Communicating for sustainable action
David Micallef

<  Previous article  |  Next article  >

Posted Wednesday, 1 December at 9:38 am in Planet

Media consumers are bombarded by multiple climate change messages each day. Fix the leaky tap; take shorter showers; turn off the light; turn the air-conditioning down; use your car less; don’t buy plastic – plastic is bad, very bad.

The question is: how many of these messages are getting through?

Not many, according to environmental psychologist Professor Robert Gifford, from Canada’s University of Victoria. Presenting his research at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology in Melbourne during July, Gifford highlighted the complexity inherent in communicating climate-change issues.

His research suggests that consumers face a number of obstacles that block climate-change messages. These obstacles, which he calls the ‘dragons’ of climate change, are experienced to varying degrees by different people at any one time. They stop the public from taking action on environmental issues, relegating them to the sidelines as concerned bystanders.

Gifford’s six ‘dragons’ of climate change:

  1. Limited cognition – Consumers battling this dragon feel that they don’t need to do anything about the environment because they believe that everything will just work out anyway, or are too tuned to the present to be concerned about what might happen in the future.
  2. Ideology – Also referred to as ‘tech salvation’, this refers to consumers’ reliance upon scientists to save the day, or believing that Mother Nature will take care of everything. This is similar to religious ideology, in which a person believes that faith will save them.
  3. Social comparison – When what we do is influenced by what others do. For example, ‘If they’re not recycling, I’m not going to either.’
  4. Investment – Investment in ‘non-sustainable’ actions brings up a consumer’s conflicts between environmental aspirations and other goals or aspirations. For example, if a consumer has just bought a new car, they might believe that justifying the purchase (by driving) outweighs the environmental issues.
  5. Mistrust or discredence – Refusing to give credibility to authorities (scientists, governments etc.) because of a mistrust of these groups.
  6. Limited behaviour – This is when a person is doing the right thing but not to any great extent. For example, someone could choose to use an energy-efficient product but compensate by overusing it.

According to Gifford, these obstacles should inform the way climate campaigning is undertaken. He believes it should take on a number of different forms, based on the needs and obstacles faced by different demographic groups.

Where it fits: the body of research on communicating climate change

Gifford’s research adds to a great global body of knowledge about communicating climate change.

Fenton Communications recently analysed a number of research reports from Australia, Europe and the US that explored the global problem of motivating consumers to act on climate change.

The research findings had some common themes that should be considered when communicating climate change:

  • Social acceptance is important – Consumers no longer act alone. They are more likely to change their behaviour when influenced by the groups and communities to which they belong. Similarly, they are more likely to trust and be motivated by other people than by institutions or government.
  • Big achievements spark smaller ones – Major achievements on environmental issues motivate people to take action. For example, a large solar-energy installation will encourage people to conserve energy or install their own solar-energy systems. Promote these big successes, rather than just publicising the doom and gloom.
  • We have a mismatch between the problem and the solution – ‘Climate change is the greatest problem facing mankind’, yet we tell consumers that it can be solved by turning off a light. In an effort to foster simple actions on climate change, a mismatch has been created in consumers’ minds between the problem and the solution . Simple solutions need to seem heroic enough to tackle the size of the climate-change problem.
  • Ego is still a great motivator – While we would all like to believe humans can be purely altruistic, feeding self-esteem can still provide great results. Give consumers opportunity to receive praise for completing green actions.

A key learning from all the research into climate-change communication, backed up by Gifford’s presentation in Melbourne, is the need to understand audiences so that you can target them with messages and actions that are specific to their lifestyle.

Effective research, a well-segmented communication strategy and careful evaluation can help to drive consumers off the sidelines and back into action on climate change.

David Micallef is the Group Account Manager for Sustainability and Infrastructure and Head of Media at Fenton Communications. He has extensive experience in developing and implementing communications, media and stakeholder-engagement strategy in the sustainability sector, and has worked with a range of clients in the government and NGO sectors.

Where do you stand?

Comments have closed  |  More by David Micallef

  • 17 Aug 2010 at 7:55 pm  

    David, thank you for publicising these recent research findings. Recently, I witnessed a real example of this in action. I volunteered to encourage consumers at the Brisbane Ekka to join me and other women in the 1 million women campaign (www.1millionwomen.com.au) – a campaign with a goal to empower 1 million women in Australia to collectively cut 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

    Comparing the campaign to Fenton Communications’ research analysis, it ticks off a number of the communication themes: the campaign has support from a number of well known ambassadors, including entertainers and media personalities (social acceptance), it shows consumers how the actions they take individually combine with the actions of others to make a big impact (the link between the problem and the solution), and it enables women who join the campaign the ability to track their progress and feel good about the contribution they are making (ego). The campaign message is simple and it works: more than 2000 women in Brisbane signed up to make a difference, and were excited about getting involved. According to the 1 million women website over 25,000 women have already joined the campaign. For my own ego, I know the 6,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide I will reduce over the next year will add to the 50,500 tonnes of carbon emissions already saved by other women. This campaign is just one example of how using a positive message can enable consumers to take climate change action.

  • 19 Aug 2010 at 5:26 pm  

    Hi Kyla

    Thank you for your comment on the post.

    It is amazing how much ego plays an important role in sustainable action and how it links with social acceptance. Even starting a conversation in a social situation about saving water or saving energy generally gets some excited conversation going from those involved about what they are doing in their own homes.

    This is something that needs to be capitilised on in getting people to take action. Rather than just using constant messages and advertising to tell people what to do, people should be given the opportunity to tell others what they are doing, creating action from a number of levels.

    Social media plays an important role in this. This medium presents some great opportunities to allow people to show others the actions they are taking and become their own ‘champions’ for your message.