University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developing a strategy for public relations practitioners at environmental nonprofits using insights from psychology

(USC Thesis Other)

Developing a strategy for public relations practitioners at environmental nonprofits using insights from psychology

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Developing a Strategy for Public Relations
Practitioners at Environmental Nonprofits
Using Insights from Psychology

Thesis by

Niku Ward

In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in Strategic Public Relations

University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

2013
(Submitted April 1, 2013)

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Chapter 1: Challenges and Opportunities for Behavior
Change in Climate Change Communication Strategy 5

Chapter 2: Online Messaging as a Window into
Climate Change Communication 26

Chapter 3: Using Theory to Design Environmental
Nonprofit Communication Strategy 46

Conclusion 71

References 74

3

Introduction

Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most pressing challenges of our
time - possibly of all time. The scientific community is working hard to address
this crisis, but it is apparent that there is a problem with agency. On individual,
organizational and governmental levels, there is not nearly enough being done to
address this issue. People need to change their behavior, on a large scale, and
the sooner the better. Nonprofits organizations are key actors in the fight against
environmental degradation. These organizations mobilize people around issues
like climate change in a way that can motivate business, government, and
society at large to make significant changes.
This paper seeks to understand the unique public relations challenges
faced by U.S. nonprofit organizations as they work to prevent and mitigate the
effects of climate change and other environmental challenges through advocacy,
coalition building and other tactics. Advocacy is not in itself good or bad. It can be
used for pro-social purposes (Ihlen and Verhoeven 2012), and this is one of the
most important areas in which public relations can be used to do good. First, I
look at the challenges and opportunities for motivating individual behavior
change that would mitigate the inevitable effects of climate change and other
address other environmental issues. Next, I analyze the online messaging space,
specifically Twitter, as a window into the status of environmental advocacy
communication. Finally, I apply relevant psychological and communication

4

theories to the practice of environmental public relations and develop
recommendations for public relations practitioners in this space.

5

Chapter 1: Challenges and Opportunities for Behavior Change in
Climate Change Communication Strategy

Paul Finch (2008) may have said it best: “It is true that public attitudes in
the developed world have changed, but that has not led to huge changes in
behavior. We drive more, fly more, consume more, pollute more and still assume
that economic growth is an end in itself” (pg 27). Despite vast amounts of
scientific evidence concerning the dire environmental situation we face and
despite a majority of Americans supporting a range of environmental policy
proposals (Gallup 2010), it is my belief that nothing approaching the necessary
scale is being done to address our climate crisis. This paper is not written to
convince the reader that there is indeed a climate crisis, but is predicated on the
belief that that is the case. Strategic communications has the potential to play a
significant role in addressing these environmental crises.

Communication Objectives

The communication objectives of environmental nonprofits vary in their
specific details, but virtually all will generally seek to change the values, attitudes
and behaviors of individuals, organizations, and government bodies to promote
sustainable interaction with the environment. The following analysis of
environmental nonprofit communication objectives is based on the idea that

6

traditional environmentalism, which advocates primarily conservation, needs to
be expanded and to embrace the concept of sustainable growth.

Before going into the specifics of the communications climate
environmental nonprofits face, it is important to examine how we, as a society,
and environmentalism as a movement, define ‘environmentalism’ and
‘sustainability.’ Understanding these concepts is integral to how nonprofits
conceive of their organizational goals and communication objectives.

The Environment

Historically, environmentalism was a movement that sought to preserve
wilderness that was “untouched” by humans. Nature was predominantly valued
to the extent that it was not “spoiled” by human influence (Cronon 1996).
However, by only valuing those parts of nature we have not interacted with, we
devalued the land and resources we do use – the very places where
sustainability most needs to be practiced. We must “abandon the dualism that
sees the tree in the garden as artificial – completely fallen and unnatural – and
the tree in the wilderness as natural – completely pristine and wild. Both trees in
some ultimate sense are wild; both in a practical sense now depend on our
management and care” (24). The “environment” is not a sacred place of nature
that is distinguishable from our backyards. A growing number of
environmentalists are shifting their focus from simply conserving land
“untouched” by humans to recognizing that all the land, including that heavily

7

populated by humans, is in fact a part of the environment. Natural and manmade
systems interact on every plot of land, and we must strive to embrace a larger,
ecosystem view of the world in which we are an integral part. Only then can we
use our land and resources in a way that both sustains and supports human
quality of life, without degrading the natural systems upon which we depend.
This premise is important for expanding the appeal and reach of the
environmental movement. Environmentalism needs to move beyond its status as
a “special interest,” and its activists must show how addressing climate change
and ecological concerns is an “everybody interest.” If environmental nonprofits
can tie their narrative to broader economic concerns, such as the global fight
against poverty, and innovative urban planning, just to name a few issues, they
may not only have a more compelling message but a significantly wider
audience.

Sustainability

One of the most often-quoted definitions of sustainable development is
that used by the Brundtland Commission, more formally known as the World
Commission on Environment and Development in 1983. According to this
organization, sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987).
This idea of sustainability is the most often cited (International Institute for

8

Sustainable Development (IISD) 2013) and has stood the test of considerable
time. It has persevered in part because it acknowledges that we depend on and
must use natural resources and spaces to survive. However, it allows
environmentalists to embrace both non-use, in the tradition of conservation, as
well as smart development of lands already in use by humans.
Environmental nonprofits work on issues other than land development, of
course, but the idea behind the Brundtland Commission’s definition can be
applied to political lobbying, local action and myriad other facets of
communications supporting pro-environmental work. This framework also allows
for the idea of growth and progress. The idea of protecting the environment has
to mean more than leaving it alone, because that is not likely to be a realistic
goal. Sustainable growth is a necessarily more optimistic view. It embraces the
possibility of responsible human activity, even growth and progress that also
protects and preserves the ecological integrity of our environment.

Conceptual Benefits

Using these conceptions of the environment and of sustainability may
make it necessary to examine many aspects of our way of life through a different
lens. Sustainability, for example, is not an issue for conservationists alone.
Sustainability is a political issue, an economic issue, a business consideration, a
technological inspiration, a city planning issue, a consumer concern, and so on. It
is a paradigm that arguable must be applied to every facet of our society.

9

In terms of communication, this is a strategic boon. “How issues are
framed—the context in which problems and solutions are discussed—makes an
important difference in how people understand arguments and whether they can
be moved to take action” (Nisbet 2012). Because environmental issues are so
pervasive, environmental communicators have the chance to enjoy both broad
general appeal as well as industry- or subset specific angles for their narratives.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

A SWOT analysis is a one of the most useful tools in the process of
strategic planning (Evans and Wright 2009). SWOT stands for “strengths,”
“weaknesses,” “opportunities,” and “threats.” A SWOT analysis looks at the
strengths and weaknesses of a group’s messaging strategy and organization,
such as the organization’s or cause’s reputation; as well as the opportunities and
threats to a group’s messaging objectives from outside entities, such as
economic climate, regulations and public attitudes. In other words, a SWOT
analysis can look at the internal strengths and weaknesses of a communication
objective, as well as the external opportunities and threats facing that
communication objective.
This SWOT analysis is based on extensive secondary research into both
recent and classic academic works from various disciplines. Following SWOT
examines the environmental movement, as it is supported by nonprofits, both as
a whole and with some specific focus on climate change. Of all of the

10

environmental crises our species has faced, climate change is arguably the most
pervasive and most certainly tops the agenda for many environmental nonprofits.

Strengths
Messaging Strengths
The kind of environmental policies nonprofits currently emphasize are
conservation of land, limits on emissions and restrictions on development. It is
not to say that those kinds of policies haven’t been and aren’t still useful. Images
of ice caps melting, New York City under water, sad polar bears and destroyed
rainforest have proved useful, particularly in raising awareness of environmental
issues in general (Shellenberger and Norhaus, Break Through: From the Death
of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility 2007). However, focusing a
paradigm on far away ecologies (American Psychological Association Taskforce
on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change 2010),
possibly inevitable human catastrophes and limiting activities, especially those
that are deeply ingrained in our economic systems, does not make for a very
compelling narrative.
More optimistic framing could help change the tone of environmental
messaging and be a better motivator than the fear appeals most commonly
associated with global warning scenarios. Doomsday messaging, even if it is
accurate, often backfires as a motivator. Accepting the impacts of climate change
will be an important stage in motivating behavioral responses aimed at mitigating
the problem. However, deliberate attempts to instill fear or guilt carry

11

considerable risk. As Dr. Adam Horner notes, “Overall, there is a need for
emotionally balanced representations of the issues at hand. This will involve
acknowledging the ‘affective reality’ of the situation, e.g. “We know this is scary
and overwhelming, but many of us feel this way and we are doing something
about it” (Climate Change Communication Advisory Group 2010, 5).
Recommended components of more optimistic framing include conceiving of
environmentalism as progress, embracing solution oriented paradigms such as
techno-optimism, dismantling the perception that environmentalism is a special
interest, and leveraging core American values, such as taking pride in the
innovative spirit that kind of progress requires.
Historically, environmentalists’ messaging has also often framed progress
and growth as the enemy of nature and conservation. However, the
environmental movement needn’t be the nemesis of progress because it is, in
fact, a result of progress. “It is extremely counter-intuitive for most people when
environmentalists proclaim that the only way to preserve nature is to halt the
human progress that has brought them to a point where they are even able to
consider nature as a priority” (Alves 2008, 55). This is a simple matter of
framing. Going forward, we must change the tone of environmental messaging.
In other words: “The doomsday scenarios of fatal weather patterns must be set
aside, and replaced with promising predictions of the innovative future that will
ameliorate these conditions“ (Alves 2008, 56).
Instead of focusing on the devastating consequences of climate change
and unsustainable growth, nonprofit advocacy should be solution-focused.

12

Techno-optimism is an example of this kind of paradigm. It is the idea that
technical innovation will create economically competitive clean and that
consequently sustainable growth is possible with the right kind of planning.
Environmentalism is considered by many to be a special interest – one of
many. However, the need for environmental sustainability is relevant to just about
every political, economic and social problem. In their 2004 essay, The Death of
Environmentalism, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus characterize global
warming as “a poverty problem, a jobs problem, a food problem, an industrial
problem, and an energy problem as well as an ecological problem.” Research by
Nisbet, author and blogger of Age of Engagement, shows that people, regardless
of their political affiliation, respond more favorably to climate change warnings
when they are discussed as a health issue rather than as an environmental
threat (Nisbet 2012). The benefits of communicating about climate change
through different lenses, depending on the audience, and based on research like
this, could be enormous. This idea of demonstrating that everyone is a
stakeholder in sustainability, and that everyone stands to benefit from
environmental nonprofits achieving their goals, is a powerful one.
Another important aspect of more optimistic environmental messaging
involves leveraging traditionally American values about progress and innovation.
Our country has long taken pride in the idea of leading industries, government
and society into the future. Just as it is both imperative and beneficial to tie
environmentalism to the vast majority of issues that are important to people, it is
also necessary to show how valuing sustainable growth is a logical extension of

13

American values.

Unique Strengths of Nonprofits Organizations
Nonprofits uniquely qualified to build alliances and support information
sharing. Because of the scope and scale of environmental challenges, coalition
building and facilitating relationships between disparate organizations is probably
the most important thing nonprofits can do to rally for environmentalism. Alves
(2008) explains further:

“Alliances must be formed with groups traditionally unallied with the
environmentalists, such as the United Auto Workers or the insurance
industry, to advance fuel efficiency standards and increase public health
awareness.Concessions will have to be made in order to meet the majority
of the environmentalists’ goals. The new path will have to entail engaging
in progressive, market based solutions that will allow citizens to feel they
are working to improve their standard of living” (56).

