Public perceptions of federal science advisory boards depend on their composition.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice to inform agency decision-making. Recent regulations have decreased the representation of academic scientists on the EPA SAB and increased the representation of industry scientists. In an experiment, we asked how the US public views the goals and legitimacy of the board as a function of its composition.

Industry-Dominated Science Advisory Boards Are Perceived To Be Legitimate…But Only When They Recommend More Stringent Risk Management Policies.

In 2017, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was criticized for two controversial directives that restricted the eligibility of academic scientists to serve on the agency's key science advisory boards (SABs). The EPA portrayed these directives as necessary to ensure the integrity of the SAB. Critics portrayed them as a tactic by the agency to advance a more industry-friendly deregulatory agenda.

The benefit of virtue signaling: Corporate sleight-of-hand positively influences consumers' judgments about "social license to operate".

When confronted with concerns or backlash as a result of their environmental or sustainability performance, companies may elect to address them head-on by directly correcting their real or perceived misdeeds. However, it is often the case that businesses are unwilling or unable to address their transgressions directly; in these cases, they may elect to draw attention to indirect substantiality benefits unfolding in areas unrelated to where the concerns or backlash initially arose. In this study, we sought to test the effect of these indirect and direct responses to sustainability challenges on two dependent variables: public perception of company reputation, and their willingness to grant a company "social license" for future business activities.

Will Millennials save the world? The effect of age and generational differences on environmental concern.

Are younger people, defined by age, or younger generations, defined by cohort-level measures, more concerned about declines in environmental health when compared to their older counterparts within the United States? Related, are these same people more willing to support policy actions aimed at preventing future losses when compared to older adults? In spite of reporting by the U.S. popular press about the heightened environmental consciousness of Millennials, prior research offers conflicting answers.