This snapshot taken on 25/10/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Main menu

• Contact us
• Access to information
• News
• Site A-Z
• Search

Section navigation

Sustainable Development Index

Site navigation:

Sustainable Development Education Panel

Towards a Language of Sustainable Development

Introduction: Project Definition

The remit of the Sustainable Development Education Panel¹ is "to work together to identify gaps, opportunities, priorities and partnerships for action in providing Sustainable Development education in England, and highlight good practice".

Quadrangle was commissioned in December 1998 by the Panel (which reports to John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister and David Blunkett, Secretary of State for Education and Employment) to:

"Research and identify a coherent language for the education of Sustainable Development which is relevant to a wide range of bodies and individuals"2

The SDEP is committed to using appropriate language to make Sustainable Development "relevant to the experience of people from all backgrounds and to engage them in making all aspects of their own lives and of their own community more sustainable"

The Panel's Annual Report of 1998³ recommends that the development of strategies for Sustainable Development education should:

• "not duplicate, but reinforce"
• "add value to what is going on"
• "[demonstrate that they] are the products of structured and thorough thinking"
• "have clear aims, objectives and outcomes"
• "offer mechanisms for evaluating and measuring their success"
• "increase co-operation and develop synergies between all sectors"

Moreover, successful education strategies are seen by the Panel to be contingent on "the creative use of language", including the means by which language is delivered. The 'acid test' of effective language lies in its power to increase people's capacity to understand and act in ways that are consistent with the principles of Sustainable Development.

Quadrangle's response to the Panel's brief took full account of these challenges, both in the design of the research approach, the interpretation and application of the outcomes from research, and the recommendations of creative ideas for how a better language might be delivered.

This document provides a full record of our work during the past nine months, whilst the Executive Summary focuses on the outputs from research and consultation, and our recommendations to the Panel.

Finally, our thanks are due to all those who supported and contributed to the project - especially the members of the Panel and Helen Morris of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Quadrangle Consulting Ltd.

October 1999

2. Project Approach

2.1 Why is Language so Important?

Culture - any culture - relies on shared meanings which, in turn, rely on a language common to those in that culture. Much has been written on the extent to which language determines thought and action; it was not our intention to enter the philosophical debate through this project, but there are a number of issues and questions that we believed to be germane to our approach to the project:

(i) A language should not simply be seen as a set of words. It should be seen as a construct of meanings; a way of conveying the significance of Sustainable Development for people in their everyday lives. It could therefore include signs and symbols; the definitions people use and their influence on the ways they lead their lives;

(ii) Can there, in fact, be a single, universal language? If, as many people believe, our society is fragmented into a multiplicity of sub-cultures, are several languages required to convey meaning? Or should our task be to seek a 'cross-cultural' language?

(iii) The language of Sustainable Development is one of environmental, economic and social politics. It is born out of the desire to embrace a number of historically-opposed political positions into a different and future-oriented concept. It is not so long ago, for example, that the notion of environmental protection and economic growth were considered to be mutually exclusive by some; and only recently that a broad consensus has been created around the reconciliation of the two into Sustainable Development.

(iv) The lack of a relevant language could be symbolised by the very term used as the overall descriptor - Sustainable Development. This seems to us, however, the tip of the iceberg. This project is about much more than word-smithing, or simply finding a better phrase than 'Sustainable Development'. It is about finding a language that inhabits people's everyday lives and is about the things that drive behaviour and attitudes; in fact, the language itself needs to stimulate learning.

The term 'Sustainable Development' - whilst being a useful shorthand for 'the experts' - does not currently engage enough people and motivate them to act in a way that makes their communities more sustainable. The objectives of Sustainable Development are, however, aspirations that most would claim to share (if they were set out for them to 'sign up' to). Our hypothesis on starting the project was that few would be able to name them if asked; our subsequent research has proven this hypothesis correct.

The challenge is to develop a language with personal relevance across society; which would then provide a powerful catalyst for the many organisations, bodies and Government Departments involved in effecting change amongst their specific target audiences.

Ultimately, the objective is one of stimulating culture change, so that those who exhibit behaviours which support Sustainable Development are seen as 'normal' in the same way that it is now accepted (expected, even) that most drivers drink soft drinks rather than alcohol.

It is a difficult challenge, and this culture shift will not happen overnight; indeed, the creation of a new and relevant language for Sustainable Development will not alone automatically lead to the desired culture change. The application of that language, the tools and mechanisms by which it is applied, and the messages conveyed, will affect the speed and extent of the desired shift.

It is however, an important and necessary step forward.

2.2 An Outline of the Methodology For Language Development

Addressing these issues required the project approach to build on work already carried out; question assumptions which seemed inappropriate; go out into the market to conduct research; use that research to listen to the way people interact and discuss, and to identify the ways they create their own understanding about Sustainable Development; and then to use that learning to stimulate the development of a language with which to facilitate the achievement of the Panel's remit.

The methodology designed by Quadrangle incorporated consultation, research and creative development. The project was conducted in three stages, as shown below:

Stage I: Definition of the Language Problem Consultation with members of the SDEP on the scope and outcomes of the project Review of existing literature relevant to language development Debrief to SDEP Identifying the scope and approach to language development	December 98 to February 99
Stage II: Development of Language Framework Primary research with the general public Consultation with informed influencers; businesses, educationalists, public remit organisations and charities/NGOs	March 99 to June 99
Stage III: Recommendations for Catalysing the Evolution of Language Debrief to SDEP on language (communication) framework Further consultation with Panel members, DfEE/DETR Development of the final report to the Panel	July 99 to September 99

2.3 Glossary of Terms

For the purposes of the project (and this Report), we have adopted the following definitions as standard. Both these sets of definitions were used as stimulus in research with the public.

(I) Definition of Elements/Pillars/Objectives of Sustainable Development

1. Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
   (e.g. better education, learning resources, training, health services, and safer communities, accessible to all and not just by the privileged few)

2. Effective protection of the environment
   (by limiting global environment threats; and by protecting human health and safety, wildlife, landscapes and historic buildings from natural and man-made hazards)

3. Prudent and efficient use of natural resources
   (in order to preserve them and/or limit the serious damage they can cause if used inappropriately/excessively)

4. Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
   (so that everyone can share in higher living standards and greater job opportunities now and in the 21^stCentury)

Definitions of Sustainable Development

HM Government
Sustainable Development is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life for generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting.

Brundtland Commission
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Quote from Sustainable Lifestyles Conference
'Sustainable Development is a process which enables people to realise their potential and improve their quality of life in ways which protect and enhance the earth's life support system.'

