With all the claims of “fake news” and “alternative facts” professors need to find ways to dialogue about ethics with our students. Are you interested in ways to introduce ethics into your classroom? I’ll be moderating a PRSA webinar featuring three Page Legacy scholars on this topic. Join us on September 14. See the link below.
Incorporating Ethics in the Public Relations Classroom: Tips, tools and resources for communications educators
Featuring: Carolyn Kim, Associate Professor at Biola University, Dean Mundy, Assistant Professor at the University of Oregon, and Lucinda Austin, Assistant Professor at UNC Chapel Hill.
This week on Triple Pundit, Suzanne Shelton (@sheltongrp), raises an interesting question, Could patriotism motivate Americans to use less energy? This resonated with me, because it’s related to an important discussion I had with my co-editor Lee Ahern when we were developing our book on environmental communication a few years ago. How do you convince a person to adopt environmentally-friendly behaviors? Tom Crompton of World Wildlife Fund and Common Cause Foundation wrote a white paper stating that a marketing approach (selling people on incremental changes over time) doesn’t work, because as soon as the behavior becomes difficult or requires a person to make significant sacrifices, he or she will likely abandon it. Instead, Crompton recommends tying environmental behavior to values that motivate, such as patriotism. Patriotism is used to sell all kinds of products (cars, guns, burgers), and it has been a strong motivator for many other behaviors (voting, military service, etc) as well. But, is it possible to convince the public that environmentally-friendly behaviors are patriotic? Shelton makes these three relevant points in her post.
- First, climate change is becoming a security threat to our military. Her blog post shares a panel discussion by military leaders that explain why this is the case. The changing weather patterns are creating unrest in regions around the world and putting our military directly in harms way. Read the blog post for a full explanation.
- Second, patriotism plays well with groups who are not typically receptive to climate change arguments, so this could be a path to persuasion for some of these groups.
- And, third, people who feel the greatest threat or danger will be the most likely to take action. In this case, military families who can see the practical implications for making sustainable changes will be most likely to support the change, reduced energy use. And, they can be a voice to appeal to the broader population.
If you’re interested in the discussion about marketing vs. values appeals for environmental behavior change, check out our book. It’s a few years old, but the chapter authors make some compelling arguments for how to motivate audiences.
According to a recent article in Triple Pundit, a popular panel session at SXSWeco offered a fresh perspective on sustainability marketing.
Want to sell more of your sustainable products? Time to drop the green finger wagging and start peddling a more joyous life
What motivates consumers of green products? “Empowerment, efficacy, and fun.” One of the panelists shared his observations on trends over the past few years.
…[trends have changed from] pre-recession, where the focus was abstractly on “the environment,” to the recession years, where the focus was on saving money, to the emerging post-recession context, where the focus is shifting towards the health and wellness of the individual consumer. In this new highly-personal context, empowerment is in and guilt is out.
If this is true (and I would love to see the underlying research), then we are seeing a shift in values around sustainability. Rather than being motivated by guilt or fear, consumers of sustainable products are driven by a desire for enjoyment and empowerment. Frankly, it sounds like future sustainability campaigns may be a lot more fun to create!
Read the article here: http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/10/sell-sustainable-product-stop-being-gloomy/
As I mentioned in my earlier blog post, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report titled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” that removed any doubt about the role of humans in global warming. Although there has been some skepticism, the scientific community appears to accept the findings which raise questions about energy and environmental policy.
I can’t help but wonder what the role of sustainability and sustainability communication should be in companies’ responses to the recent news. Clearly, corporations need to continue to reduce emissions and begin to adopt more clean energy and renewable sources of energy. But, I would go one step further. As part of their social and environmental responsibility, corporations need to consider promoting sustainable behaviors to their audiences. Some of my prior research suggests that corporation spend a lot of time talking about their environmental good works but very little time trying to encourage the public to think critically about environmental issues or take action toward issues. Yet, engaging the public in solving environmental problems will lead corporations to greater respect and trust by the public.
Carbon Emission: Where do we go from here?
According to the EPA and IPPC, the energy supply contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source. However, the competition in the energy business is heating up as new energy sources are becoming more readily available – particularly natural gas from shale drilling. And, investment in emission reduction and new technology development does not seem realistic without incentives that balance the competitive landscape and reward environmentally responsible behaviors.
