Twenty million mobile phones in use in the United Kingdom early last December. Soaring to almost 25 million after all the Christmas presents had been opened. What an industry! Mobile communications manufacturers and operators certainly have reason to celebrate the dawn of the new millennium.
Somehow I cannot bring myself to celebrate wholeheartedly with them. Something, somewhere is not quite right.
That somewhere is the manufacturing sector, specifically the manufacturers of mobile terminals and handsets. That something is the health risk issue, the concern among some members of the public that radiation from mobile terminals and base station antennas can cause adverse health effects.
Sales of nearly 4.5 million mobile phones over the Christmas period should give me sufficient cause to celebrate. It shows that scare tactics and irresponsible reporting in the national press and television have had little impact. The alleged brain-roasting effects of mobile phones seem to have been discounted by a public faced with the desire to produce useful and acceptable gifts.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Mobile equipment manufacturers have long been aware that adverse publicity about alleged health risks has no discernible effect on sales. That in itself proves nothing. It is no justification for ignoring public concerns.
But the handset manufacturers are ignoring public concerns. Deliberately and consciously I suspect. I think this is the wrong approach. That is why I am disinclined to celebrate.
A couple of years ago it was very different. Manufacturers were actively involved in tracking and debating health risk issues. There was a tangible sense of social responsibility, a desire to educate both themselves and the public. Now the health issue appears to have been deliberately shunted aside. The topic is no longer on the agenda at individual companies.
“Nothing is going to happen during my stewardship; let’s get on with running our business.”
Small cross-industry groups of dedicated people have been set up to handle the interface with the scientific research community. Industry spokesmen have been appointed, with an apparent remit to deflect the issues rather than engage in constructive debate. No one seems to have the task of communicating with the public. No one seems concerned about building a climate of trust.
This goes against all the principles of risk and issue management. The manufacturing side of the industry has become dismissive of people’s legitimate concerns. It is ignoring the public’s perception of risk and restricting its comments to the science, necessarily relying on negative results. It has put itself in a classic position of denial.
The operator community, in contrast, has been exemplary in facing up to the health risk issue, taking the middle ground, sharing information and encouraging two-way communication. It is building a climate of trust. It has to-its customers are the ones who are concerned.
The manufacturing community does not deal directly with the public. It has the luxury of apparently being insulated from their concerns. It is taking advantage of that position by isolating itself from the debate. It is not demonstrating that it understands public concerns and is committed to addressing those concerns.
I suspect such a stance is unethical. It is certainly irresponsible. Hardly a cause for celebration.
