Learning game in the classroom: Clean-air city vs jobs with those who polute it

In this game team consists of 10 people who take four different roles and work together to solve the problem of air pollution in one city in which a private steel company is damaging the air quality.

There is a rise of population which is suffering from breathing disorders, fog and polluted air make it difficult for people to go out, but at the same time the company is providing many jobs for the people in the city and helps citizens provide for their families.

There is a need for a public policy, which would help solving the problem of the air pollution, but at the same time preserve the jobs of the people in the steel company.

Negotiations regarding the issue, policy making, and implementation are done among four groups of stakeholders:

• Representatives of the company (two people);
• Representatives of the local authorities (two people);
• Journalists (two people);
• Representatives of citizens (four people).

Every stage of the process needs to be agreed among them and rationale behind a decision needs to be built before the group chooses one of the two offered options which leads them to the next step in the game. The accent should also be on the communication aspect of the process.

Another option is to take the game individually. In that case, all elements of public policy creation should be considered from the standpoint of these four groups of stakeholders. However, group work before choosing one of the two options in every step of the game would be more productive.

The company “Steel for All” is a new internationally owned company in a 10,000 inhabitants city called Steelville. More than 2000 people from the city are employed by the company and additional 2000 (family members) depend on the incomes from the company.

Due to the poor regulation and reckless management of the company, the production of steel is causing a huge air pollution problem in the Steelville. Very often alarm on damaged air is activated, citizens are advised not to go out in wintertime, especially in the evening and there is a rise of lung diseases in the city.

Authorities are not doing much to solve the issue and the company keeps ensuring citizens that they are doing all that is in their power to keep the pollution at the lowest possible level.

Media mainly report on cases of citizens with health issues and there are doubts that the “Steel for All company” has bribed the local authorities to avoid adoption of stricter regulations regarding the air pollution. The company in the public space is often called “Steal for All” because there are suspicions on corruption and that the company is misusing the city and its citizens for the private profit, not taking care of their health or environment pollution.

The group needs to discuss among themselves and get a consensus on every of the steps of the process of creation of the public policy. Every group member should discuss every step of the policy making from the standpoints of the role he/she has (representative of the company, representative of the public authorities, representative of media, member of the public).

This step identifies issue that may require government action. If multiple areas are identified they can all be assessed, or particular issues may be given a priority.

If the company is providing citizens with jobs and at the same time damaging the air and environment, the key issue is: what is a problem here?

Problem:  The company is damaging not only air, but lives of people in general. They need to stay indoors especially in wintertime, their children need to wear scarves on their face when going to school, driving is heavy due to the fog and smog. Also, the air pollution is causing the raise of numbers of citizens who have lung and breathing problems, this increases the number of people who are seeking medical treatment and the spending of the government on health issues is higher, while at the same time living conditions of citizens are worse. But the solution of this problem might make the “Steel for All company” cut jobs or completely leave the Steelville, and more than 4000 people will lose their means of support. So, the problem is how to decrease air pollution at the same time preserving the jobs of citizens that can be preserved in new circumstances.

If you agreed that the problem is how to decrease air pollution at the same time preserving the jobs of citizens that can be preserved in new circumstances, you are approaching the public policy from the point of view of public authorities. In that case, your primary goal is to solve the environmental issue for the sake of this and future generations, even if the price for that is an existential crisis of some citizens who will leave jobs in the company. In this case, you need to be very careful in the presentation of your arguments to the general public and ready to accept the critics of both the company and part of the public which is more aware of their material situation than the environmental issues.

This step presents possible solutions to the problem of air pollution in the Steelville city. It is especially important to present them properly in the media so that public understands both the problem, but also the solution.

Solution: Public protests and city administration managed to force the company’s owners to buy expensive industrial air filters and invest in new technologies that will filter airstreams that are moving out of the factory and thus will lower air pollution. The company will invest in pollution control devices, such as scrubbers that remove air pollutants from industrial exhaust, but do not disrupt the production process, and into better pollutant monitoring devices that will ensure monitoring and compliance with emission limits. They, however, can only lower air pollution to some extent and cannot eliminate dangerous pollutants completely. This would mean that air pollutants will still affect citizens’ health, especially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, people with chronic diseases, people suffering asthma. It also means that air pollutants need to be constantly monitored to ensure that new technologies are lowering emissions. With these solutions citizens will, however, keep their jobs.