Nonprofit organizations have a unique relationship with government. Not
only do many nonprofits rely on the government for funding, but the government
also utilizes nonprofits to expand services to the public (P. D. Hall 2000).
Government agencies often collaborate with nonprofit organizations regarding
policy and in the environmental arena this has been increasingly the case, with
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) managing nearly as many projects as
state and federal agencies (Nikoli and Koontz 2007). In fact NGO and nonprofit
organizations’ role in public policy is considered fundamental to modern
government (Salamon 2002).
As advocates and lobbyinests of the public interest, nonprofits play an

14

important role in public affairs and have proved to be effective in guiding policy,
especially at the state-government level and especially regarding the
environment (Hall and Taplin 2010). Hall and Taplin’s paper is a caste study of
six such instances in California. It details nonprofits’ work in successfully
conceiving legilsation, championing legislation, coalition building and mobilizing a
supporter base to voite for particular candidates.
Specifically related to communications, nonprofits are generally
considered more trustworthy institutions than government, business or media
(Edelman 2013) and may be particularly effective for finding and negotiating
solutions to complex problems. Nonprofit organizations also have the
philanthropic credibility that businesses often lack and can use that as a
bargaining tool when partnering with for-profits..

Weaknesses
Messaging Weaknesses
The scope of environmental challenges is enormous and exceeds what
are generally perceived as environmental goals. It is important to move beyond
the relatively limited the idea of conservation and show how sustainability is also
part of the inner city as much as it’s a part of the national parks system. That is a
paradigm shift that may be difficult to facilitate, both among traditional
environmentalist audiences and new audiences.
Also, climate change issues exist on such a scale that nearly any group or
person could conceivably be a stakeholder in the conversation. Nonprofit

15

organizations, businesses, state and federal government agencies, as well as
individuals, from various segments, need to be considered. Knowledge,
perceptions and values vary immensely within this nearly limitless list of
stakeholders. The message that should be communicated to a local business
owner may be very different than what should be communicated to the mayor’s
office or community group.
Consequently, the messaging regarding the threat of climate change must
be strategically targeted and comprehensible even if it is scientifically, or in other
ways, complex. For example, complex scientific information may need to be
communicated when educating a community group of moms about climate
change science, to a group of CEO’s about how to make their waste practices
and resource extraction more sustainable
Further compounding the challenge is that messages may need to contain
specialized information in order to convince some audiences who have the least
interest in or ability to receive that information. Almost any stakeholder will
require targeted and complex messaging in order to achieve meaningful behavior
change.
Climate change is also a unique problem. Never before has humanity
faced the problem of a global temperature change that is the result of human
activity. No messaging can be crafted saying “the last time we raised the
temperature of the planet three degrees…” to motivate people, governments and
societies to act. Lacking any prior “success stories” from which to draw, there is
some portion of the population that express disbelief and even apathy regarding

16

the issue For these doubters, all of the warning images that have been portrayed
of cities underwater, expanding deserts and changes in rainfall are, at this
moment, imaginary depictions. This group’s ability to conceive of solutions to this
unique problem is similarly challenging in that they need to be convinced of the
validity of the issue itself. Touting the benefits of future, and as yet unproven,
technology may seem naïve or impractical.
Furthermore, many environmental challenges are out of sight, and
consequently out of mind. For instance, while there are fewer landfills today than
there were in 1990, the landfills we do have are growing steadily, despite a sharp
increase in recycling behavior (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2011).
This means U.S. citizens are consuming and discarding more than ever.
However, so few people are impacted by them or see the problem daily that it is
hard to invoke them as a means of motivating individuals to decrease their
consumption and further modify their disposal practices.
Additionally, climate change is a politically charged issue in the U.S. There
are deep partisan divides on even its existence, as well as the necessity of
improving our species’ ecological stewardship in general. Many of the proposed
structural solutions are not just about changing individual behavior, but incurring
costly changes to the way we do business and make policy. The positioning of
environmental issues as a divisive political issue represents another significant
communications challenge.

17

Organizational Weaknesses
Nonprofits may find themselves disadvantaged in lobbying and advocacy.
While the Citizens United Act of 2010 changed things a bit, nonprofit charities
generally do not have significant funds to contribute to political campaigns.
Business and industry interests do have those resources in spades. This is the
reason the U.S. sees such a strong business influence in policy making (Hall and
Taplin 2010).
Nonprofit entities also tend to have much smaller PR budgets than private
corporations, even the smallest public companies, and, as of 2011, smaller on-
average budgets that government agencies (Strategic Communication and Public
Relations Center (SCPRC) 2011). In order to be strategic, the amount of
available budget and manpower resources is an important variable to consider
when planning communications campaigns.

Opportunities
Opportunities with Business
The most common way in which business entities engage with
environmental issues is through their corporate social responsibility (CSR)
practices. Nonprofits have an incredible opportunity to communicate about issues
important to them by appealing to a corporation’s CSR objectives. There is
certainly a benefit to being deemed a “green” or “ecofriendly” business, as
evidenced by the vast number of products and companies touting such a
designation. Encouragingly, corporate environmental responsibility (CER) has

18

become one of the most popular forms of CSR in recent years (Kim and Nam
2012). Whether this is green-washing or sincere is an important question and
remains to be seen, but either way, the popularity of the movement is something
nonprofits should leverage in their interaction with businesses.
There may be long-term financial benefit to a business for going green, as
well. This could be the case because the firm may have preempted inevitable
regulation, giving it a competitive edge, or it may have found innovative and
potentially profitable solutions to environmental impact problems (Banerjee
1998).
Nonprofits are also in a position to provide information to businesses
about how they can be more environmentally friendly. For instance, a partnership
between Starbucks and ACDI/VOCA was particularly effective. ACDI/VOCA is a
nonprofit working to promote economic opportunities to alleviate poverty through
sound business practice and one of their targets were small holding coffee
farmers in Ethiopia. ACDI/VOCA had the infrastructure and expertise to
determine where Starbucks’ efforts would be the most effective. In partnership
with their organization, Starbucks developed a $500 million financing
arrangement, including a $400,000 loan to the the Sidama Union in Ethioia, that
provided capital, sustainability training and other benefits to Ethiopian coffee
farmers (ACDI/VOCA 2010). Starbucks sold coffee from this region at a higher
price because the company paid more for their coffee as the newly adopted
sustainable practices made the process more expensive. Starbucks also
designated coffee from that region as a “Black Apron Coffee” in 2005 and

19

successfully marketed it as a one-of-kind brew that supported a good cause for a
number of years.

Opportunities with Government
Government agencies are increasingly setting official environmental goals
and standards. In the United States, the Green Economy is a policy goal for the
Obama Administration. The administration has set aside $100 billion in dedicated
funds to achieve green economy goals (Peter and Britez 2012). International
initiatives also exist and in many cases may be considered more progressive
than U.S. initiatives. The UN Environmental Program, for example, launched the
Green Economy Initiative in 2008. (Peter and Britez 2012).
More advanced international examples, such as environmental polices in
Europe, can serve as models for U.S. policies and programs.. Additionally, “many
intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)…play a major role in guiding or
regulating business activities to environmentally friendly operations (Kim and
Nam 2012, 475).”
The U.S. political climate today is such that politicians and their initiatives
may claim that climate change is an important policy focus, despite relatively little
meaningful follow through. Nonprofits can help facilitate by creating a political
imperative, demonstrating that large numbers of people care about
environmental issues. They can accomplish this using petitions, open letters,
even social media campaigns that request reposting and retweets. And, as with
businesses, nonprofits can recognize the good work of government agencies and

20

individual politicians to drives media coverage and general support for those
entities and individuals.

Opportunities With Media
Many of the largest nonprofits have their own publications, such as a
monthly magazine or a newsletter for members. While this owned property is
valuable, it doesn’t necessarily do much to help an organization expand their
audience. The popularity of blogging and news aggregating websites like the
Huffington Post provide an excellent opportunity to revamp communications
strategies and repurpose some of that content in an attempt to reach more
mainstream audiences. Social media also presents opportunities for the nonprofit
to showcase new environmental perspectives reflecting progress, growth and
innovation.
New media also present an important opportunity to interface directly with
conventional media outlets. Studies also shown that the largest nonprofits are
using Twitter, primarily as a tool for one-way communication, especially to share
links (Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton 2012) (Bortree and Seltzer 2009). In the case
of environmental nonprofits, these links are often to media stories that support
the organization’s position on an issue or highlight the organization itself. Having
nonprofits actually engage targeted journalists and audiences via Twitter, as
opposed to simply recognizing their coverage, could help build valuable
relationships. This may be especially important in helping the environmental
movement become a part of many different political, economic and social

21

conversations and expand their audience overall. For instance, a journalist who
reports primarily on local politics could be pitched and engaged via Twitter based
on what environmental considerations play a part in his or her current stories.
Additionally, social media monitoring can allow environmental nonprofits to track
conversations. This could provide opportunities to identify themes and sentiment,
as well as engage with new audiences. The social media conversation that
occurred around the widespread and devastating effects of 2012’s Superstorm
Sandy offered an ideal example of an opportunity for an environmental nonprofit
to enter and even catalyze many different conversations.

Opportunities With Other Nonprofits
Collaboration between environmental nonprofits and other nonprofit
organizations also can be essential and mutually beneficial. Not only can
different organizations communicate about each other’s initiatives to their
respective followers, but they can also collaborate on events and
demonstrations. For example, in 2012 the 24 Hours of Reality initiative by former
Vice President Al Gore featured speakers from a host of environmental
nonprofits and each organization posted, tweeted and blogged about their
involvement in the event, making it an even bigger splash than it would have
been otherwise.
It could be even more beneficial for an environmental nonprofit to partner
with engineering, education, business and political nonprofits, as the issue of
sustainability belongs in all of these conversations. Networking, collaborating and

22

interfacing with other organizations will help integrate the environmental
message with many other prosocial messages.

Threats
Attitudinal/Values Threats
The positive benefits of individuals increasingly valuing sustainability and
taking actions to align their personal lives with this value may be outweighed by
the risk of subsequent and consequent inaction. When individuals begin to make
small changes in their habits to be greener that often instills a sense of
complacency in them as they feel they are doing their part and then ‘rest on their
laurels’ (Thogerson and Crompton 2009). Additionally, a recent study found that
people in an experiment who purchased ‘green’ products acted less altruistically
on subsequent tasks (Mazar and Zhong 2010). This suggests that small
environmental acts may act as a ‘moral offset’ and license undesirable behaviors
in other ways at worst and subsequent inaction at best. Finally, individual actions
have such a small impact as to be negligible if not adopted by a large percentage
of the population. As a communication strategy, environmental nonprofits must
consider how to avoid making these kind of behavior changes the sole basis for
their messaging.
There is also a general perception that green goals and business goals
are irreconcilable and that living sustainably will require great economic sacrifice,
on both a personal and national level. The McKinsey Global Survey, for instance,
showed that executives rank the environment (including climate change) as the

23

issue most likely to affect shareholder value (McKinsey&Company 2009)In times
of economic hardship it is difficult to make the case for what is seen as short-
term sacrifice to achieve a long-term goal.
Furthermore, environmental policy may appear to value “social good”
above individual needs – think of the impact of regulation on small business
owners or the effect of higher energy prices on middle-class families. This
doesn’t harmonize with the tenets of American capitalism, which is based on
hard-working self-interest. Many argue that businesses, for instance, have a right
to cut costs at the expense of the environment because they have a right to
make a profit and consumers can choose not to purchase their product and drive
them out of business if they want. From a communications perspective, it will be
necessary to avoid messaging that conceptually pits the good of people against
the good of the environment, as has been historically been the norm.
Although many surveys show that people are concerned about the
environment, none show that they are more concerned about the environment
than they are about other social problems (Shellenberger & Norhaus, 2007). In
surveys where Americans rank the issues, they prioritize concern about, jobs, the
economy, abortion, and myriad other issues before they are concerned about the
environment or climate change. In 2007 climate change was ranked dead last in
surveys of public concern (Shellenberger and Norhaus, Break Through: From the
Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility 2007). A seven-year,
longitudinal study of global concern about particular issues showed that the U.S.
citizens ranked environmental concerns as sixth most important out of eight

24

choices (National Opinion Research Center (NORC) n.d.). Immigration and
terrorism ranked lower with the economy, healthcare, education, poverty and
crime taking the top five spots.