Quote from Sustainable Lifestyles Conference
'Sustainable Development is about liveability. It is about creating and maintaining healthy communities and economies which can lead to a healthy environment and enhanced qualities of life. Communities working towards the goal of Sustainable Development commit themselves to examining the links, and trade-offs of the choices they face.'

3.0 Stage I: Definition of The Language Problem

Objectives: To understand the requirements for language development in the context of Sustainable Development education; To develop an informed approach to primary research and consultation. Achieved Through: SDEP Panel Consultation: To help us understand the views of Panel members concerning the requirements and outcomes for the project; Review of Relevant Literature: To identify existing literature and activity relevant to Sustainable Development and language development; Consideration of existing Sustainable Development activities and communication: To develop a better understanding of the terminology and 'vocabularies' used currently to describe Sustainable Development, in order to provide a context within which to consider the task of new language development.

The Panel consultation and review of existing literature and activities was particularly useful in terms of building consensus on the scope and possible outcomes of a language⁴, which we used to inform the design of the next stage of primary research and consultation. The remainder of this chapter summarises the outcomes from Stage I work.

3.1 Panel Consultation

The natural starting point for our work was to consult members of the Panel to seek their individual and collective views on what a new language could be realistically expected to achieve. Appendix A details Panel members (and other key individuals) included in the consultation.

The process we adopted was as follows: all Panel members were provided with an opportunity to respond to a number of questions that were agreed with the Panel Steering Group in advance. Ten Panel members in all were then interviewed individually, as well as a number of other people to whom we were referred by the Panel. These individuals were chosen by virtue of their particular role in communicating different aspects of Sustainable Development.

Our analysis of this exercise identified four core issues:

(i) Scope of Language: What could a 'coherent and relevant' language for Sustainable Development be hoped to achieve (and by when)? Specifically, is language expected to deliver a long term culture shift, or shorter term behavioural changes?

(ii) Language Audiences: Who are the relevant audiences for using and promoting a language for Sustainable Development? Is it possible to prioritise audiences? Is a 'top down' (e.g. from Government) approach likely to be more effective than a 'bottom up' (e.g. 'market'-led) approach?

(iii) Language Focus: Should there be a particular emphasis on any of the four Sustainable Development elements? Should language be built on environmental 'saliency' or is an equal emphasis necessary on all four elements,andthe linkages between them?

(iv) Language Content: What could a language for Sustainable Development potentially look like? Would it be a straightforward set of words and definitions, or perhaps also include values/principles, symbols, sounds, etc.?

Below we summarise the feedback from our initial discussions with Panel members.

(i) The Scope of Language Two different approaches to this issue were considered: An holistic language: i.e., educate people about Sustainable Development as an 'entity' and help them to understand what it means for them. Attempt to facilitate a long term culture shift through promoting positive attitudes, and then, ultimately, behaviours. Make people feel that they are part of a movement involving everyone, and where they understand their, (and others'), role in a sustainable society. A disaggregated language: i.e. use language to promote a set of behaviours in the short term, so that people take actions without necessarily knowing what Sustainable Development means, in the round. Summary of Panel Perspectives Education needs to embrace Sustainable Development as a whole. Required behaviours can only be communicated once people have understood Sustainable Development as relevant and meaningful to them The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but given the current level of awareness of the issues, there is a preliminary need to supply Sustainable Development with a sense of 'identity'. The need to communicate and educate people on the linkages between all four Sustainable Development objectives is paramount. People need to understand their impact in a local, national and global context.

(ii) Language Audiences Key to the success of language development is the route through which it is communicated. We explored three possible, but again not mutually exclusive, approaches to cascading Sustainable Development education throughout England. In particular, we sought the Panel's view on priority audiences for language. Top down approach: The central question here is whether there is a primary/legitimate role for placing the responsibility for education for Sustainable Development with key institutions, businesses (and individuals), that have an especially strong influence on a broad range of people. Bottom-up approach: Should the initial audience for language be the general public? Can language gain sufficient critical mass this way? Dual approach: The brief for this project referred to a wide range of institutions and people as potential audiences, including Influencers and unreached groups. The question arises as to whether language should be made available to all audiences simultaneously. Summary of Panel Perspectives Language for Sustainable Development education should involve a mixed approach. Particular types of language may be more relevant to institutions and businesses, than for the general public at large. If the language is to work it needs to be adaptable. There may be a case for a preliminary emphasis on providing 'Influencers' (i.e., those in a position to influence a range of audiences) with the wherewithal to facilitate wider education amongst their own constituencies. But this would be likely to require a parallel approach of directly engaging the general public. In considering how best to target and promote a 'new' language there will be a future need to develop a communications strategy.

(iii) Language Focus Discussion about Sustainable Development tends to revolve around environmental protection. Whilst the environment has arguably achieved a superior level of saliency during the past decade, this does not necessarily mean that language should lead with green issues or concepts simply because people find these easier to identify with. The real question is, therefore, how an equal emphasis on the four elements can be developed, without confusing or alienating audiences. Summary of Panel Perspectives Panel members expressed concern that the green agenda dominates the current Sustainable Development debate, at the risk of positioning it as an environmental issue, with only a cursory recognition of social and economic issues. Language needs to help build a broader understanding of what is meant by 'environment' i.e. it includes our built, as well as natural, surroundings. Sustainable Development should embrace opportunity and the vision of a better and more desirable future, as well as identify problems that need to be addressed. 'Doom laden' language would be inappropriate. Sustainable Development needs to emerge as greater than the sum of its parts. This means that the connections and links between the four elements need to be understood and assimilated by the audience(s) for language.

(iv) Language Content The Panel was asked to consider a range of alternatives for language content, including: Working vocabularies: This could lead to a different 'name' for Sustainable Development, and reworded definitions of the term and the four elements that make it up. Principles and values: For example, a set of principles could be developed to guide those communicating Sustainable Development to different audiences. Common values could be identified to be embodied by individual approaches to different forms/types of language. A Brand: A possible route to developing consistency and coherence is to create a 'brand' for Sustainable Development, unifying all activity and communication. Summary of Panel Perspectives 'Language' is itself a non-specific term. Imagining what a language could look like is not easy. Language therefore needs to be in whatever form necessary to be most effective. No one alternative is envisaged as more appropriate than any other. Content should be dictated by: - current levels of (mis)understanding - audience concerns/priorities/motivations A range of media/channels for language should be considered. People need first to be 'engaged', and the goal of research should be to illuminate how the process of engagement could work.

3.2 Review of Existing Literature

To help us understand more clearly current thinking on language development we reviewed a number of research studies and articles. (Please see Appendix B for all literature reviewed). This review did not constitute an exhaustive audit of all the research conducted into Sustainable Development, but it did include some of the most recent and relevant work available.

