Sustainability communication: how to communicate an inconvenient truth in the era of scientific mistrust

Sustainability communication has already established itself as an interdisciplinary yet independent research area within communication studies. However, at least two conspicuous features can be identified in observing the development of the “Sustainability Communication” research area. First, the tendency to communicate only the so-called “sunshine perspective” of sustainability. This means conceptualizing sustainability as an alternative normative framework in our capitalist, market-oriented society while focusing only on its positive aspects, such as economic and technological progress, innovation, green jobs and renewable energies. However, the narrative of sustainability also contains a “rainy side” – i.e. the necessity for radical changes and turning away from current (economic) paradigms – making sustainability an “inconvenient truth” ^[1] to communicate. Indeed, this conception implies the narration of unpleasant, uncomfortable truths, which require sacrifices and renunciation on a personal level that can also be perceived as restrictions of personal freedom (Weder et al., 2021, p. 3–4).

Second, a targeted misinformation campaign related to (anthropogenic) climate change is taking place to undermine scientific evidence, discredit scientists and spread doubts (McCright and Dunlap, 2017). Such a strategy was most recently evident in early November 2021. While heads of state and government met at the COP26 summit to consult on how to fight climate change, misleading claims and untruths about the climate – such as a “Grand Solar Minimum” will stop global warming or that renewable energy is unreliable – were spread on social media (BBC, 2021). This strategy of manufacturing uncertainty and spreading doubts complicates the aims and goals of sustainability communication and its communicators considerably since it undermines the public trust in evidence-based research findings (Weiss, 2017; van der Linden et al., 2017) and – in turn – slows down evidence-based policy (Farrell et al., 2019). This was confirmed, not least, in the Eurobarometer survey 2021: half of the respondents stated that they “can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth on controversial topics” (Eurobarometer, 2021, p. 9), such as climate change.

As a fundamental social science, communication science is a research area that should address these two problematics features. Hence, this paper aims to understand where we as a scientific discipline are in addressing these problems, i.e. (1) what is the status quo in research around communicating sustainability, (2) what are unresolved problems and challenges, and (3) how to counteract misinformation through (targeted) communication.

Consequently, we (1) identify and analyze existing approaches that deal with the question of how to communicate sustainability and its rainy side (more) effectively, (2) identify different stakeholder groups, (3) discuss limitations of related existing communication approaches and (4) present what the analyzed literature suggests as appropriate communication strategies to overcome sustainability communication's unresolved issues.

Generally speaking, sustainability communication refers to an understanding of the relationship between human beings and their environment. Its development as a research discipline was accompanied by an increasing requirement for responsible handling of humans' natural and social environment (Godemann and Michelsen, 2011, p. 3). Sustainability communication is understood as a process in which arguments, options for action and/or (contrasting) positions on social development are discussed forward-looking from an economic, ecological, social and cultural view. However, these perspectives are perceived and interpreted differently by individuals (Michelsen, 2009, p. 25). Thus, it is a social understanding process that deals with causes and (possible) solutions, refers to social discourses and seems essential for legitimizing arguments related to change toward sustainable development (Newig et al., 2013). Therefore, sustainability communication aims to critically evaluate this understanding of the human-environment relationship and introduce it into the social debate (Godemann and Michelsen, 2011, p. 6). Sustainability communication thus conceived takes place at all social levels: on the micro-level, as intra- and interpersonal communication, on the organizational, meso-level and at the whole-of-society macro-level.

However, what is “inconvenient” when communicating a concept aiming at meeting “[…] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 15)?

The “inconvenient” side of sustainability refers to the impossibility of maintaining our current capitalist and consumption-driven lifestyle while ensuring enough resources for future generations. The “inconvenient”, “rainy” side of sustainability is therefore not a communicative construct but a real inconvenience, since achieving sustainability requires significant changes, including a shift away from Western notions of wealth, increased costs, job- and profit losses (especially for unsustainable industries) and the imperative for personal behavioral change, which in turn implies giving up privileges and comfortable habits. Indeed, high-socioeconomic status individuals and households have particularly problematic consumption patterns, contributing significantly more greenhouse gas emissions compared to lower-income individuals (Nielsen et al., 2021). Studies have shown that the top 1% earners generate twice as much consumption-related CO2 emissions as the entire bottom 50% combined (Oswald et al., 2020; Kartha et al., 2020).

