Document O3r42pgaZpX1Y2Dxj73GwXB0e
a Adams Research
TI N C O R P a R A T E D
Anniston Community Survey: January 1995
Adams Research Inc. 1200 N. Nash St. #810 Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 522-2020
DSW 133703 STLCOPCB4033661
Preface
The Monsanto community surveys are predicated on Monsanto's pledge to work to be a good neighbor in its plant communities. Community surveys help Monsanto identify and be responsive to local concerns. Successful community outreach and communi cation efforts can be strengthened by an understanding of the perspectives of local citizens. This report is intended to help illu minate those public attitudes.
January 1995
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page i
0SW 133704
STLCOPCB4033662
Table of contents
Executive Summary........................................................................... 1
Findings at a Glance...............................................................
2
Awareness of the Plant ................................................................... 3
Overall Opinion.................................................................................4 Good or Bad for the Area.........................................................4 Best and Worst Things About the Plant ..............................5 Monsanto as an Employer ...................................................... 7 Local Business Climate.............................................................. 7
Environmental Issues..................................................................... Local Water and Air Pollution............................................. Local Chemical Plant Safety ................................................ Monsanto's Concern and Performance............................. Plant's Handling of an Emergency.....................................
13 13 13 14 15
Community Contributions .......................................................... Reputation for Community Contributions....................... Specific Recalled Contributions .......................................... Preferences for Community Projects..................................
20 20 20 21
Plant Products................................................................................ 25 Knowledge of the Plant's Products .................................. 25 Usefulness of the Plant's Products..................................... 26
Intensity Index................................................................................ 30
Conclusions and Implications..................................................... 35
Methodology.................................................................................. 40
Appendix A: Tables..................................................................... 43
Appendix B: Questionnaire........................................................ 74
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
.........
....................................
Page ii DSW 133705
STLCOPCB4033663
List of Charts
Chart 1: Overall Opinion of the Plant........................................ 8 Chart 2: Overall Opinion by Key Groups . . .'........................... 9 Chart 3: Best and Worst Things About the Plant................ 10 Chart 4: Monsanto as an Employer........................................ 11 Chart 5: Business Climate For Manufacturing Plants .... 12 Chart 6: Local Pollution and Chemical Plant Safety........... 16 Chart 7: Monsanto's Concern with the Environment .... 17 Chart 8: Plant's Disposal of Chemical Wastes..................... 18 Chart 9: Confidence in the Plant Handling an Emergency . 19 Chart 10: Frequency of Plant's Community Contributions . 22 Chart 11: Recalled Community Contributions...................... 23 Chart 12: Public Preferences for Local Projects ................... 24 Chart 13: Familiarity with Plant Products............................. 27 Chart 14: Knowledge of Plant Products................................ 28 Chart 15: Usefulness of Plant Products to Society.............. 29 Chart 16: Intensity Index........................................................... 33 Chart 17: Intensity Index by Key Groups .............................. 34
DSW 133706
STLCOPCB4033664
List of Tables
Table 1: Awareness of the Monsanto Plant........................... 44 Table 2: Overall Opinion of Plant........................................... 45 Table 3: Overall Opinion of Plant: Summary Categories . 46 Table 4: Disadvantages of the Plant . ................................. 47 Table 5: Disadvantages of the Plant According to Critics . 50 Table 6: Advantages of the Plant ........................................... 52 Table 7: Monsanto as an Employer........................................ 54 Table 8: Business Climate for Manufacturing Plants........... 55 Table 9: Local Water Pollution................................................ 56 Table 10: Local Air Pollution ................................................... 57 Table 11: Local Chemical Plant Safety................................... 58 Table 12: Monsanto's Concern with the Environment ... 59 Table 13: Plant's Disposal of Chemical Wastes ................... 60 Table 14: Confidence in Plant's Handling an Emergency . 61 Table 15: Plant's Community Contributions........................ 62 Table 16: Recalled Contributions of Monsanto..................... 63 Table 17: Public Preferences for Community Projects .... 65 Table 18: Familiarity with Plant Products.............................. 67 Table 19: Knowledge of Plant Products................................ 68 Table 20: Usefulness of Plant's Products to Society........... 71 Table 21: Intensity Index........................................................... 72 Table 22: Demographics of the Survey Sample................... 73
OSW 133707
STLCOPCB4033665
Executive Summary
During January 16-18, 1995, Adams Research Inc. conducted a random telephone survey of 600 adults in the Anniston area. Major findings may be summarized as follows:
Support for the Anniston plant has edged up slightly since 1989. However, the plant's standing is still below average for Monsanto. Just 59% consider it "good for the area."
The modest improvement in the plant's reputation can be attributed to modest improvements in the plant's environ mental reputation. More residents now give the plant high er ratings (than in 1989) for "safely disposing of chemical wastes" and for the plant's capacity to "handle an emer gency. "
Much damage is still due to plant odors. No other Mon santo plant has ever had so many people volunteer com plaints about its odors. Without any prompting, almost half (45%) cited "odor" (or more colorful words) as one of the worst things about the plant. That figure is actually down a little (from 54%) since 1989, but it is still quite troublesome.
The plant's overall standing might have improved more if it had not suffered losses in other areas. Its reputation for making community contributions, often a good predictor of community sympathy, drifted slightly downward. Also, residents' uncertainties about what the plant produces fell to near record low levels.
The Anniston plant's standing is particularly unusual be cause this community boasts an extremely pro-business cli mate, with residents overwhelmingly wanting more manufac turing plants to move into the area. The area also is not gripped by extreme environmental anxieties. Despite these advantages, the plant still lacks a strong, firm, popular base.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 1
DSW 133708
.............. ..........................................
.................... STLCOPCB4033666
Anniston Area Findings at a Glance
"Good News"
(i) Overall views of the Anniston plant as "very good" edged up, growing from 20% in 1989 to 29% in 1995.
(2) Slightly fewer people raise complaints about plant odors -- 45% (down from 54%).
(3) More people believe that the plant does a "good job" of safely disposing of its chem ical wastes -- 52% in 1994 up from 43% in 1989.
(3) Monsanto gets good marks as an employer, and its jobs are considered its biggest asset.
(4) More residents are "very confident" that Monsanto could handle a plant emergency -- 42%, up from 34% in 1989.
(5) Although the Intensity Index classifies just 19% as strong supporters, at the other ex treme, only 6% are skeptics and 1 % are hostile splenetics.
"Bad News"
(1) Only 59% view the plant as "good" overall.
(2) No other Monsanto plant prompts so many complaints about its odor.
(3) The plant's reputation for making community contributions has not improved.
(4) No specific local contri bution is widely recalled.
(5) Only about 6% have a roughly accurate know ledge of what the plant makes -- the lowest of any Monsanto plant to date.
(6) Despite the area's very pro-manufacuring views and lack of environmental anxiety, the plant still rates below average for Monsanto plants.
"Other News"
(1) Most people (77%) aresaware of the Anniston plant.
(2) The top community priority is to help education and other youth programs.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 2 DSW 133709
...........STLCOPCB4033667
Awareness of the Plant
January 16-18, 1995, Adams Research Inc. interviewed a random sample of 600 residents in the Anniston area. The sample drew on telephone exchanges surveyed in the 1989 poll -- but avoided calling any telephone numbers that were called previously. To measure their awareness of Monsanto's Anniston plant, local res idents were asked:
"One topic for this survey is people's attitudes toward indus tries located in their area. . . . Does Monsanto operate a plant in your area?"
Since 1989, the visibility of the Anniston plant has declined from 89.5% aware to 77.4% aware. This change is statistically signifi cant1 and represents an unusual decline in a plant's profile. This level is also slightly lower than the visibility of most Monsanto plants. Nevertheless, with nearly 8 out of 10 local area residents aware of the plant, it is remains widely known. (See Table 1.)
Three demographic factors continued to be related to plant awareness: (1) age, (2) length of residence, and (3) socio-eco nomic status (SES).2 Older, long-time residents, and high-SES (better educated and affluent) residents are more likely to be aware of the Monsanto plant.
The remainder of this report focuses mainly on the attitudes of those who know about the Monsanto plant. Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of the tables and charts omit those who are unaware of the plant.
1 For a discussion of statistical signficance and confidence intervals, see page 40.
2 For a review of how income and education are merged in the socio-economic status variable, see page 41.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 3 DSW 133710
STLCOPCB4033668
Overall Opinion
Good or Bad for the Area
In validation studies of Monsanto surveys, the following ques tions have proven to be reliable indicators of fundamental views:
"Overall, do you think the Monsanto plant is good or bad for your area?" "[if good:] Would you say it is somewhat good or very good?" "[If bad;] Would you say it is somewhat bad or very bad?"
