As the circular economy becomes more mainstream, now is the time to learn from the communication missteps of net zero to win public support, writes Peter Davies-Dennis.
Depending on who you ask, achieving net zero is either essential for the future of humanity or a scam promoted by liars and crooks.
While an exaggeration, the conversation around net zero has undoubtedly become deeply polarising, despite 61% of people in the UK supporting the current target of achieving net zero by 2050 and 80% of people globally wanting stronger action on climate change from politicans.
A key reason for this is because, in many ways, the debate around net-zero policies has become detached from climate change.
Much of the conversation now centres on concerns about the feasibility of proposed policies, the viability of the costs, and whether the lowest-paid in society will bear the financial burden of their impact.
As policies that accelerate the shift away from a linear, take-make-throw society gain momentum, it’s vital to learn from the communication missteps of ‘net zero’ and address potential concerns that could arise around the circular economy.
These concerns can generally be distilled down into three main criticisms:
- It will force people to do things they don’t want to do.
- It won’t work.
- We can’t afford it.
While it’s important to acknowledge that many criticisms of environmental policy are grounded in legitimate concerns, vague terminology, inconsistent messaging, and often cynical misrepresentations have undermined progress and fuelled scepticism.
To avoid repeating the same mistakes, policymakers and industry leaders must adopt a transparent communication strategy that connects the environmental goals of the circular economy to tangible economic and social benefits for the general population.
Here are some examples of how this can be done.
The circular economy will force people to do things they don’t want to do
Let’s analyse how this criticism has been levelled against net zero.
This year, Tony Blair said limiting energy consumption and fossil fuel production is ‘doomed to fail’, and called for a major reconsideration of net zero policies.
The former Labour prime minister wrote that voters ‘feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal’.
Where these criticisms hold true for the circular economy, that is potentially a policy problem, not a communications one.
However, unclear communication could lead to the assumption that the circular economy is going to be an imposition on people’s lives in circumstances where it isn’t the case. It’s also possible that legitimate concerns could be exploited to frame the circular economy as an unfair obligation on ordinary citizens.
Trewin Restorick, Founder of Sizzle Innovation, explained that this could look like arguing that the circular economy is going to restrict your choice to buy new stuff or force you to reuse old containers.
To counter these arguments, Restorick says that progressive climate policy advocates should draw inspiration from a populist approach.
“If Farage were to say what makes the circular economy amazing, what would he say? He could say it’s about Britishness, because you’re going to be using resources that we otherwise might be importing. It’s about building resilience,” Restorick told Circular Online.
“It’s about celebrating all the things that are great about the country. It’s about traditional skills and going back to making do and mending and fixing, and supporting working-class people doing traditional jobs.”
The benefits of the circular economy that stand out to policymakers and industry leaders may not be what will appeal to the general public. It goes without saying that messaging should be based on reality, but it should always be tailored to the group receiving the message.
However, even with the perfect message, if something is difficult or inconvenient to do, it will be incredibly challenging to get public buy-in. David Hall, Founder and Executive Director of Behaviour Change, told Circular Online it’s essential to ensure circular economy actions are easy for people if they’re to be successful.
“If something’s difficult, people are unlikely to do it, however much they think it’s a good idea,” Hall said. “Behavioural science tells you, essentially, the two big influences on a behaviour are motivation and ability: do people want to do it, and do they think it’s easy or difficult to do.
“If something’s difficult, you can be really motivated, and you probably still won’t do it. I think we should never underestimate the importance of that fundamental system design and ease of behaviour.”
The circular economy won’t work
In a polemic against Boris Johnson’s net zero policies, former Conservative cabinet minister, Steve Baker, claimed that ‘unless someone invents a way to store energy in massive bulk, net zero will mean quivering under duvets in the dark on windless winter nights’.
While there are question marks over the efficacy of some green technologies, this isn’t the only reason why building public support for net-zero policies is difficult.
What does a net-zero world look like? It’s hard to picture something tangible, even if someone believes it’s a necessary and noble goal, as emissions are invisible and abstract.
David Hall also explained that a lot of language around environmental policies is inaccessible to ordinary citizens.
“I think we need to get much more tangible and practical with the language we use,” Hall said.
A clear, accessible definition builds public confidence, while vagueness risks confusion and misinterpretation that can undermine good policy.
However, while the term ‘circular economy’ may be vague and require explaining, its outcomes are much more tangible.
I think we need to get much more tangible and practical with the language we use.
“I think that the problem with talking about sustainability and carbon and climate is it’s not real to people, even though we’re seeing more extreme weather events; it’s still not real to people,” Restorick told Circular Online.