With few exceptions the research review did not provide us with any real 'clues' to language development, or indeed the role that language can play in motivating positive behaviours. The dominant emphasis of the literature considered was toward public awareness and behaviour in relation to the environment. Research into Sustainable Development from an institutional and/or business perspective was largely absent from the review, although we were able to gather some anecdotal evidence and learning.

The research in the main covered:

• Levels of awareness of environmental issues and possible actions.
  For example, we know that awareness of global warming as a 'bad' thing is high. But, there is little understanding of its actual causes and possible implications.
• Attitudes towards the environment.
  We know that most people are aware that we all could do more to protect the environment.
• Understanding personal motivations.
  For example, we know that most individuals feel powerless to make any real impact on protecting the environment, and that they favour low cost, least effort and immediately rewarding activities.
• Some assessment of levels of behaviour.
  For example, we know that parents of young children are more likely to behave in an environmentally friendly fashion than single adults, often precipitated by their own children's actions and encouragement.
• Some anecdotal understanding of corporate involvement in Sustainable Development. For example, it is known that larger companies are more likely to have environmental policies, but that these are rarely given a strategic priority (with a few notable exceptions e.g. The Co-operative Bank, B&Q, Shell UK, etc.). SME perspectives have not received much attention in research studies.

It is particularly worth mentioning Michael Jacobs' lecture to the Forum for the Future here, as it is peculiar in that it deals squarely with the problem of Sustainable Development language (discourse). Jacobs believes that language is of key importance in promoting an alternative conceptual framework for Sustainable Development, that dilutes opposition to social and economic development, and the 'zero growth' ideal. He calls for an endorsement of 'environmental modernisation' as an alternative to Sustainable Development. He also argues that the new language needs to reside in the heart of central policy development and suggests that: ". . .if we can talk to (Government) in a slightly different language, using slightly different conceptual frameworks, we may find a more willing ear." This may be relevant to all audiences, not just Government.

3.3 Considering Different Communications Approaches

Despite a perceived lack of public saliency, Sustainable Development has attracted an enormous amount of attention from many prominent organisations and brands.

As part of our review, we considered 'languages' already used by - amongst others - The Natural Step, The Body Shop, The Co-operative Bank, B&Q and BT. Each expresses the aims of Sustainable Development in a different way, to reflect the organisation or corporate sphere of interest and influence.

It is not likely that these organisations will cease to use (or see as relevant) their existing approaches to communication. There is no reason why they should. For some, the very language they use now is a form of expression of their brand values. Nevertheless, there is a desire for adaptable and creative approaches to language that add value to existing initiatives. It is with this in mind that we approached the design of the next Stage of the project.

4.0 Stage II: Developing a Language Framework

Objective: To create, through research, a framework or model for a language for Sustainable Development that is potentially effective for different kinds of organisations and individuals. Achieved Through: Primary research with the general public: To help us understand the task for education within the context of everyday lives and issues; Consultation with 'Influencers', including businesses, educationalists, charities/NGOs and public remit bodies: To help us identify challenges to communicating Sustainable Development within specific constituencies, and language requirements for 'Influencers'.

This Stage comprised primary research with the general public, and consultation with a range of individuals and organisations involved in developing and communicating Sustainable Development policy and ideas in the public and private sectors. Research respondents were chosen on the grounds that they were aware of, or participated in, issues to do with Sustainable Development, to ensure that there was a basis for 'informed' discussion. As will become clear, these criteria lend poignancy to the findings, in that these are the perspectives of those 'in the know' - although environmental/social activists and workers were excluded from the study to prevent an unbalanced view.

The findings from this stage were analysed in internal Quadrangle team workshops, and in discussion with SDEP members. A full debrief was given to the Panel on completion of the research, and this Report integrates feedback from the Panel on its implications. The principal outcome of this Stage was a language framework which was submitted to the Panel for comment and further development.

4.1 Qualitative Research Amongst the General Public

4.1.1 Research Objectives

The objective of the research with the general public was to gain a first hand understanding of the issues that are foremost in people's minds and lives, and through this to explore the extent to which Sustainable Development is currently (and could in the future be), understandable, meaningful and relevant to individuals, families and communities.

4.1.2 Research Approach

Eight extended discussion groups were conducted amongst a cross-section of the general public (see Appendix C for a breakdown of these groups by age, socio-economic status and region). Between 6 and 8 people attended each group. The research approach in these groups encouraged interactive debate, and involved practical and visual exercises to stimulate respondents to 'discover' Sustainable Development for themselves, and then to represent it from their own viewpoint.

Respondents were selected on the basis that they were engaged in some way with aspects of Sustainable Development (albeit potentially unknowingly), in some or all of the following ways: -

• they were environmentally active;
• they were involved in their local community;
• they were sensitive to the effects of their everyday consumption on local and global livelihoods;
• they were sensitive to the impact of their, and others', behaviour on local and global environments.

(See Appendix D for the recruitment questionnaire used)

The groups were used to understand:

• The issues and concerns that have saliency for people in their everyday lives; and which influences attitudes and behaviour;
• Level of understanding of Sustainable Development, and its component parts;
• The impact of the existing 'vocabularies', and current definitions;
• The way in which people explained Sustainable Development once provided with a clearer idea of what it is/represents;
• Views on appropriate 'messengers' and media to harness public support and commitment;

Stimulus, including definitions of Sustainable Development and its four elements were used in varying sequences across the groups. Respondents were also asked to produce 'collages' - using magazines, newspapers, etc. - representing their interpretation of Sustainable Development. They described these to other respondents, allowing for explanation and discussion.

4.1.3 The Public Perspective

4.1.3.1 From the doorstep to the rainforest

It came as little surprise that the overall priorities for most respondents were to be found on their 'doorstep'; family, friends, home, health, work, enjoyment and personal fulfilment. Indeed, there was a sense that respondents had become somewhat 'world weary'. The 'here and now' is uppermost in people's minds. One professional woman with a relatively sophisticated grasp of Sustainable Development summed up the feeling of many in saying that: 'I'd rather do something for a child who is being abused and that they were happy today. One might say short termism, I don't really care in a way.' On the whole, personal stability and security dominated respondents' agendas, and any threat to these was where energies were clearly being directed.