Implementing sustainability practices in businesses can have negative consequences on an industry level, as conflicts arise when environmental and social sustainability goals clash with economic objectives (Tura et al., 2019). Investing in eco-friendly technologies, for example, to reduce environmental impact is often costly and carries risks due to uncertain returns on investment (Hall, 2002). Sustainable production involves higher costs, mainly due to eco-certification expenses (Hamilton and Zilberman, 2006), making these products more expensive than conventional alternatives. However, consumer willingness to pay higher prices is not always given, resulting in low market share for sustainable products (Luchs et al., 2010). Thus, profit maximization becomes difficult. Adhering to sustainability standards may also require severing ties with long-term partners and suppliers who fail to meet new requirements, leading to revenue and job losses (Jackson and Young, 2016). In the context of Western capitalism, embracing sustainability measures can lead to cost increases that undermine industrial competitiveness (Wilkinson et al., 2001).

Embracing a sustainable lifestyle on a personal level would require changing our mobility, food, purchase and consumption habits. For example, always traveling by train instead of flying and therefore forgoing long-distance, overseas travels, since GHG for airplanes are four to seven times higher than the emissions for short- and long-distance travel by train (Umweltbundesamt, 2021). Concerning our dietary habits, the transition to a plant-based diet is considered a fundamental contribution toward sustainable development and climate change mitigation (Austgulen et al., 2018), as the general food production system is associated with severe environmental impacts, with livestock products production being the most problematic one (Stoll-Kleemann and O'Riordan, 2015). Meat production is considered to be among the most energy-intensive and environmentally harmful foods (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013).

These are just a few of countless examples that could have been mentioned to show why sustainability communication, in the sense of communication of, about and for sustainability ^[2] (Newig et al., 2013), involves conveying inconvenient truths about the challenges and sacrifices associated with sustainability. It goes beyond portraying only the positive aspects and encompasses the communication of renunciation, loss of privilege and changes in welfare. Such narratives are often disliked by recipients at various levels (individual, organizational, societal) and can be challenging to communicate effectively. However, these truths are not fictional stories or subjective interpretations but are rooted in scientifically validated data and findings.

The reality of anthropogenic climate change is supported by a unanimous consensus among scientists (Powell, 2019). The latest IPCC report 2023 further confirms that global warming is primarily caused by human activities and has fatal consequences (IPCC, 2023). As humans are responsible for climate change, it is our responsibility to take action to mitigate its effects. The report consistently calls for a complete transformation of our first-world lifestyle, including changes in consumption patterns, the industrial sector and the economic system. The ultimate goal is to achieve near-zero greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2050.

Despite the consensus among (climate) scientists about the reality and causes of climate change, this consensus is not widely known among the public. Studies have shown that the perceived level of scientific agreement on human-caused climate change act as a critical “gateway belief” (Ding et al., 2011; McCright et al., 2013). Consequently, misconceptions about the scientific consensus can have significant consequences, leading to a lack of support for climate action (Aklin and Urpelainen, 2014; van der Linden et al., 2014). This discrepancy between the scientific consensus and public perception can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, while there is agreement on the existence of climate change and the role of humanity in it, there is still debate about the appropriate actions to address these issues – and people tend to confuse these two issues (Parton and Morrison, 2011). Secondly, the media's tendency to provide a “false balance” by presenting opposing views with equal weight, even when one side lacks scientific evidence, contributes to confusion among the audience (Cook et al., 2017). This false balance undermines public certainty about scientific issues (Kortenkamp and Basten, 2015). Thirdly, some industries with a vested interest in the sustainability debate exploit this discrepancy and misunderstanding by spreading doubts through their PR strategies, leading to further confusion and misinformation (Farrell et al., 2019; McCright and Dunlap, 2017)

