Analyzing Facebook content produced by 289 global climate nonprofits from 18 countries, this study investigates these NGOs’ framing of climate change. Of the three protest frames, diagnostic was most popular. Of the three aspects of climate change, including impact, action, and efficacy, action was used most frequently, while efficacy was the least common. Messages refer to effects at the present time. NGOs from developed countries are more likely than those from developing nations to discuss climate actions. Climate impacts are more likely to appear in these NGOs’ persuasive messages than efficacy. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
AndersonA. A.HuntingtonH. E. (2017). Social media, science, and attack discourse: How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113
2.
AugerG. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit advocacy organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 369-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.013
3.
BainP. G.MilfontT. L.KashimaY.BilewiczM.DoronG.GarðarsdóttirR. B.GouveiaV. V.GuanY.JohanssonL-O.PasqualiC.Corral-VerdugoV.AragonesJ. I.UtsugiA.DemarqueC.OttoS.ParkJ.SolandM.StegL.GonzálezR.LebedevaN.… SaviolidisN. M. (2016). Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 154-157. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2814
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
6.
BetsillM. (2002). Environmental NGOs meet the sovereign state: The Kyoto Protocol negotiations on global climate change: A cartography of governance exploring the province of environmental NGOs. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 13(1), 49-64.
7.
Bieniek-TobascoA.McCormickS.RimalR. N.HarringtonC. B.ShaferM.ShaikhH. (2019). Communicating climate change through documentary film: Imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Climatic Change, 154(1-2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7
8.
BilandzicH.KalchA.SoentgenJ. (2017). Effects of goal framing and emotions on perceived threat and willingness to sacrifice for climate change. Science Communication, 39(4), 466-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017718553
9.
BolsenT.PalmR.KingslandJ. T. (2019). Counteracting climate science politicization with effective frames and imagery. Science Communication, 41(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019834565
10.
BolsenT.ShapiroM. A. (2018). The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039
11.
BostromA.HayesA. L.CrosmanK. M. (2019). Efficacy, action, and support for reducing climate change risks. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 805-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13210
12.
BrüggerA. (2020). Understanding the psychological distance of climate change: The limitations of construal level theory and suggestions for alternative theoretical perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 60(January), Article 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102023.
13.
BrüggerA.MortonT. A.DessaiS. (2016, June). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004
ChadwickA. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598-611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777
16.
ChenM. F. (2016). Impact of fear appeals on pro-environmental behavior and crucial determinants. International Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 74-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1101908
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2011). Identifying frames in political news. In BusyE.HoldertR. L. (Eds.)., The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 238-267). Routledge.
19.
ChuH.YangJ. Z. (2018). Taking climate change here and now–mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Global Environmental Change, 53(November), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.013
20.
CorellE.BetsillM. M. (2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638001317146381
21.
CornerA.RobertsO.ChiariS.VöllerS.MayrhuberE. S.MandlS.MonsonK. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353
22.
CoulterL.CoudrainA. (2018). Informing decisions with climate change information. In Serrao-NeumannS.CoudrainA.CoulterL. (Eds.), Communicating climate change information for decision-making (pp. 207-215). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74669-2_15
DohertyK. L.WeblerT. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 879-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3025
25.
DoyleJ. (2009). Climate action and environmental activism: The role of environmental NGOs and grassroots movements in the global politics of climate change. In BoyceT.LewisJ. (Eds.), Climate change and the media (pp. 103-116). Peter Lang.
26.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In DryzekJ. S.NorgaardR. B.SchlosbergD. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144-160). Oxford University Press.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941
29.
FitzgeraldS. T. (2009). Cooperative collective action: Framing faith-based community development. Mobilization: An International Journal, 14(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.14.2.2vq3x29k57l842q3
30.
FordJ.Berrang-FordL.BunceA.MckayC.IrwinM.PearceT. (2015). The status of climate change adaptation in Africa and Asia. Regional Environmental Change, 15(5), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0648-2
31.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
32.
GiffordR.ComeauL. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
33.
GrotenbregS.van BuurenA. (2017). Facilitation as a government strategy: Unravelling governments’ facilitation frames. Sustainability, 9(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010160
34.
GroulxM.BrisboisM. C.LemieuxC. J.WinegardnerA.FishbackL. (2017). A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? A systematic review of learning outcomes. Science Communication, 39(1), 45-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016688324
35.
HadenV. R.NilesM. T.LubellM.PerlmanJ.JacksonL. E. (2012). Global and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change?PLOS ONE, 7(12), Article e52882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052882
36.
HanH. (2014). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
37.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520239
38.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. PLOS ONE, 11(8), Article e0157658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157658
39.
HolmbergK.HellstenI. (2015). Gender differences in the climate change communication on Twitter. Internet Research, 25(5), 811-828. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-07-2014-0179
40.
HowarthC.Morse-JonesS. (2019) The importance of communication, collaboration and co-production. In HowarthC. (Ed.), Resilience to climate change (pp. 65-86). Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94691-7_4
41.
