But as careers progress and responsibilities grow, these instances of rest and reflection become increasingly infrequent. Add in a child or two and the care of an aging parent, and downtime can soon become the stuff of nostalgia.

Such a lifestyle has become accepted in our society, but is this norm really normal? With work commitments encroaching on our time, what else is being eroded?

Do Australian professionals have a problem with work-life balance?

Research by Beaton in collaboration with Linda Duxbury, a work-life balance expert, and Beyond Blue has found that Australian professionals are working harder than ever – and it’s not necessarily doing them any good. So how sustainable is our ‘workaholism’?

In this 2008 study, close to 12,000 professionals answered questions relating to work-life balance. The results showed that professionals in Australia are particularly time-poor. On average, they spend 9.5 hours at work each day. A large majority (70%) worked an average 6 hours of unpaid overtime each week.

Nearly half (42%) of respondents cited they felt overloaded within their role – that is, their workload was approaching or had surpassed a level with which they were comfortable. Not surprisingly, nearly a third (29%) of respondents felt their work was encroaching on their family life.

So why do we do it? Why would we willingly take on more work when we already feel overloaded? Prior research by Linda Duxbury found it was due to:

1. Downsizing
   • ‘Jackson was made redundant, now I have to do his work as well as mine.’
2. Corporate culture
   • ‘If I don’t work harder than the guy next to me, I won’t advance. If he does overtime, I have to do more, because I’m more committed and more loyal.’
3. Increased use of technology
   • ‘If you need me I’ll be contactable on my iPhone/Blackberry/laptop in the hotel lobby/plane/taxi /restaurant.’
4. Global competition
   • ‘It’s always happy hour somewhere in the world, and Johnson & Co. need their report by 9 am GMT + 10:00.’
5. Wanting to do a good job
   • ‘It’s not perfect yet. If I just spend a little more time on it, it’ll be perfect. Then I can go home.’

What these reasons boil down to are expectations – those of others or of ourselves. Just as opportunities multiply as they are seized, expectations increase as they are met. And to continually meet rising expectations, the relationship between work and life must inevitably be strained. So what effect does this have?

Depressing figures: the impact of work-life imbalance

In 2007, a collaborative study between Beaton and Beyond Blue of over 7,500 professionals in Australia found a significantly higher prevalence of depression within those working in professional service firms as compared to the general population. Lawyers in particular were the most prone to depression and were also more likely to use non-prescription drugs or alcohol to mitigate feelings of sadness.

Such a statistic begs the question of causality: ‘does working in the professions cause depressive symptoms or do the professions attract a typically more morose individual?’ Neither of the above studies intended to answer that question. However, four facts from the work-life study collectively highlight a grave concern for the Australian professional services industry:

1. Those overloaded within their role (49% of Australian professionals) are significantly more likely to express the view that they are not satisfied with their job.
2. Those who feel their work interferes with their family life (29%) are even more likely to be dissatisfied with their job.
3. One in four (25%) miss work due to physical or emotional fatigue.
4. Absenteeism due to physical or emotional fatigue is often a precursor to episodes of burnout.

Is it any surprise lawyers are the most prone to depression, when anecdotally we know they work some of the longest hours in the professions?

The link here is not between depression and hours spent at work per se; rather, it is between depression and a sense of not being in control, something often cited by those experiencing feelings of intense sadness. Growing expectations can make us feel trapped, especially when those expectations are rigidly defined. The work-life study found that, more than anything else, flexibility of work hours and location help Australian professionals balance their lives better. This relatively simple measure may drastically reduce mental health issues, absenteeism and burnout.

So is our ‘workaholism’ sustainable? For the sake of our collective mental health, is it not time to concede that the answer is a clear ‘no’? Surely the question to ask now is ‘how do we change our expectations?’

Phillip Sargeant is an Associate at Beaton, a research and consulting firm that works with professional service firms and has previously collaborated with Beyond Blue.

PLEASE HELP!

I’m fed up with these twentysomethings with their tweets and their texts and their three-second attention spans, rocking up late to work every day oblivious to the needs of anyone but themselves. Apparently I’m meant to call these flickr-and-you’ll-miss-it types ‘colleagues’ and interact with them on a professional level. God only knows how. I mean, I turn up to work every day on time and apply myself with the same passion as I did in my first heady days of employment 18 years ago (and for the record, there was a recession on then too). I get paid a decent wage and I go home satisfied (mostly) with a good day’s toil behind me. I am pleased (even lucky) to be employed and I strive in every way possible to make my job a success – for my employer and myself.  So the question I have is: ‘Why is all of that not enough for these so-called millennial babes? What more do they want? What right do they have to complain so much, expect so much, demand so much? And where, oh where, is their loyalty?’

