Most of us have been told at some point or another to never discuss sex, money, religion or politics. Recently, I learned that we could probably add the word “impact” to this list of words we should be careful to discuss. For some reason, the impact has become synonymous with changing the world. It is also no coincidence that in an era of austerity, that more and more we are becoming concerned with the word impact. So how did I end up adding the word impact to the list of naughty conversation topics?
The setting was a social gathering that involved the usual trimmings of alcohol and appetizers. Attendees were folks who were interested in finding ways to achieve a more desirable future. Suddenly I noticed that folks around the table had slowly started leaving, and it was because I was in a heated argument about the impact of Greenpeace.
The argument being made was something to the effect that compared to an organization like International Planned Parenthood (IPP); Greenpeace has not had as much impact. I had to admit that in some ways it is true that IPP has managed to move the needle on family planning and sexual health in ways that Greenpeace hasn’t been able to when it comes to Climate Change.
What does impact mean anyway?
The problem with using the word impact is that when you evoke the term, you are making an evaluation of the merit or worth of a project, process or organization. As Micheal Quinn Patton points out, if you evoke it too early you kill innovation. My contention was that to say that Greenpeace is not valuable, or that it is not a worthy organization seemed crazy to me. What I missed was that for the person sitting across from me, impact meant something very different in their world than in mine. Greenpeace just cannot be evaluated on the same criteria, as IPP because the scale of problems they are tackling are very different. IPP is seeking behavior change on an individual level while Greenpeace is trying to change an entire unsustainable economic system.
Understanding the type of problem you are addressing should determine how you evaluate impact.
James Surowiecki in is book “The Wisdom of Crowds”, makes a distinction between cognitive problems, coordination problems and cooperation problems. This difference between the types of problem you are dealing with is important. For example, the kind of impact one is likely to achieve with an issue that requires a change in attitude and behavior is very different from a problem that needs people to coordinate their activities. Problems that require cooperation are even harder to address because as Surowiecki points out, in general, humans are dreadful at working together. When we do work well together, the outcomes can be very profound, but it is not something that comes easily to us.
What type of problem Greenpeace was addressing was different from IPP and as a result, the way we think about impact should also be different. For Greenpeace to be able to convince the world to coordinate and cooperate around changing our oil-based economy into one that is ecologically friendly is nothing short of a herculean task.
How do you think about impact?
There are many ways to think about, generate or evaluate impact. One way to think about impact could be to think about how Greenpeace has been able to affect public attitudes toward the environment. As an organization, they have been very effective at coming up with some of the most innovative environmental campaigns the world has ever seen.
The world was first really introduced to Greenpeace when a group of frustrated activist – inspired by the concept of ‘bearing witness’ (just being present) – decided to sail to the nuclear testing site in Amchitka. The plan was to sail to the location of the proposed nuclear testing and just park their boat and bear witness. Although they never made it to Amchitka, their campaign generated much media attention and even delayed the nuclear testing. After this campaign, Greenpeace members sailed to the coast of California as part of “Project Ahab”. The goal of this campaign was to place themselves between whalers and whales. The footage from this campaign created a media storm. Today we would say, “it went viral.”
Greenpeace insiders called it a “mindbomb.” Their goal was to draw as much media attention to the issue as possible. As a result of the campaign, large numbers of people became aware of the issue of whaling and even more began to donate to Greenpeace and their campaigns. Greenpeace continue’s to generate media attention on a range of environmental crimes, and arguably have been able to impact the direction of much of the climate change conversation.
Many of these organizations have had a tremendous impact in some ways. For example, they have been very good at recruiting new members for both campaigning and resource mobilization. They have helped us frame the problems of the environment, in particular for those of us who are too caught up in our daily lives to articulate it ourselves. They have kept and eye on, and communicated to the public, many of the environmental crimes that would have happened in the shadows, or in secret. These are just a few of the ways Greenpeace and similar organizations have had an impact.
It ‘s hard to argue that the world is not a better place because of an organization like Greenpeace. One of the best ways to think about impact is to imagine the world without Greenpeace. In this world, I suspect fewer people would be part of the environmental movement. Fewer people would understand the environmental crises. Additionally, Greenpeace has made it easier for future efforts around climate change, like renewable energies, to both gain traction and support from the public and major decision makers. Their tactical and campaign innovations have brought environmental crimes to the mainstream news on many occasions and each time it makes it easier to make the environment a hot ticket.
Measuring or determining impact is no easy task, and although the emphasis might be well intentioned, we need to be careful we do not throw out the good with the bad. Impact conversations do two things:
- They help us have better conversations about how we spend our resources.
- They guide us to more responsive conversations about making meaningful change.
Although Greenpeace or the environmental movement has not managed to move the needle on environmental justice, they have done a considerable amount of research on the health of our planet and made it accessible to large numbers of people. They have tilled the soil for the possibility of a green future, and although they may not be credited in the end, the organization has undoubtedly made an impact on the world.
Feature image download from Flickr user Greenpeace Polska. Title of photo, Greenpeace Polska title, Schronisko dla zwierząt w Korabiewicach. Instalacja solarna.