Are environmentalists bad at communicating?
When you hear the same thought from different sources it suggests it has validity. Over the last few weeks, I have heard frustration from different people regarding the way that many environmental organisations communicate. How has the movement not been able to reach or include a truly diverse cross-section of society? How has our message of a sustainable present and liveable future become a polarising political weapon? Why is there so much uncertainty about the way forward?
There are influential players delighted with this current situation, as it enables them to continue profiting from the status quo. These players are in the business of maintaining “business as usual” and are therefore willing to invest significant sums into ensuring continuing doubt and uncertainty. We’ve seen it before: this is a tactic taken straight from the tobacco industry, in their efforts to delay awareness of the health impacts of smoking.
In the face of this strong headwind, the environmental sector needs to be crisp, creative and compelling in the way that it communicates. We know that support is required. A recent report by Pilotlight found that the area where environmental charities need most help was with marketing and fundraising.
This report points to one reason why there is so much confusion: revealing that there are around 16,000 charities and social enterprises working for a sustainable future. Unlike other areas, the environmental sector hasn’t seen much merging or consolidation. Consequently, there can be a Pythonesque ‘People’s Front of Judea’ conversation with a wide variety of groups all seeking to achieve the same overall aim but in slightly different ways.
Most of these 16,000 environmental organisations are experts in narrow areas of concern, staffed by people passionate about their specific subject. This can lead to communications being highly detailed, using language that doesn’t resonate with daily concerns. These experts can have a ‘Fear of Frivolity’; concerned that light-heartedness might undermine the seriousness of their message. Those doing the communicating also tend to be from a narrow cross-section of society, making it difficult to connect with a more diverse audience that truly represents the population of the UK.
When the sector does go from specifics to generalities, it tends to hang messaging around terms like sustainability and net zero. These are hard to define and not understood by many. A recent report by the Co-op Foundation revealed that even amongst 16- to 24-year-olds, 42% of respondents knew nothing about net zero even though they were supportive of the overall aims.
These ill-defined, catch-all phrases are open-goals for those wishing to hinder transition. Net Zero has been used by opponents as a broad tent in which fake claims can be used to stoke a culture war. These claims range from expecting people to only go to certain shops, regardless of cost, or needing seven bins in their homes. This serves to delegitimise the environmental movement playing on the fear that change will remove personal choice and has no wider societal benefit.
What needs to change to help the environmental sector? I believe that there should be five principles behind all environmental communications:
Simplicity
Tempting as it might be to show how clever we are by using complicated words, in essence we want to create a world against which it is hard to argue. Our campaigns are seeking to create cleaner rivers, healthier air, less waste, greener spaces, safer streets, etc. Communications need to be stripped back to these core ambitions, as they are understandable and relatable.
Fairness
More acknowledgement is required that any changes need to be fair and just. Beyond acknowledgement, there must be action. Safety nets must be included to ensure that the changes proposed are accessible to all sections of society. Campaigns should consider the full social implications of what is being proposed and contain recommendations ensuring the cost burden doesn’t fall hardest on those least able to pay.
Aspirational
It is hard to see hope when you delve deeply into the environmental science, but there is a reason Matin Luther King’s speech started with ‘I have a dream’ and not ‘I had a nightmare’. Messaging needs to be relevant to daily concerns and focus on the positivity of the changes we are proposing. For example, who could argue against having more energy efficient homes, cutting bills and keeping people warm? Yes, there are significant carbon benefits. But should that be the lead message?
Joyful
One person I spoke to recently bemoaned the fact that they were overwhelmed by the ‘doom and gloom’ of environmental messaging. Where was the fun, the light-heartedness or the humour? Many of the successful environmental campaigns I have created such as the Ballot Bin were able to encourage people to change behaviour using humour and cultural references. This gets people to stop, to think, to notice and to share. We need to inject joy and fun into our communications.
Unexpected
I fall into the category of most ‘spokespeople’ for the environmental sector being relatively well-educated, white and deadly earnest. What I say will only resonate and appeal to a narrow section of society. We need to actively find and support advocates who authentically back what we wish to achieve, taking messages to new audiences in a different manner. This will require a significant change of mindset and approach, requiring flexibility and experimentation. But is essential if we are to create a mass movement with political validity.
I acknowledge that I have painted a sweeping picture of generalities and that some organisations are getting more sophisticated in their communications. However, the reality is that our message is not yet landing sufficiently strongly or leading to equal progress. We need to take a different approach.
I would be intrigued to hear your thoughts trewin@sizzle.org.uk