The strategy of manufacturing uncertainty and doubt has been historically employed by the Western industrial system, e.g. the tobacco industry, to undermine scientific evidence (Oreskes and Conway, 2010) and is now used to create controversy around human-caused climate change (McCright and Dunlap, 2017). Fossil fuel advocacy groups often engage unqualified scientists to spread misleading messages, deliberately creating the impression that there is insufficient scientific evidence about climate change (Davidson, 2008; Jacques et al., 2008; Moser, 2010). These tactics serve the interests of corporate and industry stakeholder who fear that climate change solutions may threaten their own interests (Farrell et al., 2019; Diethelm and McKee, 2009). Rather than outright denying the phenomenon, these groups question the degree of certainty regarding the causes, consequences and severity of climate change, as well as the relationship between our first-world lifestyle and its impact. This communication strategy aims to cast doubt where there is none, framing the need for necessary measures as a matter of data interpretation (McCright and Dunlap, 2017.). By highlighting uncertainties, they argue against the necessity of changing the current industrial system, limiting GHG emissions, or restricting carbon-intensive practices, as the effect of such actions on climate change is portrayed as uncertain.

A well-informed public is essential for a functioning democracy, as decisions made on a societal level rely on accurate information (Kuklinski et al., 2000). However, consistent misinformation can lead to suboptimal decision-making and hinder collective understanding and engagement (Lewandowsky et al., 2017). To effectively address societal issues like climate change, it is crucial to tackle the problem of misinformation (West and Bergstrom, 2021). This involves correcting scientifically inaccurate content, exposing the production and dissemination of misinformation and confronting the institutional and political structures that enable its spread. Taking these actions is necessary to counter misinformation and ensure that accurate information prevails in public discourse (Farrell et al., 2019).

As mentioned above, the field of communication sciences (should) play(s) a vital role in addressing the challenges of effectively communicating sustainability and its complex aspects. To understand the progress made in tackling these issues, we undertake the following tasks: (1) we identify and analyze existing approaches that deal with the question of how to communicate sustainability and its rainy side (more) effectively, (2) identify different stakeholder groups, (3) discuss limitations of related existing communication approach and (4) present communication strategies suggested by the analyzed literature to address the unresolved issues in sustainability communication. By conducting these tasks, we aim to (1) determine the current state of research in communicating sustainability, (2) identify unresolved problems and obstacles and (3) propose ways to counteract misinformation through targeted communication.

To address our research objectives, we conducted a critical literature review. A critical literature review is a comprehensive and methodical analysis of published research and scientific articles related to a specific topic. It serves an important purpose in the scientific community by providing a thorough overview of the current knowledge on a particular issue (Hart, 2001). By synthesizing existing knowledge, these reviews help identify and examine problems, weaknesses, contradictions, or controversies within a specific research area (Baumeister and Leary, 1997). Additionally, they contribute to creating awareness of the current state of the field and shedding light on any gaps or biases that may exist (Jesson and Lacey, 2006). Accordingly, a critical literature review is an appropriate method to achieve our research goals.

For this, we searched for keyword combinations in two different databases – Google Scholar and EBSCOhost. In line with the research’ aims, the following keyword-combinations were selected for the database search: “inconvenient truth AND communicat*”; “bad or negative news AND communicat*; “communicat* sustainability”; “communicat* climate change”; as well as “climate change AND scientific mistrust or denial”; and “climate change AND misinformation or disinformation or fake news”.

The timeframe for the search was limited to the period 2013 to June 2021. 2013 was selected as a starting point since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first reported in 2013 on the certainty that climate change is a reality caused by humans (IPCC, 2013). While for EBSCOhost all hits were included in the sample, the search was limited to the first 15 hit pages for Google Scholar. This corresponded to the point where we reached sample saturation. Furthermore, only journal articles available as full text and/or open access were included in the sample. Table 1 shows the keyword search results based on the criteria just described.

As shown in Table 1, n = 826 journal articles were found that matched the search criteria. In a second step, duplications were excluded. After that, the abstracts of the remaining journal articles were read, thus removing from the sample those papers that, despite keywords, did not provide information on how existing approaches deal with the communication of inconvenient truth nor how scientific misinformation can be counteracted through communication. After data cleaning, the sample included n = 473 journal articles. These were read in-depth and analyzed by means of content analysis following an inductive approach (Mayring, 2014). This kind of content analysis enables a methodical, regulative and theory-driven examination of the content, allowing for the direct creation of categories from the study material while maintaining the data's original meaning. The results of the content analysis are presented in the next section.