These are just some of the sentiments held by Gen X and baby boomers alike about their fellow cohort, Generation Y (otherwise known as millennials, generation next or the net generation). Indeed, Gen Y is entering the workforce with an entirely different – some might say alien – set of values, attitudes and expectations. As Graham Brown recently wrote for online blog yourLifeWorks, Gen Y ‘are tech-savvy, travel-mad, self-absorbed, peer-pressured, celebrity-obsessed, Facebook-compulsive, iPod-wearing, brand-conscious 20-somethings who live with their parents and show no loyalty to their employer (and that’s the good stuff).’ So how are we expected to work with them? Manage them? Lead them? And when we’ve got over our annoyance and realise that we need them in order to sustain the workforce, how do we attract them? Engage them? Keep them?

Generational differences

An international survey by global workforce solutions leader Kelly Services (the Kelly Global Workforce Index) recently found that communication styles and attitudes toward rewards are key generational differences that affect workplace productivity. Forty per cent of Australian respondents believe that these differences make the workplace more productive; 23 per cent believe they interfere with productivity; and 24 per cent believe they make no difference.

Kelly Services Managing Director, James Bowmer, said that generational differences can sometimes cause friction between employees but, when properly managed, can also be a source of growth. ‘When the differences between the age groups are harnessed effectively, they can provide a powerful stimulus to creativity and productivity. Rather than trying to smother this diversity, good employers are utilising it to generate fresh ideas and new ways of doing business.’

Among the survey’s key findings were:

• Baby boomers believe they understand the generational differences better than Gen Y or Gen X
• Gen Y are the most positive about the productivity benefits flowing from diverse age groups in the workplace
• In communicating with colleagues, all generations prefer face-to-face discussion over written or electronic communication
• Gen Y and Gen X largely opt for traditional cash rewards while many baby boomers lean toward non-cash benefits such as time off and training opportunities
• Almost half (47 per cent) the respondents said they had experienced intergenerational conflicts in their workplace.

It has long been acknowledged that age-related differences do have an impact on the way people go about their work. Indeed, this survey showed that Gen Y and Gen X employees are more likely than baby boomers to adapt their communication style when dealing with colleagues from a different generation.

Mr Bowmer said it is important that employers recognise the key differences between the generations and manage them effectively in order to achieve a harmonious balance and a productive work environment. ‘Juggling these pressures is challenging but by addressing issues such as compensation and internal communications amongst others, it is possible to reap the benefit from a diverse group of people, and generate conditions that can help organisations to flourish.’

Managing Gen Y

So how do we go about managing Gen Y in the workplace? The following tips come courtesy of a number of HR consultants and commentators on the web:

• Provide challenging work that really matters – Gen Y workers need to feel important
• Don’t look for a Gen Y worker to approach work as you did, i.e. eager to please and willing to do ‘scut’ work or put in extra hours to get ahead
• Offer increasing responsibility rather than cash bonuses as a reward for achievements
• Provide immediate feedback and acknowledgment where possible – Gen Y workers have been brought up on immediate gratification
• Provide ongoing training and learning opportunities – it’s very often ‘lack of training’ that Gen Y workers give as a reason for leaving
• Act as mentors rather than managers – Gen Y workers want to be treated as colleagues, not as beginners or kids
• Allow some flexibility in day-to-day scheduling
• Act as a sounding board – Gen Y workers are brimming with ideas and want to feel heard
• Use innovative ideas for creating a more comfortable, low-key, low-stress workplace – relaxed workplaces are a priority for Gen Y workers
• Focus on work outcomes, but be personable and have a sense of humour
• Make it clear when Gen Y workers can have more freedom to be creative and when they should follow strict guidelines.

So is it a case of managing the unmanageables? Or just a case of changing our expectations?

About the Kelly Global Workforce Index

The Kelly Global Workforce Index is a survey revealing opinions about work and the workplace from a generational viewpoint. Survey results and comments appear courtesy of Kelly Services.

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a marketing communications agency proud to have all generations on its books.