Competitor Threats
Environmental nonprofits are especially challenged in having to work
against strong and deep-seated opposition. Usually, the nemeses of
philanthropic and advocacy work are apathy and lack of information. While
climate change and environmental advocates must counter those issues, they
also must but they must fight well-funded interest groups that are workings hard
to denounce climate change science and government regulation.
Political leaders need a mandate in order to take action because they are
at the mercy of the re-election process. They “themselves have drawn attention
to the imperative for more vocal public pressure to create the ‘political space’ for
them to enact more ambitious policy interventions” (Climate Change
Communication Advisory Group (CCAG) 2010). Of course, many lobbying
entities provide a mandate to do just the opposite and they are, in most cases,
prevailing. Only by engaging in large-scale advocacy efforts that communicate
against these vested interest can there be hope for the widespread change that
is necessary to address environmental issues like climate change.

25

Implications
There are several key implications from this SWOT analysis:
• Climate change advocates have focused heavily on the cataclysmic
effects of global warming, to little avail. Solutions-based messaging that
embraces progress, growth and innovation rather than fear mongering and
shame needs to define the environmental movement.
• Communication about environmentalism and sustainability needs to
embrace a wider array of issues. Sustainability practices need to become
a part of every major economic, social and political conversation.
• The scope and multiplicity of scales that environmental challenges
encompass are both are curse and a blessing. While this gives many
people and organizations a vested stake in the conversation it also means
facilitating solutions may be an incredibly complex endeavor necessitating
coalition building and cooperation across many organizational and
governmental levels.
• Nonprofit charities that champion environmental issues are financially
disadvantaged compared to their lobbying competitors and will need to
strategize with that in mind and capitalize on what they do have the
advantage in – public trust.

26

Chapter 2: Online Messaging as a Window into Climate Change
Communication

According to Ihlen and Verhoeven (2012), “interpersonal and mass
communication are becoming intertwined and the active public now has its own
language and communication.” Social media is an excellent example of that
combination and this new form of communication. Social media stands between
the mass communication of the public and organizational media on the one hand,
and the personalized communication of events and one-on-one communication
on the other (Alves 2008). This position means that this platform can be used in
many ways that are only just beginning to be explored and understood.
Public relations thought leaders have touted the benefits of social
technology for nonprofits (Kanter and Fine 2010) and Twitter is the number two
most used service in social media marketing, second only to Facebook (Stelzner
2012). However, research also has shown that social media’s interactive and
engagement capabilities are not being fully utilized by environmental
organizations (Bortree and Seltzer 2009). Studies have shown that the largest
nonprofits are using Twitter primarily as a tool for one-way communication,
especially to share links (Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton 2012) (Bortree and Seltzer
2009). Some evidence has shown nonprofits are reticent to use their online
presence or website for political advocacy, but environmental nonprofits are
among the most likely to do so (Suarez 2009). One of the goals of this paper is to
use content analysis methodologies to see whether nonprofits use their social

27

media presence to either interact with government organizations or mobilize their
followers to engage in e-advocacy. Another goal is to see whether they are
increasingly interacting with other types of organizations, as that may indicate
that they are working to expand the relevance of their message.
The overall goal of this content analysis is to see how top environmental
nonprofits are using Twitter and to what extent they reflect the analysis and
implications mentioned in chapter one. Are they interacting with or recognizing
other organizations? Are they tweeting to individual followers? Do they use
Twitter as a way to mobilize their followers to take action? Are the messages
optimistic, and do they address a range of issues?
I chose Twitter for my research because of the real-time communication
and interaction possibilities this platform offers. It is easy to share and respond to
content. If an organization is engaging in dialogue via social media, this is likely
where it will be happening. Every time an organization or individual’s Twitter
handle is “mentioned” in a tweet, they are notified and the tweet becomes
searchable by that handle as well. While a mention does not represent a mutually
agreed upon relationship the way a hyperlink might (Kim and Nam 2012), it can
still be considered meaningful communication and shed light on where these
organizations stand and how they are choosing to interact with stakeholders via
social media.

28

Method

In order to determine which organizations to examine, I consulted two
sources and ultimately elected to assess a total of 18 nonprofits. The website
Philanthropedia which was developed by Guidestar uses recommendations and
reviews from experts in a particular field to rank nonprofits. In this case,
according to their website, 121 climate change experts recommended 18
nonprofits that address climate change. Two different categories on
myphilanthropedia.org appeared related to the environmental movement but
were excluded because they were too specific. These categories were “water,
sanitation and hygiene” and “animal welfare, rights and protection.” I also
consulted the NonProfit Times (NPT). The NPT 2012 Top 100 – An In-Depth
Study of America’s Largest Nonprofits generates ranked list of America’s largest
nonprofits. I included the environmental nonprofits from that list. The 20
organizations used in the following analysis are:

Sierra Club
350.org
The Climate Reality Project
World Resources Institute
Greenpeace
National Wildlife Federation
The Conservation Fund
The Nature Conservancy
World Wildlife Foundation
Environmental Defense Fund
Union of Concerned Scientists
Friends of the Earth
Ceres
Center for Climate Energy Solutions
Wildlife Conservation Society
Center for Clean Air Policy
ICLEI
US Climate Action Network

29

The content analysis involved each organization’s tweets for the month of
November 2012. One month is the standard time frame for an organization’s
Twitter content analysis (Bortree and Seltzer 2009) (Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton
2012). The total number of tweets for the month was recorded for each
organization. One organization, the US Climate Action Network, didn’t have a
Twitter account at all and was left out of the data analysis since I wanted the data
to reflect the behavior of organizations that are Tweeting.
In order to explore the ways in which environmental nonprofits are utilizing
Twitter, the number of tweets that originated from a given nonprofit and
mentioned another specific organization or person with their Twitter handle was
recorded and then categorized according to type: individual, business,
government, nonprofit or media. If a Tweet had more than one type of mention it
was counted each time it made a different type of mention. The number of
mentions was also recorded independently, since many Tweets included more
than one. There were mentions that did not fall cleanly into any of these
categories (music groups, universities, etc.) and those were noted but not
counted for the purposes of this research. It is my hope that this data would shed
light on what kind of conversations these organizations were participating in and
who they were directly engaging.
I also recorded the number of times a nonprofit issued a specific call-to-
action to their followers. This could include asking them to sign an online petition,
retweet a message or attend an event, such as a rally. The expectation was that

30

the data would show what kind of online and new media tactics these
organizations are using to inspire their audiences to take action.

Analysis

Basic descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the Tweeting
norm for environmental nonprofit organizations. The mean median, and range for
total numbers of tweets, mentions and calls to actions for each of those data
sets, were calculated and recorded.

31

Results

Table 1 – Number of Tweets and Mentions by Organization,
ranked by Total Number of Tweets

Organization
Total # of
Mentions
Total # of
Tweets
# of
Followers
Sierra Club
524 707 59,173
350.org 176 391 129,025
The Climate Reality Project
361 381 108,960
World Resources Institute
348 359 45,944
Greenpeace 245 349 660,973
National Wildlife Federation
40 247 126,555
The Conservation Fund

41

243

1,899
The Nature Conservancy

110

151

164,389
World Wildlife Fund

66

140

231,031
Environmental Defense Fund

30

106

35,760
Union of Concerned Scientists

51

78

12,464
Friends of the Earth 59 73 7,207
Climate Solutions 18 71 3,794
Earth Justice 14 68 26,241
CERES 73 60 11,602
Center for Climate Energy
Solutions
22 37 3,742
Wildlife Conservation Society
12 35 2,295
Center for Clean Air Policy
15 27 836
ICLEI 8 4 869
Median 51 106 26,241
Mean 116 185.6 85,934.7
Range 516 703 660,137

The number of Tweets during the month of November 2012 varied widely
between the organizations. Sierra Club had the most Tweets with 707, the ICLEI
Tweeted only four times.
The number of mentions reflects a slightly different story than the number
of tweets. Number of mentions is a variable that indicates how often the

32

organization referenced either individuals or other organizations. As such, it is
one measure of the interactive quality of an organization’s Twitter presence.
The average number of tweets was 186 and the average number of
mentions was 116, but these numbers belie the range of difference between
organizations, which was 516 and 703, respectively. The median is a better
indicator of the trend in Twitter usage for this group of organizations. The median
number of tweets was 106, which is slightly lower than the mean number of
mentions. The median number of mentions was a mere 51, not even 1/10
th
of the
highest number of mentions.
The Sierra Club had both the most tweets and the most mentions. The
Climate Reality Project, the World Resources Institute and Greenpeace both had
more mentions but 350.org had a higher number of Tweets than both of those
groups. This shows that The Climate Reality Project, the World Resources
Institute and Greenpeace are making better use of their Twitter presence, in
terms of interaction, than some of the other organizations that have a higher
number of overall tweets.
Table #2 looks at the number of tweets that contained a mention of
another individual or organization. Tweets to individuals were the most common
type and made up, on average, almost 25% of the recorded tweets. Tweets that
mentioned a media outlet, either as a retweet or as a source, were the next most
common, making up an average of 14% of total tweets. Those were followed by
nonprofits, 8.4%, government, 6%, and businesses, 4.1%. The medians in this
case are all somewhat lower than the means.

33

Table 2 – Nonprofits’ Tweets Mentioning Other Organizations By
Type, Ranked by Nonprofits’ Total Number of Tweets Overall

Organization
Total #
of
Tweet
s
Individuals Business Government Nonprofit Media

# % # % # % # % # %
Sierra Club
707
236 33.4% 7 1.0% 52 7.4% 67 9.5% 121 17.1%
350.org
391
78 19.9% 1 0.3% 15 3.8% 58 14.8% 10 2.6%
The Climate Reality
Project
381
176 46.2% 9 2.4% 20 5.2% 94 24.7% 40 10.5%
World Resources
Institute
359
101 28.1% 30 8.4% 23 6.4% 59 16.4% 108 30.1%
Greenpeace
349
70 20.1% 99 28.4% 13 3.7% 2 0.6% 61 17.5%
National Wildlife
Federation

247
18 7.3% 2 0.8% 2 0.8% 9 3.6% 11 4.5%
The Conservation Fund

243
1 0.4% 1 0.4% 5 2.1% 12 4.9% 4 1.6%
The Nature Conservancy
151
29 19.2% 4 2.6% 1 0.7% 2 1.3% 68 45.0%
World Wildlife
Foundation
140
8 5.7% 6 4.3% 32 22.9% 2 1.4% 4 2.9%
Environmental Defense
Fund
106
13 12.3% 0 0.0% 3 2.8% 2 1.9% 13 12.3%
Union of Concerned
Scientists
78
30 38.5% 2 2.6% 4 5.1% 4 5.1% 8 10.3%
Friends of the Earth
73
28 38.4% 3 4.1% 11 15.1% 8 11.0% 5 6.8%
Climate Solutions
71
14 19.7% 7 9.9% 7 9.9% 4 5.6% 4 5.6%
Earth Justice
68
3 4.4% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 6 8.8% 1 1.5%
CERES
60
32 53.3% 1 1.7% 1 1.7% 7 11.7% 15 25.0%
Center for Climate
Energy Solutions
37
11 29.7% 1 2.7% 4 10.8% 3 8.1% 6 16.2%
Wildlife Conservation
Society
35
1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.7% 7 20.0%
Center for Clean Air
Policy
27
4 14.8% 2 7.4% 4 14.8% 0 0.0% 3 11.1%
ICLEI
4
3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 1 25.0%
Median
106
78. 19.9% 9 2.4% 15 3.8% 2 5.7% 3. 11.1%
Mean
185.6
45.1 24.7% 9.2 4.1% 10.4 6.0% 18.0 8.4% 25.8 14.0%
Range
703
235 50.4% 99 28.4% 52 22.9% 94 25% 120 43.4%

A single Tweet often mentioned more than one other handle, and more
than one type of organization. For instance, some Tweets would include the
handle of both an individual and the organization he or she works for. Table 3

34

looks uses the total number of mentions as the basis for calculating the
percentages and other statistics from assessed organizations. These numbers
are a more accurate reflection of the types of interactions that are occurring in
this space.