Trends. In 1989, the Anniston plant was given lukewarm rat ings, with only 55% saying it was "good" for the area. At the same time, one out of five (20%) called it "bad" for the area.
As of 1995, the plant's standing has improved somewhat. The percentage calling the plant "very good" for the area has in creased from 20% to 29%, a large enough change to be statis tically significant and unlikely to be due to chance. (See Chart 1 and Table 2.)
Data suggested other midly positive trends, but were not large enough to be statistially significant. The total "good" only edged up from 55% to 59%, not enough to be statistically significant. In such cases, the 1995 changes are within the range of ordinary sampling variation. It is tempting to say that favorable overall opionion of the plant has increased from 55% to 59%, but such a minor variation should not be overinterpretated. When "no sig nificant change" is found, the safest reading is to view the pat tern as stable.
Likewise, those calling the plant "bad" declined from 20% to 15%. This again suggests, but does not demonstrate, a move in the favorable direction.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 4 DSiri 133711
STLCOPCB4033669
In this report, pro-plant opinion is graphed in blue and anti plant opinion in red. Neutral and undecided opinion is graphed in white. The blue parts of Chart 1 illustrate the (less than over whelming but still majority) support for the Anniston plant in contrast to the smaller red segments of anti-plant sentiment.
Support for the plant is not uniformly distributed throughout the Anniston population. Certain groups are markedly less support ive.
Young adults (ages 18-29) are the least supportive, with only 39% saying the plant is at least "somewhat good" for the area. In contrast, 67% of the older adults (age 60 and over) rate the plant that high.
Only about half (49%) of the less educated and less affluent (low SES) residents say the plant is at least "somewhat good" for the area. At the other extreme, 70% of the high SES residents (college graduates and/or earning over $50,000 annuall) rate the plant that high.
Also the plant is somewhat less popular among newcomers and among those who do not know any plant employees. Gender makes little difference. (See Chart 2 and Table 2.) These same basic tendencies were also found in the 1989 survey.
Best and Worst Things About the Plant
Why do people assess the Anniston plant the way that they do? The survey allowed residents to use their own words and -- in an completely unprompted fashion -- identify the "pros and cons" of having the plant in their community. The questions were phrased as follows:
"What is the worst thing about having that plant in your area?" "Anything else?" "Anything else?"
"What's the best thing about having that plant in your area?" "Anything else?" "Anything else?"
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 5 DSW 133712
STLCOPCB4033670
Interviewers recorded up to three positive and three negative answers to these open-ended questions. These answers were later consolidated into categories of similar comments.
Worst Things. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage of the plant -- cited by 45% -- is its "odor." While nearly half of all those surveyed still volunteered this problem, 45% is actually down enough to represent a statistically real drop from the 54% who complained about odor in 1989. (See Chart 3 and Table 4.) Among the many community surveys conducted to date, no other Mon santo plant has prompted so many complaints about its odors.
Concerns about "plant pollution," however, held constant -- 32% in 1995 versus 33% in 1989. Of those who complain about pollution in 1995, 18% use the general term "pollution." Some (8%) specifically mention "chemical pollution," 6% "air pollu tion," 4% "water pollution," and 3% "toxic wastes." (These sum to more than 32% because some people voice concerns about more than one type of pollution.)
Concerns about the plant's "safety risks" (e.g., "explosions," "accidents," "spills/leaks," "dangerous") have stayed at low lev els (10% in 1989 and 7% in 1995). Few other complaints are voiced. A total of 29% do not have anything bad to volunteer about the plant.
What about the 15% minority who say the Monsanto plant is bad for the area? What reasons do they give for disliking the plant? These opponents complain about the odor even more than other residents. They are also more likely to complain about pollution from the plant. (See Table 5.)
Best Things. Public conceptions of the plant's merits are essen tially unchanged from 1989. The "best thing" about the plant, according to 89% of those aware of the plant, can be summed up in one word: "jobs." Some residents put it in terms of "helping the local economy generally" (15%) Bolstering "local tax reve nues" is mentioned by 3%, "community contributions" by 3%, and "good to workers" by 4%.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 6 GSW 133713
STLCOPCB4033671
As usual, nothing comes close to rivaling employment benefits as the preeminent, "top-of-mind" virtue of the plant. (See Chart 3 and Table 6.)
Monsanto as an Employer
If the plant's jobs are so important, what do people think about the caliber of those jobs? The question was posed this way:
"As a company to work for, do you think Monsanto would be excellent, good, only fair, or poor?"
Roughly two thirds (69%) say that Monsanto would be either an "excellent" (24%) or "good" (45%) employer. These ratings are about average for Monsanto plants. Few say Monsanto is "only fair" (12%) or "poor" (3%) in this regard. This distribution of opinions is similar to the 1989 figures. (See Chart 4 and Table 7.)
Local Business Climate
The general business climate for manufacturing plants was mea sured by the following question:
"Would you like to see your area have more manufacturing plants, stay the same as now, or have fewer manufacturing plants?"
This question was not asked in the 1989 Anniston survey. How ever, the 1995 results are dramatic. They show that, compared to other Monsanto communities, Anniston has an exceptionally favorable climate for manufacturing plants.
An overwhelming 71% want to see more manufacturing plants move into the area. Only 7% want fewer. Most of the rest like the status quo. (See Chart 5 and Table 8.) Thus, this is a com munity that ought to be highly receptive to Monsanto and quite pleased by the plant's proximity.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 7
DSW 133714
STLCOPCB4033672
Chart 1: Overall Opinion of Plant
100%
<z> 75%
<o
fly O O
^ 50%
Ch <tj OiCo ^
> ^ <0
25%
0%
1989
1995
Very Bad |
7
6
Bad H
13
9
Mixed/DK
Good E3
25 35
27 30
Very good H
20
29
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133715 STLCOPCB4033673
Chart 2: Overall Opinion by Key Groups
100%
Age group
Socio-econ. status
Years in community
Plant friends
75%
50%
25%
U /o '
Age: Age: Age:
18-29 30-59 60 +
Low Mid High SES SES SES
1-4 5-20 20 + years years years
Know Know employees none
o
Very Bad m 11 6 4
11 5 2
9 76
66
V) X.
Bad H 15 9 5
11 8
6
14 6 9
79
Mixed/DK 35 25 25
29 28 21
25 35 23
20 28
OU*o>J
Good
H 19 29 41
1 Very Good Hi 20 32 26
32 27 33 17 32 37
30 27 31 23 25 32
26 31 42 25
O' (Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
STLCOPCB4033674
Chart 3: Best and Worst Things About the Plant
Jobs
Helps the local econ.
Good to workers
Community donations
Local tax revenues
Pollution
Safety risks
Odors
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant and sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.)
DSW 13371? .......... STLCOPCB4033675
Chart 4: Monsanto as an Employer
1989
1995
Poor
4
3
Only fair H
15
12
Don't know O
13
16
Good
B
44
45
Excellent B
24
24
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133718 STLCOPCB4033676
Chart 5: More or Fewer Manufacturing Plants
100%
75%
50%
25%
Not Asked
0%
1989
1995
Fewer Plants B No Change Q More Plants B
Not Asked
7 22 71
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133719 STLCOPCB4033677
Environmental issues
Prior to asking questions about the Monsanto plant, Adams Re search examined local attitudes toward some basic environmental and plant safety issues.3
Local Water and Air Pollution
"In your community, do you think water pollution is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem?''
"In your community, do you think air pollution is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem?"
Nationwide, concern about local water and air pollution grew enormously in the late 1980s but tended to level off or decline during the early 1990s. What is the situation now in Anniston?
Concern about local air and water pollution is not significantly different than it was in 1989. Roughly one out of every five resi dents still consider air and water pollution to be "major local pro blems." (See Chart 6 and Tables 9-10.)
Air pollution is still considered the more serious of the two, with 64% considering it a "major" or "minor problem." Water pollu tion is seen as at least a "minor problem" by 54%.
Local Chemical Plant Safety
"In your area, do you think safety at chemical plants is a ma jor problem, a minor problem or not a problem?"
o
The questions on local air and water pollution and chemical plant safety were asked of all those surveyed, regardless of whether they knew about the local Mon santo plant; Tables 9, 10, and 11 and Chart 6 are based on the entire sample.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 13
DSW 133720
STLCOPCB4033678
This question was also asked before Monsanto was mentioned. It was designed to tap fears about local chemical plant safety in general (in places with numerous chemical plants) or Monsanto in particular (in areas where only Monsanto is prominent).
Concern about local chemical plant safety has grown signifi cantly. In 1989, only 18% considered it a "major problem. " In 1995, 27% view it that seriously. (See Chart 6 and Table 11.)
