We all (well, most of us) know that climate change is real, is human-influenced and that action is needed. Yes indeed, but who should lead?
Generally, people’s attitudes about climate change go through four phases:
1) Denial that there is a problem
2) Anger that the problem is so overwhelming
3) Blame the problem on “big business”
4) Acceptance that everyone has a role in the solution
In all countries there are people in all categories – though in varying proportions. According to recent surveys, people are becoming better informed. As this occurs, they are moving into the third and fourth categories, and migrating into two attitudinal groups:
Campaigners are looking for organizations to blame.
Optimists are looking for organizations to reward.
Either way, being known to environmentally positive is now a significant need for organizations. Despite this, in the US and northern Europe, where this trend has been emerging for some years, people are generally unable to name environmentally positive brands. In short, consumers are looking for leadership from business but not finding it.
The amount of money brands are spending on “green” communication is staggeringly huge, and yet the connection is not being made by the consumer. Why? Well, part of the answer is that people generally see NGOs and individuals like themselves playing the leading roles today, whereas they believe government and business should be doing so. This belief is so strong that it effectively blocks out “green” messaging from these sources.
So what can a brand owner do to break through?
Here are some suggestions:
Find a climate change position that complements your brand. The answer for your brand is unique, and should flow naturally from the brand values. Do not copy Toyota, GE or BP, but find your own voice.
Make it easier for consumers to believe you. Consumers are looking for leadership from businesses and governments. Brands need to actually involve consumers in efforts to reduce climate change – not shout louder.
Segment the message. Target Campaigners and Optimists have different motivations. Brands should consider how to communicate to each group, without being inconsistent. It may be as simple as rephrasing the same idea.
It is notable that the leadership brands are generally what might be termed “Big Carbon” – transportation, power and retailing. You might expect these to be considered the problem rather than the solution – and indeed they used to be.
So what has changed?
We are moving into an interesting time, where the world’s problems are seen to be too large for governments to solve. The baton has passed to international organizations – including business. This means that the old confrontational relationships with MNCs has given way to a more co-operative stance.
A few years ago, a pair of seasoned and respected environmental campaigners wrote an article entitled “The Death of Environmentalism”, setting out the idea that environmentalists had won the argument and should shift their energies to helping businesses implement environmental best practices and relationships. Around the same time, the Global Compact was launched by the UN, and the CSR movement as we know it was born.
Of course, there are still egregious environmental sinners, and they are quite rightly named and shamed, but the environmental movement has, mostly, made the change. Not all businesses have responded, as many business people have painful memories of being at the sharp end of aggressive (and sometimes unfair) campaigning by environmentalists.
However, the opportunity is there: will you take it?
Generally, people’s attitudes about climate change go through four phases:
1) Denial that there is a problem
2) Anger that the problem is so overwhelming
3) Blame the problem on “big business”
4) Acceptance that everyone has a role in the solution
In all countries there are people in all categories – though in varying proportions. According to recent surveys, people are becoming better informed. As this occurs, they are moving into the third and fourth categories, and migrating into two attitudinal groups:
Campaigners are looking for organizations to blame.
Optimists are looking for organizations to reward.
Either way, being known to environmentally positive is now a significant need for organizations. Despite this, in the US and northern Europe, where this trend has been emerging for some years, people are generally unable to name environmentally positive brands. In short, consumers are looking for leadership from business but not finding it.
The amount of money brands are spending on “green” communication is staggeringly huge, and yet the connection is not being made by the consumer. Why? Well, part of the answer is that people generally see NGOs and individuals like themselves playing the leading roles today, whereas they believe government and business should be doing so. This belief is so strong that it effectively blocks out “green” messaging from these sources.
So what can a brand owner do to break through?
Here are some suggestions:
Find a climate change position that complements your brand. The answer for your brand is unique, and should flow naturally from the brand values. Do not copy Toyota, GE or BP, but find your own voice.
Make it easier for consumers to believe you. Consumers are looking for leadership from businesses and governments. Brands need to actually involve consumers in efforts to reduce climate change – not shout louder.
Segment the message. Target Campaigners and Optimists have different motivations. Brands should consider how to communicate to each group, without being inconsistent. It may be as simple as rephrasing the same idea.
It is notable that the leadership brands are generally what might be termed “Big Carbon” – transportation, power and retailing. You might expect these to be considered the problem rather than the solution – and indeed they used to be.
So what has changed?
We are moving into an interesting time, where the world’s problems are seen to be too large for governments to solve. The baton has passed to international organizations – including business. This means that the old confrontational relationships with MNCs has given way to a more co-operative stance.
A few years ago, a pair of seasoned and respected environmental campaigners wrote an article entitled “The Death of Environmentalism”, setting out the idea that environmentalists had won the argument and should shift their energies to helping businesses implement environmental best practices and relationships. Around the same time, the Global Compact was launched by the UN, and the CSR movement as we know it was born.
Of course, there are still egregious environmental sinners, and they are quite rightly named and shamed, but the environmental movement has, mostly, made the change. Not all businesses have responded, as many business people have painful memories of being at the sharp end of aggressive (and sometimes unfair) campaigning by environmentalists.
However, the opportunity is there: will you take it?
This article first appeared in the November 2008 edition of AdAsia magazine. Reproduced with permission.
