Human Beings Are Hardwired to Trust Human Beings (Not Brands)
How Can Climate Communications Leverage This Truth ?
I opened up LinkedIn yesterday morning and the first post I saw was about the full page ad in The Financial Times, signed by very many NGOs, businesses, cities and scientists, noting that the time has come for an end to fossil fuels. This is a campaign that occurs with every COP. I remember seeing it when I was deeply involved in COP21 sustainable business messaging back in 2015. And, I recall wondering, even then, how much that full page cost, and if such a signal was actually shown to have an impact.
Is this effective? Or, are we, every year, simply adding another “really” to the call:
“End Fossil Fuels. We - the very many of us - really, really, really, really mean it this year.”
Has there ever been a major step back and an accounting for how little traditional communications methods have moved the needle with global climate policy makers, year upon year? What if there was a complete stocktake on that front, and then a massive re-work of how any and all climate campaign messaging funding was used? (I’d love to learn of it, if this study has occurred. Please ping me!)
On that note, there’s this interesting behavioral science fact, mentioned in a recent Kantar article on greenwashing that I feel is worth consideration.
This quote, in particular:
Identification is one of the most powerful sources of trust in times of disruption and uncertainty. Behavioural science tells us that as human beings, we’re hardwired to identify with and trust those people who share our values and goals.
For emphasis: As human beings we are hardwired to trust those PEOPLE who share our values and goals. But, it sure seems like brands and organizations mainly work to gain stakeholder trust in their nebulous entities, and not through the voice and presence of any particular human being - i.e. people - leading them.
Humans connect with humans. Brands hope we think the brand is human. But, the actual humans leading that brand are accessible only through special circumstances -for a range of reasons. That’s not a great way to build trust, human to human.
We have hamstrung ourselves in pursuing an effective method to impact climate action progress.
This is exactly the argument for my Climate Influence advising and amplifying work. The untapped white space in the usual climate communications approach is the lack of any human-scale trust building with the humans in the company. No dots are offered to map the way to connect the human being leader’s interest and values with their corporate policies or ambitions.
In the past decade or so, there have been a handful of corporate leaders, like Paul Polman, who seemed to step into that role naturally. Yet, there would be massive climate influence in an effort to developing more of this personal dot connection. My guess is that, of those likely to give it a go, some may need a level of implied permission and assurances before they might step into a more visible, engaged leadership. That’s understandable.
Assurances that might help:
Seeing that there are other leaders who are already doing it successfully (social norms!).
Knowing that this is a powerful way to build resilient trust for much more than any single event.
Realizing that there are ways to be more accessible online that will not become a legal nightmare for your corporation.
Knowing that you might actually see much more positive impact out of this than you could ever dream up.
Knowing that a full page ad during COP29, say, might be exponentially more effective if we saw the human being names, as well as the corporations/organizations listed.
Here’s my call: We need even a small bench of leaders to step it up, get a bit more visible, and learn the smart ways to intentionally build such trust.
We need more humans with influence - not brand names - to influence the key climate influencers.
News To Use
RE: Keeping up to speed on all things COP28. See the World Resources Institute COP28 Resource Hub.
Leaders and climate negotiators must come to COP28 prepared to make bold commitments and big decisions on issues like phasing out fossil fuels, financing climate resilience in vulnerable nations, and transforming the ways countries produce food and energy. They’ll also need to prove they’re following through on past climate action promises.
WRI’s experts will be tracking key developments leading up to, during and following COP28.
My context/takeaway: This stuff is challenging even for those deeply focused on climate action as a job. For those who have an interest in following a few key topics or sectors and learning who, what, how for their own information, WRI has been the go-to resource for years.
RE: The pitch perfect satire of fossil fuel industry influence in our world and at COP, via Make My Money Matter (UK), with an incredible video featuring “Oblivia Coalmine”. If, for some strange reason, you haven’t come across this yet, you will be blown away enough to amplify it from all of your platforms (please do!).
You do not need my context/takeaway (!). This is simply brilliant, and we should give Olivia Colman yet another award for lending her incredibly influential face and platform to the COP28 “end fossil fuels” cause.
RE: Meat as “sustainable nutrition” campaign by Big Meat runs completely counter to the facts. Covered by Rachel Sherrington in The Guardian.
Trade groups also give some indication in the documents of how they hope to shape conversations in Dubai. One said it will “push” the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization to host “positive livestock content” at Cop28. The Guardian recently revealed that pressure from the industry led to censorship of FAO reports on the role of cattle in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Animal agriculture is the largest emitter of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide when measured over a 20-year period. Scientists said that unless swift action is taken, methane from agriculture alone will push the world beyond a 1.5C (2.7F) rise in temperature above preindustrial levels that risks tipping the world into irreversible climate breakdown.
My context/takeaway: After I read this, I came across an article covering the biggest topics to be addressed at COP28, and that included mention of the methane from animal agriculture. Can we really keep saying we want to address methane and then not forward the solution that is transitioning away from animal agriculture wherever possible? No. We cannot. I will forever bang the plantbased for climate drum (and that’s one of the reasons I often share my Living Change podcast interview with pretty-darn well known KEXP DJ, John Richards, about his totally plant-based, music focused bar in Seattle’s Capitol Hill. This guy is not on climate leadership stages, but he is using his massive cultural influence to point fans - many of whom are visiting Seattle specifically to make a KEXP pilgrimage, I’d argue - to expose a few more people to amazing food in a very fun environment. Now, that’s climate influence.
RE: Let’s actually talk via my new Swellcast (super exciting audio conversation platform). I’ll be doing Q&A’s, COP28 insights, interviews with climate influence leaders, and more. We are just gearing up, so be early and dig in on the climate influence discussion. I’ll always share some posts free, and the premium subscription will likely become a climate influence/social leadership/media relations workshop for sustainability and climate-focused folks.
Thanks *so much* for reading/sharing/subscribing. Please comment or message me with questions on building climate influence. I may cover your suggested topics in a future issue, or on my Swellcast. In the meantime, feel free to follow me on LinkedIn or BlueSky in the meantime (I also linger on “X”.)