For several reasons, it seems unlikely that the Monsanto plant is the primary cause of this jump. No increase was found in the people volunteering safety or pollution concerns as among the "worst things" about Monsanto's plant. Nor, as will be shown below, did the plant suffer from lower ratings on key environ mental questions.
Despite this evidence that local citizens are not now singling out Monsanto for special blame, more residents have become sensi tized to the problem of plant safety at local chemical plants.
Monsanto's Concern and Performance
Many residents are still concerned about local air and water pol lution. Moreover, 32% raise the issue of pollution and 46% cite odor as drawbacks to having the plant located in their area. How then does this community rate Monsanto's environmental concern and performance?
"How concerned would you say Monsanto is about the effect of their operations on the environment -- very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not so concerned?"
Monsanto's Concern. Opinions are unchanged regarding per ceptions of Monsanto's concern about its impact on the environ ment. A plurality (39%) say that Monsanto is "very concerned." Another 37% say that Monsanto is "somewhat concerned." Just 10% assert that Monsanto is "not concerned," and 14% "don't know." (See Chart 7 and Table 12.) These ratings are about av erage for Monsanto plants.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 14 DSW 133721
STLCOPCB4033679
Monsanto's Performance. The preceding question was designed to assess perceptions of Monsanto's environmental commitment. In contrast, the following question about waste disposal was de signed to measure public impressions of Monsanto's environ mental performance:
"When it comes to taking care of its chemical wastes in a way that is safe, do you think the Monsanto plant probably does a good, fair, or poor job?"
Impressions of the plant's waste disposal performance have improved since 1989. The view that the plant does a "good" job has in creased from 43% in 1989 to 52% in 1995. (See Chart 7 and Table 13.)
Plant's Handling of an Emergency
"How confident are you that Monsanto could handle an emer gency at the plant -- very confident, somewhat confident, or not so confident?"
More people are now "very confident " that the plant could handle an emergency -- 42% in 1995 up from 34% in 1989. Only one out of every ten continue to be "not so confident." (See Chart 9 and Table 14).
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 15
DSW 133722
............................. STLQQPCB4033680
Chart 6: Concern about Local Pollution and Chemical Plant Safety
40%
Considered "major problem":
ii1989 H1995
|
Chemical
Water
Air
Plant Safety Pollution
Pollution
(Percentages based on entire survey sample.)
DSW 133723 STLCOPCB4033681
Chart 7: Monsanto's Environmental Concern
1989 1995
Not
Don't know
Somewhat (U
Very B
6 14 41 39
10 14 37 39
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133724 STLCOPCB4033682
Chart 8: Plant's Safe Disposal of Chemical Wastes
100%
,, 75%
<9
($ <0
50%
I"
<0
25%
0%
1989
1995
Poor
H
Don't know
Fair 1J
Good
H
6
20 31 43
6 14 28 52
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133725
STLCOPCB4033683
Chart 9: Confidence in Plant's Handling an Emergency
100%
75%
<& # $
<s V
C 50%
S- <?
#6
J:#
<b
25%
0%
1989
1995
Not
Don't Know
Somewhat H Very B
11 15 40 34
9 16 33 42
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DS l33726 STLCOPCB4033684
Community Contributions
Reputation for Community Contributions
Community surveys have consistently shown that one factor with the potential to strengthen support for a plant is its success in making community contributions that are widely known and appreciated. Such contributions can remind residents that Mon santo cares about their community and is a good neighbor.
Impressions of the Anniston plant's community contributions were measured using the following question:
"Some companies are good neighbors and contribute to their communities in many extra ways besides just jobs. Does Monsanto do extra things for your community -- often, sometimes, or not much?"
The Anniston plant's standing on this question has declined since 1989. Only one fifth (20%) say that this plant "often" does extra things for the community besides providing jobs. Another fifth (20%) say the plant does extra things "sometimes." The remaining residents say the plant does not do much (16%) or do not know whether the plant makes such contributions (45%). (See Chart 10 and Table 15.)
The plant's community contibutions are partially known among older residents (over 60), long-time residents (over 20 years in the area), and high-SES residents (the better educated and afflu ent). Recognition lags, however, among other groups.
Specific Recalled Contributions
Knowledge of the plant's contributions is even weaker when res idents are asked to cite specific examples. As a follow-up to the question above, residents were asked the following:
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 20
DSW 133727
STLCOPCB4033685
"Is there anything in particular that the plant has done for the community that stands out to you? Anything else? Any thing else?"
As Chart 11 and Table 16 show, 74% of those aware of the plant cannot recall any particular type of contribution. The most men tioned contributions are: "generally helping education/schools" (13%) and the "United Way" (9%).
Fewer than 1% each mention Monsanto's help with such specific projects as the Cerebral Palsy Center or helping Tech-Prep or other specific schools. Almost 1% mentioned the plant's helping with sewers, water lines, and drainage. Among the other mis cellaneous mentions (each under one-half of 1%) were helping with housing and with abused women and children.
Preferences for Community Projects
What sort of projects do residents want most? This question is designed to help Monsanto target its contributions to those areas of greatest concern:
"If your community had more money to spend, for what one general type of community project would you most want to see the money spent?"
As shown in Chart 12 and Table 17, "education and youth" is by far the top priority, cited by over one third (36%) of all respon dents. Nothing else comes close to this cluster of preferences.
"Environment, parks, and community beautification" is a distant second with 17%. Better roads" are the top priority for 8%, and all "social welfare" activities for only 7%.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 21
DSW 133728
STLCOPCB4033686
Chart 10: Plant's Reputation for Community Contributions
1989
1995
Not much
22
16
Don't know n
32
45
Sometimes H
Often
28 18
20 20
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133729
STLCOPCB4033687
Chart 11: Recalled Community Contributions
74% (Percentages based on those aware of the plant and sum to more than 100% due to multiple responses.)
OSW 133" STLCOPCB4033688
Chart 12: Public Preferences for Local Projects (if community had more money to spend)
(Percentages based on entire survey sample.)
DSW 133731 STLCOPCB4033689
Plant Products
Knowledge of the Plant's Products
Prior research has shown that residents who know what specific products are made at a Monsanto plant (beyond just "chemicals") tend to hold higher overall opinions of the plant. Product knowl edge legitimizes the plant as a beneficial contributor to society. It also reduces the inclination to view chemical plants as filled with nothing but sinister potions. To measure such knowledge, the following questions were posed:
"Are you familiar with what they make at that plant?" [If yes:] "What is that? Anything else? Anything else?" [If "chemicals" cited:] "Do you happen to know what kind?"
Few people knew what the plant made in 1989 and even fewer people know in 1995. Fewer than a quarter of the area residents now have any idea what is made at the plant, and that figure is comprised mostly of people who cannot name anything besides the vague answer of "chemicals." If this latter group is excluded, that leaves fewer than 6% who actually know at least one specific plant product (loosely defined). Moreover, those responses include Monsanto-employee households. (See Chart 14 and Table 18.)
Current products (such as plasticizers and heat transfer fluids) are cited by fewer than 2% each. Included in the miscellaneous cate gory (3%) are such answers as "paint," "carpets," "NutraSweet," "perfume," "chlorine," "poison," "mercury," and "crude oil."
Previously, "pesticides" had been the plant's most widely know product (at 16% in 1989). But, pesticides have not been replaced with any equally visible type of product. No matter how product awareness is measured, the Anniston plant has one of the lowest product recognition levels of any Monsanto plant.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 25 DSN 133732
STLCOPCB4033690
Usefulness of the Plant's Products
All those who are aware of the plant were asked this question (not just those who say they know what the plant makes).
"Do you think the products made at the plant are probably useful and beneficial to society or not? [If useful:] Would you say very useful or somewhat useful?"
Remarkably, despite not knowing what the plant makes, most residents are still willing to give the plant the benefit of the doubt and presume that its products are useful and socially beneficial. Essentially unchanged from 1989, almost three-fourths suppose that the plant's products are useful. (See Chart 15 and Table 20.)
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 26 DSW 133733
STLCOPCB4033691
Chart 13: Familiarity with Plant's Products
1989
1995
Unfamiliar =
65
69
Familiar
35
31
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW 133734 STLCOPCB4033692
Chart 14: Products Recalled Made at the Plant
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.) DSW 133735 STLCOPCB4033693
Chart 15: Usefulness of Plant's Products for Society
100%
75%
A
$
50%
i
25%
0% 1989
1995
Not Useful |
5
4
Don't know 0
Somewhat 0
20 38
23 32
Very Useful B
37
41
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
DSW L33736 STLCOPCB4033694
intensity index
How consistent and strong is sentiment toward the Anniston plant? How many people are hard-core critics who voice consistently negative opinions of the plant? How many are strong supporters who voice consistently positive views of the plant?
