Advertising and Sustainability, with Thierry Libaert
Author of numerous books and articles on Europe, communication and the environment, Thierry Libaert is an advisor to the European Economic and Social Committee, where he is the contact point for the French delegation. He is heavily involved in the economic dimensions of the ecological transition.
Behaven — Hi Thierry, it’s great to talk to you today. First of all, can you introduce yourself to our readers?
Sure! I am an expert in information and communication sciences. I have taught communication for about 20 years at the Sorbonne, at Sciences Po Paris, and then at the Catholic University of Louvain. I stopped teaching 5 years ago but I am still a collaborator at the University’s Earth and Life Institute, a research centre in Earth sciences that now includes a communication component. Since 2010, I am also a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, where I have started my third mandate.
First question: what is the role of communication in encouraging environmental behaviour?
Communication is one of the important tools, but it’s not the only one. There are many other ways to change people’s behaviour. For example, on health issues, and alcohol consumption in particular, communication campaigns have had a fairly relative effect and it is in fact the ban on advertising combined with the increase in the price of alcohol that had the most impact on behaviour. We also noticed that communication campaigns have a small effect on road safety and that it is rather speed cameras and controls that generated an improvement in this field.
We are trying to understand how information and communication sciences can contribute to help on subjects such as climate change. And when we talk about communication, we are talking about communications from various entities, i.e. businesses, public authorities, associations, etc. But also about the imagery that communication creates. The role of advertising in the construction of an imagery of happiness through consumption is a central subject. We are trying to determine how to organise awareness-raising messages when this imagery exists.
Can you tell us more about happy frugality versus finding happiness in consumption, as advocated by advertising?
In my opinion, we are in the third age of advertising criticism. The first age was more than a century ago. I recently read a book called ‘Birth of Ecology’ by the American historian Caroline Ford, and I found in it a sentence by Henri Cazalis, the first president of the French Society for the Protection of the Landscape and Aesthetics, who already in 1902 explained the importance of protecting landscapes against the influence of advertising signs. We can see that the criticism of the relationship between advertising and the environment is quite old.
There is a second, more recent stage, dating from about fifteen years ago, focusing on the notion of greenwashing and on companies that try to overvalue their environmental advantages, by disproportionately highlighting small advantages to the detriment of a more global impact.
Finally, the third age, which dates from 2016/2017, is based on the question of the compatibility between advertising and ecological transition. Behind this, there are three axes:
The first axis is the question of advertising as a sales tool, which continuously promotes more and more products, and which comes into direct conflict with the necessary sobriety that the ecological transition advocates.
The second axis, which is related to this, is the imagery produced by advertising. When we analyse advertising messages, what we see most often is pleasure and happiness: the more you consume, the happier you are.
And the third axis, which is in direct conflict with environmental awareness, is the unbalanced power between the visibility of advertising versus that of environmental awareness. Studies, conducted in particular at the Catholic University of Louvain, estimate that we receive between 400 and 3000 advertising messages per day (if we take into account the logos that we see every day) compared to three or four environmental awareness messages.
For me, one of the blind spots of the discussions about environmental awareness is therefore the lack of diagnosis of the barriers that prevent that awareness from working well. Advertising is one of these barriers, but there are probably others. Hollywood movies, television series, etc. are also to be taken into account in our perception of happiness as being based in consumption.
I was commissioned by the French government to conduct a study on the subject of advertising and ecological transition following a report I had submitted a few months earlier on the fight against programmed obsolescence. And the link between these two subjects appeared quite directly. We can't really fight against programmed obsolescence if we don't take advertising into account. Because in programmed obsolescence, there is psychological obsolescence or what we call marketing or cultural obsolescence, which is the fact of wanting to renew our products when they are in perfect working order.
I remember meeting smartphone manufacturers who said to me: “Why do you want us to make cell phones that last 4-5 years when people use them for two years on average and change them in perfect working order?”