HristovA. N.DegaetanoA. T.RotzC. A.HobergE.SkinnerR. H.FelixT.LiH.PattersonP. H.RothG.HallM.OttT. L.BaumgardL. H.StaniarW.HuletR. M.DellC. J.BritoA. F.HollingerD. Y. (2018). Climate change effects on livestock in the Northeast US and strategies for adaptation. Climatic Change, 146(1), 3345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2023-z
42.
JohnsonB. B. (2012). Climate change communication: A provocative inquiry into motives, meanings, and means. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 973-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01731.x
43.
KordaH.ItaniZ. (2013). Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promotion Practice, 14(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839911405850
44.
KoteykoN.NerlichB.HellstenI. (2015). Climate change communication and the Internet: Challenges and opportunities for research. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 149-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1029297
45.
LadleR. J.JepsonP.WhittakerR. J. (2005). Scientists and the media: The struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 30(3), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801805X42036
46.
LaestadiusL.NeffI.BarryR.FrattaroliA. (2013). Meat consumption and climate change: The role of non-governmental organizations. Climatic Change, 120(1-2), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0807-3
47.
LauM. H. (2019). Lobbying for rent regulation in Hong Kong: Rental market politics and framing strategies. Urban Studies, 56(2), 2515-2531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018791951
48.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
LombardM.Snyder-DuchJ.BrackenC. C. (2006). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
51.
LongA. (2008). Emission not accomplished: The future of carbon emissions in a changing world: Symposium Article. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 33(1), 177-218.
52.
LückJ.WesslerH.WozniakA.LycariãoD. (2018). Counterbalancing global media frames with nationally colored narratives: A comparative study of news narratives and news framing in the climate change coverage of five countries. Journalism, 19(12), 1635-1656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916680372
53.
MakwanyaP. (2013). An analysis of the language used to communicate information on climate change. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 17(2), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1721725
54.
McGregorI.YerburyH.ShahidA. (2018). The voices of local NGOs in climate change issues: Examples from climate vulnerable nations. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v10.i3.6019
55.
McNaughtR.WarrickO.CooperA. (2014). Communicating climate change for adaptation in rural communities: A Pacific study. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1491-1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0592-1
56.
MortonT. A.RabinovichA.MarshallD.BretschneiderP. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
57.
MoserS. C.DillingL. (2004). Making climate HOT. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 46(10), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150409605820
58.
MoserS. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Climate Change, 1(1), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11
59.
NabiR. L.GustafsonA.JensenR. (2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40(4), 442-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019
60.
NerlichB.KoteykoN.BrownB. (2010). Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.2
61.
NESTA. (2008). Selling sustainability report: Seven lessons from advertising and marketing to sell low-carbon living. National Endowment for Science and Technology Association.
62.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
63.
OjalaM. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
64.
O’NeillS.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
65.
PaquetteA.VayredaJ.CollL.MessierC.RetanaJ. (2018). Climate change could negate positive tree diversity effects on forest productivity: A study across five climate types in Spain and Canada. Ecosystems, 21(5), 960-970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-017-0196-y
66.
ScannellL.GiffordR. (2013). Personally-relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196
67.
SchäferM. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 527-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.191
68.
SchäferM. S.SchlichtingI. (2014). Media representations of climate change: A meta-analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.914050
69.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
70.
SchuldtJ. P.RickardL. N.YangZ. J. (2018). Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001
71.
SegerbergA.BennettW. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. Communication Review, 14(3), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250
72.
SmithN. W.JoffeH. (2009). Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5), 647-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802586512
73.
SnowD.BenfordR. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197-217.
74.
SnowD.BenfordR. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In MorrisA.MuellerC. M. (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133-155). Yale University Press.
75.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
78.
StoddartM. C.TindallD. B.SmithJ.Haluza-DelayR. (2017). Media access and political efficacy in the eco-politics of climate change: Canadian national news and mediated policy networks. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275731
79.
TakahashiB.EdwardsG.RobertsJ. T.DuanR. (2015). Exploring the use of online platforms for climate change policy and public engagement by NGOs in Latin America. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 228-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275731
80.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
81.
TuchmanG. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. Free Press.
VanhalaL.HestbaekC. (2016). Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 16(4), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379
84.
VeltriG. A.AtanasovaD. (2017). Climate change on Twitter: Content, media ecology and information sharing behaviour. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 721-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515613702
85.
VuH. T.DoH. V.SeoH.LiuY. (2020). Who leads the conversation on climate change? A study of a global network of NGOs on Twitter. Environmental Communication, 14(4), 450-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1687099
86.
VuH. T.LiuY.TranD. V. (2019). Nationalizing a global phenomenon: A study of how the press in 45 countries and territories portrays climate change. Global Environmental Change, 58(September), Article 101942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101942
87.
WahlströmM.WennerhagM.RootesC. (2013). Framing “the client issue”: Patterns of participation and prognostic frames among client summit protesters. Global Environmental Politics, 13(4), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00200
88.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
89.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
90.
WozniakA.LückJ.WesslerH. (2015). Frames, stories, and images: The advantages of a multimodal approach in comparative media content research on climate change. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 469-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.981559
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