Beyond - but connected to - these immediate priorities, there was a belief that UK 'society' is being eroded. Respondents of all ages romanticised 'traditional' values and communities, which stood for respect, honesty, trust and consideration for others. These values were largely felt to have been lost. Most respondents were preoccupied by crime and drugs, which were commonly seen as the major ills of today's society. Other concerns, particularly for older respondents, tended to focus on a perceived decline in moral standards, including the breakdown of the family unit, fewer sexual 'boundaries' etc. There was some evidence of nationalism, particularly articulated amongst the older respondents, who voiced concern about ethnic diversity and the sense that British (English) concerns are 'being usurped' by those of other cultures. Growing corporate influence was described as a 'bad' thing, especially amongst younger respondents. Given that this cohort was keener on material well-being and self-improvement than older respondents, there is something of an irony here that most failed, or were unwilling, to grasp.

Respondents (in all groups, except one comprising highly educated professionals) found it extremely difficult to articulate a global perspective or to 'see' their impact on the world at large. To compensate, they resorted to discussion of familiar (environmental) stereotypes, with frequent references to global warming, deforestation and the extinction of rare species. Discussion of such issues was rarely spontaneous, although the subject of war was frequently raised as a pressing 'world issue', but we need to remember that at the time of the research Kosovo was almost constantly in the news. The Third World was typically perceived of as a place of corruption and poverty. But, somewhat incongruously, it was also thought of as a place where traditional; i.e., 'good' values, are maintained through the existence of family and community support structures, and the very lack of consumerism and wealth that clearly motivated so many respondents.

Moreover, few respondents had ever considered, or sought to understand the relationship between the Developed and Third World. Respondents perceived many of the problems in the Third World to be determined by nature and/or the result of bad luck or poor governance. They had very little sense of UK, or Developed World, culpability for Third World problems. Instead they tended to view the UK as a benefactor, and occasionally decried the 'failure' of successive UK governments to address issues on their own 'doorstep'.

In summary, respondents articulated a strong preference for similarity and familiarity above diversity and distinctiveness.

4.1.3.2 Actions and Responsibilities

By and large, the notion that individual action can make a difference to local, national and even global well-being was too far removed from respondents' immediate and daily priorities to be credible. Rarely did respondents show a willingness to compromise on lifestyle or quality of life, even if some small 'sacrifice' on their part would help pave the way for a return to the 'traditional' values they championed so strongly. The use of cars, for instance, was universally understood as a 'bad' thing, but also a necessary evil and a means to an end. There was almost a complete failure by respondents to perceive how individuals could effect social or economic issues, even through exercising choice as consumers. Consequently, the sorts of actions that held appeal were those which could be undertaken in the comfort of their own homes or daily environments, e.g. recycling, charitable donations, etc. Respondents struggled to make the connection between their choices and the consequences of these on other people, particularly outside of the UK. For example, one group simply could not see the link between what they bought at the supermarket and the livelihoods of non-UK workers.

Respondents were adamant that governments and politicians, both of which were largely mistrusted, held the lion's share of responsibility for decision-making and action. The role of business and industry in bringing about change required prompting. Respondents had very little understanding of how corporate influence is wielded and how it relates to political governance.

4.1.3.3 Discovering Sustainable Development

Our starting assumption was that respondents' base levels of awareness and knowledge about Sustainable Development would be low. We wanted to use the research to see if people could be helped to 'discover' Sustainable Development for themselves, and if their 'journey' taught us any lessons for language development. We approached this via two routes:

(i) Understanding the role of tone, vocabularies and images in the process of discovery:
For the purposes of this project we defined language as anything that conveys relevance, meaning and significance. The role of words (vocabularies) is a key consideration within language, but language is not defined by words alone.

(ii) Exploring language currently in use:
Specifically . . .

• The term Sustainable Development;
• The various definitions of the term; e.g. Government, Brundtlant;
• The four elements/objectives of Sustainable Development and their (Government) definitions.

In considering the route to discovering, understanding and, engaging with, the concept of Sustainable Development we used the stimulus in one of two orders with each group: either, by first presenting the elements/ objectives, then the definitions and finally the term itself, or, vice versa.

The figure below shows how each approach generated a different response.

Figure 1

This sends a powerful and encouraging message for the development of a language to engage the general public. It suggests that the term 'Sustainable Development' is not itself the issue. A useful analogy can be found in IT. People do not, by and large, have a problem with terms such as 'IT', 'surfing the net' or 'logging onto the super highway', because these concepts have been made tangible to people through the use of non-scientific or technical terminology which helps them conceptualise the benefits of, in this case, the world-wide web. The same is true for Sustainable Development; once people begin to understand its elements or objectives they start to formulate meaning around the term itself.

The Role of Vocabulary and Tone

The problem - based on our research - is that many of the words or phrases currently used do not help respondents to engage with or understand the concept any better. They do not bring it to life.

Nor does it seem that 'appropriating' different language will necessarily convey any better the meaning of Sustainable Development. It became clear, from the research, that any word, or words, attempting to embrace the concept of Sustainable Development are subject to diverse interpretation and meaning. By exploring, with respondents, words such as; sustainable(ility), development, balance, community, citizenship, millennium, amongst others, we were able to capture the various interpretations and meanings that respondents' had for them.

In Section 5 we draw upon some of these interpretations with the aim of facilitating a greater understanding of meanings currently ascribed to particular words, and to provide insight into their ability to engage and motivate.

The research also demonstrated the importance of tone in language delivery, and highlighted broadly accepted and rejected ways of 'pitching' Sustainable Development.

For example, shock tactics, accusation and implication of duty were regarded as inappropriate. Respondents favoured language which featured personal pronouns, active verbs, questions, factual information and 'plain speaking'.

Section 5 also contains examples of potentially motivating and de-motivating tones and styles, based on the findings from research.

The Role of Imagery

Having 'uncovered' Sustainable Development, we asked respondents to create a collage of images (using magazines) to express how they now understood it. It was significant that this exercise aroused much curiosity and generated significantly more debate and self-examination than consideration of written definitions.

Many of the collages illustrated contrast and conflict between an 'ideal' world and the material world, for example, showing space and beauty alongside damage, fulfilment with suffering, etc.

People, particularly children, featured heavily, and were often represented in ways to suggest future potential and the need to protect/enhance future generations' interests. The environment was represented by images of traffic, pollution (smoking chimneys), and bad weather, or more idealistically by green fields, trees and running water. Economic growth was shown by charts and graphs, money (e.g. pound and dollar signs) and business people (e.g. suits and brief cases). Social issues tended to be portrayed negatively, with images depicting drugs (e.g. syringes), poor housing (e.g. run-down council estates) and stressful lifestyles (e.g. clocks).

4.1.3.4 Sustainable Development: A Utopian Dream?

Having explored Sustainable Development with respondents in some detail, they commonly felt that it seemed to advocate a 'dreamworld', 'motherhood and apple pie', 'Utopia'. This suggests that another fundamental consideration for education is credibility.