So we have to take all of this into consideration: the durability of products, consumer practices, advertising and environmental awareness.
So advertising participates in creating needs by selling a certain idea of happiness, which goes against environmental behaviours?
Exactly and in France, the Citizens' Climate Convention, composed of 150 randomly selected citizens who were asked to reflect on ways to fight climate change, has, since its second working session, stressed the need to take into account the role of advertising.
Accepting to see permanent advertising for fossil products, petrol vehicles, short distance flights or plastic bottles goes against everything we should do. We receive messages to raise awareness, but at the same time we are bombarded with advertising messages that tell us exactly the opposite.
What type of solutions could counter this?
There are two solutions. One that probably wouldn't work and would be impossible to implement, but is still quite frequently asked for: It's to remove and ban advertising for some products. Some media have started to do this. For example, The Guardian has stopped advertising for fossil fuels. In the past, banning tobacco and alcohol advertising has been done too, so it could be done on products that have a high CO2 impact.
But the pandemic is a bad moment because advertising revenues have collapsed in Europe and 30% to 50% of advertising revenues currently go to media providers (radio, print, television, etc.). So banning advertising means weakening these providers, who are already in a difficult position. So, in my opinion, we should rather avoid the ban.
Another possibility, which is much more complicated to implement and which will take time, but which has the merit of costing nothing: to use advertising communication to move in the right direction.
Let me explain. Advertising for petrol vehicles is always based on the same type of scenario: a man, a senior executive, more likely to be in his forties, driving his car alone. Why not put forward carpooling or full cars instead? And play with the elements of decor in the commercials? All things being equal, I saw a study on gender stereotypes, and for example in ads, 85% of the experts in white coats advising you on this or that product are men. It doesn’t cross their minds that a woman can be an expert. Changing this would allow advertising to be, not an obstacle, but a lever and perhaps even a facilitator.
For example, there could be, apart from the product and within the advertising messages themselves, representations of environmentally friendly practices and eco-responsible behaviours such as selective sorting, recycling or buying in bulk. Advertising would continue to do its job in driving sales, but gradually, we would draw a more eco-responsible imagery.
This is what I am advocating, in addition to reinforcing the ethical principles of advertising in the field of eco-responsibility and putting in place a few elements to allow us to fight against what I call the formidable inequality in terms of advertising access. Because advertising is expensive, at least in France, and ten advertisers, i.e. the big car manufacturers, the big distributors, etc., account for almost a quarter of all advertising expenditure.
So you'll see a lot of ads for smartphones, computers, cars, etc., but few ads to encourage you to buy eco-responsible products, to promote agricultural cooperatives, organic products, etc. I am also trying to find a system that would fight against this inequality to allow innovative start-ups to have access to advertising.
What are the most frequent mistakes that can be found in environmental communication?
The most frequent error is the lack of proportionality between what is in the advertising and the real impact of the product or company. This is, for example, the case of large energy companies, which make 95% of their turnover from oil but whose advertising campaigns show wind turbines or photovoltaic panels.
Secondly, it is the abuse of environmental references. It’s making an ad for anything and everything and including the word 'ecological', the colour green and a child looking at the horizon with a flower in his hand. All these elements of atmosphere make you think of a green product when it’s not necessarily the case. Sometimes, these ads also put forward self-made labels, which are still relatively uncontrolled, at least in Europe. They create a false label that gives the illusion that the product is labelled when it is absolutely not and when there is a lack of evidence on the real impact of the product.
Companies and communications agencies have become aware of the issue. In the last few years, there has been no significant increase in the number of cases of greenwashing. On the other hand, it was recently discovered that there still is a black hole in digital media. While greenwashing is relatively well controlled in traditional media (the press, radio, etc.,) it is still very little controlled in the digital realm.