One way to study attitude intensity is to construct a cumulative index across a series of different items. This survey included seven questions that can be used to create an Intensity Index.
A pro-Monsanto index was created by adding together all opinions that were highly favorable toward Monsanto on seven key issues. An anti-Monsanto index counted each highly negative opinion on those same seven issues. Middle positions (e.g., "somewhat con cerned") do not count toward either end of the Intensity Index. The anti-Monsanto index was subtracted from the pro-Monsanto index in order to construct a summary measure, the net Intensity Index.
Scores on this index are based on the following questions:
1. Overall opinion toward the plant (very good vs. very bad);
2. Monsanto as an employer (excellent vs. poor); 3. Monsanto's environmental concern
(very concerned vs. not concerned); 4. Whether Monsanto does a good job disposing of its
chemical wastes safely (good vs. poor); 5. Frequency of Monsanto's "extra" contributions to the
local community (often vs. not much); 6. How confident are residents in the plant's ability to handle
an emergency (very confident vs. not confident); 7. Whether the products made at the plant are useful
and beneficial to society (very useful vs. not useful).
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 30 OSW 133737
STLCOPCB4033695
This index is designed to be a stringent test of intensity. For exam ple, to score as a hard-core opponent (splenetic), one must give the plant the lowest possible rating on at least five out of the seven opportunities (e.g., say that Monsanto is a poor employer, is not environmentally concerned, fails to dispose of its chemical wastes safely, is unable to handle a plant emergency, and fails to make local contributions). Cumulative scores on this Intensity Index were grouped into five categories as shown below, in Chart 16 and in Table 21.
Supporters: These people take strong, pro-Monsanto positions on all or almost all of these criteria (scoring +5 to +7 on the index). Of those aware of the plant, 19% fall into this very favorable category.
Sympathizers: Those in this segment lean decidedly in Mon santo's direction, but temper their enthusiasm in at least a couple of areas (scores are +2 to +4). This category includes 34% of those aware of the plant.
Straddlers: This middle cluster scores a net +1, 0, or -1. They tend to take middle positions when possible and rarely take a bolder stance either pro or con. Four out of ten area resi dents (40%) who are aware of the plant fall into this ambivalent category.
Skeptics: The wary people in this group look at Monsanto with a cautious and sometimes cynical attitude. They do not see the company as hopelessly malevolent, but they do not give Monsanto the benefit of the doubt. Their score is -2 through -4 on the Intensity Index. They constitute only 6% of those aware of the plant.
Splenetics: These people are hostile toward the plant and give it no credit. They answer at least five of the seven questions with very anti-Monsanto answers (scoring -5 to -7 on the net Intensity Index). Just 1% fall into this extremely negative cate gory.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 31 DSW 133738
STLCOPCB4033696
As shown in Chart 16, a narrow majority of the Anniston plant's constituency consists of sympathizers and straddlers (totalling 53%). The good news is that the plant does not have many embittered critics (splenetics). The bad news is that there are so many strad dlers. The Intensity Index indicates that the Anniston plant's popularity is more shallow than that found in many Monsanto plant communities and that there is a large block of ambivalent, decidedly unenthusiastic residents (the 40% straddlers).
Chart 17 graphs the distribution of intensity levels by demographic factors. Age, status, length of residence, and having Monsanto friends result in statistically significant differences:
Age: Proportionately, twice as many supporters are found among the older residents (21%) as among the young adults (9%).
Socio-Economic Status: More than twice as many supporters are found among the high-SES residents (30%) as among the low-SES (12%).
Length of Residence: Far fewer supporters can be found among newcomers (in the area less than five years) than among long-term residents (over twenty years) -- 7% versus 24%, respectively.
Plant Friends: Having Monsanto friends is also modestly related to intensity of support for the plant. Those who know plant employees are more likely to be supporters (26%) than are those who do not know any Monsanto employees (17%).
Direct comparisons with previous Intensity Indices are not possible due to a few changes in the latest survey instrument (needed to make the Anniston questionnaire consistent with those used in other Monsanto community surveys).
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 32 OSW 133739
STLCOPCB4033697
Chart 16: Intensity Index
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.) DSW 133740 STLCOPCB4033698
Chart 17: Intensity Index by Key Groups
100%
Age group
Socio-econ. status
i * 'ip
Years in community Plant friends
75%
50%
mm IS!!
!U|rnl'tMii
25%
T V e e r mso
Uvo
Age: Age: Age:
18-29 30-59 60+
Low Mid High SES SES SES
1-4 5-20 20 + years years years
mSplenetics
111
Skeptics
5 5 9
Straddlers 55 40 30
Sympathizers ED 28 33 39
Supporters H 9 20 21
30 1 963 47 40 30 29 36 36 12 18 30
51 1 956 45 51 33 34 32 35 7 11 24
(Percentages based on those aware of the plant.)
Know Know employees none
11 47 31 42 37 33 26 17
Conclusions and implications
In 1989, the Anniston plant ranked in the bottom quarter of Mon santo plants in terms of its community standing. A slim majority gave the plant lukewarm support.
The plant's disappointing standing was doubly surprising and serious because it does not have a tough audience. Surveys con firmed that, like most Southern cities of its size, Anniston has an extremely pro-business climate. In fact, residents overwhelmingly want to see more manufacturing plants move into the area. More over, they are not hypersensitive about the local environment.
One explanation that was offered for the low 1989 scores was that many people were annoyed that Monsanto had previously seemed ready to abandon Anniston and sell its plant to another company. Six years later, however, there was no dramatic rebound.
The 1995 results are complex. On balance, the news is mildly good for the plant, showing modest improvements. But, not all the news is posi tive, as the plant has regressed in two areas.
The favorable trends emerged on several environmental issues:
More people think the plant does a "good job" in safely dispos ing of its chemical wastes -- 52% in 1995, up from 43% in 1989.
More people are now "very confident" that Monsanto could handle a plant emergency -- 42% in 1995, up from 34% in 1989.
Widespread complaints about the plants' odors have at least abated somewhat -- 45% in 1995, down from 54% in 1989.
Thanks to these positive shifts, more people are willing to call the plant "very good" overall -- 29%, up from 20%.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 35 DSW 133742
STLCOPCB4033700
These gains in the environmental arena were partially offset by injuries in two other areas. Were it not for these two setbacks, the plant might well have enjoyed an even greater net gain in overall community support.
Even fewer people now think they know what is made at the plant, down from a figure that was already very low in 1989.
Awareness of the plant's community contributions has drifted downward.
To seek advances m community support, the survey findings point to various ways in which the plant can work to strengthen its standing. Some of these steps are noted below:
Pain Reliever Ingredients. Only about 6% can now accurately name any products made at the Anniston plant. When people do not know exactly what is being made at a chemical plant, they can easily imagine that the chemical concoctions are all deadly poisons. Thus, it is very much to a plant's advantage to have one or two high-profile products that are easily understood in terms of their consumer end-use.
Many of the Anniston plant's products are too obscure to serve this palliative purpose. The plant does, however, have a product that is ideal for this function -- its ingredients for pain-relieving medicines. Short of making a life-saving product, what can be better than making pharmaceutical ingredients that alleviate human suffering?
This is an opportune time to link Monsanto's Anniston plant to pain-relieving ingredients in a sustained way. Of course, frequent "repetition with variation" is needed to build widespread public knowledge. To cite a few possibilities: The product could be mentioned somewhere in every press release issued from the plant. If this product has not been recently the subject of a local newspa per feature story, it could be. Likewise, it should be prominent in any plant brochures, community tours, school presentations, or civic club lectures. These and other such steps would cumula tively build public knowledge.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 36 OSW 133743
STLCOPCB4033701
Odors. Presumably, Monsanto has already done, or is now doing, everything that can reasonably be done to minimize odors from the Anniston plant. With complaints down slightly, the plant may well be benefiting from some degree of reduced odor. Yet, this clearly remains the biggest single liability that the plant faces in gaining greater community acceptability.
The Environment. The late 1980s brought heightened suspicion and scrutiny of chemical plants. The surge in environmental anxiety and "chemophobia" aroused misgivings about chemical plants among people who had not been previously wary. In the 1990s, a calmer public has become more receptive to recognizing the environmental progress that chemical companies have made. Indeed, in 1995, the Anniston public awarded the Monsanto plant somewhat higher marks on its environmental performance, leading to correspondingly higher marks overall.
While these residents are not obsessed with environmental issues, they nonetheless rewarded Monsanto for its environmental prog ress. As enforcement of the Monsanto Pledge moves forward to more dramatic emission reductions, communicating the news of this progress to the community should continue to be a top priority.