• The capacity to maintain a certain process or state indefinitely.
• Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
• Capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of definitions but it does give you the picture. ‘Sustainable’ is a word that has established itself in our vocabulary – it’s here to stay and rightly so.

The last few years have seen an extraordinary shift in our perceptions. It wasn’t so long ago that we had little understanding (or desire to understand) the impact of our lifestyle on the environment. Today, climate change is a very real problem staring us right in the face and it’s not going away. There will always be a small minority who continue to deny its existence but, in general, the masses are starting to sit up, take notice and demand action from governments and themselves. The word is spreading quickly and if you haven’t taken heed yet, it will only be a matter of time before you do.

I recently attended the Sustainable Living Festival at Federation Square in Melbourne. Now in its eleventh year, this event raises awareness about the environmental and social challenges we face as a community and offers some potential solutions. As a frequent public transport user, I was pleased to see that sustainable transport was on the agenda.

Speakers for a session hosted by the Metropolitan Transport Forum included economist, Professor Ross Garnaut; Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Water, Greg Hunt MP; and Federal member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson MP. If Professor Garnaut’s name sounds familiar it’s probably because you’ve heard of the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, his independent study about the effects of climate change on the Australian economy.

There was consensus among the speakers that sustainable transport, both public and private, is critical to the functionality of any city. It affects our economy, society and liveability. It affects individuals, businesses and governments. Our transport has to meet the needs of a growing population (which in Melbourne’s case is very rapid), be economically viable and minimise environmental harm.

Professor Garnaut had several interesting points to make. He drew attention to the grim reality that Australia leads all developed countries in total greenhouse gas emissions per capita (yes, we’re even ahead of America). We use more private transport (mainly cars) than most of the developed world and all of our larger cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth) are in the bottom third of developed cities when it comes to using public transport, walking or cycling.

He described how only 27% of Melbournians regularly commute to work via public transport, walking or cycling (and in doing so, lead every other Australian city) compared to 82% of Hong Kong’s population. Astonishing when you consider the fact that Hong Kong has approximately 3 million more people than Melbourne. Clearly, we have a long way to go.

And it may come as a surprise to hear that if we all changed to electric cars tomorrow, this would actually increase our greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The reason, Professor Garnaut explained, is that Melbourne (and most of Australia) still relies heavily on coal for electricity. So electric cars are good but only if they are powered by clean energy such as solar, water or wind.

He also spoke of reviewing the distribution of finance between the states and territories. Funds that could be used to improve infrastructure are often diverted away from our biggest cities, Melbourne and Sydney – the ones that need them most. This is in contrast to well-known international cities like London.

As a proud Melbournian, I feel passionately about the health of this city. I believe that moving people onto public transport is more achievable than a mass switch to electric cars and simultaneous overhaul of our electricity supply to clean energy (at least in the short term anyway). It would also combat the growing congestion on our roads. But encouraging public transport use starts with a reliable and sustainable system that can be used by all. Unfortunately this description does not currently apply.

Governments, at all levels, often overlook long-term planning for the ‘quick fix’ to impress voters. Over time, the lack of investment in Melbourne’s infrastructure has become all too apparent. For example, it’s ludicrous that rail workers may have to hose down the train tracks on hot days because they start to buckle. I only hope it isn’t drinking water they use while the rest of us observe the 155L target set by the government (that would be very ironic indeed). We have seen the subsequent train cancellations bring the city to a grinding halt on more than one occasion.

In short, on hot days our public transport becomes a game of chance and in a city where the mercury often heads north of 35°C, that’s a game we play too often. How long are we prepared to put up with a third-world public transport system?

Professor Garnaut concluded his talk by saying Melbourne must be re-designed in order to move forward. It’s a huge project that will take decades but it needs to happen. Given that our population is projected to grow a further 1.5 million by 2036, it’s clear that Melbourne needs rescuing now. Not tomorrow. Not next year. This great city just won’t cope otherwise.

Say ‘no’ to more roads and to expanding Melbourne’s urban growth boundary.

Say ‘yes’ to better public transport and a more sustainable Melbourne.

I’ve had my say. Now it’s your turn. Complete the Metropolitan Transport Forum’s public transport survey at http://www.pt4me2.org.au/. The results will be presented to the major parties in May ahead of the state elections later this year.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in passionate (and sustainable) marketing communications for the B2B, healthcare and corporate sectors.