The qualitative content analysis revealed that when it comes to the question of how to communicate sustainability and its rainy side (more) effectively and address its unresolved issues, literature mainly refers to four stakeholder groups: (1) science deniers; (2) adaptation skeptics; (3) whitewashers; and (4) world saviors (Table 2) ^[3].

Using qualitative content analysis, we identified the distinctive characteristics of each stakeholder type and examined the drawbacks of current communication approaches employed by or targeted toward them. Additionally, we could identify proposed communication strategies to address these limitations and effectively engage stakeholders in sustainability communication. In the subsequent subsections, we will provide a more comprehensive discussion and presentation of these findings.

The first stakeholder type revealed by the content analysis is science deniers. Through the inductive approach, we identified their distinct characteristics, prevalent debunking strategies, limitations and gather suggestions from the sustainability communication literature on how to effectively address or counteract their arguments through communication (see Table 3).

Science deniers pose a significant challenge to the scientific community as they undermine scientific milestones, propagate misinformation that contradicts established scientific knowledge and selectively accept evidence only if it aligns with their preconceived beliefs, often at odds with the scientific consensus (Schmid and Betsch, 2019). Consequently, science deniers exhibit a motivation to reject scientific findings, driven by their desired outcomes rather than evidence-based reasoning (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017; Lewandowsky and Oberauer, 2021). In response, scientists have undertaken extensive research to comprehend their cognitive and communication processes, aiming to counteract the targeted dissemination of misinformation by debunking and disproving their misconceptions and wrong facts (Lewandowsky and Oberauer, 2016; Cook et al., 2017; van der Linden et al., 2017; Schmid and Betsch, 2019).

In this regard, research has primarily focused on the concept of “public inoculation”, which aims to protect individuals from scientific misinformation before they encounter it (Farrell et al., 2019). This (communicative) strategy draws parallels with the preventive approach in public health, where vaccinations are used to prevent infections. Accordingly, to “prevent” science deniers is necessary to provide the public with an “attitudinal inoculation” by exposing them to debunked arguments about climate change before they encounter false information (van der Linden et al., 2017; Cook et al., 2017). Understanding the communication techniques employed by science deniers, which create the illusion of strong arguments where none exist, can be beneficial in this process (Schmid and Betsch, 2019). This involves educating the public about why denial arguments may appear convincing but are ultimately false (Schmid et al., 2018). Additionally, it is crucial to uncover the sources of scientific denialism by explicitly identifying the individuals and organizations behind these messages and highlighting their financial interests and motivations. However, as in medicine, inoculation is only effective if the individual has not yet been infected (Farrell et al., 2019).

An alternative approach is to correct misinformation once people believe it (van der Linden et al., 2017; Ecker et al., 2017; Cook et al., 2017). However, rectifying targeted misinformation and fake news is extremely difficult and never fully effective. Moreover, when rectification challenges people's worldview, people still rely on information they know is wrong. Accordingly, it is crucial to communicate the correction without directly challenging recipients' existing beliefs and to provide alternative explanations for the issue (Lewandowsky et al., 2017). However, simply conveying scientific data and facts in a way that is understandable to the general public is insufficient to effectively refute and counteract the arguments of science deniers (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Indeed, a one-way communication from the scientific community to the audience – i.e. communication of sustainability – is inadequate to achieve the desired effects (e.g. Badullovich et al., 2020; Pearce et al., 2015). Thus, repeatedly communicating the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change to the public is not a comprehensive solution.

Storytelling is suggested as a helpful strategy here to enhance understanding and persuasion in communication scientific information since narratives are inherently persuasive (Dahlstrom, 2014). Previous studies have shown the successful use of storytelling to influence resistant audiences on various scientific subjects, including vaccinations, HIV/AIDS and environmental issues (Brodie et al., 2003; Vaughan et al., 2000; Dahlstrom, 2010). However, storytelling as a way of communication on an emotional rather than rational level involves the risk of maintaining science-related misinformation and inexactness since accepted familiar narratives are difficult to rebut even with scientifically proven data (Barriga et al., 2010). Accordingly, the use of storytelling in this context requires careful and skillful implementation to avoid undermining the accuracy and credibility of the conveyed information (Katz, 2013), which could inadvertently strengthen the arguments of science deniers.