Community Contributions. The Anniston plant is not benefitting as much as it should from its community contributions. Contribu tions send a powerful symbolic message to the community that Monsanto cares and wants to be a good neighbor. Skillfully publi cizing these positive plant actions is important. The plant could particularly gain enhanced stature if it had one or two widely known contributions. Residents are by far the most appreciative of projects targeted toward youth and education. Secondary inter ests include the environment, parks, and community beautification.
Young Adults. Young adults (under 30) are the plant's least sup portive constituency. Moreover, young adults steadily and inevita bly continue to supplant elderly residents. Young adults are not guaranteed to evolve into supporters. Instead, they may be inclined to retain their less enthusiastic views. Thus, young adults ought to be high priorities in the plant's community relations efforts.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 37 OSW 133744
STLCOPCB4033702
Comparative Standing. The table below summarizes the findings from Anniston compared to those of other Monsanto plant commu nities. Anniston results were more favorable to Monsanto than usual in only one area -- disposing of chemical wastes. Results were less favorable in several areas--particularly odor complaints, general awareness of community contributions, and specific aware ness of what the plant makes.
Anniston vs. Other Monsanto Plant Communities
Well Above Average Compared to other Monsanto communities: Odor is cited far more often as a major disadvantage. New manufacturing plants would be much more welcomed.
Above Average Compared to other Monsanto communities: The plant is seen as a better disposer of chemical wastes. Education & youth are higher community priorities, while there
is less concern with the environment, parks, and beautification.
Average As is typical in other Monsanto communities: Jobs are widely cited as the plant's primary advantage. Two-thirds see Monsanto as a good employer. Monsanto is seen as an environmentally concerned company. Most believe the plant can handle an emergency. Not many people can recall specific community contributions.
Below Average Compared to other Monsanto communities: Water and air pollution are cited less often as major problems. Fewer people know the plant makes community contributions. Product recollection is very low. Only a modest majority have overall positive views of the plant.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 38
CSW 133745
STLCOPCB4033703
Overall. Since 1989, the Anniston plant's standing has improved slightly. Here, and in other recent community surveys, the plant has benefited from growing public recognition of Monsanto's environmental advances. Yet, despite the Southern support for manufacturing plants and minimal environmental anxiety, the plant still does not enjoy widespread support. Most people are not aware of the plant's community contributions and very few people know what is made at the plant. Unfortunately, the plant "product" that people are most aware of is its unpleasant odors.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 39
DSW 133746
STLCOPCB4033704
Methodology
During January 16-18,1995, Adams Research Inc. conducted tele phone interviews with 600 adults living in the Anniston area of Alabama. Random-digit dialing was used to ensure that all tele phone households were sampled, including those not listed in current directories. This sample was carefully screened to exclude telephone numbers that were called for the 1989 survey.
Confidence Intervals. The completed sample yields a good estimate of the population surveyed. The simple rule of thumb is 3.4% as the confidence interval for the entire sample, and 3.8 as the confidence interval for the portion of the sample aware of the local Monsanto plant. These confidence intervals show the range -- plus or minus -- within which the findings from repeated samplings in the same time period could be expected to vary, 90% of the time.
Survey Confidence Intervals (Calculated for the 90% confidence level)
Random sample percentages near:
1995: Total Sample (n=600)
1995: All Aware of Plant (n=462)
1989: Total Sample (n-858)
1989: All Aware of Plant (n=772)
50% / 50%
3.4% 3.8% 2.8% 3.0%
60% / 40%
3.4% 3.8% 2.8% 3.0%
70% / 30%
3.1% 3.5% 2.6% 2.7%
80% / 20%
2.7% 3.1% 2.2% 2.4%
90%/10%
2.0% 2.3% 1.7% 1.8%
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 40
DSW 133747
STLCOPCB4033705
1995-1989 Differences. Random surveys provide very good esti mates of the population, but they are still estimates and not exact figures. Some differences between the 1989 and 1995 findings are thus inevitably due to ordinary sampling variation. One should be careful not to treat minor differences between the two years as an exact measure of real change.
Among those aware of the plant, the 1995 confidence intervals are 3.8% and the 1989 intervals were 3.0% (at the 90% confidence interval). Thus, as a rule of thumb, changes are highly likely to be real ("statistically significant") when differences between the two years (for those aware of the plant) is 7% or more. Changes that fall a short of 7% might reflect a shift in public opinion, al though it is not possible to reach that conclusion with as much confidence.
The same 7% rule of thumb for differences also hold true when comparing all those surveyed (both aware and unaware of the plant). The 1995 confidence intervals are 3.4% and the 1989 intervals were 2.8% (at the 90% confidence interval). Again, changes falling short of the 7% mark could reveal actual subtle movements in public opinion, although such conclusions cannot be drawn with as much confidence.
Plant Friends. Most tables include a variable labelled "Plant Friends, " which is divided into those who do and those who do not know Monsanto workers. Of the total sample, 15% have friends who work for Monsanto. This includes the 3% (of all households surveyed) with a Monsanto employee (2%) or retired employee (1%) in the household -- plus the 13% who say they have friends who work at the plant.
Demographic Composition of the Sample. Table 22 shows the demographic characteristics of the entire sample and of the plantaware portion of the sample.
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 41 BSW 133748
STLCOPCB4033706
Measuring Socio-economic Status. Socio-economic status (SES), as usually coded in sociological and political science literature, is a combination of education and income. The sociological view is that education and income variables "overlap" one another and both tap a similar underlying phenomenon of socio-economic status. Combining education and income, the blended SES variable is often a more powerful predictor than either education or income consid ered separately. SES was constructed as follows:
High SES
Middle SES Low SES
Socio-Economic Status (SES)
Either family income over $50,000; or, a college degree and annual family income between $20,000 and $50,000
Annual family income of $20-50,000 (without college degree)
Annual family incomes below $20,000 (about half with and half without high school degrees)
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 42 DSW 133749
STLCOPCB4033707
Appendix A: Tables
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 43 DSW 133750
................. STLCOPCB4033708
Table 1: AWARENESS OF THE MONSANTO PLANT
(Entire Sample)
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
Aware of Plant Aware Unaware
77% 23%
78% 22% 76% 24%
68% 81% 76%
32% 19% 24%
73% 78% 80%
61% 75% 84%
27% 22% 20%
39% 25% 16%
Question #7: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
DSW 133751 STLCOPCB4033709
Table 2: OVERALL OPINION OF PLANT
Evaluation of Monsanto Plant
Very Good
Some what Good
Mixed
Some what Bad
Very Don' t
Bad
Know
1995 TOTAL
29% 30% 16% 9% 6% 11%
SEX Men Women
31% 31% 14% 9% 6% 10% 26% 29% 17% 8% 7% 13%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
20% 19% 23% 15% 11% 12%
32%
29%
14%
9%
6% 11%
26%
41%
14%
5%
4% 11%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
17%
32%
20%
11%
11%
9%
Middle SES
32%
27%
15%
8%
5% 13%
High SES
37% 33% 11% 6% 2% 10%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
23% 25% 32%
30% 27% 31%
9% 21% 14%
14% 6% 9%
9% 16% 7% 14% 6% 9%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees 42%
26%
17%
7%
6%
3%
Do not know any 25%
31%
15%
9%
6% 13%
Question #9: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant.
DSW 133752 STLCOPCB4033710
Table 3: OVERALL OPINION OF PLANT ----- SUMMARY CATEGORIES -----
OVERALL OPINION OF PLANT
Good Mixed or DK
Bad
1995 TOTAL
58% 27% 15%
SEX Men Women
62% 55%
24% 30%
15% 15%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
39% 61% 67%
35% 25% 25%
26% 15%
8%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
49% 59% 70%
29% 27% 22%
22% 13%
8%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
52% 52% 63%
25% 35% 22%
23% 13% 15%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
67% 56%
20% 28%
12% 16%
Question #9: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant.
