key: cord-0058228-bve08ssf
authors: Karmasin, Matthias; Voci, Denise; Weder, Franzisca; Krainer, Larissa
title: Future Perspectives: Sustainability Communication as Scientific and Societal Challenge
date: 2020-09-14
journal: The Sustainability Communication Reader
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-31883-3_31
sha: d3fe6a96a880b668f2abbc224293068f7ed602cd
doc_id: 58228
cord_uid: bve08ssf

Sustainability communication is—as the Sustainability Communication Reader clearly shows—an emerging field and unifies a great variety of research approaches and practices. Even if it may be a little too soon to summarize the state of the rapidly changing and evolving debate about the potential and limitations of communicating about and for sustainability, we want to highlight some aspects in concluding—in relation to the academic debate as well as to possible contributions to societal challenges.

the rapidly changing and evolving debate about the potential and limitations of communicating about and for sustainability, we want to highlight some aspects in concluding-in relation to the academic debate as well as to possible contributions to societal challenges.

Still, there is a "chronic problem"-as Bilandzic and Kalch call it in their contribution (chap. 8)-pertaining to sustainability communication, which consists of communicating something complex, abstract, invisible, not immediate that entails controversial and uncomfortable societal implications, which in turn affect different societal actors, all with divergent knowledge, values and goals 1 ; many authors in this reader stress the importance of communication-not a surprise in a reader devoted to the subject. Communication,-they argue 2 -is not only relevant for knowledge transfer, promoting the SDGs, or creating awareness by placing sustainability on the social and political agenda through traditional and/or social media. Rather, communication is needed to initiate a process of societal transformation, toward a sustainable society and a more responsible lifestyle. Indeed, sustainability communication offers an opportunity to achieve audience engagement, since-as Wim Elving sums it up in his contribution (chap. 22)-"communication and behaviour are interlinked and behaviour cannot change without communication".

With this reader at hand we can state: sustainability has reached media and communication studies. It is an emerging field and combines aspects of the mediated debate on climate change, food, health communication and the SDGs and approaches the area from journalism studies, political communication and science communication, features public relation approaches as well as studies on media effects, brings storytelling and visual communication into play and combines arguments from the realm of empirical studies as well as normative arguments-to name just a few approaches.

It may seem far too early to enter the debate on a unifying paradigm or even the debate on the issue whether sustainability communication also implies sustainable communication (and to define it)-or if we should establish sections in our academic societies. Nevertheless, we want to make it clear that, at least from our point of view, the future of sustainability communication is not only an expansion of research (more research is always needed) but also a debate on the scientific status of sustainability communication. Is it just an application of well-known methods to a new area of research? Does it call for new methods or even new methodological approaches? How far should the synthesis of disciplinary and interdisciplinary evidence go? Is it merely a new and trendy issue, or does it call for a new responsibility of communication studies? Is it a "nice to have" research addendum or, in the light of the Coronavirus pandemic, just a peak which will soon be replaced by other topics?

Even if the authors and editors of the volume share the belief that sustainability communication will stay on the agenda, especially since it is indispensable for sustainable development, which is one of the most important issues for the future of the planet-we have the impression that some effort is still needed to convince others-within communication studies and beyond.

Within our field it might be important to make clear that communication studies should also engage more in the area of sustainable development-apart from mediatization and changing public spheres-as it is a decisive aspect of our future wellbeing on this planet. Thus, sustainability communication scholars should actively engage in the reformulation of curricula, in the design of conferences and, yes, maybe in the founding of sections. This seems to be important to increase the visibility of our research for other disciplines as well-especially in the field of sustainability sciences.

Sustainability communication is an important and relevant field-even if more research is needed. This is of course valid only from a communication studies perspective (and therefore not for all), which could have a tendency to overrate the importance of communication and the relevance of digitalization and mediatisation in any aspect of human life and seems not have reached the realm of sustainability science. As a recently published comment in Nature under the title "Expansion of sustainability science needed for the SDGs" (Messerli et al. 2019) points out, dominant research modes are not enough to guide the societal transformations necessary to achieve the 2030 agenda and addresses many important aspects-but the authors leave out communication. And the SDGs themselves reflect many aspects-but not communication. Goal No. 4 might also mean media literacy, as part of quality education, goal No. 10 might also include bridging the digital divide and distributing access to information more equally, goal No. 12 responsible production and consumption might also include responsible production and consumption of media-and goal No. 16 peace, justice and strong institutions might also include a strong and independent fourth estate-but these only engage in stretching the limits of interpretation a bit and not in displaying it prominently. 3 Communications studies could and should make clear that they can contribute to global transformations in changing landscapes of communication and that mediatization and digitalization do have an impact on the way societal and individual preferences are shaped in a world of conflicting goals and interest. Not by supporting the standard answer of more of more communication and by monitoring the amount of sustainability related communication alone, but by entering the debate on the right form of communication-which is of relevance for other disciplines and sustainability scientists globally. "Knowledge alone does not motivate action. Communication needs to take into account everyday concerns of people and decision-makers, encourage social norms and identities that promote desired actions, increase perceptions of response-efficacy, and move from communications of sustainability to promoting communication about sustainability" (Mulholland 2019, p. 7) . 4 The idea that communication is or rather can no longer be understood and practiced as a pure knowledge and/or information transfer, is also shared by many of the authors who contributed to this reader. 5 As Beatrice Dernbach formulates it very appropriately in her contribution (see chap. 28): "Even if scientists around the world agree by consensus that continuing to do so will end in disaster, this does not mean that knowledge and expertise is programmed to lead to changes in attitude and behaviour". Thus, sustainability communication has to free itself from this traditional information paradigm, where-to say it with Guillen et al.'s words (chap. 16)-"'we' (the expert, the scientists) tell 'them' (the 'uninformed' consumers) how to change their behaviour and lifestyles". This means: One-way communication is not sufficient and useful anymore to achieve social engagement, especially since the audience's ability to listen tends to decline (see chap. 25 by R. Kurz). Hence, following Jasmin Godemann's argumentation (chap. 2), how sustainability and its related issues are communicated is as important as the content of that communication itself. Inclusive communication is therefore required, which stimulates and promotes conversations and dialogues with the public, so that the shift from passive listeners to conscious actors of change can be achieved. Indeed-as e.g. Finkler and Aitken (chap. 17) point out-one of the decisive elements of an effective (sustainability) communication is for people to believe they are empowered to make a difference, and their contributions are not only desired and valued, but-we would add-also absolutely necessary.