The elements or objectives of Sustainable Development (often referred to as pillars) were more meaningful and believable to respondents when considered separately from each other. People found it is particularly difficult to marry economic growth with environmental protection and social progress. Indeed many respondents believed, in the main, that economic growth was intrinsically at odds with environmental protection and, to a lesser extent, social progress (because economic success and social equity do not necessarily filter down to all). On the other hand, social progress and environmental protection were thought to be more natural 'neighbours' and to promote and reinforce each other. Respondents also tended to consider prudent use of natural resources - the fourth pillar - as a subset of 'environmental protection'.

4.1.3.5 Implications for Language Development

The research requires us to confront some major implications for language development. There are ten key considerations:

Knowledge cannot be assumed; Sustainable Development currently enjoys little, or no, salience. However, this need not be an insurmountable barrier because . . . . . . the term 'Sustainable Development' is not, in itself, the barrier to understanding, although . . . . . . discovering Sustainable Development requires great effort and starts from seeing the interconnections between its four objectives; Alternative words for Sustainable Development, definitions thereof, and its component elements will not in themselves automatically facilitate or infer greater significance, relevance or meaning to the concept; Images are good for stimulating interest, exploration and engagement, and are able to facilitate the process of 'discovery' more easily than words can; There are major conflicts with the public mindset and the aims of Sustainable Development; Where Sustainable Development requires people to focus on the world around them, people focus on their individual lives; Where Sustainable Development requires people to believe in a world in balance or harmony, people are incredulous and cynical; Broadly speaking, people are not able to make even the most rudimentary connections between their behaviours and those of businesses and nations on local and global societies, economics and environments.

4.2 Consultation with Informed Influencers

4.2.1 Consultation Objective

This part of the project was designed to understand how Sustainable Development is currently articulated and communicated within the public and private sectors. In particular, we were keen to discuss participants' views on the barriers to, and opportunities for, language development.

4.2.2 Consultation Approach

Four forums were conducted with representatives from:

• Businesses, including utility companies;
• Educational institutions, including schools and further and higher education providers;
• Public remit organisations, including local authorities, the Police and the Commission for Racial Equality;
• Charities and NGOs.

(See Appendix E for a full list of forum representatives)

Respondents were all either formally, or informally tasked with development of policy/strategy and/or communication of Sustainable Development initiatives within their organisations/sectors.

The agenda for the forums was deliberately flexible, to allow participants to spend time talking about the things that mattered to them concerning education for Sustainable Development.

Broadly speaking, they covered the following issues:

• The profile of Sustainable Development in their organisation;
• The role of forum participants in communicating the goals of Sustainable Development within their own organisations;
• Individual and organisation motivations for involvement;
• Current (good) practice in communicating/stimulating Sustainable Development;
• Challenges for language development.

This report includes a summary of the perspectives from each of the forums, concentrating in the main on the challenges for language development. The views described are those of individuals, and are not necessarily representative of the organisations to which they belong.

4.2.3 'Influencer' Perspectives

4.2.3.1 The Influencer Chain

We have referred to the forum members as 'Influencers'. In fact, they were Influencers in two directions; upwards to strategic levels, and downwards to the general public in its various guises.

The following model illustrates the flow of influence from Government to the general public and demonstrates the potentially pivotal role that 'Influencers' of the type we talked to, have.

Figure 2

4.2.3.2 Business Perspective
Sustainable Development has no consistent interpretation or position within business; currently it means too many things. Environmental management and reporting, on the other hand, are concepts that are largely understood and increasingly adopted by business. Forum members felt, however, that it would be wrong to approach education for Sustainable Development as an environmental issue with social and economic considerations 'tacked on'. Nonetheless, it is very hard for business to envisage how they measure their impact on social progress.

The sort of language that motivates businesses include concepts such as desired ends and positive outcomes, the triple bottom line, organisational and culture change, strategic imperatives and opportunities and corporate ethics/responsibility. Sustainable Development - as it is currently articulated - does not help businesses to understand what, in terms of outcomes, it would require them to do/change. They are, therefore, more comfortable, at least operationally, with an environmental agenda because - from their perspective - it involves objective and tangible measures.

Forum members avoided direct usage of the term 'Sustainable Development' in their business. They felt that the term runs the risk of being interpreted in a plethora of - potentially incorrect - ways, both internally and externally. Their reluctance was also based on experience - Sustainable Development has, they said, little resonance amongst employees, the supply chain or customers.

Forum members believed that it is the responsibility of Government to provide consistency, direction, 'visible' leadership, and to set the example; i.e. 'walk the talk'. It was felt that business would only really develop sustainable practices as and when strategic opportunities can be found within them. Sustainable Development lacks a sense of urgency or context, which participants felt should be driven by Government. Relying on businesses to proactively champion Sustainable Development was considered to be a flawed approach. This would occur only if shareholders and/or market demand dictated it.

Participants believed that the job of language was to embrace business strategy and a performance improvement mindset - but they were not convinced this was possible. They did not advocate a reinvention of the term but felt that the availability of common language tools and mechanisms would go some way towards increasing consistency of interpretation.

4.2.3.3 Educationalist Perspective

The educationalist perspective concentrated on the diversity of meanings which can be attributed to Sustainable Development. Forum members described Sustainable Development in essentially social terms - 'it is about desirable and preferable futures'.

They also talked in terms of Sustainable Development as a 'journey', with both a history and a future, not as a 'thing', and argued that its dynamic nature made it difficult (impossible?) to explain in terms of 'properties' or 'entities'.

They believed that language should focus on helping people constantly to build a broader understanding of concepts such as nature, humanity and society. This would mean - by implication - helping people to pose questions about, and find alternatives to, the world they live in and help them to challenge their own understanding and preconceptions. Their fundamental belief was that Sustainable Development will only really come to life if people arrive at their own definitions and conclusions.

In terms of formal education, they called for Sustainable Development 'values' to reside at the heart of the learning system and for it to 'invade' the whole of the curriculum and school or college environment, rather than be treated as an optional 'add-on' championed by enthusiastic individual teachers.

4.2.3.4 Charities/NGO Perspective

The charity/NGO representatives defined Sustainable Development as 'about new ways of living, thinking and solving problems'. They did not believe that a common language must exist. Instead they perceived enormous benefits in promoting learning at a local level through existing sustainable activities. Learning should concentrate on issues to do with development, growth, justice, equality, environment, participation, empowerment and equilibrium, amongst others. Ideally, people should have access to tools to help them learn.

Participants were concerned that as a result of efforts to promote it, Sustainable Development is in danger of losing its integrity; they were keen to resist it being thought of as only a business, consumer, or environmental concept.