The findings from the climate change report are grim, and experts are calling for action. According to a column in the New York Times by Eduardo Porter “William Nordhaus of Yale, to cite one estimate, wrote recently that allowing uncontrolled carbon emissions would raise the world’s temperature 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 degrees Fahrenheit) above that of the preindustrial era by the end of the century and cost the world a fairly modest 2.8 percent of economic output.” Something really does need to be done.
Two popular options for motivating emission reductions are a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system. Both have benefits and drawback, as we have seen in other countries and regions. For example, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s report Carbon Taxes: A Review of Experience and Policy Design Considerations, countries such as Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and some Canadian provinces have experienced success with a carbon tax. They have seen marked decreases in carbon emissions, and the tax funds have been redirected to environmental projects, and in some cases to reduce income taxes and other taxes. But, carbon taxes raise a number of concerns. First, while a carbon tax sets a known cost per pound of emissions, it does not inherently limit emissions. It may increase costs to businesses but not achieve the overarching goal – reduce emissions. Recently, the Australian government announced its intentions to repeal a carbon tax in the near future.
The other common approach is cap-and-trade, which seemed to be welcomed policy in 2009 when the American Clean Energy and Security Act was approved by the US House of Representatives. However, later, it was defeated in the Senate. In many ways the bill was similar to the European Union Emissions Trading System, which has had the greatest volume of CO2 allowance trades of any carbon market program. Despite a few bumps in the road, it has been successful in reducing carbon emissions. The advantage of a carbon market is the ability to set an emissions threshold and permitting allowances to be traded on the market, setting a reasonable price. As the economy improves, prices rise, and should the economy fall, prices follow.
But, as Newell, Pizer, and Raimi write in the journal article Carbon Markets 15 Years after Kyoto: Lessons Learned, New Challenges, “A key question for – and sometimes criticism of – current market-based policies concerns the degree to which they encourage long-term investment in new technologies rather than solely short-term fuel-switching and energy conservation” (p. 132). Will cap and trade programs lead to the long-term goal of creating technologies that reduce emissions and/or use renewable energies?
To add a dose of reality, the current political environment in the US would hardly allow for either policy. Congress can’t even get a budget passed. That is why we see regulations on emissions coming from the Whitehouse and EPA in conjunction with programs that will fund research into new technologies that will help industry reach the regulation requirements. It’s not a perfect solution, but considering the current state of our political system, it may be the best solution to keep forward momentum.
The UN released a report on climate change today, and it points to human behaviors as a primary driver of global warming. Here is a quote from the article:
Even if we end carbon dioxide emissions today, effects could linger for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And certain changes may already be irreversible.
Scary words. If I worked in a corporate communications or sustainability department today, I would be planning ways to promote my responsible environmental behaviors in the coming weeks and months. This kind of news has a way to coming back around to those who hold the most responsibility. People want someone to blame, and research shows that the greatest amount of emissions come from energy and industry, as I mentioned in my earlier post.
Many large corporations take environmental sustainability seriously, and they work to keep their emissions low. However, 50 companies are responsible for 73% of greenhouse gases, according to the CDP. They need to take notice and step up their efforts to minimize environmental impacts. Otherwise, the fear that this news creates will be redirected as anger toward the companies that have had the largest role in the problem.
And what about policy? This is just the kind of news that creates more public will for energy and environmental policy. It comes on the heels of recent proposals by the EPA and the Whitehouse that will limit emissions from power plants and fund research into new clean technologies. Now would be a good time to propose more policies that move us toward renewable resources.
You can read the report at climatechange2013.org.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, globally, the energy supply contributes 26% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in the environment. This does not include transportation (13%), industry (19%) or residential and commercial buildings (8%), among other industrial outputs. The emissions come primarily from coal, natural gas and oil use for heating (most often in the form of electricity). As reflected in transportation, this does not include fossil fuels used for air, road, and rail travel. Although coal and oil may be plentiful, the cost to the environment is significant.
In industry, it appears that some companies are not taking energy use and emissions seriously, or at least the disclosure of emissions (see: Amazon, Apple Among Companies Ignoring SEC Climate Change Risk Disclosure Rules). This is a problem, particularly considering recent findings by the Carbon Disclosure Project that 10% of world’s largest companies (Global 500) produce 73% of greenhouse gases.