It is important to discuss the benefits of partial solution to citizens, with an accent on preservation of jobs and economic sustainability of the city. None of the solutions is perfect, so the choice of solution is based on benefits VS costs. In this case benefits are economy-related whereas in the second case benefits are health related. Pros and cons for every solution should be carefully discussed to reach the best possible solution.

By following solutions journalism principles, discuss how these solutions can be presented to the public. The guiding principles of solutions journalism are: present the solution, give evidence that the solution is working (data of lowered air pollutants, statements from citizens about improved health, views of independent experts), give insights (details how a certain model was set up) and limitations (what are the main limitations of a solution: air is still polluted to some extent, people lost their jobs and it impacted their employee morale and reduced the city’s economy output).

This step includes planning, implementing, and monitoring of the policy that will solve the problem. The group should agree on what are the most important steps from the standpoints of their roles and how to present them to the public.

Policy and its presentation: Solving the problem in such a way that the company can continue its work.

The representatives of the local government would address the citizens and the public, who would point out that the solution to this problem is of priority importance. Although pollution is a very big problem, the fact that the company "Steel for All" is a company that supports over 3,000 people's livelihoods should not be ignored, and it is necessary to find a solution that will somewhat reconcile both parties. The representatives of the local government would explain to the citizens / public how they agreed to reduce the volume of steel production to 70% of the total production so far, and agreed that all employees would remain, that no one would be fired, but from now they would work at night, when air pollution is smaller due to reduced traffic and thereby partially amortize pollution. Due to the reduced volume of production, and therefore the export of produced raw materials, all employees' salaries will be reduced by 30%, but the local authorities have committed to provide one-time financial assistance for employees and subsidies for heating and electricity costs for the households of employees of this company by 30%. The local authorities called on the citizens for understanding and patience and emphasized that they are making every effort to find the best solution for all their citizens. The local authorities obliged the company "Steel for All" to prepare a study for a possible ecological solution, in terms of installing wastewater filters and filters / air purifiers for chimneys.

If the priority is to keep jobs and not solve the problem of pollution completely, it is the company that "pushed" its way, while the public authorities would be the ones that would give in and lose their reputation among the citizens. However, the public authorities would explain that they must also consider the existence of their citizens and that they have agreed on certain compromise solutions with the company "Steel for All". These solutions would imply reducing the volume of production and night work. Reducing the volume of production also means a reduction in the company's total income, thus also the employee's wages, and night work means a higher value of the working hour, which the company would not be able to support/bear. That is why the local authorities would provide support to the families of employees in the form of one-time financial aid, subsidizing the costs of heating and electricity for the households of employees. Creating a study for a possible ecological solution, in terms of installing wastewater filters and air filters/purifiers for chimneys, are some of the things in which the company could be involved, and that is what the local authorities would require of the company.

In this step the group should agree on how the policy and results should be presented in the public, but also the criteria how the public should fact-check information presented to them.

Evaluation and what should citizens do with it: The company partially solved the pollution problem but kept jobs.

What should citizens check, and journalists report on?

1. The rate of air pollution in the city.
2. The number of people with breathing problems.
3. Has anyone been fired, or all jobs have been kept as the company says?
4. Did any of the experts make a statement for the public and the media to explain this decision?

The main concern of the media and the public, after the problem of air pollution was partially solved and jobs kept, is: were the jobs more important than health? Is the number of people who were ill due to bad air better now? Are people satisfied that they kept their jobs although they can still get ill from bad air? In other words, was this the best solution or some other should have been implemented.

This step identifies issues that may require government action. If multiple areas are identified they can all be assessed, or particular issues may be given a priority.

If the company is providing citizens with jobs and at the same time damaging the air and environment, the key issue is: what is a problem here? 

• Problem: The air pollution is big issue, but this company has created many jobs and thousands of families in the Steelville depend on the income gained from the “Steel for All company”. The solution of the air pollution problem might make the “Steel for All company” cut jobs or completely leave the Steelville, and more than 4000 people will lose their means of support. So, the problem is how to preserve the jobs of people and at the same time improve the quality of air and life in the city.

If you agreed that the problem is how to preserve the jobs of people and at the same time improve the quality of air and life in the city, you are approaching the public policy from the perspective of the company and the part of the public that is employed by it. In that case your arguments in communicating messages to the public will be based on economic, not environmental parameters and you need to be ready to accept critics from the people who are more aware of the environmental issues in this community, as well as NGOs who deal with environmental issues.