4.2.3.5 Public Remit Perspective

Forum members believed that the key ingredient of education for Sustainable Development is a strategy for learning brought under a common identity and national communication plan. They further believed that the infrastructure to kick-start a long-term culture shift largely already exists at a local level. They did not rule out the creation of a new 'brand' or umbrella identity as part of a communications strategy.

Rethinking the term 'Sustainable Development' and the range of definitions was not thought to be the way to tackle language or education. They believed that the term has increasing resonance and should not change.

Rather, it is the links between the four elements of Sustainable Development that need to be clarified and a disproportionate emphasis on the environment resisted. The use of stories/case studies was suggested as one way of facilitating people to make the connections.

Education was primarily seen as the responsibility of Government, and it was felt that stringent efforts should be made to demonstrate Government commitment to improving the UK's contribution to a more sustainable world.

4.2.3.6 Implications for Language Development

In many respects, the outcomes from the consultations with 'Influencers' echo the findings from research with the general public. They certainly reveal a degree of fragmentation and variation in what participants perceive to be the task for language. The following are considerations for language development:

Understanding about Sustainable Development requires a long term process of learning as levels of knowledge and relevance are currently low; Influencers are open to help in communicating Sustainable Development; Education should be driven by practical, not theoretical, models; Learning can be facilitated through posing questions, challenging assumptions, articulating connections between the elements of Sustainable Development and encouraging (deeper) thought; A 'pure' or uniform understanding of Sustainable Development is unlikely to develop, given the necessarily diverse interests of different Influencers - meaning that different sectors will approach it through different 'gateways'; Existing terminology should not be jettisoned in favour of more simplistic vocabulary.

In many respects these echo the implications derived from the public research.

4.3 A Model for Language Development: Evolution or Invention?

We believe that this work has demonstrated that language (for the education of Sustainable Development) needs to evolve and should not be created.

We have arrived at this conclusion after considering the current context(s) within which education needs to work, and the process by which we believe learning can be stimulated, using evidence from our primary research and 'Influencer' consultation.

The Current Context for Education

• There is no consistent, universally known, set of sustainable behaviours that can be easily adopted beyond (perhaps) obvious environmental protection activities (e.g. recycling);
• People struggle to see how they can affect economic and social challenges which touch their immediate lives, much less the lives of those beyond their own 'doorstep';
• Sustainable Development currently means very little to most people;
• Sustainable Development has no consistent identity or focus;
• 'Influencers' would welcome assistance to help them communicate appropriately to their audiences, both internally and externally.

An Effective Process for Learning

• Sustainable Development needs to be 'discovered' by people in ways that engage and interest them;
• Understanding Sustainable Development is best achieved through initial exposure of its component elements/objectives and encouragement to think the connections that exist between them, starting from a local (personal) level and ultimately working towards a global perspective.

We suggest that education for Sustainable Development will be just as much about setting new contexts for learning, and facilitating the process for learning, as it is about language content.

By helping people to understand and engage with the concept - and providing a stimulating environment for them to reassess and broaden the meanings they might currently ascribe to Sustainable Development - language content will begin to evolve. People will begin to discover Sustainable Development and apply it within their personal contexts, thus establishing a basis on which to describe it - in their own words.

On that basis, therefore, there is no need to replace the term Sustainable Development.

Equally, the concept, and its component words - sustainable and development - are internationally recognised amongst policy makers and those working locally to stimulate sustainable behaviours, e.g., Local Agenda 21 Officers.

4.4 Is a Coherent Over-arching Language Possible?

If a narrow definition of language is taken i.e. words and definitions then the answer to this question is NO. As with the communication of any complex issue to multiple audiences the words/messages for each target group should be different.

However, we believe the true answer to the question is YES.

Yes, because our broad definition of language i.e. symbols, pictures, principles, values can, we believe, be applied to a coherent communications framework, which could catalyse the evolution of a better, more relevant language for Sustainable Development.

Although we do not believe that Sustainable Development is (or should be) a brand - it is much more important than that - there are some lessons to be learnt from the world of commercial brands where:-

• The brand name is consistently used across different markets and target audiences to add value to a range of (often) diverse products.
• Brand identity - usually a symbol (which might also be a name) - is used as a recognisable marque of the brand personality i.e. what it stands for.
• Brand values are identified and inform all interactions between a brand and its audiences. (They must be coherent across all products and audiences if a brand is to have integrity.)
• Products are developed for specific markets and their value/appeal is enhanced by being 'branded' with a common corporate identity.

These principles have informed, although not driven, the development of our recommendations to the Panel for a set of catalysts for language development that could:

• speed up the process of evolution
• bind different sectors/parts of the community together
• allow for the development of audience specific languages
• facilitate learning.

This we describe as a Communications Framework .

The framework encompasses common communication guidelines, an 'icon' for Sustainable Development and creative learning tools which can be used by a wide range of Influencers.

Section 5 outlines the Framework, our initial ideas and recommendations for potential audience applications.

5.0 Stage III : Recommendations for Catalysing the Evolution of Language

Objective To develop recommendations based on Stage II outcomes To describe the Communication Framework for learning To outline our approach to catalysing the evolution of language through the provision of communication guidelines and practical tools to key Influencer groups for them to select from, adapt, and apply to their audiences To make recommendations concerning possible audience applications Achieved through: Quadrangle workshops and creative development Consultation with SDEP Steering Group Consultation with DETR

5.1 Rationale for the Communication Framework

This section outlines our recommendations for a Communication Framework for learning and the catalysts that we believe will:

(i) Stimulate learning and understanding of Sustainable Development
(ii) Kick-start the evolution of language

There are three core parts to the Communication Framework:

The purpose of the Framework, and its contents, is to:

• provide a common focus
• stimulate critical thought - i.e. prompt people to assess their beliefs, perceptions and relationship with the world around them
• stimulate people to make connections and links between their lives and the four elements of Sustainable Development
• support the work of Influencers

In our view, the starting point for language should not be the communication of 'how' to do/be sustainable. The Communication Framework focuses on 'what' it could mean and 'why' it might be important/relevant, as part of the goal of stimulating critical thought. A sustainable culture change can then be driven by people who understand why they should change their behaviour, rather than, 'conditioning' behaviour via a range of mechanisms - e.g. legislation - which force them/make it easier for them to act differently.

The Framework is not prescriptive. It is designed to be flexible, so that Influencers can adapt its contents to suit their objectives, delivery channels and so on.

The remainder of this section describes each of the three core parts of the Framework in more detail.