So, how do we create stable energy policy that encourages more clean energy use and moves us away from high impact emissions? We saw two steps in the right direction this week in the form of energy and environmental policy coming from the White House. First, Obama announced higher standard for carbon emissions from power plants for the first time in the US. This ground breaking legislation would require the coal industry to lower its emissions to meet that of other fossil fuels, such as gas. Critics point out that the technology to reduce emissions to this level does not exist. And, that makes Obama’s second proposal that much more appealing to the coal industry. The President announced an extension of a Department of Energy program that will fund loans for technological developments that reduce carbon emissions of fossil fuels, including coal and natural gas. The coal industry now has the resources to develop technology that will reach the standards set by the administration. This was a smart move that drives interest in both pieces of legislation. Access to loans will be more valuable with the looming standards for carbon emission. And, the higher standards are more readily accepted with access to loans to help develop technology that will clean up fossil fuel emissions.
However, cleaner fossil fuels only offer a short term answer. The greater question is how do we encourage transition to renewable energy? As Ann Carlson and Robert Fri suggest in their article Designing a Durable Energy Policy, goals of clean energy policy play outside of the marketplace – in other words, people don’t want to pay more (or be taxed) to have more secure energy or cleaner energy. That makes the transition to a new energy source difficult to sustain.
There is no easy answer, but I believe businesses have a role to play in bring about the transition. As an important constituency of energy policy, their stance can influence legislators and the public. By adopting renewable sources of energy and demanding reasonably priced clean energy sources, they will affect the marketplace for these products. Sustainability has become a business strategy and part of the culture for many companies, and that can have a broad impact on energy use and emissions. Although some companies do not appear to have made the necessary commitment to move the business world forward, others have, and I think that is another step in the right direction.
The Carbon Disclosure Project released its CDP Global 500 Climate Change Report 2013 today. The report includes the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) which features companies with strong climate strategies. In addition, the report found that 50 of the Global 500 companies are responsible for 73% of greenhouse gas emissions. This is astounding. According to the report, carbon emissions from these companies have risen year over year. You can find more information in the report or at the links below.
On Sunday, the Centre Daily Times published an article that I wrote about volunteerism and the model that Penn State’s THON event offers. The online version doesn’t include the wonderful pictures from the event that the CDT used in the print version, but the text is all here. I appreciate the opportunity to share a bit of my research.
Next week the Arthur W. Page Center has the honor of hosting Dennis Treacy, Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer for Smithfield Foods. Dennis has agreed to speak to students, faculty and the public about “Smithfield’s Sustainability Journey.” Dennis has been a tireless advocate for sustainability within Smithfield, and we are so pleased to have him talk with the Penn State campus community about his work.
If you wish to join us, see the details below:
Who: Dennis Treacy, Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, Smithfield Foods.
When: Monday, March 18, 6 pm
Where: Foster Auditorium in the Paterno Library
What: Treacy will give a talk on “Smithfield’s Sustainability Journey.”
For more information, contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I enjoyed reading this TriplePundit article earlier in the week, Levi’s Quietly Announces Climate Change Strategy. It touches on a trend that I think a lot of us are observing: companies are actively addressing sustainability issues but they’re not really talking about it publicly. This is particularly true for climate change strategies. And as Mike Bellamente notes:
The unfortunate reality is that climate change remains such a high voltage issue for people that addressing it as a corporation can no longer be effectively marketed as a benefit to consumers….People don’t want to be saddled with the world’s problems when they are out buying jeans. In fact, consumer brands are more likely to risk alienating politically conservative consumers (53% of whom deny global warming) than they stand to gain in boosting sales for demonstrating leadership in corporate responsibility.
At the same time, companies are aware of the risks of climate change, and they are actively addressing them in their business strategies. As one sustainability communicator told me recently, until there is pressure from financial analysts to report on these issues, companies won’t take the risk.
This creates an interesting challenge for public relations departments that want to tell their companies’ stories, but part of the story brings too great a risk. Does the fact that companies are making a priority of sustainability and climate changes strategies obligate them to talk about it? One could argue that by not talking about it, companies are missing out on the opportunity to educate the public on the importance of these issues. And, that could explain, in part, why there is such a disconnect between business behavior and consumer behavior around global environmental issues.
The biggest challenge, of course, is the economics of sustainability. As long as green products cost more than other products, they will be considered a luxury. I appreciate a recent blog post by Robert Axelrod at Fleishman Hillard which suggests that green products be discounted. While this may raise questions among consumers about the quality of green products, it will certainly drive purchasing behavior.
I want to diverge a bit from sustainability to talk about an important case in nonprofit public relations. This morning I talked with a New York Times reporter about the Susan G. Komen crisis that unfolded earlier this year. As I was preparing for the interview, I was piecing together the timeline since the initial announcement by Planned Parenthood that Komen would no longer fund its cancer screening services. It is fascinating to me that after the crisis, corporate partners continued to support the organization, even increase their association with the organization, clearly indicating that Komen is a good cause marketing partner. But, the advocates and fundraisers at the local affiliates are seeing a significant drop off in funding for their Race for the Cure, a primary source of income for the local affiliates.