A third approach is to counteract denial arguments in public discussions (Schmid and Betsch, 2019; Schmid et al., 2018). However, the use of storytelling in this context should be approached cautiously, as empirical guidance on effectively communicating and responding to science deniers in public discussions is limited (Schmid and Betsch, 2019). Persuasion psychology suggests here that persuasion attempts depend on three variables: the characteristics of the sender (i.e. the communicator's credibility and likability) (Pornpitakpan, 2004); (2) of the receiver (i.e. the personal need for knowledge) (Cacioppo et al., 1983; Friestad and Wright, 1994); and the message's structure and content (i.e. the type of communicated evidence or the message bias) (Hornikx, 2005). While using frames, metaphors, storytelling and focusing on local issues rather than global problems are important, effective communication with science deniers must also occur stakeholder specific (Badullovich et al., 2020; van der Linden et al., 2014). Recognizing and addressing so-called stakeholder-specific causal variables, such as attitudes, personality, habits, context, emotions and cognition, is crucial as they can support or inhibit behavioral change (Moser, 2014; Pearce et al., 2015). Therefore, effective communication with science deniers requires an understanding of and differentiation among these stakeholder-specific variables and their integration into the communication process.

The second type identified through content analysis is adaptation skeptics. Skepticism should not be confused with science denial (Dunlap, 2013) since, basically, skepticism about scientific claims is a fundamental element of science itself (Ziman, 1996). However, this skepticism must be based on scientific ethos, i.e. using and questioning scientific data to update previous beliefs – regardless of the outcome (Schmid and Betsch, 2019). However, colloquially skeptics are rarely understood as remarkably self-aware and critical thinking people. Instead, the word is used synonymously for doubters, i.e. a person prone to doubts but without denying science. In this context, adaptation skeptics are individuals who do not deny science or anthropogenic climate change but harbor doubts, particularly regarding adaptation measures. These doubts often arise due to the influence of lobbying activities by influential public relations (PR) companies and the subsequent politicization of the sustainability debate (Farrell et al., 2019; McCright and Dunlap, 2017).

Besides their characteristics, the content analysis reveals the challenges and limitations of current approaches in addressing adaptation skeptics communicatively, in countering scientific disinformation, as well as some suggestion on how to advance sustainability communication in relation to this specific stakeholder group (see Table 4). Accordingly, any attempt to communicate with and counteract scientific disinformation directed to adaptation skeptics is complicated because organized propagators of doubt link scientific misinformation and their ideological partisan arguments to real economic and political problems–such as energy independence, nationalism, or deregulation, thus addressing adaptation skeptics' concerns directly. Their key strategy is finding the right way of performing targeted and effective communication so that a (supposedly abstract) risk – in this case, economic losses or personal restrictions – can be transferred into people's personal “worry budget” (Huh et al., 2016).

This is exactly the starting point to communicate with adaptation skeptics – i.e. establishing a personal connection to environmental issues. It is important to emphasize the personal concerns regarding the environmental impact of climate change and prioritize them over concerns related to industries or the financial system. Creating this personal link can facilitate behavioral change and replace other priorities in their personal “worry budget” (Mabon, 2020). However, establishing such a connection can be challenging, as individuals may rely on the judgment of their social groups (Festinger, 1954), particularly when they are politically aligned. Furthermore, communication with adaptation skeptics is complicated by the difficulty of conveying phenomena that individuals cannot directly experience (Dahlstrom and Ritland, 2012) In science, however, phenomena and processes are studied which are far away from the human cognitive scale – as in the case of (anthropogenic) climate change. This leads skeptics to adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude, questioning whether the predicted damages and the need for mitigation and adaptation measures are genuine (Sterman, 2011).

We can draw from communication science literature some suggestions on how to communicate with adaptation skeptics under such circumstances. Top-down communication forms fall short here, especially when public trust in science communications and communicators is waning. Instead, communication strategies should prioritize openness, transparency and a dialogue-oriented approach (Lofstedt, 2013). Openness should involve acknowledging the complexity of climate change's causes and the uncertainty surrounding its (long-term) impact. By disclosing this complexity, skeptics can be convinced of the transparency, truthfulness and sincerity of scientific communicators and their arguments (Pearce et al., 2015). Transparency is also crucial in terms of clearly stating the funding sources for the research being presented (Farrell et al., 2019). These strategies aim to build trust and credibility in the communication process.

