Personal Consequence
In essence, this week’s G7 Summit has only two agenda items: pandemic recovery and climate risk mitigation.
Everything else is addressed under ‘any other business’.
The rationale is self-evident. Both represent issues with profound socioeconomic and geopolitical consequence. And whilst emerging in the collective consciousness at two very different speeds – days and decades respectively – they are now matched in their societal significance.
How the 7 country leaders communicate the agreed actions that fall from the Summit, and the consequences of those actions, has equal significance.
But before we delve into the importance of clear and decisive communication – and what business and government might learn from each other - let’s step back for a moment.
The initial response to the pandemic in April 2020 was one of national interest. Countries closed their borders to protect the population. But for a handful of economies, that didn’t work.
Once vaccines became readily available in March this year, national interest was compounded. Only as the scale of the catastrophe in India became clear, did the international community show any real sign of common interest.
Today, the G7’s narrative is about a global immunisation initiative. Which means by Sunday afternoon we’ll be hearing from talking-heads seeking to turn our attention to the consequence of a slow or ambiguous vaccine roll-out, globally.
Expect communication to stretch beyond health, trade and economic development too. Freedom of movement has to be a priority message. If only because the prospect of constrained liberty has a habit of getting people’s attention. Understanding personal consequence makes things more meaningful.
At least that’s what should happen.
The climate emergency needs an equally personalised ‘consequence narrative’. As average temperatures rise, climate science highlights the increased frequency and severity of significant hazards – specifically drought and rising sea levels. The data is overwhelming. Which is part of the problem.
Macro issues are often too big for individuals to deal with. It’s why many still struggle to see the correlation between their singular recycling commitments at home and the warming of the planet.
Hence the importance of progress in specific industry categories. Whether it’s a response to employee activism, government regulation or community pressure, is a moot point. What matters is that businesses better understand the commercial benefits of being seen to take responsibility.
According to UN Climate, the number of commitments to reach net zero emissions from local government and businesses has roughly doubled in less than a year. Many of those organisations are active participants in the UN’s Race to Zero campaign, pushing for zero-carbon economies by 2050. In Australia, New South Wales is one such participant.
But targets are one thing, and the stated consequence of those targets is quite another. Which sort of brings us full circle.
There has to be a correlation between the G7’s communication in support of its approach to pandemic recovery and climate science, and the way businesses address the same two issues.
It’s a shared approach that demands clarity about what organisations are doing and why they are doing it. To promote meaningful action and advocacy for specific initiatives across their audiences and communities, clarity of motivation and expectation matters more than ever.
To that end, communication must always be causal. People need to understand what’s required of them. Without clear communication, they can’t or won’t act with confidence.
Today, personal consequence is the litmus test for so much of an organisation’s communication, be it business or government. If those organisations can’t articulate motivation, impact or outcome, then their commitments will be seen as little more than graffiti.
And no-one has the patience for graffiti. In 2021, there are far better ways to offer cultural expression.