The Loop // Uniting generations, making commitments that stick, and a greenwashing spot the difference

A quick but heartfelt thank you, some changes, and what to expect from The Loop

Welcome to the 2nd edition of The Loop - our newsletter dedicated to supporting the transition to a sustainable and circular economy through better communication.Thank you to the hundreds of subscribers who have come on board for this journey - this community includes journalists, founders, CMOs, PR leaders, agency bosses, manufacturers and more. I think the biggest thank you I can offer is this:

1. I will not waste your time - The Loop is dedicated to actionable, solutions-focused insights
2. Insights will be researched and referenced so you can follow them up
3. The Loop will be a shared platform with other voices and contributors - if you have ideas, feedback, issues you'd like to write about, please get in touch

So, what's changing?

I am incredibly grateful to everyone who took the time to join the conversation in the comments or share their thoughts in DM after the first edition. Among them was Martin Koehring (if you don't already, please follow him and the incredible Forum for the Future where he is global director of impact), who said some very nice things about the content, but did point out it was not really a newsletter format... which was true. From here on you can expect shorter form content in the newsletter (news, ideas and tools) and longer form articles will be over on the Substack, with the TL:DR and link in the LinkedIn newsletter.

So, here we go...

Not OK Boomer

(Full disclosure - I'm Gen X)

Pew Research Centre is largely stepping back from using generational lenses in their work. These lenses have become one of the most common frames in sustainability conversations and the result has often been to create division (think stereotypes of avocado addicted millennials, snowflake Gen Zs, Oatly's controversial Help Dad campaign or Billie Eilish declaring that old people didn't really care if young people died after Meatloaf suggested Greta Thunberg had been brainwashed).

Earlier this year, in the paper Intergenerational Relations in the Climate Movement: Bridging the Gap toward a Common Goal researchers published findings that showed generational frames such as Boomer, X, Millennial and Z, had polarized people across age groups. They concluded:

• The climate crisis requires a united effort that allows all generations to live up to their potential.
• This can only happen when all parties’ efforts are invited, shared, implemented, acknowledged, and appreciated.
• Bringing generations together towards a common goal does not mean you cannot acknowledge differences (in the roles, impact, agency of different generations). 'It is important to give credit where it is due, namely, to younger people for leading the climate fight and to older generations for mobilizing resources to act on the latest climate science.'
• Most importantly, we need people of all ages understand the need for cooperation and collaboration.

Intergenerational discourse that alienates collaborators, sympathisers, and well-wishers must be replaced with messages of inclusivity highlighting the potential for “all-hands-on-deck” opportunities. All parties would benefit from careful consideration of the language that they use to inspire everyone, regardless of age, to “unite behind the science” for the benefit of all.

Coldplay and how to make commitments that stick

Back in 2019, Coldplay announced they were stopping touring for environmental reasons. In a series of interviews with everyone from Billboard to the BBC, lead singer Chris Martin explained the band was going to focus on how they could make their tours not just less harmful, but beneficial.

Fast forward three years and the band is back out on tour and recently published a pioneering impact report setting out in detail their efforts to date (including where they have fallen short).

Let's face it, we have all seen plenty of commitments in recent years and the reality is that many of them don't go the distance. I think the Coldplay example highlights some really important factors that can mean the difference between a commitment sticking or failing.

1. Accountability must follow. In the Coldplay case, this meant making the commitment on as many public platforms as possible (the news was carried across global media).
2. Put your money where your mouth is. Touring is the major source of revenue for most bands, so not being able to tour represented a big accountability mechanism.

Side note // We all know voluntary commitments will not be enough to get us where we need to be, however they can play a significant role when well executed. For example the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment started with a handful of businesses making a commitment on stage. Now, not only are there more than 1,000 signatories, many of those are supporting calls for a Global Treaty to deal with plastic pollution.

Side side note // Please hold me accountable for the commitments I made at the start of this edition. I also have a bet on with Martina Chow about this edition for added pressure.

"Commitment bias is?the tendency to be consistent with what we have already done or said we will do in the past, particularly if this is public." (Assoc of Qualitative Research).

Spot the difference: What the case of two water companies tell us about new 'greenwashing' rules

UK ad regulator the Advertising Standards Authority has released new guidance on green claims and two recent judgements have helped to highlight some key considerations for communicators when it comes to making sustainability claims.

David Burrows gives a great breakdown of the case for The ENDS Report , in this article. Simply put, it's not just what you say that counts, it's what you leave out.

While the claims in both ads were pretty similar (we're doing our bit, so should you) and both companies have been fined for discharging sewage into the sea, the ASA deemed Severn Trent’s campaign to be within the rules “because their overall environmental performance did not contradict the overall impression of the ad."

That was not the case with Anglian, whose rating from the Environment Agency is significantly lower, leading the ASA to conclude:

We accepted that Anglian Water were carrying out a number of activities that could have a positive impact on the environment. However, because they also carried out activities that caused harm to the environment, which contradicted the overall impression of the ad, we considered that was material information which should have been made clear in the ads. We concluded that the ads omitted material information and were therefore misleading.

For more on the ASA guidance, check out this helpful session with Chris Pratt and Eliz Peck

And finally...

I have a new website, which will tell you a little bit more about what I do and how we can work together. You can check it out here.

Did you know the average website produces 1.76g of CO2 for every page view; so a site with 100,000 page views per month emits 2,112kg of CO2 every year. The more complex a website is, the more energy it requires to load – and the greater its climate impact. Thanks to Matt Greg for flagging my score within about ten seconds of me sharing my link with him.

The Loop is dedicated to supporting the transition to a sustainable and circular economy through better communication. You can help by sharing this newsletter with your network or getting involved. If you would like to contribute your knowledge to the conversation, please email me [email protected]