Effective communication with adaptation skeptics involves key features such as engaging them in the process and considering their perspectives. Instead of imposing measures from the top-down, involving them in a (perceived) bottom-up communicative process creates a sense of empowerment and increases their willingness to support and sustain the proposed measures (Mitchell et al., 2016). Furthermore, the concept of adaptation should be exemplified by concrete (achievable) measures to make it more tangible to the audience. By doing so, the term “adaptation” can be (re-)framed to align with familiar decision-making processes, responsible planning and existing management approaches, thereby addressing potential uncertainty among recipients. Referring to past experiences or similar situations where successful adaptation strategies were implemented creates a sense of familiarity and continuity. Additionally, framing the communication using language that resonates with the recipients' values, such as precaution, responsibility, fairness and transparency, enhances the effectiveness of the message (Moser, 2014).

The qualitative content analysis identified a third stakeholder type referred to as “whitewashers” concerning communicating sustainability and its rainy side (more) effectively and addressing its unresolved issues. Unlike the previous stakeholder types, the whitewasher group is not the target audience of sustainability communication but individuals who actively engage in sustainability communication themselves, i.e. communicators of, about and for sustainability. Due to their role, they face and pose different issues and challenges in relation to the research questions than the other stakeholder groups discussed in this paper.

Whitewashers are individuals who fully accept and support the scientific findings related to sustainability but emphasize and communicate only its positive side, while downplaying and omitting less desirable aspects. While it is understandable that promoting the positive aspects can be more appealing and effective in encouraging change, there are potential drawbacks to this approach. By exclusively focusing on the positive side of sustainability, whitewashers may inadvertently disregard the concerns and doubts of adaptation skeptics. This can create a sense of dismissal or neglect, leading to the reinforcement of their skepticism and mistrust towards science and its communicators.

Our content analysis revealed, on the one side, the limitations and mistakes of current communication strategies of the so-called “whitewashers” while identifying, on the other hand, some suggestions about how sustainability communication could better succeed in inducing behavioral change without denying or omitting the “rainy” side of the sustainable turn (see Table 5).

The tendency to communicate sustainability as positive story can be attributed to the framing of sustainability issues – such as global warming or anthropogenic climate change – as crisis and thus communicated through crisis communication strategies. Indeed, in crisis communication, there is a focus on highlighting positive aspects (Heath and O'Hair, 2009; Coombs and Holladay, 2010) and the return to normalcy after overcoming the crisis. This approach helps to communicate and justify unpleasant measures that may involve personal limitations and sacrifices. It also facilitates the support for corrective actions as they are seen as a means to restore normalcy quickly (Vermeer et al., 2020; Paicu and Franco, 2016; Coombs, 2014). This strategy aligns with the approach taken by whitewashers who ignore the “rainy side” by putting the positive post-crisis time in the foreground, while downplaying the negative aspects or challenges.

Therefore, when it comes to whitewashers, there is a pressing need for clear and transparent communication that includes the “rainy side”, the inconvenient aspects of sustainability. However, finding an effective communication strategy to address these issues is challenging within the field of sustainability communication itself. Even in other communication disciplines that deal with the communication of negative news, such as health ^[4] or business communication ^[5], it is difficult to find applicable approaches, techniques and models for sustainability communication. This is because negative news is typically communicated in face-to-face, interpersonal settings, whereas sustainability communication needs to occur on a macro level. Based on this understanding, effective sustainability communication necessitates integrating both the interpersonal approach used in face-to-face interactions and the macro-level communication required for broader dissemination. However, such an integrated approach has not yet been developed in the field of sustainability communication.