csw 133753 STLCOPCB4033711
Table 4: DISADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
Odors
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
45%
42% 48%
45% 48% 37%
51% 45% 3 5%
41% 43% 47%
42% 46%
D I SA DVAN TAGE S
Poll ution
Air Poll ution
Water Poll ution
18% 6% 4%
19% 5% 7% 16% 8% 1%
18% 16% 21%
11% 5% 6%
1% 5% 6%
17% 8% 4% 16% 4% 3% 22% 8% 6%
20% 2% 2% 18% 7% 3% 17% 6% 5%
26% 7% 2% 16% 6% 5%
Chem. Poll ution
8%
10% 5%
3% 10%
5%
4% 9% 9%
11% 7% 7%
8% 8%
Question #10: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
DSW 133754 STLCOPCB4033712
Table 4: DISADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
D I S A D V A N T AGES
Toxic
Waste
Wastes Disposl
Trans port . Risks
Danger ous
1995 TOTAL
3% 2% 0% 2%
SEX Men Women
3% 2% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
1% 1% 0% 3% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3% 2% 1% 0%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
2% 2% 0% 1%
Middle SES
3% 2% 0% 2%
High SES
3% 0% 1% 2%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
7% 3% 2%
0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%
0% 2% 1%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
6%
2%
0%
1%
Do not know any
2%
1%
0%
2%
Explo sions
1%
1% 1%
0% 1% 1%
2% 1% 0%
0% 1% 1%
1% 1%
Question #10: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
DSW 133755 STLCOPCB4033713
Table 4: DISADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
D I S A D V A N T AGES
Acci dents &
Spills
Car Traffic
Bad Work Place
All Other
Bad
Nothing Bad
Cited
1995 TOTAL
1% 0% 1% 1% 29%
SEX Men Women
1% 1% 1% 0% 31% 1% 0% 0% 1% 27%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 Sc over
0% 0% 3% 0% 26% 1% 0% 0% 1% 27% 1% 1% 1% 1% 36%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
1% 1% 1% 0% 25%
Middle SES
1% 0% 1% 1% 30%
High SES
1% 0% 0% 1% 31%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
0% 2% 0% 0% 25%
5 to 20
1% 0% 1% 1% 30%
Over 20
1% 0% 1% 0% 28%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
1%
0%
0%
0% 26%
Do not know any
1%
1%
1%
1% 29%
Question #10 : Monsanto Survey- 1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
DSW 133756 STLCOPCB4033714
Table 5: DISADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
ACCORDING TO ITS CRITICS
Odors
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
54%
51% 56%
37% 60% 56%
60% 48% 50%
40% 42% 63%
45% 55%
D I SADVANTAGE S
Poll ution
Air Poll ution
Water Poll ution
Chem. Poll ution
Toxic Wastes
22% 19% 14% 17%
6%
26% 17% 23% 23%
18% 21%
6% 12%
, 9% 3%
32% 26% 5% 5% 5%
18% 15% 18% 25%
5%
22% 22% 22% 11% 11%
23% 23% 13% 3% 0% 26% 10% 10% 26% 10%
0% 38% 38% 38% 13%
20%
10%
0% 20%
0%
21% 26% 16% 16% 11%
23% 18% 18% 18%
5%
36% 18% 9% 0% 19% 19% 16% 21%
9% 5%
Question #10: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant
who say the plant is bad for the community. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
DSW 1337b?
STLCOPCB4033715
Table 5: DISADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
ACCORDING TO ITS CRITICS
D I S ADVANTAG E S
Waste Danger Explo
Disposl ous
sions
Acci dents Sc Spills
Bad Work Place
Nothing Bad
Cited
1995 TOTAL
4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 6%
SEX Men Women
6% 9% 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 6%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 8% 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
7% 3% 7% 3% 0% 7%
Middle SES
3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 6%
High SES
0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10%
5 to 20
11%
11%
5%
0%
0%
5%
Over 20
3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
18%
0%
0%
9%
0%
9%
Do not know any
2%
5%
3%
0%
2%
5%
Question #10: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant
who say the plant is bad for the community. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
DSW 133758 STLCOPCB4033716
Table 6: ADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
Jobs
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
82%
86% 79%
74% 84% 84%
79% 82% 89%
77% 85% 82%
84% 82%
A D VAN T A G E S
Helps Helps Good Commnty Good
Local Other
Tax Contri Prodcts
Economy Businss Revenue butions
13% 2% 3% 3% 1%
13% 1% 3% 5% 1% 13% 2% 3% 2% 0%
12% 3% 0% 4% 0% 12% 2% 3% 4% 1% 17% 0% 4% 1% 1%
13% 1% 2% 1% 0% 13% 2% 3% 4% 0% 13% 1% 3% 5% 2%
9% 0% 0% 7% 0% 16% 3% 3% 3% 0% 13% 1% 3% 3% 1%
10% 0% 3% 2% 1% 14% 2% 2% 4% 1%
Question #11: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
DSW 133759 STLCOPCB4033717
Table 6: ADVANTAGES OF THE PLANT
ADVA N T A G E S
Good to Workers
All Other Good
Nothing Good Cited
1995 TOTAL
4% 1% 9%
SEX Men Women
5% 1% 6% 3% 0% 13%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
0% 0% 18% 5% 1% 7% 3% 0% 8%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
2% 4% 5%
0% 14% 1% 9% 0% 2%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
2% 2% 16%
5 to 20
6% 1% 6%
Over 20
2% 0% 10%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
8%
1%
9%
Do not know any
3%
1%
9%
Question #11: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
DSk 133760 STLCOPCB4033718
Table 7: MONSANTO AS AN EMPLOYER
Monsanto as an Employer
Excel - Good lent
Only Fair
Poor Don 11 Know
1995 TOTAL
24%
45%
12%
3% 16%
SEX Men Women
28% 21%
45% 45%
12% 13%
2% 14% 4% 17%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
12% 29% 23%
53% 42% 47%
22% 10% 11%
1% 12% 3% 16% 4% 16%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
20% 24% 32%
39% 47% 45%
20% 10%
7%
5% 16% 3% 17% 1% 14%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
14% 22% 27%
36% 49% 44%
16% 11% 12%
5% 30% 3% 15% 3% 14%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
22% 25%
55% 42%
12% 12%
3% 7% 3% 18%
Question #13: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
CSW 133761 STLCOPCB4033719
Table 8: BUSINESS CLIMATE FOR MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Local Manufacturing Climate
More
Stay Fewer Don' t
Same
Know
1995 TOTAL
71% 20% 7% 2%
SEX Men Women
'
72% 19% 6% 3% 70% 21% 8% 2%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
47% 75% 76%
32% 18% 17%
19% 4% 5%
1% 2% 3%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
67% 21% 9% 4%
Middle SES
75% 16% 7% 2%
High SES
68% 28% 3% 1%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
57% 30% 7% 7%
5 to 20
69% 23% 7% 1%
Over 20
74% 17% 7% 2%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees 72%
20%
6%
2%
Do not know any 71%
20%
7%
2%
Question #5: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSW 133762 STLCOPCB4033720
Table 9: LOCAL WATER POLLUTION
(Entire Sample)
Local Water Pollution
Ma j or Minor Not a Don' t Problem Problem Problem Know
1995 TOTAL
21% 33% 42%
5%
SEX Men Women
20% 21%
35% 30%
41% 42%
4% 6%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
20% 23% 17%
40% 35% 22%
32% 38% 56%
7% 4% 6%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
22% 20% 21%
26% 35% 36%
45% 40% 39%
8% 4% 4%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
19% 23% 20%
50% 34% 29%
25% 39% 46%
6% 4% 6%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
20% 22%
40% 34%
36% 42%
3% 3%
Question #1: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
QSW 133763 STLCOPCB4033721
Table 10: LOCAL AIR POLLUTION
(Entire Sample)
Local Air Pollution
Major Minor Not a Don' t Problem Problem Problem Know
1995 TOTAL
19%
45%
33%
4%
SEX Men Women
16% 45% 36% 22% 44% 30%
3% 4%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
20% 19% 16%
47% 48% 37%
30% 30% 42%
3% 3% 6%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
21% 18% 18%
43% 45% 45%
30% 34% 33%
6% 2% 3%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
21% 20% 18%
47% 46% 44%
26% 32% 34%
6% 2% 4%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
21% 21%
54% 44%
25% 32%
0% 3%
Question #2: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
DSW 13376*1 STLCOPCB4033722
Table 11: LOCAL CHEMICAL PLANT SAFETY
.(Entire Sample)
Local Chemical Plant Safety
Maj or Minor Not a Don11 Problem Problem Problem Know
1995 TOTAL
27% 30% 33% 11%
SEX Men Women
24% 31%
30% 29%
38% 27%
9% 13%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
26% 29% 24%
38% 29% 26%
27% 34% 35%
9% 8% 16%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
25% 25% 35%
31% 28% 33%
30% 36% 28%
14% 11%
4%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
23% 29% 27%
35% 28% 30%
34% 33% 32%
8% 9% 11%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
34% 29%
37% 30%
25% 31%
4% 10%
Question #3: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents.