While the future of Australia’s Emissions Trading Scheme is in some doubt, one thing we can be sure of is that sustainability will remain on the national political agenda for some time to come. But is sustainability a business – as well as a political – issue?

The ‘social licence’ theory of sustainability

The last decade has seen the growth of triple-bottom-line reporting and senior corporate sustainability roles in business. However, many of these initiatives are based on the idea that businesses need a ‘social licence’ to continue to operate in democratic society. The theory is that businesses need to demonstrate their social and environmental responsibility, in order to maintain their social licence.

Sustainability as a way of attracting talent

A second reason why sustainability might be a business issue is that people want to work for organisations that are socially and environmentally responsible. Under this theory, if your firm can build an employer brand which is associated with social and environmental responsibility, then talented employees will flock to you. And as the economy picks up, Australia’s ageing population will mean that the war for talent – notwithstanding the ceasefire of the last 18 months – will be more vicious than ever. So any advantage that firms can create is worth investing in. But the question is: do employees really care about the social and environmental responsibility of their employers?

Sustainability is a second-order issue for employees

Beaton Research & Consulting has been researching attraction and engagement of talent in Australian professional service firms for the past decade. In November 2008, we completed a study that collected the responses from over 6,700 partners and staff working in professional organisations including legal, accounting, patent attorney and engineering firms.

One question we sought to answer was: what is really important to recruits when they are considering joining a firm? To this end, we asked respondents two specific questions:

1. What is MOST IMPORTANT to you when considering a firm as a place to work?
2. If you received similar job offers from two firms, what would make you choose one firm over the other?

Respondents were then provided with a list of 16 attributes, which included ‘social and environmental responsibility’. Respondents could select more than one attribute. The results for ‘social and environmental responsibility’ were surprisingly – and consistently – low. In the legal industry, only 12.1% rated social and environmental responsibility as an important consideration. In order of importance, it was the 14th attribute out of the 16 measured. (See Fig 1. below.)

Fig 1. Drivers of consideration – partners and staff of Australian law firms

When it came down to choosing between two similar employment offers, social and environmental responsibility was cited as important by only 5.8% of those in the legal industry. (See Fig 2. below.)

Fig 2. Critical factors – partners and staff of Australian law firms

Similar results were seen in both the accounting and engineering professions. This was particularly surprising in the engineering sector, as many consulting engineering firms have invested heavily in their green credentials. Only 14.1% of those working in consulting engineering firms rated social and environmental responsibility as an important consideration. In order of importance, this was 13th – only slightly higher than in the legal profession. (See Fig 3. below.)

Fig 3. Drivers of consideration – principals and staff of Australian consulting engineering firms

Whilst these data relate only to professional service employees, I see no reason why the results would be different in other sectors. If anything, I would expect professionals to care more about social and environmental responsibility than those in lower-paid jobs, where pay and conditions are more immediate concerns.

What this means

The inevitable conclusion is that building a reputation for social and environmental responsibility is not going to help firms win the war for talent. What people really want from employers is to be treated well, be assisted with professional and career development, and have a life outside work. Essentially, employees want to know ‘what’s in it for me’. And the WIIFM needs to be direct and tangible. This gels with my own experience. In my previous career as a lawyer, one of our clients was, for a time, a big tobacco company. What surprised me was that without exception, all the people I met from the company raved about it as an employer. The pay, benefits and opportunities for employees were substantial. And I’ve got to admit that, for a moment, I even considered working for them. This just shows that a relatively intangible, remote benefit – like working for an organisation that is socially and environmentally responsible – can be trumped by more immediate, direct benefits. Even if the contrast is stark, as with a tobacco company. So does this mean that employers should ignore sustainability? The answer is not a simple yes or no. The crux of the issue probably lies in understanding where sustainability is – and is clearly not – an issue. I think that businesses do need to maintain their social licence to operate, and this is where providing evidence of sustainable practices is critical. But if your aim is to recruit talented people in a competitive market, there are other important things that require attention. [Ed: To read more about how employees perceive firms who adopt socially responsible practices, see Maia Gould's article: 'Social Responsibility: an innovative idea'.]

Tristan Forrester is a Managing Consultant at Beaton Research & Consulting, a leading global research and consulting firm. As a former lawyer, he maintains a key interest in how firms retain their talent.

