Clarity

The journalists’ opinions about clarity were assessed using five aspects for which a score from 1 = poor to 5 = very good could be given. In addition, they could give more explanation and provide reasons for their scoring.

The overall average score on a scale from 1 to 5 for clarity is 3.7. The averages for different statements concerning clarity are below.

FIGURE 7 Averages for different aspects concerning the clarity of ECHA’s media service among journalists.

The total score for clarity, calculated according to the balanced scorecard approach by Vos and Schoemaker, is 73.6.

TABLE 15 Total score for indicator/dimension: clarity, journalists

Aspect Average

value Score

(x20) 1. ECHA communicates with a clear message to the media. # 1 3.5 70 2. ECHA media service works with clear priorities. # 2 4.0 80 3. ECHA’s procedures (how we work) for media are clear. # 3 3.7 74 4. ECHA’s media service contact details are easy to find. # 4 3.4 68 5. ECHA’s positioning in the media field, in relation to comparable

organisations is clear and distinctive. # 5 3.5 76

Total score for clarity (sum of scores/5) 3.7 73.6

The additional interview data giving more explanatory and characterising information about the scoring for different aspects concerning clarity is presented below, categorised in different themes. Each theme includes example quotes from the participants.

TABLE 16 Interview data for dimension: clarity, journalists.

Aspect Theme Quotes from interview data

# 1 Complex messaging “It takes me a little time to figure out what your statements are actually saying, what they are about.”

“The [media] answers from the press office are not always clear and I don’t understand them. Sometimes I would like to get a bit more information but it’s not possible for the press office to get that information in the time we’ve given them.”

“The message is often ambiguous; a lot of content has been packed in one release. I think this decreases clarity.”

“It would be good to have special information available for journalists, explaining more.”

“The big and small news get mixed for us who do not follow you on daily basis. We don’t have the resources to focus only on one topic, so we would need the [chemical] news sent to us be framed in a bigger context: why is this news relevant now, how does this fit the bigger picture. Only then the news has a basis for a story in our media.”

# 2 Chemicals legislation sets priorities

More proactiveness

“It’s clear that ECHA prioritises working with companies and authorities.”

“I think the Agency talks about the issues that are urgent.”

“I think the legislative timetables set the priorities. And that shows in communication.”

“It would be interesting to know beforehand what is coming up, what is ECHA prioritising in the autumn for example. That’s very interesting to write about even though it’s not news for today.”

# 3 Clear but faceless

Need for a national angle

“I prefer having a relationship with an individual person. It’s much easier to check facts when you have built this relationship.”

“The press department are faceless, nameless people, and I find that patronising on ECHA’s behalf.

“Sometimes I would prefer talking directly to an expert [instead of going through the press office]. I get the replies to my questions but I often have more questions to ask and it all becomes quite cumbersome.”

“In the Finnish media, we want to portray a Finnish angle. That’s why we focus more on the Agency and its functioning rather that the actual news content.

Sometimes it has been hard to get the angle our readers are interested in.”

“What ECHA is mentioning [in] the press releases is not of much interest. If you would like to be mentioned more in the media, you should look from the perspective of the journalist in Spain, Germany,

Sweden, and write releases also from their point of view to meet their need. Maybe you can work together with the authorities in the Member States.”

# 4 Easier access,

transparency “It would be great to have names and phone numbers online and in emails.”

“It feels slightly strange to send a[n] email to press at ECHA, you don’t know who to address the email. It would be useful for journalists to know the names of people who work there.”

“It is very difficult to phone people. Sometimes they [press officers] call me, but I know they prefer emails.”

# 5 Distinctive role

No personality

“It is very clear what you do…compared to the national agencies…they explain a bit more, so you don’t have to have a lot of knowledge…if you work as a journalist in a general media, you can understand their messages.”

“I’m always clear on what ECHA’s positioning on a question is compared to someone else, like Commission or Member States.”

“You are serious, professional, neutral and as impartial as you can [be]. You don’t stray beyond the powers you have.”

“ECHA does not have a personality. It is faceless.”

“Only in the big meetings you realise that there are genuine people behind it all.”

The score for clarity is above the critical limit of 70, set by Vos and Schoemaker.

The journalists see that the messages coming from ECHA are not always clear and that more attention could be paid to simplifying content both in news releases and in media replies. They see that the chemicals legislation that ECHA is implementing sets the priorities for the media service and express a wish for more proactive information on upcoming issues.

The journalists are quite well aware of how ECHA works with journalists.

However, the media service is seen to be somewhat faceless and journalists would like to have access to the names and contact details of the people working in the service. Many of them also value building personal relationships with the press officers. In addition, some would like ECHA to provide more of a national angle in the news.

The positioning of ECHA is considered quite distinctive, compared with, for example, the European Commission or the Member States.