35

Table 3 - Nonprofits’ Total Mentions of Other Organizations by
Type, Ranked By Total Number of Mentions Overall

Organization
Total #
of
Mentions
Individuals Business Government Nonprofit Media
# % # % # % # % # %
Sierra Club 524 264 50.4% 7 1.3% 66 12.6% 71 13.5% 116 22.1%
The Climate
Reality Project 361 211 58.4% 9 2.5% 13 3.6% 94 26.0% 34 9.4%
World
Resources
Institute 348 120 34.5% 39 11.2% 22 6.3% 58 16.7% 109 31.3%
Greenpeace 245 81 33.1% 87 35.5% 7 2.9% 3 1.2% 67 27.3%
350.org 176 88 50.0% 1 0.6% 13 7.4% 64 36.4% 10 5.7%
The Nature
Conservancy 110 32 29.1% 2 1.8% 2 1.8% 2 1.8% 72 65.5%
CERES 73 39 53.4% 1 1.4% 5 6.8% 14 19.2% 14 19.2%
World Wildlife
Foundation 66 15 22.7% 6 9.1% 38 57.6% 3 4.5% 4 6.1%
Friends of the
Earth 59 29 49.2% 2 3.4% 10 16.9% 15 25.4% 3 5.1%
Union of
Concerned
Scientists 51 34 66.7% 2 3.9% 4 7.8% 4 7.8% 7 13.7%
The
Conservation
Fund 41 1 2.4% 1 2.4% 6 14.6% 30 73.2% 3 7.3%
National Wildlife
Federation 40 18 45.0% 2 5.0% 0 0.0% 10 25.0% 10 25.0%
Environmental
Defense Fund 30 13 43.3% 0 0.0% 3 10.0% 1 3.3% 13 43.3%
Center for
Climate Energy
Solutions 22 9 40.9% 1 4.5% 2 9.1% 3 13.6% 7 31.8%
Climate
Solutions 18 3 16.7% 6 33.3% 2 11.1% 4 22.2% 3 16.7%
Center for
Clean Air Policy 15 4 26.7% 4 26.7% 4 26.7% 0 0.0% 3 20.0%
Earth Justice 14 3 21.4% 0 0.0% 1 7.1% 9 64.3% 1 7.1%
Wildlife
Conservation
Society 12 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 10 83.3%
ICLEI 8 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5%
Median 51 9 40.9% 9 2.5% 13 7.4% 3 13.6% 14 19.2%
Means 116 51.1 38.3% 8.9 7.5% 10.4 10.7% 20.4 19.7% 25.6 23.8%
Range 516 258 72.6% 87 35.5% 66 57.6% 94 64.3% 115 60.4%

Counting mentions as opposed to individual Tweets reflected a similar
distribution of interactions. In terms of frequency of mentions according to type,

36

comments about individuals ranked the highest, averaging 38.3%. Mentions of
media outlets was again the second most common, this time at 23.8%. Those
were followed by mentions of nonprofits, 19.7%, government, 10.7% and
business, 7.5%. The median for nonprofits and individuals, in this case were
slightly higher than the means, while the rest of the categories followed the trend
of a slightly lower median.
There were several exceptions to the abovementioned trends. One such
exception was Greenpeace, which tweeted about businesses more often than it
did at individuals. In the month of November 2012, Greenpeace was engaged in
an initiative to motivate the clothing manufacturer Zara to stop using toxic
chemicals in their production processes. Many tweets mentioned the Zara Twitter
handle, likely in an effort to flood their feed and force a response from the
manufacturer and retailer.
The Conservation Fund was another exception. While it did not make
many mentions in its Twitter feed, with 243 tweets but only 41 mentions, of the
few mentions it did make, most were of other nonprofit organizations.
The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) was an additional exception to this
generality, as well. WWF mentioned governmental entities such as city
governments, mayors and governors because it was in the midst of an initiative
called “City Challenge” in which cities were encouraged to pledge their
preparedness for climate change and extreme weather. In contrast, The Center
for Clean Air Policy was more likely to mention media outlets in its relatively few

37

tweets, and the Environmental Defense Fund tweeted as often at individuals as it
did at media outlets.
The content analysis showed that tweets that included the handle of an
individual tended to be retweets and often involved individuals associated with
the organization. Notably, during November 2012, celebrities such as Bette
Midler and Jason Mraz promoted The Climate Reality Project’s campaign and
media event, 24 Hours of Reality, on Twitter. Individual journalists also were
often mentioned in tweets when their story was cited along with their news outlet.
Experts were often quoted and/or retweeted in way that supported the
organization’s narrative.
Businesses tended to be mentioned in only one of two ways. A business
was either a direct target of criticism, as was the case with Zara by Greenpeace,
or was hailed as an ecofriendly product or partner, as was the case with
Threadless, a clothing line that created WWF t-shirts. Sometimes prominent
corporate executives would be quoted and praised when they supported
environmental wins in their industry or business in particular.
Government entities were also represented in a straightforward manner in
most environmental nonprofits’ tweets. Either the tweet hailed the actions of a
particular politician or entity, such as by recognizing policy wins for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) or congratulating President Barack
Obama on his re-election, or they hounded and condemned a politician for his or
her stance on an issue. U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner, for instance,
was called out in one organization’s Twitter feed for his views on an

38

environmental issue. International organizations such as the United Nations were
mentioned as well, usually in the context of news.
The nonprofits sampled often appeared to be supporting each other’s
agendas, as they retweeted or promoted the initiatives of other organizations.
Almost every organization tweeted about the 24 Hours of Reality campaign, for
instance. Former Vice President Al Gore, who spoke for 24 hours straight to raise
awareness about climate change, spearheaded this initiative. The event also
featured speakers from a host of environmental nonprofits and each of the
organizations posted, tweeted and blogged about their involvement in the event,
likely making it an even bigger splash than it would have been otherwise. Among
nonprofits, not only were different organizations communicating about each
other’s initiatives to their respective followers, but they also collaborated on
events and demonstrations.
The content analysis also shows that these nonprofits connected with
media in a significant proportion of their tweets. Almost every organization
tweeted links to news stories that were relevant to their missions or ongoing
campaigns. Many then mentioned, by handle, the originating news outlet .
Sometimes an organization also mentioned the journalist in the tweet, but that
was less often the case. Almost every organization tweeted a link to the date
Business Week cover story about Superstorm Sandy and climate change. Also,
many organizations tweeted links from the same media outlets – both niche and
national.

39

Table 4 - Number of Tweets That Were a Call-to-Action

Organization
Total #
of
Tweets
Take Action
# %
Sierra Club 707 35 5.0%
350.org 391 24 6.1%
The Climate Reality
Project
381
24 6.3%
World Resources
Institute
359
0 0.0%
Greenpeace 349 23 6.6%
National Wildlife
Federation
247
3 1.2%
The Conservation Fund 243 18 7.4%
The Nature Conservancy 151 1 0.7%
World Wildlife
Foundation
140
5 3.6%
Environmental Defense
Fund
106
2 1.9%
Union of Concerned
Scientists
78
1 1.3%
Friends of the Earth 73 11 15.1%
Climate Solutions 71 1 1.4%
Earth Justice 68 6 8.8%
CERES 60 0 0.0%
Center for Climate
Energy Solutions
37
0 0.0%
Wildlife Conservation
Society
35
0 0.0%
Center for Clean Air
Policy
27
0 0.0%
ICLEI 4 0 0.0%
Median 106 1 1.4%
Means 185.6 8.1 3.4%
Range 703 35 15.1%

On average, only 3.4% of tweets served as a call-to-action. Call-to-action
tweets were those that asked followers to take a specific action such as retweet a
message, sign a petition, or send a message to a politician through the
organization’s website. The Sierra Club, 350.org, The Climate Reality Project and
Greenpeace had the most call-to-action type of tweets.
The most common types of calls to action were for followers to click on a
link and sign an online petition or open letter than urged a politician or

40

organization to take some specific action. Another common call to action was to
ask followers to retweet a particular message. These seemed especially
engaging on Greenpeace’s Zara campaign, though it could be that they simply
retweeted more individuals who tweeted about signing their petition. That
organization was able to retweet many individuals who tweeted their generic “I
just signed the petition” tweet, as well as specific messages, and even photos
that individuals tweeted at Zara asking if a particular piece of clothing had been
made with potentially toxic chemicals. Finally, a few organizations asked
followers to come out for demonstrations. The most common such event
mentioned was the Washington D.C. demonstration protesting against the XL
pipeline. Additionally, followers were encouraged to watch videos? of
demonstrations and retweet links to those as well.

Discussion

Campaigns that combine mass media messaging with interpersonal
communication have been shown to be effective in producing changes in both
attitude and behavior (Fishbein, Higgins, et al. 1999); (Svenkerud, Roa and
Rogers 1999). In many ways, social media provides an opportunity to include
elements of both in messaging. Through social media, organizations can
broadcast a general message and well as interact directly with individuals and
organizations in the same medium in a way that is publicly visible. Also,

41

members of the media use Twitter to research events and institutions, thus
providing an opportunity for amplified mass communication.
According to the content analysis, it appears some organizations are using
Twitter more efficiently than others. Greenpeace’s campaign against Zara
exemplifies the strategy of using social media as a medium, and represents one
of the best uses of the platform in this data set. Individuals were able to retweet
or tweet independently in order to add their voice to the initiative. The entire
advocacy process was visible, making it easy for media to follow and individuals
to engage in. Zara did subsequently pledge to stop using the chemicals activists
were objecting to.
Greenpeace tweeted links to videos and other multimedia and solicited the
same from their followers. The ability to spread and share multimedia was likely
one of the most important benefits of social media platforms. In this case the
content was video of protests against Zara. Many individuals also tweeted
photos of Zara clothing at the company along with questions about how they
were made. The Greenpeace Twitter-stream became a frenzy of advocacy and
multimedia. Zara couldn’t help but be acutely aware because the mentions of its
Twitter handle showed up on their account page and are also searchable.
Furthermore, since the topic trended on Twitter in some areas, it reached a large
number of eyeballs it probably would not have reached by using only more
traditional media outlets.
The fact that media often uses social media to monitor events and issues
in real-time is important. Having a current and dynamic dialogue on a social

42

media channel is an excellent way to influence the coverage of the topics an
organization cares about and become an integral part of the conversation.
Climate Reality’s 24 Hours of Reality event made a good example of this. This
event was widely reported on and generated significant conversation on Twitter.
Climate Reality retweeted the tweets of other individuals, media outlets and
organizations that mentioned them and their event. This gave whomever was
looking at their feed a distinct impression of the breadth and importance of the
campaign.
This kind of topical retweeting is especially important if a topic becomes a
state or national “trend” and is a conversation engaging a wide variety of people.
Twitter is an excellent way to inject a new perspective into a conversation as
well, and even engage journalists on the topic. Tweeting at the authors of various
industry news pieces with an environmental perspective on a hot topic could
garner very effective attention from a news outlet. Whether this was ever the
motivation for the many retweets of and commentary on news stories is unclear.
In most cases, it was apparent that the story was simply being “cited” with the
mention of the magazine’s, newspaper’s or journalist’s handle.
Calls-to-action were a component of many organizations’ Twitter strategy,
but they did not make up a very large number of the kinds of messages that were
tweeted. It would be interesting to see if the links in these kinds of tweets are
clicked-through more or less often than the other kind of links these organizations
share via Twitter.