CSW 133765 STLCOPCB4033723
Table 12: MONSANTO'S CONCERN WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
Degree of Plant Concern
Very Some what
Not
Don' t Know
1995 TOTAL
39% 37% 10% 14%
SEX Men Women
46% 32%
34% 39%
10% 9%
9% 20%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
31% 39% 44%
41% 38% 31%
11% 10%
9%
18% 13% 16%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
33% 37% 13% 16%
Middle SES
38%
38%
8% 16%
High SES
49%
34%
8%
8%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
27% 32% 16% 25%
5 to 20
32% 48%
9% 11%
Over 20
45%
32%
9% 15%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees 43% 38% 11%
8%
Do not know any 38%
36%
9% 16%
Question #14: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSW 133766 STLCOPCB4033724
Table 13: PLANT'S DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL WASTES
Plant 's Safe Disposal of Chemical Wastes
Good
Fair
Poor Don 11 Know
1995 TOTAL
52% 28%
6% 14%
SEX Men Women
56% 47%
26% 31%
7% 11% 6% 16%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
54% 49% 56%
34% 30% 21%
7% 5% 6% 15% 6% 17%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
44% 53% 60%
30% 29% 26%
9% 17% 5% 13% 5% 9%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
41% 47% 56%
30% 34% 25%
9% 20% 7% 12% 5% 13%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
48% 53%
34% 27%
6% 12% 6% 14%
Question #18: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSW 133767
STLCOPCB4033725
Table 14: CONFIDENCE IN PLANT'S HANDLING AN EMERGENCY
Degree of Confidence
Very
Some what
Not
Don11 Know
1995 TOTAL
42%
33%
9% 16%
SEX Men Women
'
47% 38%
30% 36%
9% 14% 8% 18%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
31% 44% 45%
46% 33% 24%
15% 8% 5%
8% 15% 27%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
38% 31% 13% 19%
Middle SES
43%
33%
7% 16%
High SES
46%
33%
7% 13%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
23% 41% 11% 25%
5 to 20
39% 40%
9% 12%
Over 20
48%
28%
8% 17%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
43% 42%
35% 32%
6% 17% 9% 16%
Question #19: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSW 133768 STLCOPCB4033726
Table 15: PLANT'S COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS
Plant Does Extra Things for Community...
Often Some times
Not Don' t Much Know
1995 TOTAL
20% 20% 16% 45%
SEX Men Women
21% 18%
21% 19%
14% 17%
44% 46%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
15% 17% 28%
19% 22% 15%
19% 15% 14%
47% 45% 43%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
16% 17% 31%
11% 22% 26%
22% 15%
7%
51% 45% 36%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to .20 Over 20
16% 13% 24%
16% 22% 19%
20% 18% 13%
48% 48% 43%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
25% 18%
20% 20%
12% 16%
43% 46%
Question #15: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSW 133769
STLCOPCB4033727
Table 16: RECALLED CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONSANTO
Don' t know or recall
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
74%
73% 76%
81% 77% 64%
81% 78% 58%
80% 83% 69%
64% 77%
Educa tion / schools broadly
13%
12% 13%
8% 13% 15%
10% 10% 23%
5% 9% 16%
19% 11%
United Way
All misc. Wellborn
other
High
School
9% 5% 1%
11% 6% 1% 8% 3% 2%
5% 4% 1% 8% 4% 1% 15% 6% 2%
5% 10% 13%
9% 5% 12% '
8% 9%
7% 2% 6%
7% 3% 5%
8% 4%
1% 1% 3%
2% 1% 1%
2% 1%
Question #16: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
1337^0 DSW
STLCOPCB4033728
Table 16: RECALLED CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONSANTO
Cerebral Palsy
Center
Tech-Prep Anniston City
Schools
1995 TOTAL
1% 0% 0%
SEX Men Women
1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
1% 0% 0%
Middle SES
1% 1% 0%
High SES
1% 0% 0%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
2% 0% 0%
5 to 20
1% 0% 0%
Over 20
1% 1% 0%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
3%
0%
0%
Do not know any
1%
1%
0%
Calhoun County Schools
0%
0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
2% 0% 0%
1% 0%
Question #16: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
DSN 133771 STLCOPCB4033729
Table 17: PUBLIC PREFERENCES FOR COMMUNITY PROJECTS
(Entire Sample)
Prefer New Community Project to Help
Educa tion & schools
Other youth
pro grams
Environ. improve-
ments
Parks & beauti fication
Help elderly, homeless or poor
1995 TOTAL
30% 6% 12% 5% 7%
SEX Men Women
28% 5% 14% 5% 7% 32% 6% 10% 6% 8%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
34% 31% 23%
6% 17% 6% 11% 5% 10%
8% 6% 6% 6% 2% 11%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
22% 31% 39%
4% 9% 6% 12% 7% 16%
3% 12% 7% 6% 6% 4%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
29% 4% 8% 8% 4%
5 to 20
40% 5% 12% 6% 6%
Over 20
24% 6% 13% 4% 9%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
29%
10%
16%
2%
9%
Do not know any 29% 5% 12% 6% 7%
Question #4: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents; very similar results among those aware of plant.
(continued)
DSlrf 133772
STLCOPCB4033730
Table 17: PUBLIC PREFERENCES FOR COMMUNITY PROJECTS
(Entire Sample)
Prefer New Community Proj ect to Help . . .
Better roads
All other
Don 11 know
1995 TOTAL
8% 18% 14%
SEX Men Women
10% 18% 13% 6% 18% 15%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 Sc over
6% 10% 11% 9% 18% 12% 6% 21% 22%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
11% 22% 17%
Middle SES
8% 15% 14%
High SES
4% 17%
7%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
7% 5% 10%
21% 18% 16% 12% 19% ' 15%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
7%
20%
7%
Do not know any
9%
18%
14%
Question #4: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on all surveyed respondents; very similar results among those aware of plant.
DSW 133773
STLCOPCB4033731
Table 18 : FAMILIARITY WITH PLANT'S PRODUCTS
Familiarity with Plant Products
Familiar Unfamiliar
1995 TOTAL
31%
69%
SEX Men Women
37% 25%
63% 75%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
24% 35% 28%
76% 65% 72%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
23% 34% 36%
77% 66% 64%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
25% 28% 34%
75% 72% 66%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
42% 29%
58% 71%
Question #12: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of the plant.
DSW 133774
STLCOPCB4033732
Table 19: KNOWLEDGE OF PLANT PRODUCTS
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
Chemicals (only) 17%
21% 13%
12% 20% 15%
12% 19% 22%
16% 13% 20%
22% 16%
Carbonless copy paper
1%
Non-aspirin pain reliever
1%
1% 1% 1% 0%
1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0%
2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1%
3% 0% 0% 1%
Question #12: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)
OSW 133775
STLCOPCB4033733
Table 19: KNOWLEDGE OF PLANT PRODUCTS
Heat transfer Plasticizers fluids
Pesticides/ insecticides/
herbicides
1995 TOTAL 1% 2% 1%
SEX Men Women
1% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
0% 4% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 4%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (SES)
Low SES
0% 2% 1%
Middle SES 1% 2% 2%
High SES
1% 2% 0%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
2% 1% 0%
0% 0% 4% 0% 1% .2%
PLANT FRIENDS
Know employees
1%
1%
2%
Do not know any
1%
2%
1%
Question #12: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
(continued)0
0S`` 133 776 STLCOPCB4033734
Table 19: KNOWLEDGE OF PLANT PRODUCTS
1995 TOTAL
SEX Men Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 Sc over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
All Other
3%
4% 1%
4% 1% 4%
2% 3% 2%
2% 1% 3%
2% 3%
Don11 Know or Recall 74%
68% 82%
78% 72% 78%
82% 72% 70%
77% 78% 72%
67% 76%
Question #12: Monsanto Survey (1/95) ' Percentages based on those aware of plant. Rows may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
DSW 133777
STLCOPCB4033735
Table 20: USEFULNESS OF PLANT'S PRODUCTS TO SOCIETY
Usefulness of Plant's Products
Very Some what
Not
Don' t Know
1995 TOTAL
41%
32%
4% 23%
SEX Men Women
49% 32%
30% 34%
4% 17% 4% 29%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
28% 36% 43% 32% 45% 28%
9% 26% 3% 23% 5% 22%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
31% 42% 53%
32% 35% 25%
9% 28% 3% 20% 1% 22%
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
39% 30% 47%
23% 42% 28%
7% 32% 3% 24% 4% 21%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
61% 36%
24% 34%
3% 12% 5% 25%
Question #17: Monsanto Survey (1/95) Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSVi 133?78 STLCOPCB4033736
Table 21: INTENSITY INDEX
Sup Sympa Strad porters thizers dlers
1995 TOTAL
19% 34% 40%
SEX Men Women
24% 13%
33% 35%
35% 45%
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 & over
9% 20% 21%
28% 33% 39%
55% 40% 30%
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
12% 18% 30%
29% 36% 36%
47% 40% 30%
YEARS IN AREA
Under 5
7% 34% 45%
5 to 20
11% 32% 51%
Over 20
24% 35% 33%
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
26% 17%
37% 33%
31% 42%
Skep Sple tics netics
6% 1%
6% 1% 6% 1%
5% 1% 5% 1% 9% 1%
9% 3% 6% 0% 3% 1%
9% 5% 5% 1% 6% 1%
4% 1% 7% 1%
Calculated from questions #9, #13-15 and #17-19 Monsanto Survey 1/95)
Percentages based on those aware of plant.