So, why the disparity? Why are corporate partners still onboard with the organization but local supporter are not?
Here’s what I think. No one anticipated that Komen would make a politically motivated decision with its funding (let’s set aside the debate over whether it was truly politically motivated, and let perception be reality). So it caught the public, supporters, and partners by surprise. When Komen reversed its decision, the public moved on pretty quickly, but local fundraisers, advocates, and supporters felt betrayed by the decision. Pink still sells products, because the investment is low. I can buy a pink product for the same price as another, so why not let some of the money go to a good cause. But, raising money for a charity or making a donation requires a higher level of involvement. Supporters of the local affiliates have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the nonprofit. Some feel that Komen’s decision revealed a political motivation, and they feel betrayed.
Add to that the unique circumstances in this crisis. The issue that Komen engaged was outside of its mission, and for some women, that issue is more critical than breast cancer research. So, while some past supporters may continue to feel good about giving to Komen to support cancer research, others feel good about NOT giving to Komen and thereby taking a pro-choice stand. Komen has created a dilemma for some groups, forcing them to choose between two important issues. Fighting breast cancer is a cause that brings people together, but abortion is a cause that polarizes them, and Komen introduced a source of conflict into its organization when it made the ill-fated decision.
So where did Komen go wrong in its public relations? Here are five key missteps.
- First, decision makers didn’t vet the idea broadly. Had they consulted with a PR agency (I believe Ogilvy was on retainer but was not told about the decision before it became public) they would have been advised to take a different approach to the issue. I’ve read that the board did ask senior management to project consequences that may result from the decision. Based on their research, management recommended Komen continue funding Planned Parenthood, but the board disregarded the recommendation (the issues with nonprofit boards is a topic all its own).
- Second, they didn’t own the story when it came out. They let Planned Parenthood own it.
- Third, they didn’t respond with full disclosure. If they had revealed their dilemma with pro-life supporters, the public may have been more receptive (it would have been most effective to talk about the dilemma publicly before the decision was made).
- Fourth, they didn’t engage with the media and publics quickly. Instead employees issued generic statements and deleted posts from the Facebook page.
- And, finally, they didn’t clean house quickly. The significant personnel changes that we’ve seen over the past few months should have happened right away in February.
What can we learn from the case? Nonprofits (or any organizations) must be transparent in their communication about decisions, especially highly contentious ones. The board should have known that the public would view the Planned Parenthood decision through a political lens. Either they missed it, or they misjudged it by thinking the public would be forgiving because of the good work they have done. It’s possible that they thought the story would never surface, but that, too, was naive.
The second lesson is this: engage with your stakeholders. The backlash that Komen is feeling right now comes from local supporters and fundraisers. If they had engaged with the affiliates before the decision, the outcome may have been better. I see Komen making much more effort to bring affiliates into the conversation now and even put the spotlight on the impact in local markets.
Will Komen’s reputation be completely restored? As long as abortion is a hotly debated issue, it may be difficult for the nonprofit to restore the relationship with a portion of its base. However, I see Komen trying to refocus on the outcomes of its research investments and the impact of its local affiliates, and that’s where the nonprofit needs to be focused right now. This will help restore its reputation.
Big celebration today because my book with Lee Ahern just published – Talking Green: Exploring Contemporary Issues in Environmental Communications. Check it out. The book explores strategies for motivating environmental behaviors by offering a number of thought pieces and research studies reacting to Tom Crompton’s (World Wildlife Fund – UK) white paper, Weathercocks and Signposts.
In the white paper, Tom argues for a greater focus on what he calls a “values-based” approach to environmental communication rather than a “marketing” approach. In a nutshell, the values-based approach taps into identity and associates environmental action with values that people already hold; the marketing approach asks people to take small steps that lead to larger commitments toward the environment.
The chapters explore different aspects of his arguments and add new insights to our understanding of the value and impact of environmental communication. I’ve enjoyed working on the project, and I’m happy to be able to share it with others now.
The Institute for Public Relations housed at the University of Florida is an excellent resource for public relations and communications professionals. Check out this excellent post on the IPR blog by Linda Locke at Reputare. She discusses the findings of a number of published research studies on the impact of sustainability and CSR on business outcomes, such at earnings and brand value.