5.2 Recommendation 1: Communication Guidelines & Stimulus

Description: A draft set of generic communication guidelines for Influencers to adopt and adapt to help their audiences along a journey to greater understanding about Sustainable Development These are generic 'pointers' for Influencers to use and, possibly, adapt according to their : - communication / education objectives - audiences' learning requirements

Notes on Guidelines and Stimulus: The Guidelines and Stimulus focus more on how Influencers can create a new context for Sustainable Development, and facilitate a meaningful journey (process), than they do on prescribing language content (words and definitions) We are not proposing an exhaustive or definitive list, as there are many different Influencer groups to consider We would, however, encourage Influencer groups to consider these guidelines as part of their own 'educational' agenda Further development of the guidelines may be required, subject to additional feedback from the Panel

5.2.1 Draft Guidelines

• Consider each of the elements of Sustainable Development in relation to the organisation and its internal and external audiences
• Use recognised language to make Sustainable Development implicit in organisational communications e.g.:
  - embracing Sustainable Development through an organisational/business culture which empowers people to feel that they can make a difference
  - continual review and assessment of organisational behaviour in relation to
  Sustainable Development objectives; e.g. through triple bottom line, social, ethical and environmental audits
• Ensure sufficient awareness of existing audiences' variable levels of knowledge and understanding of Sustainable Development, before definingwhat to communicate

• Consider the contexts in which audiences:
  - perceive and interpret both Sustainable Development messages and their originator/communicator
  - potentially act as a result
• Continually seek ways and means to help people (inside and outside of the organisation) make connections and think beyond their personal circumstances

Encourage people to look at alternative solutions to common problems/situations Use common and consistent 'language' to build recognition Develop 'questions' to challenge, re-define understanding and kick-start learning Use visual, as well as verbal/written communication Use examples, case studies/stories to help 'locate' Sustainable Development in everyday situations Help people to see challenges facing others around the world Help audiences to evaluate their efforts

5.2.2 Stimulus to Support Guidelines

Stimulus: Language Triggers

Quadrangle's research amongst the general public showed that different usage and forms of language can motivate/demotivate people, and thereby impact their 'take-out' from communication. We have split these 'triggers' into two categories which we outline below:

a) Vocabulary triggers

b) 'Approach' triggers i.e. how language is pitched in terms of syntax, tone and delivery

Although we have indicated which vocabulary and approaches arebroadlyaccepted and rejected, we are not suggesting that 'rejected' language should never be used. Terminology which is motivating and meaningful to one individual, may of course have the opposite effect on another. They key is to be aware of how terminology and tone might be interpreted, and to use caution in how language is used.

It is worth stating, however, that we believe language in a vacuum - i.e. without the support of other tools and mechanisms - is unlikely to catalyse the learning process.

(a) Vocabulary Triggers

		Interpretation
Concept	Acceptance or rejection (Broadly Speaking)	Motivating Themes	Demotivating Themes	Overall Impact
Sustainability / Sustainable		balancing things on-going staying the same achievement endless cycle	few negative meanings, but . . . some confusion over context	preferable to 'Sustainable Development' more meaningful when attached to other words e.g. sustainable forests, 'being sustainable'
Development	/	getting better improving necessary for life	associated with business and buildings	economic, business and technological focus makes it difficult for people to see their 'part' in it
Society		local (family, colleagues, neighbours) people together	break-down of community prejudice injustice/inequality	narrow view 'I'm okay, it's others that need to change' 'social' is more motivating
Environment	/	local health (their's and their family) recycling warm weather peace and tranquillity	global radicals (alarmists) 'hippy'	narrow interpretation (trees, living things, atmosphere) threats 'not in my lifetime'
Natural Resources		renewable health essential for living	sacrifice of material comforts	someone else's problem unable to separate from environment in general
Economic Growth		financial well-being better infrastructure jobs	high taxes unlimited/ uncontrollable profit always works against other interests exploitation	seen as being driven by (and for the benefit of) Government and business, not the common person
Balance		moderation all things working together 'fair play' sensible choices juggling implies there are limits controllable	sacrifice/ compromise works against today's success culture uncertain: 'things in the balance'	impactful, especially if implied through imagery considered to be a good descriptor for Sustainable Development
Together(ness)		common purpose/ effort		impactful, especially if implied through imagery
Rights		justice freedom more choice responsibilities	restriction duty	helps people to think beyond UK
Health/Poverty	/	major priority/fear children/family	Third World issue	instantly engaging dissempowering beyond personal/ family circumstances
Global		positive if linked with - living - children's future - science	poverty marketing manipulation/ stereotypes	somewhat clichéd concept
Future		children's potential promise of better health/wealth/ opportunities	technology/space- age	interpretation dependant on tone and imagery used works when it engages at individual level
Traditional Values e.g. prudence, respect, natural, protect, trust		desirable about humanity personally relevant	potentially moralising unobtainable unrealistic	danger of romanticising 'community' values that are perceived to have eroded preference for focus on values over 'management speak' e.g. prudence vs. efficiency
Justice		about the common person equality incorporates law, welfare, taxes, 'pay', etc.	in the hands of the 'privileged' middle classes privilege, not a right	motivating when seen as a priority by 'those who can influence' potential for wide range of meanings
Citizen		democratic process individual power	classification communism 'radicals'/activists	narrow interpretation potentially over- moralising restrictive (non- empowering)
Community		pulling together security/familiarity	gone, never to return fear (youths, crime, drugs)	the promise of a better community in the future is only motivating for some - others are cynical and feel 'community' no longer has meaning
Economics		prosperity	exploitation competitiveness Government big business growth	'out of their control' - people can't see how they directly influence it
Sacrifice			ordinary people having to make (even) more 'sacrifices' for the privileged few	depends on perceptions of the messenger
Compromise		works alongside the concept of 'balance'	fewer creature comforts	incompatible with consumer culture
Year 2000/ Millennium		exciting futures world vision new ways of living	'the bug' a 'fad' doom-laden prophecies	over used cliché
Scientific language e.g. biodiversity		based in fact	unfamiliar terminology not everyday issues	not to be confused with scientific fact - people have faith in facts but not terminology

(b) Approach Triggers

Broadly Accepted Approaches

Broadly Rejected Approaches

Personal pronouns e.g. 'our world, 'our future' 'we', etc Action words - 'doing . . .', 'being . . .' Positive imagery e.g. collective effort, 'balancing' Positive tone Questions to challenge people ('make me think about what I can do') Plain-speaking common sense Factual information Nouns and verbs attached to 'sustainable' - sustainable forests - 'being sustainable' A focus on 'close to home' issues then building connections from there

Shock tactics Accusation Implication of duty, blame Environment 'old speak' e.g. eco-friendly Imagery of poverty/exploitation e.g. famine, starvation, 'end of the world' etc. Detailed definitions Philosophical or academic concepts (e.g. empowerment, citizen, democracy etc.)