43

Most of the organizations that were involved in the content analysis did not
appear to attempt to use Twitter as a strategic tool for communicating complex
information about climate change. This is probably appropriate given the
platform’s 140 character limit. The most complex information that could be linked
to these organizations’ Twitter profiles would be links to news articles or other
resources. In future research, it would be worthwhile to investigate the click-
through rate on links to news media websites and links to an owned property of
the organization. This could shed some light on which kinds of content followers
find more engaging and authentic, to shape communications strategy going
forward.
The results of the analysis completed for this thesis does not seem to
indicate that environmental nonprofits are doing much in the way of expanding
their issue set or reaching out to facilitate cooperation and foster relationships
between disparate organizations. There was significant recognition of individual
followers, which indicates that most organizations are likely embracing the
traditional, grass roots approach to environmentalism, which pursues a narrow
agenda and cultivates a relatively small, but passionate following. While
engaging individuals is an important component of interaction on Twitter, may not
be the best strategy to Tweet this way exclusively. Unfortunately these kinds of
activities would support the perception of environmentalism as a special interest,
as opposed to a key component of nearly every interest.
It would appear that there is ample room for improvement in the strategic
use of Twitter by environmental nonprofits. Given the character limit and the not-

44

very-good chances of showing up in a follower’s feed just as they happen to
check Twitter, one-way broadcast of general messaging is not the best use of the
platform. Despite this, it appeared to be the most common use of Twitter by
environmental nonprofits. However, it may be worth noting a possible exception.
Video and photos are significantly more engaging than pure text, and Twitter may
in fact be one of the best platforms to maximize the sharing of that kind of
content. Generally, though, Twitter would be better utilized by environmental
nonprofits as a tool for connecting and engaging in dialogue. It is important to
give your audience timely and valuable content but this means more than just
tweeting links to stories about relevant current events. Twitter can be a platform
for storytelling. Tweets should speak to narrative of the organization through
interaction and dialogue with others. Kent (2010, 655) puts it nicely when he
writes that “public relations professionals and scholars should step past the idea
that social media technologies, such as Facebook and Twitter, are marketing and
advertising tools, and ‘embrace them as tools capable of solving problems and
engaging publics in real-world issues.’”
As always, this research inspires a call for further research. In particular, I
would recommend using a network analysis program to investigate the amount of
overlap between the environmental nonprofit community and other easily
identifiable communities, as well as how far their messaging is penetrating into a
wider conversation and in what arenas. It also would be worthwhile to see what
organizations and kinds of individuals are mentioning environmental nonprofits. It
would also be interesting to see a comparison of the United States and nations

45

with different environmental values and policies and perhaps different patterns of
Twitter usage.

46

Chapter 3: Using Theory to Design Environmental Nonprofit
Communication Strategy

A Theoretical Framework for Prosocial Behavior

Clearly, communicating about environmental issues like climate change is
a complicated proposition. The many different audiences, the complexity of
messaging and the sheer scope of the changes that need to be made if we are to
preserve an acceptable quality of life for future generations underscore the need
for effective strategic communication. The Climate Change Communication
Advisory group has argued “that too little attention is paid to the understanding
that psychologists bring to strategies for motivating change, whilst undue faith is
often placed in the application of marketing strategies to ‘sell’ behavioral
changes” (2010). With the limited resources that nonprofits usually have and an
urgent problem to address, it is important to get as much bang for the messaging
buck as possible. There is a wealth of research in the fields of psychology and
communication that could inform strategy.
Given the nature of environmental challenges, addressing the need for a
drastic increase in pro-environmental behavior must be focused on individuals as
well as business, government and other social structures. According to Frantz
and Mayer (2009) the two levels are inextricable. In working from a theoretical
framework it is also important to consider the type of behavior change that you
are trying to accomplish. In this case, environmental nonprofits will need to

47

convince their audiences to make choices that are inconvenient in the short term
but benefit us all in the long term. Because of these factors, the Five Stage
Model of Helping Behavior is a particularly appropriate framework to evaluate
and apply psychological research to communication strategy. This model was
proposed by Latane and Darley in 1970, who use it to explain how social and
individual changes are dependent upon each other, as well as what
psychological steps need to be taken to arrive at the decision to take a prosocial
action. This helping behavior model states that if an individual is to engage in
prosocial behavior, she or he will:

(1) notice a potential problem
(2) classify that problem as an emergency
(3) feel a sense of responsibility for solving that problem
(4) know what to do to solve it
(5) decide to take a prosocial action to do so.

This model provides a starting point to analyze the challenges
environmental nonprofits face in convincing people to take meaningful action on
issues like climate change. Our distance, psychological, as well as physical and
temporal, from the immediate effects of climate change makes it difficult for us to
notice the potential problem. In the U.S. media, an expert who claims that climate
change is not driven by human activity is given as much time and attention as the
expert who, representing the vast majority of scientific opinion, argues that it is.

48

In this case, giving “both sides of the story” misrepresents the view of the
scientific community as a whole. There are also motivators for some people to
dismiss climate change as a potential problem.
These demotivating factors may discourage us from determining whether
there is actually an emergency. There is also the personal motivation to not
decide it is an emergency, since much of the change required of an individual,
society or business to become more sustainable is inconvenient and/or,
especially at this stage of the game, expensive, because of the lack of
institutional support for those kind of changes. In psychological terms, this
scenario creates cognitive dissonance, the phenomenon is characterized by a
dilemma in which a problem is perceived but the solution is inconvenient enough
to create sense of conflict. That sense of conflict motivates an individual to take
action to resolve the conflict. An individual can either make the inconvenient
modification in their behavior to solve the problem, or an individual could decide
to reevaluate whether or not there is actually is problem. Often, the cognitive
dissonance created by a problem as vast as climate change, is much more easily
resolved by an individual if he or she decides that climate change is not as
threatening as it seemed.
Furthermore, the vast number of people responsible for and affected by
global warming promotes a diffusion of responsibility, which interferes with the
third step in Latane and Darley’s process of deciding to act. The diffusion of
responsibility is the psychological concept stating that the more people that are
potentially responsible for a situation, the less responsible any one individual will

49

feel (Darley and Latane 1968). It is easy to see how a person would wonder why
it is his or her personal responsibility to do something about a problem that is
caused by and affects everyone. This is especially the case when taking
responsibility for that problem would be costly or could put a business or
individual at some kind of competitive disadvantage .
The sheer magnitude of the problem of climate change makes the 4
th
step
in Latane and Darley’s model, knowing what to do, very challenging. It is hard for
an individual or even a society to know exactly what to do. That assumes they
have reached the point of acknowledging the depth of the problem and their
responsibility for solving it. Also these varied institutions have different levels of
power to solve the problem, and the most sweeping solutions would require
significant amounts of cooperation between them.
Finally, the decision to act is based on a cost-benefit analysis, and the
long-term nature of problems like climate change, coupled with the immediate
sacrifices that would be required to address it, make it harder still for one to
decide to take action.
The authors conclude that their model is not a linear process, that social
level changes will “beget individual-level psychological changes, which then
make further structural changes possible…[and that] the key to successful action
is collective action, at nearly every stage and at both the society and
psychological level” (Frantz & Mayer, 2009, p208). For this reason, it is
important to analyze the research that has been done at both levels if we are to
truly understand what we can do to affect positive change for the environment.

50

Research on Motivating Prosocial Behavior

Most of the research done in the fields of psychology and communication
that relates to this topic has been on the efficacy of different motivation models
for predicting and explaining green behavior in individuals, or the lack thereof.
The following analysis will summarize the most recent and relevant findings in
this area as they relate to the five stages of helping behavior model. Some steps
in this model are more relevant than others to the problem at hand as will be
shown in the following analysis. Finally, I will explore the implications this
research has for communicators at environmental nonprofits.
In keeping with the Five Stage Model of Helping Behavior emphasis on
the need to address both individual and social levels of behavior change, each of
the steps will be analyzed as they apply to those two groups. The types of social
level organizations that will be considered are primarily business and government
entities.

Step 1: “Hey!” - Getting People to Notice the Problem
Research on Individuals
According to the reasoned action and planned behavior model, an
individual uses three criteria to decide on it is necessary to engage in a behavior
change (Fishbein 1975) (Azjen 1991). These criteria are: their attitudes about the
behavior; their perceptions of how others will view the behavior; and their
perception of how much control they have over the behavior. This is similar to

51

Fisher and Fisher’s information-motivation-behavioral skills model from the field
of psychology (1992). This model takes both social pressures and efficacy into
consideration as factors an individual uses to decide if there is a problem that
warrants their making a change in their behavior.
This model is also reminiscent of many norm activation theories and
priming theories, which will be discussed in other particular steps of the five-step
model of prosocial behavior. Mass communication models, such as agenda
building and agenda setting are also believed to be work through priming
mechanisms.

Research on Organizations
It seems that at the organizational level, it may take something more
concrete to register the fact that an urgent issue is at hand. Research has shown
that business organizations are being forced by legislation, and the perception
that more legislation is inevitable, to begin to see climate change as a problem
they will have to engage directly. Many firms are already investing in minimizing
their environmental impact and it is increasingly expensive to comply with
environmental regulations while environmentally liability is also increasingly
complex (Banerjee 1998).
However, current corporate social responsibility initiatives and corporate
reporting practices indicate that business is willing to go above and beyond what
is merely required by government. The KPMG International Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting is one of the largest and most comprehensive surveys

52

of its kind ever published. It’s 2011 report showed that corporate responsibility
(CR) reporting “has become the de facto law for business” and is widely
accepted as a means of growing business, driving innnovation and increasing an
organization’s value” (2).

Implications
The research on getting a problem noticed, in a nutshell, would indicate
that individuals are susceptible to their impressions of how others view a problem
and that issues an entire society is engaged is more likely to be perceived as a
problem worthy of an individual’s attention. This would indicate that building
awareness is best created through a mass media approach that communicates
widespread, general interest in a problem or issue.
The most effective tool for getting the private sector to acknowledge the
problem of climate change seems to be both legislation and positive impacts to a
business’ bottom line. Bottom line motivators, such as a government tax credit for
particular sustainable practices, are one of many possible solutions that
nonprofits can push for. Additionally, if a business is embracing more sustainable
practices, nonprofits that acknowledge and publicize this good news give those
firms, at the very least, a reputational advantage in the marketplace that may
drive other firms to follow suit.

53

Step 2: “SOS” - Getting People to Classify the Problem as an
“Emergency”
Research on Individuals
The “risk” part of what are broadly termed risk and efficacy models, are
especially useful in learning how to create a sense of urgency. Health psychology
and health communication theory are largely responsible for the risk and efficacy
models for motivation. Roughly speaking, this kind of motivation is based on a
combination of emotional activation and education. A combination of information
and, usually, fear-inducing language convinces an individual that a situation may
warrant a behavior change. Additional information and encouraging language
that creates a sense of efficacy are then combined to achieve the behavior
change.
It also is important to consider the emotional ramifications for using fear-
inducing messaging. People were likely to feel sad or angry, to feel guilt or
shame, to yearn for that which is lost or to search for more comforting answers
(Randall 2009). Providing support and empathy in working through the painful
emotions of 'grief' for a society that must undergo changes is a prerequisite for
subsequent adaptation to new circumstances. Environmental nonprofits provide
support and empathy by acknowledging the difficulties of adapting to climate
change, emphasizing that “we are all in this together,” and/or using the vision of a
progressive and clean energy future to inspire optimism and other comforting
emotions.