The literature analysis suggests that when the goal of communication is to induce behavioral change, insights from marketing communication can be applied to enhance the effectiveness of sustainability communication. Accordingly, to achieve the desired outcome, persuasive messages should be clear, explicit and unambiguous, conveying a specific meaning to avoid confusion (Villarino and Font, 2015). Moreover, the content of these messages should not solely rely on logical arguments but also incorporate emotional appeals and social norms to establish a personal connection with the recipients (Wehrli et al., 2014). By appealing to emotions, such messages can elicit a sense of relief from moral guilt and motivate behavioral change. Contextualizing the message within the recipient's personal experiences enhances the perceived control over their behavior, leading to a greater likelihood of taking action and generating favorable responses (Villarino and Font, 2015; Stanford, 2014).

However, the application of persuasive communication methods and techniques poses challenges due to the risk of recipients feeling patronized or manipulated, resulting in a defensive response that hinders behavioral change (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Brøn and Vionim, 2001). Although these techniques can be used to promote specific behaviors, the connection between communicating “inconvenient truths” and inducing behavioral change remains overlooked. This is because the effectiveness of communication depends on individual variables and perception patterns, making it difficult to apply these techniques on a societal level – as sustainability communication would require.

The last type identified in the content analysis is referred to as “world saviors”. Similar to whitewashers, this group consists of communicators rather than the intended recipients of sustainability communication. World saviors strongly believe in science and the necessity of restrictive and sometimes unpleasant measures. They are characterized by an extreme, normative, idealistic and critical attitude, wherein “critical” refers to their ability to pass “judgment on social realities” they deem “undesirable, unjust, or inverted” (Larrain, 1996, p. 62). World saviors are unwilling to engage in respectful debates that acknowledge and respect differing perspectives. They assert their opinions and demands without considering the consequences, often justifying their idealistic and sometimes angry attitude based on the perceived relevance and urgency of their cause.

Again, besides their specific characteristics, the content analysis identified limitations of their common communication strategies, as well as some suggestions for improvement about how world saviors can communicate their significant concerns without causing or reinforcing denial, refusal, or skepticism (see Table 6).

“World saviors” often employ anger as a persuasive tactic in their communication strategies. This is based on Lazarus' (1991) theory that anger, among other emotions, is associated with motivational action tendencies. Accordingly, angry individuals are more likely to take action to remove obstacles or regain control of a problem, making messages that evoke anger potentially effective in driving attitudinal and behavioral changes in recipients (Turner, 2007). However, the success of anger appeals is not guaranteed. It works best when the target audience is already inclined to the advocated attitude and strongly believes in its efficacy. Additionally, anger can arise when messages touch on issues that affect personal goals (ibid.). In the case of adaptation skeptics, the communication style of world saviors, which involves making demands and promoting radical measures without considering the consequences, can elicit anger due to a sense of being overpowered and not having their concerns taken seriously. This can trigger a protective response in adaptation skeptics, leading to resistance and inhibiting behavioral change (Brennan and Binney, 2010).

The use of strong emotional appeals to drive behavioral change is not a new concept in communication and social sciences, particularly in the field of social marketing. Social marketing often aims to promote behaviors that are socially important but may not align with individual motivations, such as tax compliance (Perez-Truglia and Troiano, 2018), energy conservation (Yoeli et al., 2013), or sanitation issues (Bateman and Engel, 2018). Therefore, it is understandable that world saviors utilize emotional appeals in their communication strategies to convey their perspective and attempt to convince science deniers and adaptation skeptics. This approach could also be valuable in communicating the challenges and drawbacks associated with sustainability, commonly referred to as the “rainy side” of sustainability.

Indeed, social marketing acknowledges the need for innovative communication strategies when promoting compliance among reluctant recipients (Brennan and Binney, 2010). In order to encourage desired behaviors, message appeals are used to connect socially desirable actions with personal value. Negative appeals such as fear, guilt and shame are often employed to achieve the intended effect or behavior. However, the excessive use of these negative appeals has been criticized for eliciting self-protective behavior and inaction rather than active engagement (ibid.). Guilt appeals, in particular, can be problematic when they lead to feelings of shame, as shame tends to result in negative responses and inactivity (Cotte et al., 2005). To address this, guilt appeals should aim to evoke empathy, which can lead to a more positive response from recipients, ultimately driving behavioral change (Stürmer et al., 2005; Taute and McQuitty, 2004).

