If you’ve been working in sustainability, you might be tired of seeing this
story arc repeatedly applied like a blunt instrument. It usually begins with
apocalyptic statements such as “the world is dying. Our systems are broken. We
have until 2030 to save the planet,” etc. After terrifying audiences into
crippling
eco-anxiety,
it ends with bland, dissatisfying taglines such as: “But there’s hope. Together,
we can make the planet better for future generations.” Besides the abundance of
vague clichés (see our first article about bad sustainability writing),
there is a fundamental question to answer about the frames sitting under this
narrative. How do we inspire action: Is it by framing sustainability through a
positive or negative lens?
Framing is how content is positioned — the ‘how’ instead of the ‘what.’ Simply
put, a glass half empty or half full are the same thing, but the framing of each
implies something different. A plethora of frames are employed in sustainability
communications, but we believe the positive vs. negative framing debate is the
most critical.
As with many sustainability issues, the answer isn’t simple. In the research
conducted for our Words that Work report, we discovered
that understanding the nuance is crucial to getting the answer right for your
audience.
The horrific consequences of climate change naturally led to negatively framed
communications highlighting the risks humanity faces if we don’t act. For a long
time, sustainability communications were dominated by these negatively framed
messages. There are some real issues with this: If the framing is too grim,
people just don’t engage with communications and try not to think about the
issues. There’s even been a worrying trend in the acceptance of our species’
impending doom, which is not exactly helpful in moving the sustainability agenda
forward.
The 50 Liter Home: Lessons from a multi-industry global collaboration
Join us as leaders from Electrolux and Procter & Gamble share insights and progress to date on ‘The 50 Liter Home’ — a partnership aimed at reducing water consumption in the home, while also generating awareness that leads to better lifestyle choices for sustainable water use — Wednesday, Oct. 16, at SB'24 San Diego.
All the negatively framed communications led to a focus on positively framed
communications in the past few years. And many studies show that positive
framing is simply more effective: A study of 1000
respondents
showed that when encouraging individual action on climate change, motivational
messages about societal benefits trumped messages about sacrifices we’d have to
make. Another
study
found that communicating about high levels of uncertainty should be matched with
positive frames. Essentially, the fuzzier the topic is, the better it is to use
motivational and optimistic messages.
But don’t throw negative frames out the window; in some circumstances,
negatively framed messages work better. One comprehensive
study
showed that negative frames inspire action for those with low concern for the
environment, but only when accompanied with a ‘way out’ — a tangible solution.
Another recent
study
compared optimistic, pessimistic and fatalistic statements about bees and
climate
change.
It found that “pessimistic messages about climate change may actually boost
people’s beliefs that it is a problem and that they can do something to combat
it.” This
study
found that when promoting ‘green’ products, demonstrating the harmful effects of
not choosing the product proved more effective than showing the environmental
benefits of choosing the product. In other words, negative frames can work if
they promote a specific issue and drive people towards a defined action, or if
you are dealing with an audience with low sustainability concern.
To reiterate our point: It’s complicated. There is no right or wrong answer.
The overwhelmingly negative framing that accompanies “traditional” climate
communications risks turning people off, but exclusively positive framing has
its own issues. While any single piece of communication may just need one frame
overall, we need both. Here are a few tips to go about choosing the right one:
-
Work out what you want to change: Are you trying to raise awareness, or
drive a specific behaviour? If you are presenting people with a problem, do
you have a solution you can offer them?
-
(Really) understand your audience: Do they have a low concern for the
environment, or are they already bought in? Understand where your
audience(s) sit on this spectrum to motivate with the right levers. If you
have distinct audiences, try to target your communications based on their
knowledge of the subject —
demographic
is important to consider, as well.
-
Explain the why: What all studies had in common is they showed it is
important to tell people why they should care, be it through harmful
consequences or hopeful benefits.
This was undoubtedly a humbling exercise for us. It challenged our team’s
assumptions and revealed the importance of constantly clarifying the grey areas.
Sustainability communications evolves as quickly as sustainability does. Given
this pace of change, we have a duty to examine and re-examine our communications
strategies for the sake of inspiring the hearts and minds of every human on this
planet.
This article is the last of a three-part series, based on the findings in our
new thought leadership report, Words that Work: effective language in
sustainability communications. It explores what is wrong with how
sustainability is written, ten principles for how to fix it, and creative
examples of what great looks like. Download the full report
here.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Published Mar 29, 2021 8am EDT / 5am PDT / 1pm BST / 2pm CEST