Stimulus: Questions

Challenging people's assumptions, interpretations and beliefs, can be facilitated by a questioning approach. We have put forward two sets of questions to support these communication guidelines.

Again, they are not prescriptive, but are designed to help people engage in debate/discovery. They could be used with:

• potential and/or committed Influencers
• Influencers' audiences/end-users

Examples of Questions for Influencers

Do we have/need a policy for educating people about Sustainable Development? If we did, how would it benefit: (i) our organisation (ii) our audiences How could Sustainable Development affect our organisation's role and responsibilities vis á vis: - our employees - our customers - our suppliers - the public at large How can we ensure that understanding of Sustainable Development is consistent throughout organisation? What are the effects of our current policies/strategies on: - the environment - local, and global communities/ economies - people's well-being/quality of life Do we need to change them to improve our impact on these things? How?

Who do we need to influence to be more sustainable? Why will they listen to us? What do they need to know about Sustainable Development? Which aspect of Sustainable Development are the primary concerns for our audiences? What kind of language is most appropriate to stimulate/motivate our audiences? - words? - pictures? - sounds? Are our audiences in a position to act now?

Examples of Generic Questions for Influencer Audiences

Have I thought about/considered the effect of . . . on . . . ? Do I know enough to make the right choices? Where can I get the right information? Who would know? Do I believe it? Does it matter? Is what I'm doing affecting anyone else or making their life/better or worse? Is it doing more, or less, harm than good?

Have I thought about other/better ways of doing it? What things stop me from doing things differently? Am I doing enough? What difference can I make? Is it okay to leave it to someone else? Who can I influence even if only indirectly? In what way? How much can I influence the future? Will what I'm doing affect people, places, or species in other parts of the worlds? What impact do/can I have on: - my local area - the environment - the third world - the economy . . . through my personal consumption and lifestyle?

5.3 Recommendation 2: Sustainable Development Icon

Description Quadrangle has developed The Sustainable Pyramid™ to act as: a unifying and over-arching symbol for Sustainable Development the 'blueprint' for a flexible education tool which stimulates people to think critically about 'the elements' and their relationship with them NB:We outline our ideas for possible creative learning tools, based on the icon in 5.4. Each face of the three sided 'Pyramid' represents one of three elements in a way in which the public is able to understand them: - Society (people) - Economy (business) - Environment/Natural Resources (countryside, space, atmosphere) The Sustainable Pyramid™ is translucent so that when it is viewed through the base, all three elements can be seen coming together

Notes on The Sustainable Pyramid™ The power of the 'Pyramid' lies in its simple approach to communicating what is otherwise complex to articulate in words Pyramids (themselves) are symbolic of sustainability, and link the past with the present and the future It is a positive image, implying - communities, lifestyles - collaboration, not conflict or competing agendas - vision not apocalypse - successful societies The Sustainable Pyramid™ is meant to help people 'unbundle' and 're-construct' Sustainable Development in ways that are appropriate to them It is intended to be adapted/used as a unifying identity for Sustainable Development, to create curiosity and help initiate the 'journey of discovery' It is designed to encourage audiences to thinkcriticallyand make considered choices e.g - How are the three images connected? - Why is this organisation using this? - What are they trying to tell me? - How can I find out more?

NB: Please note that The Sustainable Pyramid™ is a working model, not the finished article. For example, different images are likely to be required, and additional research may be necessary to explore design and application.

TETRA 1

TETRA 2

TETRA 3

TERTA 4

DOORWAYS

5.4 Recommendation 3: Creative Learning Tools

Description We have developed some examples of learning tools which are based on the icon They exploit the common imagery of The Sustainable Pyramid™, but are conceived for different audiences They are intended to provide the Panel/Influencers with food for thought about how different ideas could apply and/or be developed in different contexts Some have the potential to be developed as commercial/educational products

Notes on Creative Learning Tools In 2 dimensions (viewed through the base) The Sustainable Pyramid™ could be a logo, identity or accreditation stamp The icon also works in 3D, for example as: 'Tangible tools' - Jigsaw (large pieces for young children; small pieces for adults) - Sliding-word puzzle 'Virtual Tools' -Screen saver - Website 'gateway'/'doorway'

5.4.1 Examples of Possible Audience Applications

The Sustainable Pyramid™: Applications
AUDIENCE	Jigsaw	Puzzle	Screen Saver	Govt. Website 'Gateway' / 'Doorway'	Award
Key Influencers
Govt. Bodies
Charities / NGOs
Local Authorities
Educational Institutions
Business / Industry
Key End-Audiences
Employers
Employees
Consumers / Households
Pre-school Children
Primary School Children
Secondary School Students

Notes on Further Development of Creative Tools These tools should be fun, not worthy They should be flexible to allow for targeting at specific audience sectors (there is not a one size fits all solution) A sensible way forward may be to select one or two of the ideas, and to fully develop and test them Potential for sponsorship/support for development could be explored

5.4.2 Other ideas for tools based on the Icon

• Award
  - Investors in Sustainable Development; Sustainable Schools; Sustainable Products, etc.
• Educational board game (similar to Trivial Pursuit)
• CD-ROM version of game
• 'Rubik's' 'Pyramid' puzzle Badge
• Branded versions of the above e.g. B&Q screen saver, Shell award, etc.

6.0 Developing the Communication Framework

6.1 Toolkit for Influencers

This report is directed primarily at Members of the Panel, having been written with their input gathered through a series of presentations and consultation.

The findings and recommendations have, we believe, much wider relevance, and consideration should be given to how the outcomes from this work are disseminated. One approach would be to use this work to develop a practical Education Toolkit for Influencers.

Recommendation to Panel: Develop a Toolkit (either generic or for key Influencer sectors) that sets out our research findings, analysis and implications, together with practical advice on how the communication framework could work in practice. The contents might include: Speaker notes/acetates on research outcomes Generic guidance on how to adopt this for different audiences Icon usage: applications => 'rules' and ideas How to select appropriate creative language tools for different audiences Choosing/using delivery channels Good practice advice from communications/education experts

---

1. Referred to as 'the SDEP' or 'the Panel' throughout this document
2. Invitation to Tender, 19th October, 1998
3. Sustainable Development Education Panel First Annual Report, 1998
4. For the purposes of this document wherever we use the term 'language' we refer to a language for Sustainable Development education

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

Page published 12 May 2000;
Page last modified 3 January, 2003

Top of the page