Don’t Know Much About Carbon Neutral…
There’s a hidden challenge embedded in today’s ESG communications. We have a need to demonstrate our progress on ESG issues, especially the “E,” and to do that we have no choice but to verge into the area of science. At the same time, someone is screaming “tl;dr” at us and demanding we simplify it again and again.
So, instead of saying “companies, processes and products become carbon neutral when they calculate their carbon emissions and compensate for what they have produced via carbon offsetting projects” (actual definition from "Climate Partner”) we say “carbon neutral.”
But what if people don’t know what that means?
Morning Consult jumps in with some data on this. (We will for the time being expediently avoid the idea that the definition of offsets is “murky” and possibly without actual meaning, in which case no one knows what carbon neutral means.)
Here’s the data. Most people do not know what it means. That includes people who self-report changing their behavior significantly to protect the environment.
Another digression we will also avoid for the moment is the concept of greenwashing, which applies to corporations to be sure, but also to the consumer who drives their SUV to the grocery store and takes reusable bags.
Anyway, carbon neutral is not hitting home with the majority of people in the public. For the purposes of this post, we’re looking at that as merely an example of a broader issue: the public tells us they want companies to be more environmentally responsible and they are not starting with a strong base of scientific understanding.
As I said to someone recently, everyone sat in their high school biology class insisting they would never use this stuff in “real life” and then COVID hits and they don’t know how a cell works.
As communicators, our job is to communicate effectively with consumers—to create meaningful understanding that supports a brand and prompts action.
So, how can we do that?
Put explainer visuals to work in your communication
Increasingly, the infographic is the coin of the realm for communicating concepts in an accessible format. The ability to communicate complicated concepts using color and graphic energy is invaluable and becoming ubiquitous. Here is what AT&T used to communicate “carbon neutral.”
That’s pretty good. A couple of little side hints.
First, see how they used scales? That’s ideal for this situation, both because that is what we are trying to accomplish, but also because that image is immediately understandable by everyone reading the article. (Even though almost none of them has ever used a balancing scale). I have written on this before—tropes are a vital tool in our toolbox, ask George Lucas.
Second, if you are using the PESO model, you need to embed graphics like this in all of the P-S-O segments of your communication.
There’s a media relations angle here, too
The “E” can also be influenced. For example….you are working with a journalist on a story. Journalists have the same problem we do—they are constantly worried about space and time. If it was me, I would share this research with them. Let them know that if their story is “Carbon Neutrality at ACME,” then a significant portion of their audience doesn’t understand the concept the whole story is built on…and maybe they should drop an explainer paragraph or graphic in.
Lead with the bottom line and make three points
This is hard for us to do. We have a tendency to want to use the proofs to build to our conclusion…as in:
Problem
Argument #1
Argument #2
Argument #3
Inevitable and irrefutable conclusion
This is not the best way to go. I have worked with all kinds of people in “argumentative” situations, including political candidates in debate prep. Audiences respond best when the conclusion is given first. And it’s not because they have short attention spans—their attention span is as long as our ability to engage them is.
It’s because the argument has a context and a framework that you don’t get if you use the (admittedly) more rhetorically sound one.
See what I did there?
The goal is not to “dumb it down”
Resist the urge to think of this as “dumbing the idea down” to the “lowest common denominator.” That’s the kind of elitist thinking that keeps movements trapped in ivory towers. Think of it more as being compassionate. Your audience may not know this, but I wager that they know a bunch of things that you don’t know. Talk to them like people who have successfully made a living, raised a family, paid their taxes, and contributed to a local charity. Movements and progress are built on changing minds, which we can’t do when we have the lowest expectations of our audience.
Conclusion
As the old saying goes, the most important thing is to admit you have a problem. This research makes that clear. The next steps are to use communication tools to put explainers in the flow of the story in ways that audiences can digest and understand.