. Louis. Communicating Monsanto's activities in these two areas is essential to reassure and to reinforce the basically sympathetic hometown audience. Center for Communication Dynamics DSW 135278 Page 12 STLCOPCB4035255