In a recent study, the European Commission showed that in the 27 countries of the European Union, 42% of advertisements on social networks, and particularly videos on YouTube, violate the ethical principles of responsible communication. In France, it’s up to 50%: one out of two environmental advertising videos broadcasted on YouTube violates the recommendations of sustainable development. So there is relatively little control over advertising on digital media, compared to traditional media.
And on the other hand, do you have examples of exemplary communication?
Yes, fortunately we are starting to see responsible communications, for example in the mutual insurance sector. In France, CAMIF does interesting campaigns not only in terms of messages, but also in the eco-, socio-conception of it. They take into account the environmental impact of the ad production, and the choice of media, and avoid broadcasting on energy-consuming digital billboards for instance.
Otherwise, more famous examples are Patagonia or Ben & Jerry's. One ad I liked recently was from Herbier de France explaining to consumers, who often like to see the product inside the packaging, that if they made their packaging transparent, their environmental impact would increase: “We know that customers like to see what's inside the bags. But we chose not to make clear windows anymore to allow for better recyclability of these packages”. I like it because you see both a real commitment and a communication adapted to this commitment. There is also the brand Veja admitting in its advertising that they’re not there yet but are working on it.
So we’re talking about a more honest form of communication, right?
That's right. When we talk about responsible communication, the key word is honesty. When we ask people who don't know the subject: ‘what does responsible communication mean to you?’ They say it's an honest communication. And I explain to companies that responsible communication doesn’t mean being completely transparent, because you can't say everything. It is rather the ability to assume that we cannot say everything, but that everything we say must be true.
Should science and scientific studies be integrated into environmental communications?
We really have to be careful because science is increasingly instrumentalised. And there are large companies that use scientific arguments to ensure the credibility and the legitimacy of their products. This is what we call the argument of authority. Working at the European Economic and Social Committee, I often see lobbying firms that try to appear scientific to make their view more credible. So we have to be a bit careful about that.
On the other hand, I believe that scientists should be much more involved in the public debate on environmental issues. With a colleague at the Catholic University of Louvain, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, we studied how the climate issue appeared in the media, depending on the type of media. In the scientific community, especially climate scientists, and in academic publications, 99.9% of the scientists agree on the existence of climate change. There is no debate. In the traditional media, it's still only 75%. And on social networks, it’s less than 50% and climate skepticism remains very strong.
Scientists should therefore be more present online. Because otherwise, it leaves the field vulnerable to any disinformation attempt. It's difficult for them because their career is based on publications in journals and on their number of citations, not on what they put on social networks. Nevertheless, if we really want to move things forward, they need to regain their voice in the digital space.
What should we do on a daily basis to reduce our environmental impact?
The eco-actions that we do, like sorting out our waste and buying local products, are often those that are the least restrictive and that bring us something in return. And they don't really help put people on a virtuous path. On the contrary, for the last 2-3 years, studies have shown that not only these gestures are stagnating, but that on certain subjects, they are decreasing. For example in terms of packaging, waste sorting, consumption of local products, etc. We have to be careful with this idea that small gestures will make the world a better place.
On the other hand, I realised that alone, without money or without a support group, it is possible to make things happen. I say this with a certain pride, but a few years ago I offered to help my European committee look at the fight against programmed obsolescence. I struggled for quite some time to get the idea accepted and to convince everyone about the issue. But two years later, I had a text voted unanimously by all the companies, trade unions, consumer associations and environmental NGOs so that the European Union could, for the first time, take a stand on stopping the most deviant practices in this field, such as the permanent turn-over of programmed obsolescence products, or the impossibility of repairing certain products.
This is a subject that concerns all Europeans. We have all had the experience of buying a product of some kind, only to be told three years later that it is not repairable and that we should buy another one.
By finding a few allies, having a good communication practice, reflecting and by understanding each other's expectations, we are able to make a change. I think it's a good message of hope through action.
Thierry Libaert recently published 'Carrying Winds: How to (Finally) Mobilise for the Planet' (currently only available in French) to help people learn more about communicating about climate change, and more broadly about the ecological transition.