This step includes planning, implementing, and monitoring of the policy that will solve the problem. The group should agree on what are the most important steps from the standpoints of their roles and how to present them to the public. 

Policy and its presentation: Solving the problem in such a way that people have to be fired.

The citizens / public would be addressed by company representatives who would try to explain that, due to increased air pollution, it is necessary to temporarily close the company and put workers on hold. The representatives of the company would explain to the citizens that with the raw materials produced, the resources they have in the company's stock, they could give the employees a minimum wage for some time until a solution is found that could solve the problem permanently. Also, the representatives of the company would emphasize that they are currently in the phase of negotiations with the representatives of the public authorities in connection with the co-financing of water and air purifiers, which, with the raising of a loan, the company would buy. Until this is resolved, in addition to the minimum for all employees, the company would try to find temporary employment for all employees in other jobs, while for all employees who have the minimum conditions for pension, the company would ensure payment of contributions and missing seniority. Aware of the danger of a bad reputation due to the resulting situation, the company also provided minimum severance pay to all employees who find another job during this transition period.

If the priority is to solve the pollution, the company "Steel for All" would be exposed to condemnation and earn a bad reputation because it lays off its workers. The situation would be partially amortized by the fact that they would call this a temporary and not a permanent situation. Thus, they would "temporarily" close the company, and put the workers on hold, rather than handing them their resignations. They would also support workers by providing them with a minimum income for a while, temporary employment, help in realizing a pension, and minimum severance pay in case of new employment. The company would continue to search for ways out of the crisis. In this case, public authorities would earn points, because they would solve the problem of air pollution in this way, but they would still bear the burden of responsibility for their citizens who lost their jobs, and in that case, they should get involved to help. Searching for new jobs for waiting workers, subsidizing costs, and participating in the procurement of water and air filters are some of the things in which the public authorities could be involved, and this is what the company would request from the local authorities.

In this step the group should agree on how the policy and results should be presented in the public, but also the criteria how the public should fact-check information presented to them. 

Evaluation and what should citizens do with it: The air pollution problem is solved, but the company had to dismiss workers.

 What should citizens check, and journalists report on?

1. The rate of air pollution in the city.
2. The number of people with breathing problems.
3. What will happen to the workers and their families?
4. Did the dismissed workers receive money or offers for other work?
5. The effects of closing the factory to the city economy.

The main concern of the media and the public, after the public policy has been implemented and the air pollution being solved, is: did this really improve the quality of air and life of citizens and was it worth closing the factory, dismissing people from their jobs etc.? What kind of an effect did that have on lives of citizens in both economic and health way? In other words, was this the best solution or some other should have been implemented.

In policy making, no solution is perfect. The most important thing is to negotiate all possible solutions among different stakeholders, communicate right arguments, avoid manipulation, fact-check the data before and after implementation of the policy and manage the public reaction to implemented policy. This is why the communication is essential in policy-making regarding the environmental issues.

This step presents two possible solutions to the problem of air pollution in the Steelville city. It is especially important to present them properly in the media so that public understands both the problem, but also the solution.

• Solution: Under the pressure from citizens and the city administration, the owners of the factory will close the factory completely and reallocate it to another place. This solution will bring clean air to the citizens of the city and improve their health, but numerous families and employees will remain without a regular income. The company will give its workers severance pays but they will have to find new jobs eventually. The city administration plans to start developing a strategy for boosting tourism and giving incentives to small businesses and start-ups to provide the citizens with jobs. Large unemployment percentages can also cause brain-drain of workers, diminish employee morale, and reduce the city’s economy output.

It is important to discuss the benefits of the solution of the problem of air pollution but at the cost of economic crisis in the city. It is important to understand that no solution is perfect and that every solution has benefits and costs. In this case benefits are health - related whereas in the second case benefits are economy related. Pros and cons for every solution should be carefully discussed in order to reach the best possible solution.

By following solutions journalism principles, discuss how these solutions can be presented to the public. The guiding principles of solutions journalism are: present the solution, give evidence that the solution is working (data of lowered air pollutants, statements from citizens about improved health, views of independent experts), give insights (details how a certain model was set up) and limitations (what are the main limitations of a solution: air is still polluted to some extent, people lost their jobs and it impacted their employee morale and reduced the city’s economy output).