The research

• Scope: A national survey of more than 10,000 leaders and employees of Australian businesses
• Aim: To identify the stimulus for and obstacles against businesses engaging in sustainability reporting

Sustainability reporting is poised to take off

The strongest message emerging from the study is the huge latent potential in sustainability reporting in Australia – the will is there, but a substantial proportion of organisations are yet to find the way.

Around a third (35%) of leaders responding to the survey say their organisation currently produces sustainability reports. Of those, over half (54%) have been producing reports for less than three years. But latent potential is acutely demonstrated by the findings that 20% of leaders whose organisation is not reporting on sustainability say it is only a matter of time before they start, and 73% of leaders say they would personally like to see their organisation making a commitment to sustainability reporting.

What it tells us is that the business community is at a stage where it needs a lot of support and encouragement. This goes for organisations that have recently commenced sustainability reporting as they navigate the difficult early years, through to those that have the desire to undertake reporting but, for whatever reason, have not yet taken the plunge. The resources are out there, but the process of determining best practice can be bewildering.

Supply chain and other business community pressures will make reporting relevant to all

Three-quarters of respondents (74%) say that a major benefit of committing formally to sustainability is ‘reputation management’ – to many this may evoke cynical attitudes of ‘greenwashing’, but what we believe it says is that in order to operate a business in the current climate, organisations need to tackle sustainability issues. It indicates that sustainability is a business imperative, and a range of further findings support this.

Firstly, almost half (44%) of respondents believe the benefits of sustainability reporting outweigh the costs, and a similar proportion (47%) believe that in five years’ time the majority of businesses will be producing sustainability reports.

Secondly, as more organisations commence sustainability reporting, a larger number of others will be affected. For example, we found that 57% of leaders from reporting organisations would give preference to suppliers who can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, and no less than 80% of leaders in reporting organisations agree it is likely that their organisation will require suppliers to meet certain sustainability standards in the future.

So although 42% of leaders say they are not doing sustainability reporting because they don’t feel it is relevant to their organisation, these reputational and supply chain pressures will inevitably affect most organisations – to say you ‘are too small’, ‘have no significant environmental impact’ or ‘are a not-for-profit organisation’ is unlikely to cut it.

There is a strong message here for associations. While they typically have not been among the first to engage with sustainability reporting, respondents believe there is a significant role for them in showing leadership in sustainability – 68% of respondents say that professional associations and industry bodies need to actively encourage members to engage in sustainability reporting.

Sustainability reporting is good for employees

Many people unfamiliar with sustainability reporting are unaware that ‘labour standards’ can play a huge role in sustainability initiatives. Over half (53%) of employees in reporting organisations believe their workplace is healthier and more productive as a result, and the overwhelming majority (70%) of employees in non-reporting organisations say they would feel they were promoting a healthier and more productive workplace if their organisation made a commitment to sustainability.

And if external reputation management is important, we must not forget internal reputation management: 54% of employees say that as a result of their organisation tackling sustainability issues, they feel more proud of their organisation.

And these results have not yet been controlled for employees’ perceptions of their organisation’s success at embedding sustainability initiatives – the reported proportions could climb dramatically if we looked exclusively at those organisations that were successfully doing sustainability reporting. This is something that we will be looking at in further analysis of the data.

Sustainability is also likely to be a strong driver of staff attraction; 41% of employees in reporting organisations say that if they changed jobs they would not want to work somewhere that does not tackle sustainability issues.

What next?

Business leaders should be reassured that they don’t have to achieve everything in the first year of their reporting: best practice is first to understand your business’s impact on your environment, then to take small steps towards improvement.

For those thinking about taking the plunge, a useful resource is the Good Business Register. The website is managed by St James Ethics Centre, the hub for the GRI and United Nations Global Compact in Australia. Their resources are essential reading for anyone interested in best-practice sustainability reporting.

How can we keep this momentum going? And how can we all take the next step towards embedding sustainability reporting in our business community culture? How can we make measuring and monitoring sustainability initiatives cheaper and easier, to ease the burden on organisations?

Download the People.Productivity.Planet report here.

Dr Rebecca Sheils is Director of Research at Beaton. She has a strong interest in sustainability as a driver of long-term profitability and the necessity of measuring and managing sustainability initiatives to ensure business success.

So where does brand fit in relation to CSR and sustainability reporting? Dr Stephen Downes, Principal of market research and brand strategy firm, QBrand Consulting, recently shared his views on this topic at a corporate reporting open-day event organised by WellmarkPerspexa.