DSM 133779
STLCOPCB4033737
Table 22: DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE
SEX
Men
Women
AGE 18 - 29 30 - 59 60 Sc over
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES)
Low SES Middle SES High SES
YEARS IN AREA Under 5 5 to 20 Over 20
PLANT FRIENDS Know employees Do not know any
Entire Sample (n=600)
51% 49%
18% 57% 24%
31% 49% 20%
12% 34% 54%
15% 85%
Plant Aware (n=462)
52% 48%
16% 60% 24%
29% 50% 21%
10% 32% 58%
19% 81%
Monsanto Survey (1/95)
DSW 133780
STLCOPCB4033738
Appendix B: Questionnaire
Adams Research Inc.
1995 Anniston Area Survey
Page 74 DSW 133781
STLCOPCB4033739
[Area Code:
205
] [Interviewer Name: ]
[Phone: __ __ __ -___ __ __ __ ] [Respondent Sex: Man-1 Woman-2]
Hello, I'm calling long distance from Arlington, Virginia. This is not a sales call. Your number was dialed strictly at random for this very brief survey by Adams Research.
We'd like to know what people in your state think about a few environmental and other issues. We're interested in the opinions of [someone/a man/a woman] 18 or older. [Repeat intro if new person comes to phone.]
Can you hear me OK?
(1) In your community -- do you think water pollution is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem?
[Major problem] [Minor problem] [Not a problem] [Don't know] .
.1 .2 .3 .8
(2) In your community, do you think air pollution is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem?
[Major problem] [Minor problem] [Not a problem] [Don't know] .
.1 .2 .3 .8
(3) In your community, do you think safety at chemical plants is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem?
[Major problem] . 1 [Minor problem] . 2 [Not a problem] . 3 [Don't know] . . 8
(4) If your community had more money to spend, for what one
general type of community project would you most want
to see the money spent?
[just one top priority.]
[Schools / education] ... 1
[Other youth programs] . . 2
[Beautification projects] . 3 [Environmental improvements]4 [Park improvements] .... 5 [Road improvements] .... 6
[Hospitals / health care]. 7
[Jobs]
.............................. 8
[Fight crime / help police] 9
[Fight drugs]
........................ 10
[Help older people] ... [Help poor / homeless] . [Other:]
[Don't know]
........................
11 12
15 18
(5) Would you like to see your community have more manufacturing plants, stay the same as now, or have fewer manufacturing plants? [More] ........................ 1 [Stay same] ... 2 [Fewer] ........................ 3 [Don't know] . . 8
(6) One topic for this survey is people's attitudes toward industries located in their area. Can you tell me if there's an IBM manufacturing plant in your area? [Yes] ... 1 [No] .... 2 [Don't know] 8
___ OSW 133782
STLCOPCB4033740
Page 2
(7) Does Monsanto operate a plant in your area? [Yes]...1
[No] . .2 [DK] . .8
Go to Q #(21)=
(8) Is there an DuPont plant in your area?
[Yes] . . . [No] . . . . [Don't know]
(9) OK then, let's use that Monsanto plant as a specific example. Overall, do you think the Monsanto plant is good or bad for your area?
[Good] II
[In-between].. 3 [Don't know] . . 8
[Bad] II
Would you say it is somewhat good or very good?
[Somewhat good]. 2 [Very good].......... 1
Would you say it is somewhat bad or very bad?
[Somewhat bad].. 4 [Very bad]............. 5
gJ
<10> What is the worst thing about having that plant in your area? Anything else? Anything else? [Probe for up to three responses: never read categories on right.]
(li) What's the best thing about having that plant in your area? Anything else? Anything else? [Probe for up to three responses; never read categories on right.]
[Odor / smells] . ... 1
[Pollution] .......................... [Air pollution] .... [Water pollution] ... [Chemical pollution] .
2 3 4 5
[Hazardous/toxic waste] 6 [Poor waste disposal] . 7 [Transportation risks] 8
[Dangerous] .......................... 9 [Explosions] .... 10 [Accidents/spills/leaks 11
[Ugly] ............................... [Car traffic] .... [Bad place to work/ bad to workers] . .
12 13
14
[Other:]
15
[Nothing bad about it] 16 [Don't know] .... 18
[Jobs] .................................... [Helps general economy] [Help other businesses] [Tax revenues] .... [Charity, donations, community involvement] [Good products] .... [Good to workers] ... [Have good workers] . .
l 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
[Other:]
9
[Nothing good about it] 10 [Don't know] .... 18
DSW 133783
STLCOPCB4033741
Page 3
(12)
Are you familiar with what they make at that plant?
[Yes].
______ I__
What is that? Anything else?
[No; Don't know]. 2 GO TO QUESTION #13
[Chemicals -- Probe:]......................................... 1 "Do you happen to know what kind?" [Probe for up to three responses!]
[Carbonless copy paper ingredients]. . 2 [Non-aspirin ingredients]...................................3 [Heat transfer fluids] .................................... 4 [Plasticizers] ........................................................ 5 [Don't know; don't remember] ..................... 8
[Other:] 9
V
(13)
As a company to work for, do you think Monsanto would be
excellent, good, only fair, or poor? [Excellent] .... [Good] .......................... [Only fair] .... [Poor] .......................... [Don't know] ...
1 2 3 4 8
(14) How concerned would you say Monsanto is about the effect of their operations on the environment -- very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not so concerned?
[Very] ....
[Somewhat] . .
[Not]
....
[Don't know] .
(15)
Some companies are good neighbors and contribute to
their communities in many extra ways besides just jobs. Does Monsanto do extra things for your community -- often, sometimes, or not much?
[Often] ..................... [Sometimes] ... [Not much] ... [Don't know] . .
1 2 3 8
(16)
Is there anything in particular that the plant
has done for the community that stands out to you?
Anything else?
Anything else?
[Education broadly]................................................ 1
[Anniston City Schools]..................................... 2
responses-" neve?rad
[Calhoun County School System] ... 3
categories on right ]
[Wellborn High School]...................................... 4
[Cerebral Palsy Center]..................................... 5 [Tech-Prep] .............................................................. 6 [Knox Concert Series]...........................................7 [United Way]............................................................... 8
[Other:] .........................................
io
[Don't know] ......................................................... 18
(17) Do you think the products made at the plant are probably useful and beneficial to society or not? [If "yes":] Would you say very useful or somewhat useful?
[Very useful] . . . , [Somewhat useful] . , [No; not useful] . . [Don't know] . . . . ,
DSW 133784
STLCOPCB4033742
Page 4
(18)
When it that is a good,
comes safe, fair,
to taking care of its chemical wastes in a way
do you think the Monsanto plant probably does
or poor job? [Good] ......................... l [Fair] ......................... 2 [Poor] ......................... 3 [Don't know] ... 8
(19)
How confident are you that Monsanto could handle an emergency
at the plant -- very confident, somewhat confident, or not so confident?
[Very Confident] 1 [Somewhat] ... 2 [Not]............................. 3 [Don't know] . . 8
(20) Does anyone in your household happen to work for Monsanto?
[Yes] ... 1
[Yes, retired employee]... 2
[No] . . .
Do you have any friends who work for Monsanto?
[Yes]... 3 [No].... 4
(21)
Now to finish up, there are just four background questions
statistical purposes. About how many years have you lived
within thirty miles of where you now live? [4 years or less] . . [5 to 20 years] . . . [More than 20 years] . [Don't know; refused]
for
(22) What is the last grade or year that you completed in school?
[None] ......................................... [Elementary school]... [Some high school] ... [High school graduate] .
1 2 3 4
[Vocational or technical]
[Some college] ...........................
[College graduate] ....
[Beyond college-law, med]
[Refused]
..........................
5 6 7 8 9
(23) Are you in your teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or over 70?
[18-19]. 1 [20s]. . 2 [30s] . . 3 [40s] . . 4
[50s] . 5 [60s] . 6 [70 +] . 7 [Refused]8
(24) Finally, which income group would you and your immediate family be in this year: Under $20,000, between 20 and $50,000, or over $50,000?
[Under $20,000] . . 1 [$20-50,000] .... 2 [Over $50,000] ... 3 [Don't know; refused]8
That concludes our interview. Thank you very much for your help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSW 133785
STLCOPCB4033743