Overcoming fear-based silence in climate action

Silence on sustainability is not strategy Clarity, not caution, drives impact 🌎 Great read today in Harvard Business Review exploring how companies can strengthen their sustainability communications in response to rising political pressure and evolving stakeholder expectations. Rather than retreating or reducing visibility, the authors make a strong case for rethinking communication as a strategic tool to build trust, enhance relevance, and unlock the full value of sustainability efforts. While some organizations are choosing silence to avoid scrutiny (from political backlash to accusations of greenwashing) this approach can undermine credibility. Public concern about climate inaction remains high, and companies that choose not to speak risk appearing disengaged. At the same time, sustainability strategies are increasingly linked to tangible business outcomes, from cost savings and resource efficiency to supply chain resilience and long-term risk management. To respond effectively, companies must begin by understanding what matters to their audiences. This means moving beyond general assumptions and using employee and customer insights to shape communication that is specific, relevant, and grounded in lived experience. Boston Children’s Hospital offers a clear example of how stakeholder input can guide both communications and operational decisions in ways that enhance internal alignment and external resonance. Equally important is the way messages are delivered. While factual accuracy is critical, the most effective communications also connect emotionally, using storytelling to make abstract issues relatable. The article emphasizes the power of framing climate action in terms of widely held values (such as protecting future generations or ensuring business continuity) to reach broader audiences and avoid polarizing debates. Companies also need to move beyond the conventional sustainability report. While compliance remains necessary, relying solely on annual disclosures can limit impact. Organizations like Tillamook and Boston Medical Center are showing how digital formats and multi-channel content can make complex information more accessible, and how continuous storytelling can keep sustainability top of mind across stakeholder groups. By grounding their messages in real insights, using language that resonates across audiences, and choosing formats that encourage dialogue and connection, companies can position themselves as credible leaders in a space where expectations are only becoming more complex. #sustainability #sustainable #esg #business #greenwashing #greenhushing

We have been telling people the world is ending. And then wondering why they feel paralyzed. A review published in Sustainable Development, by Su, Kaburu, and colleagues across institutions in China, Ireland, Australia, Brazil, and beyond, takes on one of the quieter contradictions in climate action: the communication strategies meant to mobilize people may be actively undermining their capacity to act. The argument is not that climate urgency is overstated. It is that fear, deployed as the default register of climate messaging, produces a paradox. It captures attention, briefly, and then generates the very psychological conditions that make sustained engagement impossible. Eco-anxiety, helplessness, climate doomism, the belief that it is already too late and that responsibility therefore belongs to no one, are not failures of audience character. They are predictable responses to a communication environment that offers apocalypse without agency. The numbers are uncomfortable to sit with. A survey of 10,000 young people across 10 countries found that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and over half reported feeling sad, anxious, angry, powerless, or guilty. These are not people who lack awareness. They are people drowning in it, without a clear sense of what their hands can actually do. The paper proposes a reorientation: toward messaging that is positive, personal, and people-centred. Positive, not in the sense of denial or false reassurance, but in the psychological sense, mobilizing hope, curiosity, and joy as motivational states rather than fear and guilt. Personal, meaning closing the distance between the crisis and the individual, moving away from glaciers and polar bears toward the concrete texture of daily life, health, food, cost of living, the morning coffee. People-centred, meaning grounded in what people can actually do, within their real agency and real constraints. This is precisely where Eco-Affective Health thinking enters. The field has long understood that emotional states are not incidental to environmental behavior. They are the medium through which the relationship between people and their environment is negotiated. Fear activates threat responses, which can produce short bursts of protective action, but sustained engagement with a long-horizon problem like climate change requires something different: a felt sense of efficacy, of connection, of meaning. These are broaden-and-build emotions, as the paper frames it, states that expand the repertoire of possible responses rather than narrowing it to fight or flight. Article link: https://lnkd.in/d98vMNAG Follow our work at ewahlab.com #EWAHLab #EcoAffectiveHealth #ClimateCommunication #ClimateAnxiety #PlanetaryHealth #ClimateMentalHealth #EcoAnxiety #ClimateAction #EnvironmentalPsychology #PublicHealth #GlobalSouth

Feeling overwhelmed by the climate crisis might be the very thing holding you back from taking action. New research by Zac Coates, Scott Brown and Michelle Kelly shows there's a surprising 'sweet spot' for turning that anxiety into impact. Their study on the psychology of pro-environmental behaviour found that while very high levels of climate anxiety can lead to paralysis, a 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 level of concern is actually the most effective driver of positive action. The goal, then, isn't to eliminate our anxiety. It's to channel it constructively. So how do we do that? As clinical psychologist Eliza Yee Lai Cheung explains, what helps most is "positive collective climate action even on a small local scale," as real-world action empowers people and reduces psychological distress. We're seeing this model flourish across Sydney. Council-led initiatives like the Inner West Council's Sustainability Hub create accessible entry points for the community through hands-on events like Repair Days and Book Swaps. And in the heart of the city, spaces like the Banish Sustainability Hub in Haymarket are providing a home for eco-conscious workshops and gatherings, inspiring action from the ground up (thank you Lottie Dalziel & co!). These initiatives do more than just divert waste or support ecosystems. They build skills, strengthen social bonds and directly counter the feelings of powerlessness that fuel anxiety. This points to a more profound function. These hubs are not just 'nice-to-have' community programs. They are a form of critical 'soft infrastructure' for climate resilience. While 'hard infrastructure' like sea walls and solar farms addresses the physical challenges, this soft infrastructure addresses the social and psychological dimensions. In the face of increasing climate shocks, these community hubs build the social cohesion and mutual support that will be indispensable. They are a strategic necessity for building truly climate-ready cities. #ClimateAnxiety #CommunityAction #ClimateResilience #Sydney #Sustainability

🎉 Climate change engagement of scientists paper published! 🎉 In our new paper, which has just been published in Nature Climate Change, we explored scientists’ beliefs about their role and the role of scientific institutions in the context of climate change as well as their engagement in climate actions. These actions include forms of advocacy and activism ranging from signing petitions to engaging in civil disobedience and high-impact lifestyle changes such as reducing flying or adopting a plant-rich diet. Surveying N = 9,220 scientists from 115 countries, all disciplines, and all career stages we find, for example, that 91% of surveyed scientists believe that fundamental changes to social, political, and economic systems are needed to address climate change; that a large majority of scientists feel a responsibility as scientists to address climate change; that more scientists agree than disagree that scientists should become more involved in advocacy and protest; and that the proportion of scientists who say they are willing to engage in these actions is substantial, suggesting that there is great potential for increased engagement by scientists on climate change beyond research. Based on the quantitative and qualitative responses to our survey, we propose a two-stage model of engagement in advocacy and protest: First, in order for scientists to be willing to engage, they need to overcome mostly intellectual barriers such as a lack of belief in the effectiveness of the actions, lack of identification with activists, lack of knowledge, fear of losing credibility, and fear of repercussions. Second, to actually engage they need to overcome mostly practical barriers such as a perceived lack of skills, lack of time, lack of opportunities, and not knowing any groups involved in climate action. In the paper, we discuss a number of ways to increase the engagement of scientists with climate change. You can find the published version of the paper at https://lnkd.in/dTRwb_QJ and an open access version at https://lnkd.in/ddErKKnS. Finally, thanks to my fantastic co-authors Maien Sachisthal Jonas Haslbeck Viktoria Cologna Noel Strahm Nana-Maria Grüning Anna Bosshard Alison Green Cameron Brick Adam Aron!

In a world bombarded with existential threats, the narrative of doom has become a familiar refrain. Yet new research involving over 255 behavioral scientists and climate change experts tested the effects of 11 common messages meant to boost climate change beliefs, policy support, and concrete action. Their extensive study reveals that while doom-laden messages capture social media attention, they fail to inspire real-world action against climate change. Among the various strategies tested, one particularly effective approach stood out: emphasizing the impact of one's current actions on future generations. This intervention involved asking participants to write a letter to a socially close child, who would read it in 25 years as an adult, describing their current efforts to ensure a habitable planet. This strategy not only personalized the issue but also framed climate action within the context of legacy and intergenerational responsibility. This result highlights how effective it is to present climate action as the legacy we're creating for future generations. It connects with our basic wish to be remembered positively, to make a meaningful contribution, and to safeguard our loved ones. This method goes beyond the immobilizing effect of doom and gloom, encouraging a feeling of responsibility, optimism, and a drive to take real action. Moreover, the research highlights the importance of tailoring messages to diverse audiences, acknowledging the complex landscape of climate communication. What resonates in one country or culture may not hold the same power in another, reminding us of the need for nuanced and context-sensitive strategies. The study also reaffirms the effectiveness of messages that emphasize scientific consensus and moral imperatives, suggesting a path forward that is both hopeful and grounded in shared ethical responsibilities. Fear alone cannot drive sustainable change; we need narratives that empower and unite us in collective action. #climateaction #climatecommunication #climatecrisis https://lnkd.in/dGzgMCyY