Firstly, what is a brand? According to Dr Downes, what he described as the neuro-psycho-cultural brand paradigm views a brand as:

• a network of associations in the mind of the customer
• a cultural icon with symbolic social meaning
• having specific structural and biochemical correlates in the brain.

Under each of these conceptualisations, brands shape customer attitudes, perceptions, expectations and behaviour – whether rational or irrational, tangible or intangible, conscious or unconscious, he said. ‘And it’s important to realise that customers can’t, and often won’t, separate what’s happening with CSR and sustainability reporting from everything else they see, hear and know about a brand.’

Dr Downes explained that CSR reporting has often been used inappropriately, and even cynically, as disposable packaging, a cost of doing business, brand ‘insurance’ or economic self-interest. ‘The concepts of “greenwashing” and “necessary evil” are self-evidently insincere and can’t build sustainable brand resonance. Viewing CSR as brand “insurance” positions it as a grudge purchase to counter future problems. And, while economic self-interest at least recognises that CSR is positive for business, it fails to understand the leverage that comes from doing things that are good for the bottom line and good for the brand in the long run,’ he said. These usages, Dr Downes continued, do not lend themselves to making the brand look authentic or credible. ‘CSR reports provide a real opportunity to capture more about the brand, but many companies don’t recognise this.’

CSR has the most to offer, in terms of brand building, when it reflects something deep about the brand’s character and its values, according to Dr Downes. ‘The reporting should genuinely reflect what the brand believes in, what it stands for, what it will fight for. Brand values can’t simply be conjured up, created by a brand consultant or borrowed from a celebrity endorser. You can’t just add a new logo with a new set of values attached, as some companies mistakenly try to do.

‘Authentic brand values have to be about life, about society, about big-picture issues, about the world. They shouldn’t just be about the company,’ said Dr Downes. ‘But that’s the problem with many global corporations – it’s all about them. They should be telling people what they think is important. Values have to come from the heart and soul of the brand.’ He emphasised that input and support for CSR and sustainability must come from all levels of the company, top-down and bottom-up.

That begs the question: how do you find the values that are true to a brand? Many methods are available but Dr Downes particularly likes the ‘tombstone’ exercise. ‘If the brand disappeared today, what would people write on its tombstone? What would they miss about the brand?’ he asked. ‘What kind of brand-related behaviours are most highly regarded and rewarded in the company?’ In fact, we can start even further back with brand vision and thinking about how the brand will make the world a better place, he said. ‘A lot of good-quality, really successful brand strategy has started from this perspective.’

When companies are integrating brand and CSR/sustainability reporting, they need to know what’s in the hearts and minds of customers, Dr Downes said. ‘Not just consumers but also business buyers, business partners, shareholders and analysts – this is a two-way dialogue where corporations look for values they have in common with their target audiences. However, it’s not realistic for them to say they care about exactly everything their audiences care about.’

Dr Downes also highlighted some common pitfalls. ‘Not acknowledging issues of concern is a real risk because it’s so easy for people to find out the truth. Companies need to honestly address concerns to defuse cynicism and counter-arguments,’ he said. Not using plain, easy-to-understand language is another no-no. Some reports really take on their own language and the whole message of CSR and sustainability gets lost, he said.

‘CSR and sustainability reporting is a huge opportunity for companies to emphasise authentic, meaningful and differentiating brand values. Let the brand show its character and be real,’ Dr Downes advised.

So brands build corporate value … but values build brands. Food for thought.

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, one of the first agencies to design and produce sustainability reports for some of Australia’s largest corporate entities.

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.

• How customers perceive the authenticity of your sustainability activities can affect your reputation and sales.
• How employees perceive your commitment to sustainability can affect staff morale as well as your ability to attract, engage and retain talent.
• How investors perceive your environmental performance is helping or hurting your competitiveness can affect whether they choose to invest with you and/or keep investing.

If you believe all that, then you’ll agree that it’s vital for companies to create a credible market-facing image around sustainability. In today’s market, sustainability credentials are fast becoming an expected rather than an augmented product feature. If you’re slow to market with these messages, you’ll never catch up.

As such, now is not the time to stop reading this article and tell me that talking about sustainability with your customers is irrelevant in your industry or line of work. It’s not only large mining and petroleum companies that consume the earth’s resources. If your business operates in the real world, it’s a consumer of the earth, so how can sustainability not be a relevant topic – particularly when your customers are growing more environmentally conscious every day?