54

Research on Organizations
Fully addressing the cause and effects of a warming world will require
many changes in the way products are sourced, made, packaged and
transported. In other words, sustainability requires significant behavior change
from the private sector. Unfortunately, organizations broadly resist change.
The term “burning platform” is a staple in the business lexicon. The idea it
represents offers insight into the difficulty of motivating businesses to classify a
problem as an emergency. The anecdote goes something like this: A man is on
an oil platform in the sea and one night he is awakened by an explosion that
quickly results in the platform to be consumed by flames. It is certain death if he
stays on the platform, though the 100-foot drop into the ocean or its icy cold
waters could kill him as well. There is no guarantee that rescue workers will be
there anytime soon. So, the man jumps, survives the fall, and is soon rescued.
The moral of the story is that a radical change in behavior may require the
direst of circumstances. If there had been any way to stay on the platform, that’s
what the man in the story would have chosen to do. This attitude is attributed to
two kinds of human instincts: comfort zone instincts and survival instincts. A
drastic change in behavior requires that the survival instinct overcome the
comfort zone instinct. In other words, it is possible that only in the face of “certain
death” might some businesses make the monumental changes required to
sufficiently address climate change.

55

Implications
If the goal is to move an individual from acknowledging a problem to
classifying it as an emergency, emotional engagement is the motivational key.
Environmental nonprofit should combine a limited amount of fear or negativity,
with messaging that informs, empowers and inspires optimism. Messaging that
creates fear and other negative emotions may vary from depicting unsustainable
practices as old-fashioned, unsophisticated and un-American, or it may mean
informing the residents of coastal cities that the house they leave to their children
may well be underwater before a grandchild could inherit it. That will create an
emotional attachment to the issue that can then be bolstered by messaging that
gives individuals the feeling of hope the problem can be overcome and inspires
them to feel optimism for a different future.
It would seem organizations would not be so readily convinced. This
means that, at this stage, environmental nonprofit outreach to executives should
involve face-to-face conversation so as to motivate key individuals. By the time
the platform is burning, it may very well be too late to significantly mitigate the
effects of climate change and unsustainable practices.

56

Step 3: “Who, Me?” - Getting People to Feel a Sense of
Responsibility for the Environment
Research on Individuals
A way to determine how to inspire a sense of responsibility in individuals is
to look at characteristics of those people who are already exhibiting
environmentally friendly behavior. A 2009 study done in Mexico showed that an
individual acceptance and appreciation of diversity correlates positively with
environmentally friendly behavior ( (Corrall-Verdugo, et al. 2009)). A pro-
environmental identity is another factor that had been shown to contribute to
environmentally responsible behavior (Whitmarsh and O'Neill 2010). One study
even showed that doing self-affirmations resulted in less denial of the current
environmental crisis and a better sense of personal ability to affect positive
environmental change (Sparks, et al. 2010)).
Some research shows that community pressures and expectations can
have an effect on pro-environmental behavior. A study on public commitment
making (Lokhorst, Dijk and Staats 2009) examined the relationships between
both dispositional trust and situational expectation, and the likelihood of making a
public commitment. Their study is based on research that shows making a public
commitment can promote environmentally conscious behavior; and they cite De
Leon & Fuqua (1995) and De Young (1993) to this effect. Lokhorst, et al. showed
that choosing what was good for their community as a whole motivated both
high- and low-trusters. However, their situational expectations interacted with
this motivation in different ways. For those low in dispositional trust, the

57

expectation that others would also contribute if this commitment were made
encouraged their own public commitment. For those high in dispositional trust,
the expectation that others were not likely to contribute made them more likely to
choose a public commitment system.
If a particular demographic in a community or geographic area tended to
have a particular disposition, this information would valuable when determining
how and were it would be best to sell the idea of a public commitment program.
Research has shown that receiving social feedback has been an effective
way to motivate individuals. Pritchard (2010) points out that people drive more
responsibly when gas prices are high, which argues that feedback is an effective
means of motivation. He proposes that more immediate feedback, even if it were
not monetary in nature, could be a way to increase environmentally responsible
driving behavior. His report suggests that Facebook could be used to track good
driving behavior and that the feedback of one’s peers would be an effective
motivation for environmentally conscious driving. This would get people to notice
an entirely different consequence of their driving behavior and bring the
environment to their attention.

Research on Organizations
Prakash writes that relying primarily on the government to regulate
environmental practice creates an incentive for businesses to try and outsmart or
get around the regulations in order to gain a competitive edge. He also exhorts
that environmentalists will always call for more action while accusing the

58

government of being beholder to corporate interests, and businesses will always
call for less regulation. He also points out that the cost of enforcement to the
government is significant and creates an adversarial climate between all
interested parties (Prakash 2007).
He recommends that instead of seeking to expand command and control,
“policy makers need to employ multiple policy tools to supplement it. The new era
calls for collaboration between government and businesses and the new
instruments which can foster a cooperative culture and encourage corporate
environmentalism” (Prakash 2007, 132). This is, of course, an excellent
opportunity for environmental nonprofit outreach to assist in such partnerships.
According to Kim and Nam (2012), U.S. companies take more “explicit”
responsibility for some social interests because “the United States has relatively
less state interference in economic and social activity, more reliance on the stock
market as a financial source, lower levels of union membership, and stronger
ethics of stewardship than European and Asian countries” (477). This means
that companies in this country may be more likely to consider themselves
responsible for their impact on the environment, which is just a small logical step
away from embracing acts of environmental stewardship.
The success of international commitment programs is a testament to the
idea that cooperative and voluntary initiatives may be the most effective. The
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) shows that many business entities are
prepared to acknowledge the magnitude of environmental problems and their
role in finding a solution. This compact is a “strategic policy initiative for

59

businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten
universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment
and anti-corruption” (The Global Compact 2011). It is the largest voluntary
corporate responsibility initiative in the world. In all sectors, there are 293
business participants from the U.S. alone. These include big names such as
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Mills, Levi Strauss &
Co. and Merck & Co., Inc. just to name a few. This seems to indicate both
general and increasing acceptance of the idea that sustainability is a corporate
responsibility as well.
It also bears mentioning that, while U.S. companies may embrace more
responsibility for social issues than companies in other countries, this may not
result in more action on their part. Ninety-five percent of the 250 largest
companies in the world report their corporate responsibility activities, but of those
that don’t, two-thirds are U.S. companies (KPMG International Cooperative
2011). This possible disparity between a culture of responsibility and reporting
that would prove that responsibility is being actively met, may be an area where
nonprofits can be particular effective by encouraging more transparency.

Implications
The implications for individuals in this section of the model speak to two
messaging concerns. First, it defines the audience that is ripe for efficacy
messaging. Audiences that already value the environment and sustainability will
be primed for convincing that it is in fact their responsibility to take action.

60

Additionally, this research informs the kind of tactics that may be important at this
stage: public commitments and programs that provide socially visible positive
feedback.
There are also important implications for business and government at this
stage. U.S. businesses may be more likely to consider themselves responsible
for their impact on the environment. Additionally, private enterprises may be more
receptive to collaborative engagement, as opposed to restrictive policies. The
increasing popularity of corporate social responsibility reporting and the success
of international commitment programs such as the UNGC are a testament to the
efficacy of collaborative and voluntary initiatives.

Step #4: “Do What?” - Getting People to Know What to Do
Research on Individuals
Thinking back to the risk and efficacy models we looked at in the first
stage of this analysis, this is where the concept of efficacy comes in. In order to
get people to move from an emotional response to an action, tell them exactly
what they can do. Otherwise the emotional appeals are paralyzing at worst,
directionless at best.
Emphasizing painless and easy steps to improving our environmental lot
should be avoided because “narratives that focus exclusively on the ‘up-side’ of
climate solutions are likely to be unconvincing” (Climate Change Communication
Advisory Group 2010, 6).

61

Encouraging small scale, individual behavioral change may actually
discourage further and perhaps more meaningful action, such as demonstrating
for political change. Without disparaging an individual’s personal sustainability
practices, it needs to be communicated that each person need to press for policy
that can truly address the scope of the environmental issues facing us today.
Whether that’s physical participation or online demonstration of dissatisfaction
with current policy, it needs to be loud enough and large enough to create a
political imperative. As David MacKay, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK
Department of Energy and Climate Change, writes: “Don’t be distracted by the
myth that ‘every little bit helps’. If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little”
(McKay 2008).
An important motivation model is the information-motivation-behavioral
skills model. This model is based on health psychology research, which showed
that a particular behavior is more likely to occur based on how much accurate
information an individual has, how motivated they are, and whether or not they
have the skills necessary to perform the behavior in question (Fisher and Fisher
1992). This particular model has been used in research on various behaviors
and enjoys much empirical support (Seacat and Northrup 2010).
A 2010 study showed that the information-motivation-behavioral skills
model could be used to predict curbside recycling behavior (Seacat and Northrup
2010). In this study, two comparable communities were surveyed about their
recycling behavior, including why they do or do not engage in recycling
behaviors. The statistical analysis of these results revealed that recycling

62

information, self perceived level of motivation, and behavioral skills interacted,
just as this model predicted. This model has been used extensively in health
psychology to predict health behaviors. What this shows is that information and
skills are an integral part of the motivation to take prosocial actions. There were
limitations in this study, however, based primarily on the sample, which was
mostly very well-educated, female home owners. This is not an ideal sample for
drawing conclusions about the efficacy of using this model for predicting pro-
environmental behavior in general population. However, it is a start, and the
model has shown itself to be applicable in many other areas, and may have
additional implications for the development of communications strategy
encouraging pro-recycling as well as pro-environmental behaviors generally.

Research on Organizations
Environmentalism in a business increases innovation, especially when
there are incentives for it, and can lead to changes that give firms a competitive
advantage (Banerjee 1998). For example, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC)
developed a less environmentally hazardous cleaning solution in response to
having to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), and they also have worked to
develop new products that require no cleaning at all. Both of these improvements
substantially reduced costs (Wicks 1993).
Also, a survey of 220 senior executives indicates that a vast majority think
that environmental issues are “extremely important” to their firm (Newman and
Breeden 1992). Yet in another survey of executives, only 7 percent of

63

respondents claimed to fully understand the environmental risks faced by their
company (Banerjee 1998).
Another important organizational entity to consider in the context of
environmentally friendly behavioral change is government. In the U.S., the public
school system is, in many ways, an extension of various levels of government.
Educators and the educational system as a whole are in a position to reach many
people. School policies and curricula affect not only the children who attend
those schools, but their families and the community as a whole. Thus, schools
are an area of great potential both for research about environmental values and
for implementation of programs that perpetuate them. In his 2010 essay that
uses empirical and anecdotal research, Macready argues that Vygotsky’s theory
that learning is a social process has important implications for how we can use
our formal educational systems to teach social responsibility. His essay
specifically focuses on the importance of open dialogue, collaboration for
resolving disputes, and mutual respect in schools as being the way to introduce
and foster social learning in this context. While this article does not specifically
address pro-environmental behavior, much of what it says indicates that value for
the environment, just like valuing other prosocial behaviors, is something that
could be taught in school.

64

Implications
The implications here are particularly useful. Both individuals and
organizations will seek information at this stage in the model and nonprofits can
be positioned to provide it. It is important from a communications and messaging
perspective, that individuals and organizations are asked to take the most
effective, not the easiest actions.
One possibility for helping ensure business takes the most effective steps
toward sustainability that they can is to encourage corporate responsibility
reporting. Reporting the level of a company’s corporate responsibility requires an
adoption of metrics and consistent improvement in those metrics has been
shown to drive innovation (KPMG International Cooperative 2011).
It is also worthwhile to explore investing in advocacy communications that
would help incorporate sustainability into various levels of education.

