Experts outline mismatch between beef producer and public perceptions on sustainability: GRSB conference in Denver

Researchers from The University of Queensland have found mismatches between producer and general public perceptions when it comes to how sustainable the beef industry is.

Producers surveyed believed their industry was in good hands when it comes to sustainability; the general public is not so certain.

That creates a challenge for an industry needing to communicate its sustainability credentials over the coming decade: How can you negotiate external communication to address ongoing social change when internal stakeholders may not perceive there is much of a problem?

ALSO READ:

Taylah Faulkner and Bradd Witt, from UQ's School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, outlined these concepts and quandaries at this month's Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef conference in Colorado in the United States.

Dr Witt said the 'telling our story' solution had been advocated far and wide within the beef industry for a long time now.

There was no doubt it was very effective as a tool in communication when it was used in the right place, at the right time and with the right audience because it amounted to direct engagement on a human level with those who 'wanted to know', he said.

However, he suggested the beef industry might now be moving into an era where 'letting go of the reins and acknowledging the alternate views of challenges' is called for.

"Maybe others have a different view, and just 'telling our story' won't change that," Dr Witt said.

"That's a difficult space to move into for any business.

"But industry has already come 180 degrees from where it was 15 years ago."

Dr Witt said a major risk he saw in the next decade, as the sustainability focus turned more to food rather than fossil fuels, was a splintering and a sense of internal competition within the beef industry, which would create more confusion and noise in the public sphere.

A key challenge, he said, would be engaging with social change in a way that did not ostracise producers who may feel threatened by the pace of some change.

"If producers are feeling misrepresented or not understood it's a big challenge for the industry as a whole to determine what it will engage on and how, so that producers are not feeling like they've lost control," he said.

Ms Faulkner spoke about the science on first, second and third order thinking as a way the beef industry might consider its work in communicating its sustainability credentials.

First order thinking, she explained, was based on the perception of public misunderstandings and industry retaining control over the narrative. It was basically telling people what was going on in the belief that would right any misconceptions.

"It's been used a number of times in a variety of contexts, an example being the food GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate where scientists assumed they just needed to tell people it was safe and that would change their perception," she said.

"The problem is, you might be treating people like their view is not valid."

Second order thinking was more about transparency, engagement, dialogue and building trust. It was more responsive than reactive.

Third order thinking, however, involved the acknowledgment you don't have to be in control of the narrative.

"It is about being more open to the fact there are different ways of thinking about a problem," Ms Faulkner said.

She also acknowledged that the industry had moved a long way over the past decade in engaging with stakeholder and community expectations.

"The question is: how far is the beef industry prepared to go to enter into third order engagement?" she said.