The task for an effective sustainability communication is therefore not only aiming at achieving a better understanding of sustainability and its related issues, but rather being capable of changing attitudes and behaviours by promoting acceptance of the respective interventions in people's lives, as argued for example in chap. 16 by Guillen et al. The aim should be to establish a common ground of values and meaning making with the public, which is essential in order to stimulate social learning through communication and to create a common, broader and necessary understanding of the interrelation between individual behaviour and social transition, and thus to trigger both individual and collective change. 6 This is a challenge not only for policy makers and administrators (at least if they intend to contribute to the life of future generations), but also for scientific communities-as the question of factfulness is the starting point and it is disputed whether scientists can be trusted at all. How comforting it is when we can leave things as they are-as we can always find a piece of information calling even scientific evidence into question and telling us that the empirical evidence (especially in the context of climate change) cannot be trusted and the stories they try to convey are not so inconvenient, when they are not true. And, yes, it is not always a story of synergies, technological and social innovation which benefits everybody and opportunities for present and future generations but also of cost increases, redistribution and loss of welfare (at least according to the traditional operationalisations of welfare) for the so-called first world, 7 and the need for a change of lifestyle (consumption, mobility behaviour), a story of restraint, modesty and responsibility. As Philip Hammond says in his contribution (chap. 4) by paraphrasing Fredric Jameson: "it remains easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".

This is exactly what the spreading of misinformation intends, which has many forms as McCright and Dunlap (2017) point out. Misinformation, they argue, is not always a systemic lie, but also bullshit (in the sense of Harry Frankfurt (2005) only caring for the effect) and a misinterpretation of certain theories of science by claiming that all statements are equally valid and accepted "facts" are the outcomes of power and epistemic procedures. Although we do not want to demonize social media in any way, since they definitely produce new opportunities and advantages for sustainability communication-as argued in various chapters 8 in this reader-it is also true that the increasing influence of social media gives sceptics a channel to spread their disbelief. Nonetheless, we share Wim Elving's view (chap. 22) in stating: "[…] it is not the media that are to blame, but the individuals who use social media. It is not Twitter that is crushing the debate, but Twitter's users […]".

The All European Academies organization ALLEA has published a discussion paper entitled "Trust in Science in Changing Landscapes of Communication" and this paper concludes: It is a crucial task for researchers and communicators of research to safeguard and reinforce the pillars of trust which are integrity, transparency, autonomy and accountability, in order to counter a loss of trust in and trustworthiness of science and research. "They need to convincingly prove that a free and just society means a society in which all people are equal but not all expressions are equally true." (ALLEA 2019, p. 1).

How to counter misinformation and to take a stand for scientific evidence and for sustainability is a challenge for scientific communities globally-and communication studies could and should contribute to this debate. Accordingly, communication scholars should play a decisive role in the effort to achieve societal and behavioural change through communicative interventions-as also addressed by many authors 9 in this reader.

In the light of an emerging "post-corona" society this has not grown easier, but if we want to move on-as a discipline and beyond that-we should highlight our contributions to sustainability science in general and to the debate on the transformation of societies in particular. If this is possible within the entrenched areas of established subdisciplines such as PR, journalism studies, media ethics, political communication, health communication to name just a few or if a new and different institutionalization even beyond communication studies will be needed remains to be seen. But we are deeply convinced that in expanding sustainability communication science we need to bundle forces to focus and to reach out as well and: that sustainability will stay on the agenda and what matters now is everybody.

Trust in science and changing landscapes of communication

Media, environment and the network society

Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. European Union

Sustainable Development Network (2019) Recommendations for communicating sustainable development and the SDGs

Sustainability science: an introduction

Combatting misinformation requires recognizing its types and the factors that facilitate its spread and resonance

Expansion of sustainability science needed for the SDGs

Communicating sustainable development and the SDGs in Europe: good practice examples from policy, academia, NGOs, and media