Step 5: “I Will!” - Getting People to Decide to Take Action
Research on Individuals
Self-determination theory is characterized in this arena as focusing “on the
contexts that promote or hinder the internalizations of motivation and the
integration of behavior” (Pelletier and Sharp 2008, p210). In other words, self-
determination theory indicates that individuals must “own” their motivation for it to
be the most effective. It also has been shown that adopting behavior in pursuit of
intrinsic goals is more likely to lead to ‘spillover’ into other sustainable behaviors
(Thogerson and Crompton 2009).

65

Values are largely the basis for intrinsic motivators. Milfont, Duckitt &
Cameron (2010) compared the effect of three different types of motivation on
environmental concern: biospheric, egoistic, or altruistic. These values-based
motivations determine the basis for the cost-benefit analysis people engage in
when deciding whether to take an action. Biospheric motivation uses the cost
and benefits to the ecosystem as the basis for a decision. Egoistic motivation is
based on costs and benefits to the individual. Finally, altruistic motivation is
based on costs and benefits to the collective group. The study, which was
conducted in New Zealand, compared the motivation for environmentally
conscientious behavior of Asian and European New Zealanders. Results
showed that this particular model of values motivation could reliably predict which
pro-environmental behaviors mattered. Also, interestingly, the motivations varied
based on ethnicity.
At a deeper level, framing refers to the psychological process of forging
the connections between a debate or public policy, and a set of deeper personal
values or principles. Conceptual framing, which involves crafting particular
messages focusing on particular issues, cannot work unless these messages
resonate with individuals’ set of long-term deep frames.
Social norms have been shown to be a very effective motivator in many
cases. From a communications perspective, the key is to ensure that information
about what is happening, which is termed descriptive norms), does not
overshadow information about what should be happening, which are called

66

injunctive norms (Climate Change Communication Advisory Group (CCAG)
2010).
A study by Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicus (2008) demonstrated an
effective use of communications supporting norm activation, to prompt
environmentally friendly behavior. Their study used placards that encouraged
guests to reuse towels in their hotel rooms for different reasons. They found that
the industry standard message, which communicated the impact of the action on
the environment, was less effective than messages that indicated that most other
guests reused their towels. They also looked at the effect that representing
different social groups in that message had on the behavior. It was thought that
the group the guest most identified with, such as a gender group or as a
concerned citizen, would best encourage the behavior. Surprisingly, they found
that the messages showing the percentage of people who stayed in that
particular room and reused their towel was the most effective message.
“The stereotype priming model depends upon a priming stimulus and
preexisting links between a particular social group and particular behavior traits”
(Pechmann 2001). This model has obvious parallels to the psychological
research that shows that values and ethnicity will often predict pro-environmental
behavior. Group identities are, in large part, stereotypes. Using shared values as
the preexisting link may be an effective communications strategy to prime
individuals to take more environmentally conscious actions.

67

Research on Organizations
Some studies have also shown that the stock market punishes firms who
don’t pursue CSR (Prakash 2007). For instance, when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)’s annual Toxics Release Inventory data were released,
the firms identified as major polluters saw declines in their share prices although
even though none of them had done anything illegal. Additionally, the DJSI 2008
report, affirmed a “positive strategically significant correlation between corporate
sustainability and financial performance.” Goldman Sachs even reported that
companies that are considered leaders in environmental, social and governance
(ESG) policies also lead in stock performance by an average of 25% (Goldman
Sachs Global Investment Research 2007).
Banerjee (1998) summarizes the historic reasons firms responded to
environmental or other prosocial issues as reactive responses to constituencies
like regulatory angencies, environmental groups and/or consumers; or proactive
responses by firms who see it as a business opportunity from either a marketing
or operational angle. These reason remain important motivators, but no longer
capture the scope of the benefits embracing sustainability have brought to many
businesses. A truly comprehensive report by Strandberg Consulting listed these
benefits with substantial quantitative support (2009):
• cost savings from improved operational performances and
efficiencies
• cost avoidance by minimizing business risks and improving safety
• cost savings from improved recruitment and retention of talented

68

employees
• cost saving and income produced through improved employee
morale and productivity
• increased revenue through leanring and innovation
• enhanced recognotion and reputation; improved customer loyalty;
improved access to capital
• improved supply chain management
• enhanced ability to strategically plan for the longer term

If a firm has already moved through the previous four stages of
acknowledging that climate change and other sustainability concerns are a
problem, an urgent one, that the firm shares responsibility for solving the problem
and knows what it could do, the benefits of acting may serve as the key to
achieving action.
Without question, the government has a large role to play in safeguarding
the environment. The question is how government can effectively do so, and
communicate to its citizenry to follow suit. The psychological community will
surely have some advice. Lavergne, Sharp, Pellier & Holtby (2010) used the Self
Determination Theory to hypothesize that individuals’ perception that a
governmental approach to encouraging pro-environmental behavior that
encourages autonomy predicts more pro-environmental behavior. Conversely,
they hypothesized that the perception that the government is controlling would
predict less pro-environmental behavior. Their results supported their

69

hypotheses, and showed that the perception of the government supporting
autonomy in this context was correlated with more autonomous motivation. The
‘controlling government’ perception correlated with a lack of motivation and to a
lesser extent controlled motivation. According to the Self Determination Theory,
controlled motivation is much less sustainable than autonomous motivation.
Thus, it may be best for the government to devise policies and communications
messages that allow people to perceive that they are acting autonomously in the
interest of the environment.

Implications
One way of bridging the gap between private-sphere behavior changes
and collective action is the promotion of pro-environmental social norms. Pictures
and videos of ordinary people (‘like me’) engaging in significant pro-
environmental actions are a simple and effective way of generating a sense of
social normality around pro-environmental behavior (Schultz, et al. 2007).
Understanding values of an audience may be key in determining what
messages would best motivate them to act on behalf of the environment.
Different cultures, and hence different ethnic groups, may have different reasons
for wanting to preserve the environment.
When nonprofits interact with business, it needs to be cooperatively. Even
if a nonprofit is pressing for a business to make a positive environmental change,
it should do so while providing the information necessary to do so and an
incentive, if at all possible. It is naïve to think that any business will act against its

70

own interest, but nonprofits may be able to help paint the picture of a lucrative,
sustainable future that will motivate businesses to make changes. Also,
nonprofits can recognize businesses that do engage in sustainable practices and
encourage their supporters to support that business as well. This can be
supported by a communications strategy to drive media attention, as well. An
example of this kind of partnership occurred when McDonald’s phased out its
clamshell polystyrene box because of pressure from consumers and
environmental groups. It then formed an alliance with the Environmental Defense
Fund in order to reduce waste and increase recycling (Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) Business 2010).

71

Conclusion

Public relations professionals at environmental nonprofits are at an
exciting and challenging crossroads. New media platforms have created
unprecedented opportunities to reach stakeholders, broaden audiences, and
create new supportive alliances, and a wealth of research exists to help
communicators make the most of those opportunities. Primary research
conducted for this thesis shows that the promise of those new platforms is not yet
fulfilled. Twitter, for instance, must be utilized as a platform for dialogue at both
the individual and organizational level.
Most importantly, communicators need to embrace a more expansive
conception of environmentalism and a positive view of sustainable progress and
innovation. They must craft messages that are emotionally engaging,
strategically informative, empowering, consistent with social norms and values,
and ethnically appropriate. These will be the basis for creating a more inspiring
narrative that, coupled with insights from the behavioral sciences, may be able to
inspire more prosocial action on both an individual and societal level.
Communication strategy in this space needs to capitalize on relevant
American values, tie ecological goals to business outcomes and social
prosperity, and motivate individuals to take collective action that creates a
political imperative. Psychological and behavioral research has discovered some
of the best ways to do this. Using a theoretical lens to relate this research to the

72

goals of environmental nonprofits, the author suggests the following strategic and
tactical implications:
• To build awareness, create the sense that there is already widespread,
general public interest, whether this is through an expanding agenda or
appropriate framing. Environmental nonprofits also should press for further
governmental articulation of environmental standards that integrate local
needs and national goals, as well as increased focus on incentivizing
sustainable practices and innovation.
• Emotionally engage individuals to create the appropriate sense of urgency
environmental issues deserve.
• Show individuals these problems are their responsibility by targeting
audiences who have already been made aware and are emotionally
engaged. Public commitment programs and social feedback are
particularly effective at this stage of the game. Use the ‘carrot’ rather than
the ‘stick’ to communicate this to organizations.
• Give individuals and organizations the information they need to take
meaningful action with messaging that informs and empowers desired
behavior.
• Activate values to push individuals over this tipping point and into action.
Cooperate with and support like-minded organizations as they become
ready to take action.

73

These kinds of insights have the potential to transform the way public
relations professionals working in the environmental space see their industry and
understand the potential public relations has for promoting social good.
I believe it is accurate to say that public relations “achieve[s] or resist[s]
change by persuasively advancing and potentially privileging particular meanings
and actions” (Leitch and Motion 2010, 103). At its best, “public relations’ role in
society is to create (and re-create) the conditions that enact civil society” (Taylor
2010, 7). This interpretation has become more common, as evidenced by the
increasing acceptance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a public
relations function (Ihlen and Verhoeven 2012). The PR efforts of environmental
nonprofit groups, certainly as they define them, are to do just that – improve
society.
Environmentalism underlies the most significant social and economic
challenges of our time. It is no longer a fringe concern for ‘tree-huggers and
hippies.’ The world’s most educated minds in business, politics and science are
grappling with environmental challenges that threaten every facet of our daily
lives in the foreseeable future. Solving the world’s environmental crises will
require interdisciplinary research, vast amounts of strategic communication, and
collective action.
It is my hope that this paper has helped to show how environmental
nonprofits can revise their communication planning going forward, in order to
redefine their movement and ensure that the actions we take today ensure a
sustainable quality of life for future generations.

74

References

ACDI/VOCA. "Specialty Coffee: Increased Quality and Profits for Smallholders."
ADCIVOCA Expanding Orrportunities Worldwide. 2010.
http://www.acdivoca.org/site/Lookup/coffeebroweblayout/$file/coffeebroweblayout.pdf
(accessed 2013).
Alves, Emily. "Book Review: Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the
Politics of Possibility by Ted Nordhaus & Michael Shellenberger." Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, no. 3 (2008): 55-56.
American Psychological Association Taskforce on the Interface Between Psychology and
Global Climate Change. Psychology and Global Climate Change: addressing a
multifacted phenomenon and set of challenges. American Psychological Association,
2010.
Azjen, I. "The theory of planned behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50, no. 2 (1991): 179-211.
Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby. "Coporate Environmentalism: Perspectives from
Organizational Learning." Management Learning 29, no. 2 (1998): 147-165.
Bortree, D., and T. Seltzer. "Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of
environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles." Public Relations Review 35, no. 3
(2009): 317-319.
Christensen, L.T., Firat A. Fuat, and Torp S. "The organisation of integrated
communication: Toward flexible integration." European Journal of Marketing 42, no. 3/4
(2008): 423-452.
Climate Change Communication Advisory Group (CCAG). "Communicating Climate
Change to Mass Public Audiences." Working document, 2010.
Climate Change Communication Advisory Group. Communicating climate change to
mass public audiences. Working Document, Climate Change Communication Advisory
Group, 2010.
Corrall-Verdugo, Victor, Mirilla Bonnes, Cesar Tapia-Fonlem, Blanca Fraijo-Sing, Martha
Frias-Armenta, and Giuseppe Carros. "Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The
affinity towards diversity." Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, no. 1 (March 2009):
34-43.
Cronon, William. "The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature."
Environmental History 1, no. 1 (1996): 7-28.

