Author: Aspectus Group

By Ophelia Jeffrey, Account Executive

As environmental and social challenges gain prominence within the public discourse, the role that corporations can play in exacerbating these issues has come under intense scrutiny. The cultural tide has turned dramatically against any perceived exploitation of supply chains and workers, leading to the widespread adoption of more sustainable and ethical business models.

In the last year, this trend has gained decisive public attention. A burgeoning collective consciousness, propelled by younger generations, has led to an indignant outcry against businesses misrepresenting their brand to appeal to these consumers without implementing any tangible ESG policies.

While this tactic may have seen some initial success in pulling the wool over stakeholders’ eyes, it is now known as greenwashing: a claim that can single-handedly sink a corporation.

While people feel strongly about corporations ignoring their ESG responsibilities, they feel even more strongly about those corporations that falsify efforts to address these issues for commercial gain – particularly the younger generation, with its typically heightened concern around the importance of future-proofing the planet.

The evidence is damning: a recent study conducted by OnePoll on behalf of the newly certified B-Corp, Coutts, revealed that 52% of all 18- to 24-year-olds would boycott a brand if they discovered they were greenwashing. What’s more, over a quarter of this age group would then actively encourage others to do the same.

By comparison, only six per cent of those aged over 65 felt this reaction to greenwashing was proportionate. In fact, it appears that the generation gap is more of a generation gulf, with 74% of 18- to 34-year-olds going on to say they believe that big corporations should publish an audited impact statement every year. It is abundantly clear that the social and environmental impact of business is a priority to the younger generations and that impact investing communications should be equally prioritised by businesses looking to attract this generation of consumers

When it comes to making promises about ESG and sustainability, the statistics speak for themselves. Being transparent in the pursuit of better ethical practices and following through on commitments lie at the foundation of society’s evolving expectations. The act of greenwashing is an agnostic underestimation of the depth of these social sentiments.

At its heart is the need for greater accountability, and empty promises will no longer cut it with consumers. Clearly, for most people, the appearance of progress is insufficient; these strategies must be fully embedded into the fabric of a business’ culture and overall strategy, evident in every decision they make.

At Aspectus, we understand that ESG is not a passing trend that businesses can simply jump on the back of in order to score cheap points with stakeholders. It’s clear from the findings outlined above that consumers are more than capable of distinguishing between brands with a genuine aspiration for better social practices and those who have simply recognised the shift in consumer habits and are looking to exploit them without fully comprehending the associated responsibilities.

With our team of ESG PR experts, Aspectus is perfectly poised to help you effectively communicate a meaningful ESG strategy and carve out a space in the already crowded landscape.

Get in contact to find out more about ESG communications.

The news that Brazil’s government is considering using royalties from the country’s oil industry to finance $1.4 billion in cooking gas subsidies for families in poverty is conflicting.

The oil industry is one of the biggest contributors to climate change, responsible for over 37% of CO2 emissions in 2019.

While, with renewables meeting almost 45% of primary energy demand, Brazil’s energy mix is respectable, as the largest energy consumer in South America and most important oil and gas producer in the region, the country has some way to go to being truly green.

However, if the profits from these non-environmental activities are helping to tackle poverty – thereby bringing significant social benefit – to what extent does the positive outweigh the negative? How do we measure the impact of such inherently indiscrete, immeasurable factors?

ESG is often presented as a neatly wrapped package, whereby E, S and G factors live alongside each other in harmony. But in reality, this is not the case.

Often, the three are in conflict with each other, and furthering one may come at the cost of another. Banning deforestation results in the loss of jobs for those in often already undeveloped economies with limited alternative income options, for instance.

COVID-19 is another brilliant example. While the pandemic had disastrous implications on a social front, causing death, exacerbating inequality across fronts including healthcare, unemployment and housing, to name a few, on a global scale, it had significant environment benefits: worldwide lockdowns and travel bans meant that, across 2020, global emissions plunged by almost 2 billion tonnes – the largest absolute decline in history. And most of this – around 1 billion tonnes, which is more than the annual emissions of Japan – was due to lower use of oil for road transport and aviation.

Among others, a key takeaway here is that ESG is nuanced and complicated. If you’re a company looking to communicate your ESG strategy to your key stakeholders – spanning shareholders, employees, customers and your wider community – it is critical that you understand this and convey it effectively.

A successful ESG strategy will convey an understanding of these complexities, and the importance of a just transition – meaning that the benefits of a green economy transition are distributed fairly, and benefits are not just limited to developed countries, coming at the cost of developing countries, as has happened so many times in history.

If you’re interested in hearing more about how we can help develop your ESG communications strategy, get in touch.

By Chris Bowman, content & strategy director at Aspectus

It’s been seven years since the IPCC published the Fifth Assessment Report. Memory fades of course, but it really does feel like there has been a far more pronounced impact on the public mood this time around – and a more agreeable one too.

An IPCC assessment report is big news on any day, but it was bigger news this time around. In the first two days of publication for the Fifth Assessment, the Guardian covered the report in four different stories, the New York Times once, and the WSJ not at all. This time around, those numbers are seven, one and two respectively – suggesting an uptick in top tier interest. 

This chimes with anecdotal evidence: the report has been live barely two days at the time of writing, but is animating the social feeds of those rarely engaged with climate or environment issues. One member of our team reported hearing a parent talking about climate issues and ‘doing their bit’ for the first time in the wake of the report – a sign that the message is getting cut-through with audiences that have proved difficult to reach with climate messages in the past.

Why might that be? A big part of it is surely contextual. The report was published in the wake of devasting wildfires tearing through communities around the globe, from Canada to California, Greece to Italy. It may also be relevant that we’re still suffering the tail end (hopefully) of a global pandemic that has left more than 4 million dead and wreaked havoc on economies. It’s hard to give credence to the old dismissals of climate ‘doom mongering’ when the world is actually on fire. 

On the more positive contextual side, here in the UK we have the upcoming COP 26 in Glasgow emphasising the importance of climate change for the domestic audience, and perhaps we can look at the slow but steady progress of technologies such as domestic solar and electric vehicles giving related topics more visibility to the public.

Intuitively, all those things ring true. However, it’s not fair to put the report’s impact purely down to context. If we ask ourselves: would the effect have been the same without the first-to-fifth assessment reports? – then the answer is probably ‘no’. From a comms perspective, this is an illustrative example of the importance of repetition of key messages. Repetition sounds bad and dull – the opposite of what professionals concerned with engagement should strive for – and it can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Repeating key messages, underlining them in new ways, supporting them with new arguments and data – all of it adds cumulative weight to a message like a snowball rolling downhill. 

We shouldn’t think of the IPCC as somehow having cracked the secret recipe this time around, but rather that it has diligently, patiently and successfully kept at its work until its message took on too much weight to push back against. As a comms professional, it’s a heartening example of the craft done right. As a regular person, it hopefully continues to resonate with public and policymakers and inspire real progress.