“In short our world needs climate action on all fronts - everything, everywhere, all at once.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ response to the latest IPCC report was unflinchingly transparent about the imminency and inevitability of a climate catastrophe without wholesale collective action.
Where do advertising, and creativity, fit within this larger picture?
Advertising’s negative impact on the environment is evident, and now quantifiable. In 2021 Purpose Disruptors introduced the “advertised emissions” stat (CO2 produced by the uptake of sales generated by advertising for high-polluting industries such as fossil fuels). They calculated that in the UK, advertised emissions rose by 11% from 2019 to 2022, producing an extra 208 million tonnes of CO2 - equivalent to adding 28% to the carbon footprint of every UK citizen annually.
It’s not just the products being advertised that have an environmental impact. The energy needed to power Times Square’s famous billboards has been estimated at 161 megawatts a day, enough to power 160,000 homes. Good-Loop estimated that the average online ad campaign contributes around 5.4 tonnes of CO2 a year, equivalent to almost half of what the average individual in the UK creates annually.
While the negative impacts should not be ignored, brands can advance themselves while also advancing the needs of the planet and its populations. In Net Positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take, Paul Polman (former CEO of Unilever) sets out how a change in priorities can help companies focus on improving “well-being for everyone it impacts and at all scales.”
At Unilever, Polman moved away from operating models focussed solely on shareholder benefits. Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan set targets to improve 1 billion lives around the world, cut the company’s environmental impact in half, and uplift the livelihoods of millions involved in Unilever’s supply chains. Making its larger mission an integral part of its brands and messaging drove sales and returns for shareholders. Across Polman’s tenure, Unilever’s total shareholder return was close to 300% - well above that of its peers.
Doing good is no longer a nice-to-have, it is assuming a central place in F500 business plans. Coined the “triple bottom line” - measuring social and environmental impacts as well as profits - innovative companies have demonstrated that it is possible to do well by doing good.
The say-do-gap traditionally speaks to the gulf between people's demands for change, and the extent to which they are willing to modify their behavior to push that change forward. Studies demonstrate that while people place importance on sustainability, their actions do not reflect this weighting.
While marketers are quick to point to the say-do-gap of their consumers, the same cannot be said when reflecting on their brands. David Ogilvy quipped that “advertising reflects the mores of society”, but the industry often fails to hold a mirror up to itself.
A GRI and Support the Goals analysis found that 83% of companies support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Yet 57% of US consumers cannot name a brand that is making a difference when it comes to diversity or the environment - an issue exacerbated by greenwashing.
Greenwashing - making unsubstantiated claims in advertising to project a false image of positive environmental impact - undermines genuinely impactful schemes and pledges. It also undermines the credibility of the advertising industry as a whole.
At its core, creativity is a positive force and at its most effective when put towards driving positive ends. Marc Pritchard, P&G’s Chief Brand Officer summed it up: “Why does the creative industry matter? Because there is tremendous value from creativity as a force for growth, and a force for good.”
Data can be used to elevate creativity as a force for good. Depending on how it is refined, data can provide marketers with relevant, appropriate benchmarks - the first step towards driving positive, systematic change. Identifying and quantifying marketers' say-do-gap over issues of sustainability first requires an analysis of the content they create, and how it maps to the aspirations they espouse.
CreativeX’s AI technology was used to analyze over 2.5 million global ads, supported by over $2.8 billion in ad spend, from 2020-2023 for the presence of 21 sustainability and climate-related keywords (both in the creatives themselves and the accompanying post copy).1 Ads were taken from 38 advertisers, totaling 1,074 unique brands. To help provide a clearer picture of how climate features in advertising, this analysis covered geography (4 regions, 9 markets), industry (11 in total), and type of mention (positive, neutral, or negative).2 Hereafter, “sustainability messages” refers to the presence of any of the 21 sustainability and climate-related keywords within the ads and accompanying post copy.
Despite sustainability dominating global news headlines, its presence in advertising is muted.
While the overwhelming majority of brands have made commitments to becoming more sustainable, this is not reflected in their advertising messaging.
Outlining their commitment to sustainability only serves to help brands build better relationships with consumers. A study by Dentsu and Microsoft found that 91% of consumers want brands to demonstrate their sustainable objectives more concretely.
This say-do gap in the presence of sustainability messaging is not reflected in the spend behind that messaging.
While the number of ads containing sustainability messaging was lower than might have been expected, the spending behind these ads was comparatively disproportionate. This suggests that when brands are creating content with sustainability messaging, they are doubling down on efforts to ensure that audiences see and engage with it.
When brands talk about climate, they do so in a positive way.
The data suggests that brands don't want to risk being associated with negative climate impacts. The language used to talk about climate and sustainability is couched in the improvements being made, and how companies are giving back. From H&M’s ‘Conscious Collection’ to Apple’s ‘Climate Change Promise’ - brands focus on their current positive impacts, and the changes they will make in the future.
Framing climate positively can be helpful. Pursuing sustainable objectives should be seen as a net benefit for brands, and can help detract from a sense of overwhelming doom about the planet’s future which leads to inertia. A Lancet study found that 59% of young adults (16-25) are extremely worried about climate change.
However, such a framing can also misrepresent the actual climate impacts a company is having - and operates to reinforce the say-do gap. Brands only talk about positive sustainability initiatives, not confronting the negative environmental impacts of their operations.
The UN’s 12th Sustainable Development Goal sets out an aim to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. While there have been minor changes over time, across 2020-2023 sustainability messaging remained anchored in SDG 12. Most of the SDGs are connected with national goals, but SDG 12.6 specifically focuses on encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices and integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
For all of their detractors, the SDGs are an effective communication tool for elevating key global causes. Brands have used the SDGs to connect their brand purpose with the global mandate for change. Dove’s #ShowUs campaign was explicitly connected to SDG 5, working towards achieving gender equality. Reckitt’s “One Brand, One Goal” methodology aims to ensure each of its brands is aligned with a purpose set out in the SDGs. For example, Finish’s #SkiptheRinse campaign laddered up to SDG 6, to reduce global water wastage.
Using the language of the SDGs (explicitly or not) demonstrates that brands have bought into a shared understanding of the issues facing us. But as the examples of Dove and Reckitt exemplify, slogans are only meaningful when supported by actions.
As the climate crisis deepens and public concern about climate issues intensifies, it could be assumed that sustainability messaging would have increased.
However, sustainable options are associated with higher costs. Research suggests that sustainable products are on average 75-85% more expensive, with some categories having an over 200% markup compared with conventional products. As the cost of living crisis worsened in 2023, it appears that brands have chosen to prioritize cost-effective messaging over sustainability.
Price plays a critical role in reinforcing the consumer say-do-gap. Dentsu and Microsoft determined that only 3 in 10 people are willing to pay more for greener alternatives of products and services. While advertisers speak to the importance of sustainability, both brands and consumers prioritize the bottom line.
When looking at sustainability messaging by region, the North American region used sustainability messaging least frequently (2.9%) relative to all the ads deployed.
The EMEA region has the highest proportion of sustainability messaging at 7%. Digging deeper, Germany and France are the reason for this skew: 9% and 7% of ads in these respective markets contain sustainability messaging of some kind.
This disparity reflects the stringency with which climate action has been enforced in the two regions.
Launched in 2020, the European Green Deal encompasses a set of policies intended to combat the climate crisis by transforming the EU economy to net zero by 2050. This includes laws requiring all large companies to disclose information about the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues and the impacts of their activities on people and the environment. By contrast to the EU, the US has adopted a more laissez-faire approach to corporate social responsibility.
Operating in these two regions - marketers face a different set of imperatives for incorporating sustainability into their work. In the EU, the pressure is external and legally binding. In N. America, consumer demand creates external pressure but it is up to companies to decide their plan of action.
The automotive industry contributes to almost 15% of total global CO2 emissions. While there has been progress in the transition away from fossil fuels, the gulf between the current reality and net zero emissions remains significant.
In a net-zero scenario sales of low-emission cars would have to increase from 5% of new vehicle sales in 2020 to almost 60% by 2030. Tesla cut its prices by up to 20% in early 2023, enabling consumers to access government grants previously limited to cheaper EVs and stimulating renewed demand for the cars. The move reflects how much the market has changed since Tesla revolutionized the automotive industry in 2003. EV batteries carry their own environmental impact. Toyota recently unveiled their hydrogen engine, betting on a more technologically-diverse automotive future.
Given the industry’s outsized environmental impact, the focus on sustainability is logical. However, this also means that properly screening for greenwashing in automotive ads should be a high priority.
Writing in the Harvard Business Review over a decade ago, Julia Kirby and Christopher Mayer set out a challenge to those aiming to become “contemporary corporate leaders” to “take on responsibility for externalities - what economists call the impacts you have on the world (like pollution) for which you are not called to account.”
Talking about sustainability and climate change is not equivalent to taking on responsibility for action to improve climate impacts. In addition, focusing solely on sustainable messaging in advertising risks shifting responsibility onto consumers to make more sustainable choices.
Brands need to focus on offering consumers sustainable (which also entails affordable) options while taking action to address their outsized environmental impact. IKEA, Apple, and Microsoft should serve as examples of brands stepping up to the challenge of climate change.
However, the findings from the analysis should connect to some key questions for marketers:
Against a backdrop of generative AI and other innovations, it’s worth noting that while technology can help uncover these insights, it’s people that will ultimately solve these challenges. Combating the climate crisis means more than talking about sustainability in a meaningful way, but these conversations are fundamental to starting the process of change.
Across different industries brands have demonstrated that reducing their environmental impact is not, as was once assumed, incompatible with achieving wider business goals. Sustainability is a challenge for brands, but it also represents an opportunity that would be costly to ignore.
.png)
.png)
.png)