75

Darley, J. M., and B. Latane. "Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility." Journey of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (1968): 377-383.
De Young, R. "Changing behavior and making it stick: the conceptualization and
management of conservation behavior." Environment & Behavior 25 (1993): 485-505.
Edelman. "Edelman Trust Barometer. 2013 Annual Global Study." SlideShare: Edelman
Insights. January 20, 2013. http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-
2013-edelman-trust-barometer-16086761 (accessed February 2013).
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Business. EDF+Business. 2010.
http://business.edf.org/casestudies/better-packaging-mcdonalds (accessed March 15,
2013).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Municipal Solid Waste Characterization 2010
Facts and Figures Fact Sheet. Report, Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
Evans, Carl, and Warren Wright. "The "How to..." Series." The British Journal of
Administrative Management, 2009: 10-11.
Finch, Paul. "Environmentalism is Collective." The Architectural Review 223, no. 1332
(February 2008): 27.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Fishbein, M., D. L. Higgins, C. Rietmeijer, and R. J. Wolitski. "Community-level HIV
intervention in 5 cities: final outcome data from the CDC AIDS Community
Demonstration Projects." American Journal of Public Health 89, no. 3 (1999): 336-345.
Fisher, J. D., and W. A. Fisher. "Changing AIDS-risk behavior." Psychological Bulletin
(American Psychological Association) 111, no. 3 (1992): 455-474.
Frantz, C. M., and F. S. Mayer. "The Emergency of Climate Change: Why Are We Failing
to Take Action?" Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 9 (2009): 205-222.
Gallup. "Americans Endorse Various Energy, Environment Proposals." Gallup Politics.
Gallup, Inc., April 2010.
Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Introducing GS Sustain. Goldman Sachs,
2007.
Goldstein, Noah, Robert Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius. "A Room with a Viewpoint:
Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels." Journal of
Consumer Research 35 (2008): 472-482.
Hall, Nina L., and Ros Taplin. "Environmental Nonprofit Campaigns and State
Competition: Influences on Climate Policy in California." Voluntas 21 (2010): 62-81.

76

Hall, Peter D. "Philanthropy, the welfare state, and the transformation of American public
and private institutions, 1945-2000." Working Paper No. 5. Cambridge, MA: Hauser
Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Havard University, 2000.
Ihlen, Oyvind, and Piet Verhoeven. "A public relations identity for the 2010s." Public
Relations Inquiry 1, no. 2 (2012): 159-176.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). What is Sustainable
Development? 2013. http://www.iisd.org/sd/ (accessed March 12, 2013).
Kanter, Beth, and Allison H. Fine. The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting With Social
Media to Drive Change. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey Bass Ltd, 2010.
Kent, M.L. "Directions in social media for professionals and scholars." In The SAGE
Handbook of Public Relations, by Sage, 332-349. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010.
Kim, Daejoong, and Yoonjae Nam. "Corporate Relations with Environmental
Organizations Represented by Hyperlinks fon the Fortune Global 500 Companies'
Websites." Journal of Business Ethics, no. 105 (2012): 475-487.
KPMG International Cooperative. KPMG International Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2011. 2011.
http://www.kpmg.com/PT/pt/IssuesAndInsights/Documents/corporate-
responsibility2011.pdf (accessed March 2013).
Lavergne, Karine J., Elizabeth C. Sharp, Luc G. Pelletier, and Alixandra Holtby. "The role
of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-
determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior." Journal of Environmental
Psychology 30 (2009): 169-177.
Leitch, S., and J. Motion. "Publics and public relations: Effective change." In The SAGE
Handbook of Public Relations, by Sage, 99-110. Thousand OAks, CA: Sage, 2010.
Leon, Iser, and Wayne Fuqua. "The Effects of Public Commitment and Group Feedback
on Curbside Recycling." Environment and Behavior 27 (1995): 233.
Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Eric van Dijk, and Henk Staats. "Public commitment making as a
structural solution in social dilemmas." Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009):
400-406.
Lovejoy, Kristen, Richard D. Waters, and Gregory D. Saxton. "Engaging stakeholders
through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or
less." Public Relations Review 38 (2012): 313-318.
Macready, T. "Learning Social Responsibility in Schools: A Restorative Practice."
Educational Psychology in Practice 25, no. 3 (2010): 211-220.

77

Mazar, N., and C.B. Zhong. "Do green products make us better people?" Psychological
Science 21 (2010): 494-498.
McKay, D. J. C. Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT, 2008.
McKinsey&Company. "Economic Conditions Snapshot, June 2009: McKinsey Global
Survey Results." McKinsey Quarterly, 2009.
Milfont, Taciano, John Duckitt, and Linda Cameron. "A Cross-Cultural Study of
Environmental Motive Concerns and Their Implications for Proenvironmental Behavior."
Environment and Behavior 38 (2006): 745.
Miller, D., and W. Dinan. A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting
Edge of Corporate Power. London: Pluto Press, 2008.
National Opinion Research Center (NORC). "Public Attitudes towards Climate Change
and Other Global Environmental Issues across Time and Countries, 1993-2010." Policy
Workshop: Public Attitudes and Environmental Policy in Canada and Europe, Canada-
European Transatlantic Dialogue. Ottawa.
Newman, J.C., and K.M. Breeden. "Managing the Environmental Era: Lessons from
Environmental Leaders." The Columbia Journal of World Business 27, no. 3&4 (1992):
210-221.
Nikoli, Sara J.S., and Tomas M. Koontz. "Nonprofit Organizations in Environmental
Management: A Comparative Analysis of Government Impacts." Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 2007: 441-463.
Nisbet, Matthew. NPR News on Framing Global Warming as a Public Health Threat.
September 11, 2012. http://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/npr-news-on-framing-
global-warming-as-a-public-health-threat (accessed February 18, 2013).
Paul, Finch. "Environmentalism is Collective." The Architectural Review 223, no. 1332
(2008): 27.
Pechmann, Cornelia. "A Comparison of Health Communication Models: Risk Learning
versus Stereotype Priming." Media Psychology 3, no. 2 (2001): 189-210.
Pelletier, Luc, and Elizabeth Sharp. "Persuasive Communication and Proenvironmental
Behavior: How Message Tailoring and Framing Can Improve the Integration of
Behaviours Through Self-Determined Motivation." Canadian Psychology 49, no. 3
(2008): 210-217.
Peter, Michaels, and Rodrigo Britez. Ecopolitics of 'Green Economy.' Environmentalism
and Education. Vol. 4, in Obama and the End of the American Dream: Essays in Political
and Economic Philosophy, by Michael (Ed) Peters, 51-56. SensePublishers, 2012.

78

Prakash, Aseem. "Corporate Environmentalism: Problems and Prospects." Global
Environmental Politics 7, no. 3 (2007): 130-135.
Pritchard, Josh. "Virtual Rewards for Driving Green." The Behavior Analyst 33, no. 2
(2010): 185-187.
Randall, R. "Loss and climate change: the cost of parallel narratives." Ecopsychology 3
(2009): 118-129.
Salamon, Lestor. "The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction."
In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, by Lestor Salamon, 1-47.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Schultz, P.W., J.M. Nolan, R.B. Cialdini, N.J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius. "The
Constructive, Deconstructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms."
Psychological Science 18, no. 5 (2007): 429-434.
Seacat, Jason, and Denine Northrup. "An information–motivation–behavioral skills
assessment of curbside recycling behavior." Journal of Environmental Psychology 30
(2010): 393-401.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus. "Death of Environmentalism. Global
Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World." Michael Shellenberger/Ted Nordhaus,
2004.
Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Norhaus. Break Through: From the Death of
Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,
2007.
Sparks, Paul, Donna C Jessop, James Chapman, and Katherine Holmes. "Pro-
environmental actions, climate change, and defensiveness: do self-affirmations make a
difference to people's motives and beliefs about making a difference?" The British
journal of social psychology / the British Psychological Society 49, no. 3 (2010): 553.
Stelzner, M.A. "Social media marketing industry report." Social Media Examiner. 2012.
http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2012.pdf?9d7
bd4 (accessed December 28, 2012).
Strandberg Consulting. The Business Case for Sustainability. 2009.
http://corostrandberg.com/wp-
content/uploads/files/Business_Case_for_Sustainability_21.pdf (accessed March 2013).
Strategic Communication and Public Relations Center (SCPRC). "Generally Accepted
Practices (GAP) Study." Strategic Communication and Public Relations Center, USC
Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. 2011.
http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/average-pr-budgets-government-and-nonprofit-agencies/
(accessed February 2013).

79

Suarez, David F. "Nonprofit Advocacy and Civic Engagement on the Internet."
Administration and Society (SAGE Publications) 41, no. 3 (2009): 267-289.
Svenkerud, P.J., N. Roa, and E. M. Rogers. "Mass media effects through interpersonal
communication: The role of "Twende na Wakati" on the adoption of HIV/AIDS prevention
in Tanzania." In Power in the Blood: A Handbook on AIDS, Politics and Communication,
by W. N. Elwood (Ed), 243-253. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
Taylor, M. "Public relations in the enactment of civil society." In The SAGE Handbook of
Public Relations, by Sage, 5-16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010.
The Global Compact. Overview of the UN Global Compact. December 2011.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html (accessed March 28, 2013).
Thogerson, J.B., and T. Crompton. "Simple and painless? The limitation of spillover in
environmental campaigning." Journal of Consumer Policy, no. 32 (2009): 141-163.
Whitmarsh, Lorraine, and Saffron O'Neill. "Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental
behaviours." Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, no. 3 (2010): 305-315.
Wicks, M. "Working Together for the Environment." Professional Development Series:
American Marketing Conference. Boston, 1993.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, 43.
Young, De. "Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible
behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3 (2000): 650-664.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This paper seeks to understand the unique public relations challenges faced by U.S. nonprofit organizations as they work to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change and other environmental challenges through advocacy, coalition building and other tactics. First, a SWOT analysis is used to examine the challenges and opportunities for motivating individual behavior change that would mitigate the inevitable effects of climate change and other address other environmental issues. Next, a content analysis of environmental nonprofits’ Twitter accounts is used as a window into the status of environmental advocacy communication. The final section is an application of relevant psychological and communication theories to the practice of environmental public relations in order to develop recommendations for public relations practitioners in this space.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

Generating valuable content for a destination in order to reach a new generation of travelers

PDF

60 years of magic: an in-depth look at Disneyland’s use of public relations strategies

PDF

Creating a moment of time: Earth Hour, transnational grassroots movement and hybrid organization

PDF

Crisis communication for tourism destinations in the new media environment

PDF

Branding luxury: finding a balance between exclusivity and the inclusivity of a digital world

PDF

A new power: how celebrities can use social media to influence social movements

PDF

Pictures on microblogs: Twitter vs. Weibo

PDF

The share factor: implications of global digital strategy for public relations

PDF

A critical assessment of the uses and effectiveness of social media in investor communications

PDF

Why our audience share? Improving social media effectiveness using experiments

PDF

A study of the cultural environment of social media

PDF

Corporate reputation crisis in the digital age: a comparative study on Abercrombie & Fitch’s reputation crisis in the U.S., China and Taiwan

PDF

Creating brand evangelists in the 21st century: using brand engagement through social media to develop brand loyalty in teens

PDF

The evolution of sustainability: a public relations and business argument

PDF

Revolution for the Lulz, or, An exploration of protest in the age of new media

PDF

The localization of global public relations firms in China

PDF

Growth hacking: a deep look into online marketing for startups

PDF

The visual literacy explosion: a brief history, relevant cases and commonly accepted practices

PDF

Digital impact: the impact of mobile digital technology on live music events and its influence on marketing, branding and public relations professionals

Asset Metadata

Creator Ward, Niku (author)

Core Title Developing a strategy for public relations practitioners at environmental nonprofits using insights from psychology

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 05/06/2013

Defense Date 05/06/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Communication,environment,environmentalism,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public Relations,social media,Twitter

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Thorson, Kjerstin (committee chair), Jackson, Laura Min (committee member), LeVeque, Matthew (committee member)

Creator Email nikujward@gmail.com,shaniwar@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-251725

Unique identifier UC11288037

Identifier etd-WardNiku-1658.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-251725 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WardNiku-1658-0.pdf

Dmrecord 251725

Document Type Thesis

Rights Ward, Niku

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA