I came home the other day to a kitchen sink full of empty containers and cans.
There was a time when I would have grumped at the sight, and at everyone responsible. Now though, it made me think about how automatic some household behaviours have become as families become more sustainable in their daily lives.
Honestly, it did.
We give packaging a quick rinse before it goes into the recycling bin, and we do so in batches to use less water. We recycle three times the volume that goes to landfill. It has become second nature, and thankfully we have a second sink.
I don’t think we’re in any way exceptional. But despite the way that everyday domestics having changed, there remains several big paradoxes that are limiting the impact of sustainable action. All of which concern communications and are rooted in responsibility.
The great paradox
The main one was spotlighted in a recent Ipsos poll. Despite society becoming much more conscious of the need to behave sustainably and make related purchasing decisions, the number of people who believe government and business should drive pro-environmental action, rather than themselves, is increasing.
The paradox, however, is that while the majority of people think that inaction fails future generations, fewer of us now take individual responsibility, with just 30% of those surveyed by Ipsos across 11 countries feeling that their national government had a clear climate plan.
There are further contradictions. The poll shows that public support for energy transition has become increasingly conditional. Half of those questioned supported prioritising low energy prices even if emissions increase, while 55% simultaneously favoured energy independence despite higher costs. According to Ipsos, this highlights “the complex trade-offs shaping public opinion”.
Much of this comes down to communication. Governments have climate action plans, but the way that they’re shared often doesn’t cut through with consistency and impact. Businesses largely strive for positive change because it makes commercial and environmental sense. But, many have grown increasingly wary of making it their driving purpose at a time when investors are subject to fractured and politicised forces. Just 21% of firms questioned by Ipsos backed speaking out publicly on “divisive issues”.
Where do communicators fit in?
Communicators are often squeezed in the middle, wanting to help drive change, but held back by businesses that maintain long-term commitments, but with shorter-term expectations. Amidst all of this, the PRCA’s Climate Advisory Board has launched a new survey to take the pulse of everyone who works in communications about sustainability attitudes and priorities.
The advisory board was set up to raise standards in climate-related communications, aiming to provide practical tools and guidance, while upholding facts and impact. The survey will look at both capabilities and confidence levels.
Emily Luscombe, a member of the PRCA Climate Board, and Partner Lead for Strategic Comms at ERM said: “We need a clear understanding of the current state. This research is intended to inform our work this year, and into the future. We want as many in-house and agency practitioners to participate as possible. Whether you specialise in sustainability communications or rarely touch it, your views will still be relevant."
The advisory board is also planning to hold an event at Climate Action Week in London next month, around communicating with confidence in a world of misinformation.
The survey’s results should reveal some of what’s going on behind the scenes, and what challenges will need to be tackled in advising clients, colleagues and broader stakeholders. Confidence, clarity, the balance of commercial priorities, and better engagement between business and government may well be focal areas.