Environmental groups' communication strategies in multiple media

Abstract

Studies in political science and communication note that interest groups simplify and dramatise issues in order to gain public support. Through a focus on US environmental organisations, this negative assessment is re-evaluated by examining the influence of two sets of factors on groups’ communication styles: communication forum and group characteristics. Using content analysis of group communications across several media, criticisms of groups are shown to be overstated; in particular these groups do not engage in wholesale simplification of complex issues. Further, groups’ communication styles reflect their responses to varying audience interest levels rather than some pathology of fundraising and organisational maintenance.

Keywords:

• environmental organisations
• environmental activism
• Internet
• communication
• climate change

Notes

 1. I conducted interviews with 10 environmental group representatives in Washington, DC, in March of 2007. These interviews are described in further detail below.

 2. The following directories were used to develop the sample: National Wildlife Federation, Associations Unlimited, Project Vote Smart, The National Environmental Directory, Envirolink, and Inter-Environment.

 3. For most groups, I-990 financial data were collected for the years 2004 or 2005.

 4. Groups were classified as membership organisations if their websites included the statements ‘join’ or ‘become a member’ in reference to requests for financial contributions. The Associations Unlimited directory was used to verify groups’ membership status.

 5. Given the possibility that the topic of communication might influence groups’ communication styles, each statement was coded into one of 14 issue categories. Acomparison of statements across issue areas revealed that the topic of communication is unrelated to groups’ communication styles. See Table A1.

 6. Some websites did not contain a link to a third page from the second. For these websites, only two pages were coded.

 7. The group representatives were from the following organisations: American Rivers, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Law Institute, Environmental Working Group, National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Oceana, Population Connection, and The Wilderness Society.

 8. The formula for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is as follows: 39*(words/sentences) + 11.8*(syllables/words)−15.59. The numbers in this formula serve to translate the raw score to a corresponding US grade level.

 9. Table A3 provides the approximate ages corresponding to each grade level in the United States.

10. In addition, Table A2 provides the mean and standard deviation of grade levels across communication forums.

11. A One Way ANOVA confirmed that the mean grade levels in press releases and congressional testimony are significantly higher than the mean grade levels in all other forums (p < 0.01).

12. The average word count for web page 2 is 610, and the average grade level is 12.6. The average word count for web page 3 is 745, and the average grade level is 13.1. A One Way ANOVA confirmed that the mean grade level of web page 1 is significantly lower than the means of web pages 2 and 3 (p < 0.01), though the difference in means between web pages 2 and web page 3 is not significant.

13. The Spearman's rho correlation between total expenses and mean grade level is−0.09 (p = 0.21).

14. While statistically significant (p < 0.01), the difference in means between membership and non-membership groups is not substantively significant.

15. Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare the mean differences between membership and non-membership groups. The significance levels are as follows: email alerts (p = 0.05), website homepages (p < 0.01), and print newsletters (p < 0.01).

16. Additionally, the finding with respect to email alerts is based on a small sample size: seven alerts from non-membership groups and 51 from membership groups.

17. The groups are as follows: World Wildlife Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility (two statements in sample), League of Conservation Voters, US Public Interest Research Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fund (two statements in sample), Rainforest Action Network, the Center for Biological Diversity, Trout Unlimited, the Center for Clean Air Policy, INFORM, SeaWeb, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Institute, and Conservation Fund.