The use of negative appeals, if communicated effectively to trigger appropriate emotions, can be a valuable approach in sustainability communication, particularly when aiming to promote compliance with uncomfortable measures. However, how these messages and measures are communicated is crucial for achieving their desired outcomes. If the message comes across as excessively moralizing, recipients may feel judged, leading to self-protective behavior and a decreased willingness to take action (Brennan and Binney, 2010).

Addressing the challenge of finding the proper emotional appeal, stimulating the desired emotion and avoiding moralization is an ongoing unresolved issue in sustainability communication. New models and strategies need to be developed to effectively tackle this challenge and meet the complexities of communicating the inconvenient truth of sustainability.

As a crucial discipline in society, communication is responsible for addressing contemporary issues and contributing to responsible societal development. Through our critical literature review and content analysis, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of existing approaches concerning three key aspects: (1) effectively communicating the inconvenient truth of sustainability in an era of scientific mistrust, (2) identifying and addressing unresolved problems and challenges and (3) suggest further communication strategies to optimize sustainability communication while counteracting misinformation through (targeted) communication. Our findings reveal numerous suggestions and current approaches that can enhance sustainability communication, including fostering dialogue and stakeholder engagement, employing framing and storytelling techniques, using different emotional appeals to connect with audiences and promoting transparency and openness when discussing uncertainty and complex, challenging topics. These findings provide valuable insights for enhancing sustainability communication efforts.

Nonetheless, the literature review also highlights unresolved issues in existing sustainability communication concepts and methods. It emphasizes that a “one size fits all” approach is inadequate for this field. Standardization, which may be successful in other areas such as PR and marketing, does not yield the same results in sustainability communication. The review indicates that recipients' responses vary greatly depending on different variables such as background, attitudes, knowledge, education, beliefs and personal traits. What may motivate and engage one person could lead to self-protection and rejection in others. Therefore, stakeholder orientation and a differentiated communication strategy should be considered a condition sine qua non for (effective) sustainability communication. This in turn would imply the necessity to integrate, complement and adapt an interpersonal communication approach on a macro level. Currently, there is a lack of established knowledge and research on this specific approach. Therefore, further investigation and research are required to explore and understand the implications and potential of integrating interpersonal communication strategies into sustainability communication on a macro level.

In addition – as described above – the turn toward sustainable development means and implies de facto also negative (personal) impacts, such as renunciations, restrictions and cost increases. Thus, communicating restricting and unpleasant measures as temporary and short-term necessities with the promise of a positive output – often the return to “normalcy” – does not correspond to the (whole) truth. To enhance transparency and trust, it is crucial to incorporate honesty as a fundamental element in sustainability communication. By openly addressing both the positive and negative aspects of sustainability, communicators can establish credibility and foster trust among recipients.

In conclusion, the presented analysis offers the opportunity to formulate some implications for (1) theory and research, (2) teaching and education and (3) practice. The findings indicate that current communication approaches are insufficient for effectively communicating the inconvenient truth of sustainability in an era of scientific mistrust. This highlights the need for a transformative shift in communication science to address the challenges and unresolved issues in sustainability communication. New transdisciplinary research is required to analyze these problems, develop innovative solutions and explore alternative approaches. The analysis presented in this study serves as a valuable starting point for future research and theory development in sustainability communication, guiding scholars towards exploring new avenues and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Second, there is a need for a reevaluation of education in the field of sustainability communication, particularly in terms of preparing future sustainability (communication) scientists. This involves integrating sustainability concepts into media and communication studies curricula, as well as incorporating communication aspects and theories into sustainability science curricula (Karmasin and Voci, 2021; Voci and Karmasin, 2021). By promoting this mutual integration, the level of professionalism in sustainability communication can be significantly enhanced. Such an approach would greatly contribute to the development of new and effective modes, theories and techniques for sustainability communication. Recognizing that how information from sustainability science is communicated is as important as the content itself, this educational transformation would support the research and practice of impactful sustainability communication. In summary, the integration of sustainability concepts and communication principles in the education of various professionals, including politicians, journalists, educators, scientists and communication professionals, would have significant practical implications. It would equip them with innovative and effective approaches to engage in communication for sustainability. By addressing the inconvenient truth and fostering societal transformation towards sustainable development, this educational shift would contribute to the further development of the sustainability field and enhance sustainability literacy.