A few years ago, companies couldn't stop talking about sustainability.     Now? Many of them have gone quiet. Not because they stopped caring, they're scared.   Welcome to "greenhushing," where businesses deliberately under-report their climate progress to avoid scrutiny.   Think about how backwards that is.   Companies are hitting real targets, making genuine reductions, doing the work, and then saying nothing about it.   The fear of being accused of greenwashing has pushed them into the opposite extreme, silence.   And silence has a cost.   When the leaders go quiet, the whole conversation stalls. Suppliers lose their roadmap. Customers lose the ability to choose better.   And the businesses dragging their feet get to hide in the crowd because no one's setting the standard anymore.   2026 isn't testing whether you can make commitments.   It's testing whether you'll stand behind them when it's no longer comfortable.   Transparency was never about having a perfect story, it’s about being honest about where you are and where you're going next.   So if your business is making progress, say so.   Imperfect action, shared openly, beats quiet perfection every time.   Is your industry talking less about sustainability than it did two years ago? I'd genuinely like to know.     #Sustainability #Greenhushing #NetZero

Dear son, Remember when you texted me after your big product pitch? "Mom, I nailed that presentation but no one said ANYTHING afterward. The VP just thanked me and moved on to the next agenda item. What did I do wrong?" First, take a deep breath. This happens to everyone—even seasoned executives with decades of experience. But I need to be brutally honest with you: silence isn't respect or agreement. It's resistance, fear, apathy or confusion. Why They're Really Silent🤫 1️⃣They completely disagree but don't want to embarrass you (or themselves) with a public confrontation 2️⃣They don't understand what you're asking them to do or approve 3️⃣They don't care enough about your proposal to engage with it The mistake most professionals make is interpreting silence as contemplation or agreement. They walk away thinking, "Well, no objections!" only to discover weeks later their proposal died a quiet death. The 3-Step Recovery Plan💪 1️⃣Break the Silence Yourself Don't just stand there awkwardly or retreat to your seat. Instead, say: "I notice we're a bit quiet. I'd value some initial reactions to help me understand if I'm addressing our most pressing priorities." This gives them permission to speak honestly without forcing confrontation. 2️⃣Ask a Specific Question Don't ask, "Any questions?" that's easy to decline. Instead, ask a question that reveals concerns while giving you control: "Which part of this proposal do you feel needs the most refinement before moving forward?" This question assumes they're on board with the general direction (even if they're not) but gives them an opening to voice concerns constructively. 3️⃣Schedule Individual Follow-ups Say: "I know everyone needs time to process. I'd like to schedule 15 minutes with each of you over the next few days to gather your thoughts once you've had time to consider this approach." Then—this is crucial—immediately send those calendar invites. Most objections surface in these one-on-ones that would never come up in the group setting. This is where you'll discover the real roadblocks. What I've Learned the Hard Way✨ The worst thing you can do after silence is nothing. The second worst is sending a cheerful follow-up email saying, "As discussed in the meeting, we'll proceed with..." Nothing was "discussed." That's the problem. When I was younger, I once gave what I thought was a brilliant presentation about a new training program. The room was silent afterward. I took it as approval and spent three months developing materials before discovering the executive team never intended to fund it. They just didn't want to crush my enthusiasm at that moment. That taught me that silence is not golden—it's a warning. Remember This Always👈 Your presentation isn't over when the last slide appears. The most successful leaders understand that this is where decisions actually get made. I'm so proud of how you're navigating these complex workplace dynamics.    Love you always, Mom

