|
|
Planet Now
Blog on Effective Environmental Communication
|
|
Do you like Ben & Jerry’s ice cream? I love their ice cream, and I also love that they have positioned themselves as advocates for climate action and social justice. This week, I want to tell you about one of their campaigns that I studied in a public relations case studies course. Ben & Jerry’s had the opportunity to use its power as a well-known company to advocate for global climate action (like a commitment to 100% renewable energy) and build its image as an environmentally responsible company. Its 2015 climate change campaign, “If it’s melted, it’s ruined!” (which used the above video) showed that the company values the environment, but it could have been more successful if the company provided a clear explanation of its connection to climate advocacy.
Overall, Ben & Jerry’s grasped the opportunity well by showing a genuine commitment to climate action. The company showed its commitment by combining advocacy with specific ways it was leading change. For instance, Ben & Jerry’s encouraged people to join it in a climate march and has implemented practices that directly support climate action. The company has put its own tax on greenhouse gas emissions and uses those funds for social initiatives. It continued to build on a foundation of commitment to environmental advocacy, suggesting that it intended to support the planet and did not simply join a trend of environmental advocacy for attention. The main problem is that Ben & Jerry’s did not show a clear connection between its climate advocacy and its business. Ben & Jerry’s video about climate action received comments accusing it of misleading the public about its commitment to the environment, especially since producing ice cream contributes to climate change. I recommend that Ben & Jerry’s provides a clear explanation as to why it is advocating for climate action. It could reference its history of environmental advocacy. The company could also point out that climate change threatens its supply chain. In fact, Ben & Jerry’s later said that they might not be able to produce some flavors of ice cream since climate change threatens some ingredients, like coffee. Explaining these connections could help people understand the campaign’s relevance. Then, Ben & Jerry’s could show that companies and people who are partly responsible for climate change can be part of the solution. Ultimately, the campaign had positive and negative results. A positive result was that the campaign contributed to the 3.5 million signatures on a petition for a global commitment to clean energy leading up to the 2015 United Nations Climate Summit. At this conference, many world leaders did sign the Paris Agreement to reduce global warming. Another positive result is that Ben & Jerry’s distinguished itself by being the only major ice cream brand advocating for climate action. While direct financial results are unavailable since the company is part of Unilever, current CEO Matthew McCarthy shared that the company has experienced strong growth while engaging in advocacy and that many people support its work. However, not all consumers are engaged or aware of the advocacy. A negative result of the campaign is that some people called out the company for advocating for climate action even though producing its ice cream emits greenhouse gases that cause climate change. In 2016, possibly as a result of such responses, Ben & Jerry’s released non-dairy products that have a smaller impact on climate change. Learning about companies’ climate campaigns, including their success and areas for improvement, can be helpful and inspiring for other companies looking to enter the climate advocacy space!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Welcome to my blog! It is a combination of posts from my strategic writing (spring 2022) and personal branding (spring 2023) courses at UNC. I hope you will enjoy reading the posts and learning about the environment and communication.
|