“Whereas, if you could talk about the circular economy, about making the most of what we’ve got, about sharing resources, about helping local communities, about giving people access to mobile phones and whatnot, those sorts of conversations just highlight the social and financial side of it.
“And then, oh, and by the way, it’s also great for the environment. I think my experience has always been highlighting that is what you should be focusing the main message on.”
Designing for repairability will have concrete benefits in people’s lives. If products are simpler to repair, they will last for longer, which is not only more convenient but will save people money as they won’t be forced to buy a replacement.
Communicating the benefits of repair on individuals’ lives is more effective than trying to generate buy-in by explaining the impact of waste on climate change.
David Hall explained that many people believe the responsibility for action on climate change should be on the government, local authorities, and big businesses.
“They see themselves as quite low down the list of people who can, or should, be taking action. So I think climate change is not especially helpful for getting people to do something, but it’s an important piece of context,” Hall said.
“Once people have done something, explain to them why that was a good thing to do, why they might want to do more of it and how it might be connected to some other things they perhaps haven’t thought about.”
Highlighting specific, unambiguous results is the perfect counter to arguments that the ‘circular economy won’t work’, and it’s a lot easier than with other strands of climate policy.
Restorick explained that one of the most successful schemes Hubbub ran during his time as CEO was called Mother to Another.
In the lead up to Mother’s Day, Hubbub ran a campaign to encourage parents to put together bundles of 6-10 items of outgrown baby clothing along with a personal message. These gifts were then shared with local families through community groups across the UK.
“It worked brilliantly in both ways in that the people were handing out their clothing with an emotional message, and the people receiving it were also getting that message, and it was all very localised,” Restorick explained.
“I think it’s that degree of connectivity and emotional connection that works incredibly well.”
We can’t afford a circular economy
The leader of the Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, has said achieving net zero by 2050 is ‘impossible’ without ‘bankrupting the country’. Leaving aside the veracity of this claim, the criticism is indicative of a broader argument: renewable energy is capricious and expensive, while fossil fuels are reliable and affordable.
The position isn’t that we don’t need to do something about climate change; it’s that we can’t afford to do something right now.
This, understandably, fuels the general public’s main concern: that the price of goods will rise and hit them financially during a cost-of-living crisis.
To address this argument, supporters of the circular economy may instinctively reach for studies that show how a more circular system has the potential to reduce household costs – for example, WRAP has found that reusing items that are currently discarded could save UK households £74-£280 per year.
However, highlighting cost-savings isn’t always the greatest motivator for change.
“I think generally what the evidence tells us is that money saving is an important part of the mix, but it’s rarely enough on its own to motivate people to act,” David Hall told Circular Online.
“In a rational world, money would always be the most powerful driver, but actually it’s a mix of things, and rarely by itself is quite enough to push people over the edge because the savings probably aren’t quite big enough.”
I think generally what the evidence tells us is that money saving is an important part of the mix, but it’s rarely enough on its own to motivate people to act.
Another factor Hall explored was how people weigh up the cost savings for repairing an item vs the time it will take to be repaired.
“If you do a very basic money calculation, you might go, well, that was free to get it repaired,” Hall said.
“But then when you start loading in other stuff, like how cheap it is to buy new stuff on Amazon and how much that’s kind of sold to you and what’s the value of your time if you have to spend a whole morning sitting in a repair cafe, you know, some people like that, some people don’t.”
Hall also explained that relying too heavily on cost savings can create a problem for future messaging when a behaviour change won’t save someone money.
As part of the UK’s Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), people buying an in-scope drinks container will be charged a 20p deposit they can claim back when they return it to a reverse vending machine (RVM).
The DRS will lead to drinks being more expensive – that’s a reductionist version of the story. But to build public support, policymakers could learn from behaviour change campaigns that use social pressure to discourage littering, one of the goals of the UK’s DRS, instead of fixating on costs.
David Hall told Circular Online about a ReLondon campaign Behaviour Change was involved in, which actively called people out on the disconnect between their opinions and their actions.
One of the slogans featured on a poster as part of the campaign was: ‘Got a water bottle “because turtles”. Doesn’t “believe in” recycling. Recycling keeps plastic out of nature. Don’t be that person. Recycle.’
“I think if you highlight to people the fact that what they’re doing is inconsistent, that works really well in terms of challenging people’s views and getting people to do something differently,” Hall said.
Learning from the mistakes
The struggle to win public support for net-zero policies has shown how quickly momentum can be lost – something the circular economy can’t risk repeating.
By avoiding unclear definitions, acknowledging trade-offs, and grounding messaging in evidence, it will be possible to build public support for a circular economy transition.