What’s stopping you from proudly saying, “We’re climate leaders” on stage? For some, it's fear—fear that their claims won’t hold up under scrutiny. But here's what I love about frameworks like Europe’s Green Claims Directive: they remove that fear. They empower companies with clear rules, making transparency not just achievable, but mandatory. This is why I believe law can be such an incredible tool for climate action. When you follow these frameworks, you can confidently stand on any stage, share your sustainability achievements, and say, “Look at what we’ve done.” But here’s where companies often get stuck: ensuring their actions match their words. That’s where combining emission reductions with responsible carbon credit purchases becomes critical. It's not just about ticking boxes—it's about following principles like mitigation hierarchy: avoid, reduce, substitute, and only then compensate. And don’t stop there. Use independent verification for your carbon credits—whether through standards like Gold Standard or services like ours at Senken. This ensures quality, credibility, and trust. Transparency is non-negotiable. Talk about where your money went, what projects you supported, and what impact was achieved. Without this, you risk sliding from green claims straight towards green hushing. Finally, remember: sustainability is not static. Laws evolve. Policies change. Regular updates and reviews are essential. With frameworks like CSRD and Green Claims Directive coming soon, now’s your chance. So, what’s stopping you? Follow these steps, and you won’t just be saying, “We’re climate leaders.” You’ll mean every word.

The sustainability narrative is broken. It’s not irreparable. But now we are not communicating in a way that drives action. The conversation today is focused on emissions, disclosures, standards, and frameworks. While this foundational work is certainly essential, it is insufficient to generate genuine commitment. This challenge is not limited to convincing the general public. Even within corporations, effective transformation requires broad organizational alignment. Employees across departments, investors, and leadership too often feel disconnected from the complex or abstract language of many ESG reports. I recently took part in several thoughtful discussions on effective sustainability communication, and a few core insights stood out: 1. Agency Over Fear For too long, certain environmental messaging in the public discourse has relied on generating fear and guilt to motivate. But as one speaker put it: “Urgency requires agency. And you don’t generate that by overwhelming or depressing people.” Fear may capture attention, but it rarely sustains engagement. The goal should be to spark action through empowerment: sharing stories that carefully balance the urgency of the moment with a sense of collective purpose. People must be able to recognize specific, high-agency solutions that inspire genuine buy-in. 2. Beyond “Reducing Harm” We should aim to shift the corporate mindset from defensive to proactive sustainability. The ambition should not merely be to “reduce carbon protocols and figure out how to remain profitable.” That focus is too narrow – and it’s maintenance, not strategic leadership. Creating material value requires a legacy perspective. Companies should begin viewing sustainability efforts as a source of innovation, cross-functional collaboration, and long-term impact – contributing positively to environmental and social well-being, rather than simply minimizing damage. 3. Reaching the “Movable Middle” To achieve mass change, we should be focused on actively engaging the movable middle – those who are not already deeply involved in climate issues. Preachy or guilt-driven narratives alienate and build resistance. What connects are stories that humanize – personal experiences, shared values, authenticity, maybe even measured humor. The focus should be on breaking down resistance and building the community necessary for lasting transformation.

This excellent article highlights a common misperception: Many people assume that others don’t care as much about climate action as they do. This "normative bubble" can discourage action, even when there is widespread support for meaningful environmental policies. To break this cycle and encourage positive change, here are three practical steps anyone can take: Talk About It Many people hesitate to discuss climate issues, fearing they’ll sound too extreme or alone in their concerns. In reality, most people support climate action but aren’t vocal about it. Simply bringing up environmental topics in everyday conversations—whether at work, with friends, or on social media—helps normalize these discussions and reinforces shared values.   Lead by Example Actions speak louder than words. Making visible, climate-friendly choices—like biking instead of driving, reducing plastic use, or supporting sustainable brands—can influence those around you. Even small choices, like bringing a reusable coffee cup or composting, can spark curiosity and conversation, making sustainable behaviors more mainstream.   Support Local Climate Initiatives Many communities have grassroots climate efforts, from local cleanups to renewable energy projects. Getting involved, signing petitions, or even just attending a town hall meeting can show decision-makers that there’s strong public support for climate-friendly policies. By taking these simple, everyday actions, we can correct misperceptions, inspire others, and create momentum for larger climate solutions. Only when many people take practical action can create the change we need!