Segment Your Audiences to Balance Scientific vs. General Sustainability Communications

While grabbing a coffee after a climate panel earlier this year, I overheard two people trying to figure out the differences between Scope 1-3 emissions. I couldn't help myself but to turn around and try to clarify this topic for them. 

Turns out, these were two executives — one being the CEO — at a fairly well-known, mid-size consumer goods company. The company is a Certified B Corp, has emission reduction goals, and I think most would agree that this is a good example of a company taking genuine, transparent steps toward social and environmental progress.

But if even these leaders don't understand some of the most common scientific terms related to corporate sustainability, what does that say about the direction of corporate sustainability overall?

Talking the Talk vs. Walking the Walk

To be clear, I'm not criticizing these executives for not knowing these terms. I may know a bit more of the jargon from my writing experience over the years, but even I find myself rechecking which activities fall under which scope. You don't have to know every technical detail to still do positive work.

Think of how a CEO might not have a full grasp on marketing terms like search engine optimization (SEO) vs. generative engine optimization (GEO). But if they understand that marketing is changing and there are benefits to showing up in AI tools, and they're willing to put resources behind those efforts, that's more important than a toothless GEO mention. 

However, in the sustainability world, the stakes are arguably higher. One company failing to figure out web traffic doesn't have the same consequences as a company cutting its Scope 1 emissions while growing its Scope 3 emissions by an even larger amount. 

Meanwhile, companies that skip over the scientific terminology to talk about sustainability in broad strokes are often the same ones guilty of greenwashing. 

A deep understanding of every technical climate term isn't a prerequisite for positive impact, but because of greenwashers. Yet perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, where a company could be walking the walk, but because they're not talking the talk, that signals a lack of seriousness. But when they do try to talk, they often face accusations such as around being disingenous.

"Businesses are subject to a variety of different stakeholder pressures, and they find themselves in a tug of war oftentimes, where it feels like they're in a lose-lose position," says Adam Freedgood, principal and client director at Third Partners, a sustainability consultancy that has worked with brands such as Hyatt, Morgan Stanley, and Room & Board.

Because different stakeholders such as investors, customers, and employees look at sustainability through different lenses, such as risk management vs. corporate responsibility, that can leave executives feeling unsure how to approach the topic. It's not so much about whether sustainability itself is an important issue, "it's the what do we do about it that plagues business leaders," says Freedgood. "And in this current environment, there's a real trend toward what we call greenhushing, where we're just not going to say anything at all."

Connecting With Different Audiences

Perfection is impossible in corporate sustainability. There's always something that can be improved, and critics are ready to pounce on those who seemingly fall short. So instead of exposing themselves by talking the talk, they're trying to walk the walk silently.  

Yet greenhushing isn't the best approach either. Pulling back on public sustainability claims can also lead to companies watering down their climate goals, even if they're not fully abandoning the issue, due to the lack of accountability. And brands could end up missing out on certain sustainability benefits, like building engagement with stakeholders who value clear commitments.

One solution could be to change how you talk about sustainability to different stakeholders.

Companies need "audience-targeted communications," instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, says Freedgood. There are times when it makes sense to talk about sustainability in scientific terms, times when it makes sense to speak plainly, and times when it makes sense to just put your head down and do the work.

For example, companies might need to focus on Scope 3 emissions, such as when setting Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) goals. Those targets might then be discussed when engaging large B2B customers who have their own requirements for suppliers to be SBTI-aligned. In that case, it could be relevant for the CEO to know what Scope 3 means and ensure that account managers and operations teams are working together to align talk and action. But that doesn't mean SBTi-type goals always need to be at the forefront.

Figuring out the right approach typically starts by putting yourself in the position of the buyer or whoever the stakeholder is and asking what do they care about and what is their relationship with your brand, explains Freedgood.

Doing so can help you see where leaning too far into the science side can actually backfire. 

For example, "putting carbon footprint information on products to general consumer audiences is generally a really problematic strategy," says Freedgood. For most general consumer products, when brands try to compete on carbon benefits and climate messaging, they risk alienating their audiences, he adds. 

"There's a psychological connection for a very small number of consumers who want to feel like every purchase that they're making is an environmental virtue that does no harm, but that is still the minority of consumers," says Freedgood. Instead, most people, especially in the current economic environment, are focusing more on areas like value, he explains. 

So, focusing on carbon emissions as a central brand message doesn't resonate with large audience segments. That doesn't mean a brand can't talk about sustainability at all, but there should be clearer connections to why the audience is engaging with that brand in the first place.

For example, an apparel company's customers might be looking for durable products, in which case talking about environmental attributes like circularity makes sense, because there's a natural connection between circularity and durability, says Freedgood. 

"But when we go the carbon footprint route, and there's no tie-in really to core product functionality, benefits to the user, 'what's in it for me,' I think we lose people. And I think we do a disservice to the science in the long run," he adds. "Sustainability messaging needs to connect the dots between what consumers are looking for and the legitimate environmental value prop of whatever that product or brand is."

Still, this is where audience-segmented communications is key. Instead of fully abandoning emissions talk, it might just be limited to certain segments. 

Perhaps investors or suppliers value seeing those metrics and want granularity on how you're reducing Scope 1 vs. Scope 2 vs. Scope 3 emissions. But that doesn't mean you need to share that as a core consumer message. 

And maybe that's why the executives I overheard at that climate panel didn't have a firm grasp on emissions definitions. It's not that they're faking their sustainability values or efforts. But the reality is that a carbon footprint message isn't going to win over most consumers in their category. Other factors, however, like how they source ingredients, could be a differentiator, and that does still tie into sustainability.

Ultimately, companies need to consider which messages work for different audiences. While that may sometimes mean not being as well-versed in the scientific side as some may want to see, that doesn't preclude a company from still making a positive impact. 

There will always be detractors who take issue with whether a company is saying too much or not enough or not using the right terminology, but segmentation is one of the best ways to overcome that.

Disclosure: Carbon Neutral Copy's parent company, JournoContent LLC, has clients involved in sustainability-related areas, among others. The owner of Carbon Neutral Copy, Jacob (Jake) Safane, has investments in sustainability-related companies, among others.

As such, conflicts of interest related to these and other investments/business relationships, even if unintended, may exist at times. Please email info@carbonneutralcopy.com if you'd like further clarification on any issues.