So, if you’re a marketer, it’s time to get to know your sustainability officer or equivalent – think office manager or managing director if you’re an SME – and start weaving your environmental story into your promotional materials and activities in ways that engage customers and support your corporate image and value proposition.

Rest assured that marketing your sustainability efforts doesn’t require knowledge or skills you don’t already have as a marketer (this is why the term ‘green marketing’ is a myth, since it implies that acting responsibly is optional rather than just a part of good marketing practice). Marketing sustainability follows all the normal rules of marketing, i.e:

• Develop a comprehensive strategy for branding your sustainability initiatives
• Understand what motivates your customers to purchase your offering and what role sustainability plays in current purchase behaviour
• Determine how you want your customers to experience sustainability throughout your product’s lifecycle
• Define how you want to relate sustainability to your core, existing business.

This inside-out approach positions sustainability alongside other more traditional brand attributes such as price, quality and performance, enabling it to function as a natural (rather than artificial or contrived) extension of your brand offering.

Once you have this foundation, you can work on bringing sustainability to life for your customers through sophisticated messaging and innovative executions. The key is not to think of your environmental credentials as something you tag on to a campaign or communications piece at the last minute – they have to be part of your brand plan from the get-go. If you take shortcuts, your sustainability messages will stick out like a sore thumb, rather than a green thumb (pardon the pun).

The brands that market their sustainability initiatives well (think Toyota or GE) put sustainability at the core of their brand strategy – it’s a consideration when deciding any and all of the 4Ps. Any other approach just pays lip service to the green movement. The flow-on effect is marketing communications that are genuine and believable. It’s the old adage – actions speak louder than words.

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency that believes in marketing that’s green by nature rather than by name.

Like an annual report, a sustainability report can, at its most basic level, serve the purpose of a compliance document (think the Form 10-K in the United States).  Mission accomplished? Well, sure, a compliance document will satisfy the analysts and regulators, but what does it say about your organisation? That you can comply, that’s all – which is important, of course, but hardly very inspiring stuff.  Should you not grasp this opportunity to communicate something more? After all, the contents of your sustainability report more often than not convey good news to stakeholders. It is a vehicle through which you can speak about progress within your business, connect with an ever more savvy (and, for want of a better word, ‘green’) audience, and build positive perceptions of your brand.

To that end, it is vital to present your key information and data in a compelling way:

• Be upfront about your organisation’s highlights and achievements; don’t bury them amid never-ending pages of dense, impenetrable copy
• Engage a designer who is used to working with text-heavy or highly technical data and thus knows how to design layouts that support clear messaging despite the plethora of mandatories required
• Ensure that you constantly link the different parts of your report back to your company’s overall strategic vision – like an engram, a recurring graphic device or umbrella theme can repeatedly cue the reader to recall your key stakeholder message
• Give your company a (human) face by quoting key leaders within the organisation throughout your report
• Bring your initiatives to life by using professional photography to capture uncontrived moments ‘from the field’.

Paying attention to these kinds of details will build trust with your audience by conveying what is often highly technical (even scientific) information in a wholly transparent, digestible and meaningful way.

If the visual style of your sustainability report reflects your brand image, your strategic messages are communicated clearly, and the key data (too often dense and opaque) are presented in an engaging and accessible manner, it will only enhance the perception of your brand. As David Stuart of UK agency The Partners writes in his book A smile in the mind: ‘What you’ve got to worry about is whether someone actually reads this … Someone who is intrigued will stay with the item until curiosity is satisfied’. It might sound like Marketing 101 but it resonates with me, because poor design – and thus communication – in the area of corporate reporting is a frustratingly common occurrence.

The sustainability report is a relatively new beast, but just as the annual report has adapted from a pure compliance document into an often visually compelling window into the state of a company’s strategic and financial health, so too are sustainability reports evolving. If presented in an engaging and accessible fashion, the sustainability report can similarly contribute to positive perceptions of an organisation in the workplace, market and broader community.

As WellmarkPerspexa‘s Art Director, Chris Raybould has designed annual and sustainability reports for some of Australia’s leading corporate entities including Amcor, Santos, NAB, Coles Myer, Paperlinx, CentroProperty group, The Just Group and Melbourne Airport.