Storming of Amundi headquarters by Extinction Rebellion, revelations about the presence of mercury in canned tuna, striking actions by Greenpeace at EDF… In recent months, economic news has been punctuated by power grabs environmental activists. While it is true that some of these actions seem legitimate, activists too often abuse their power and too easily obscure the desire to transform the companies they target.
Formerly artisanal structures, activists and NGOs are today very organized and have become real mobilization machines. Perfectly mastering the codes of communication and benefiting from the support of committed lawyers, lobbyists and scientists, they influence public decision-making, unite opinion and cause lasting harm to the companies they target. In order to respond to these attacks, it is essential that companies understand how they operate.
The activists’ objective is simple: to change legislation or regulations to serve their cause. To do this, these actors rely on public opinion which they attempt to mobilize via a discourse based on emotion and an extreme simplification of the issues. The mechanism is oiled: if public opinion mobilizes, then politicians react.
The good guys versus the bad guys
To mobilize public opinion, activists strive to create two camps: the good guys – solidarity initiatives, alternative models, NGOs – and the bad guys – often companies or established economic players. One day the good artisanal fishermen face the bad industrial fishermen for example. The next day, the good soy steak producers against the bad cattle farmers or even the good renewable energy producers against the bad nuclear electricity producers, the list goes on.
-Summoned to choose a side, public opinion, or at least its militant fringe on the ground and social networks, takes a position and pushes politicians to act.
Come out of the silence
Faced with these movements of opinion, companies and their leaders are still struggling to find the right tone. Too often, they refuse to act or communicate, convinced that “no one can believe” the arguments and speeches of NGOs. This silence is particularly dangerous. Indeed, how can you swing public opinion in your favor if you don’t talk to them? How can public decision-makers defend you if they don’t know your positions? Leaders must not only speak publicly in the media and on social networks, but also meet political actors to spread the “right” word. NGOs or other activist networks do not deprive themselves of it!
If they decide to take the bull by the horns and communicate, companies too often want to put forward rational and factual scientific arguments. Opposing a cold and technical response to accusations based on emotions and a certain form of irrationality is the assurance of being inaudible. The battle of opinion rages between companies and activists. While the latter do not shy away from any publicity stunt, it is high time that companies get in tune and make their voices heard.
