Facts Matter, but Values Move People: Lessons from Public Health and Sustainability Communication

During the climate event at this year’s Public Health Partnership Conference in Lake Placid, NY, we met Lydia Miner, a skilled communications professional who brings a relationship-first approach to her role at Sustainable PR, where she manages media and community relations campaigns for companies prioritizing sustainability. She has led dozens of community engagement initiatives for solar, storage, and green hydrogen developments, and her expertise in stakeholder relations is backed by her past experience as Director of Corporate and Community Engagement for the Tri County United Way, where she built partnerships with corporate sponsors, local nonprofits, and a vast community volunteer network. 

We had an enlightening conversation about communications challenges across our disciplines and discovered that there is a lot that public health and medical communicators can learn from the sustainability field. We have reconstructed our conversation in interview form.

What are some shared challenges between public health communications and public relations for sustainable businesses? 

I think trust is a challenge that both public health and sustainability communications professionals face. Some of that is due to the fact that both industries are experiencing rapid transformations with progressive research and fast-paced innovation, which is exciting but also challenging from a communications perspective. What is true one day, may not be true the next. 

From a public health perspective, I am always struck by the ever-changing narrative surrounding breakfast – is it the most important meal of the day? Is an egg the best thing I can eat or the absolute worst? Does anyone really know? Perhaps the answer is always, “in moderation,” but there are so many competing narratives based on a variety of different studies, all posited in a way to promote one product or food item over another, and that makes it hard for consumers to know how to respond to the information they are given.

Right–nutrition is one of the most challenging domains for public health, and the guidance has changed massively over our lifetimes. In fact, there’s a great Funny or Die skit called “The Time-Traveling Dietician” that illustrates how the public feels when they receive these mixed messages, and we have shown it during training workshops for public health professionals.

We have similar examples in sustainability. For example, there was once a massive push for the elimination of paper to save trees – swapping out classroom paper for tablets and computers, trading hardcopy books for Kindles, choosing to no longer use woodstoves because other heating methods were more efficient. Today, we are shifting back to utilizing paper because it is more environmentally friendly than electronics and plastics, and paper and wood products like mass timber are in some instances even being employed by companies as methods for carbon capture.

In both these cases, narrative shifts, whether based on emerging data, innovations, or market forces, can cause confusion when not clearly communicated. When conflicting narratives emerge, that can lead to an inherent distrust amongst the public.

Another commonality is the lack of a central voice. That’s not to say this is an inherently bad thing–we need to hear from a range of perspectives. The challenge for communicators, however, is that when there is no singular trusted source, people have a hard time discerning who to trust or where to turn when they have questions.

“Values-based communication” has become an important concept across many fields. What does that term mean to you? 

To me, values-based communication goes beyond communicating facts and data to communicate purposefully in a way that best resonates with a given audience. This approach goes beyond simply getting a message across accurately and focuses more on communicating key messages so they are well received, and in turn, will have a better chance of soliciting a desired impact.

In our work, that means determining an audience’s perspective, understanding their values, identifying knowledge gaps, and tailoring messaging to align with what they care about most and address key questions and concerns in a way that will be openly received and understood.

Great definition. I think we often forget that values are more impactful than data in public health communication. Or rather, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that data without values is meaningless. If the audience doesn’t understand why the data is meaningful to them, and what actions they need to take that align with their personal values, it’s just numbers. 

Exactly. Values-based messaging is inherently better-aligned with how people think and behave than data-driven communication is. We are not computers, and we are not always logical.

There was a series of experiments performed by social psychologists called the Asch Conformity Experiments, which demonstrated that our desire for acceptance can lead people to conform to a majority consensus over their own perception, even when they know that the group is wrong. That study alone – and there are others – tells us that data alone does not persuade. 

With that in mind, most communication is meant to solicit some sort of outcome. If we base all communication simply on data, we omit what truly motivates us: human values.

Data is an important aspect of communication, as it builds foundational credibility. But data alone cannot usually persuade. Data needs to be presented in alignment with audience values and also needs to come from trusted, credible sources.

Here is a very simple example to illustrate these concepts: Let’s say you are playing Trivial Pursuit with a group of friends as a team. On your team, you have one friend who is studying architecture at RPI and one friend who is a bartender. You get a question asking who designed the Brooklyn Bridge. The bartender says he knows and says confidently, “Roebling.” The RPI student says he thinks it is “Amman.” There is some debate, but you ultimately go with Amman. You are incorrect – Roebling was the answer.

Are you a bad friend for not trusting the novice? No, but you applied context and you trusted the expertise of the architecture student, because education imparts some authority and credibility.  

Values-based communication provides context and takes into account perspectives and human psychology. Data-driven communication often does not.

How do you communicate sustainability issues to audiences who may not initially identify as environmentally conscious?  

We come across this all the time. The key in this situation is to learn as much as you can about your audience, and craft messaging that will resonate with them. If environmental values don’t resonate, then you shouldn’t lead with messaging about saving the environment.

This especially comes up in renewable energy development. Towns and communities are often not vested in the environmental benefits – often intangible – and are more focused on perceived community impacts and benefits. In these cases, we lead by addressing questions/concerns and highlighting local benefits that will directly impact residents. Perhaps it’s increased tax revenue for the town, offset utility bills for low- to moderate-income residents, or a strong tie into landowner rights, supporting the property owner’s right to develop their land within the confines of the local laws. That often resonates with local values of protecting individual liberties – especially in rural communities where land rights are highly valued.

That approach is often promoted in public health communication as well, but it still isn’t used as often as it should be. There’s also a lot of talk these days about the importance of building trust through communication in public health. Has trust been an issue in any of the PR work you’ve done?

Yes, 100%. Trust is key and hard to establish as we have entered the world of misinformation, disinformation, greenwashing, greenhushing…the list goes on.

The main thing to keep in mind when establishing trust is empathy. You truly need to understand where your audience’s mindset is and why they believe what they do in order to understand how to communicate effectively with them. And you also need to ensure you respect their perspectives before simply throwing facts and data in their face.

Trust takes time to build and it starts with conversations that lead to understanding different perspectives.

Once you understand why someone has come to hold a certain perspective, you’re much better equipped to understand how to best communicate a new or conflicting stance. Data becomes important in supporting the alternative perspective and in establishing credibility, once you know how to present/approach the conversation, but not until then.

I love that approach–empathy first, data second. Perhaps that’s our major takeaway from this conversation. Thank you for sharing your insights with us!