Climate change is a global problem requiring a collective response. Grassroots advocacy has been an important element in propelling this collective response, often through the mechanism of campaigns. However, it is not clear whether the climate change campaigns organized by the environmental advocacy groups are successful in achieving their goals, nor the degree to which other benefits may accrue to groups who run them. To investigate this further, we report a case study of the Australian climate change advocacy sector. Three methods were used to gather data to inform this case study: content analysis of climate change organizations’ websites, analysis of website text relating to campaign outcomes, and interviews with climate change campaigners. Findings demonstrate that climate change advocacy is diverse and achieving substantial successes such as the development of climate change-related legislation and divestment commitments from a range of organizations. The data also highlights additional benefits of campaigning such as gaining access to political power and increasing groups’ financial and volunteer resources. The successful outcomes of campaigns were influenced by the ability of groups to sustain strong personal support networks, use skills and resources available across the wider environmental advocacy network, and form consensus around shared strategic values. Communicating the successes of climate change advocacy could help mobilize collective action to address climate change. As such, this case study of the Australian climate change movement is relevant for both academics focusing on social movements and collective action and advocacy-focused practitioners, philanthropists, and non-governmental organizations.

KEY MESSAGE

This case study uses extensive empirical data gathered from the climate change sector of a national environmental movement to map the significant successes it has achieved through climate change campaigns. These successes are both the outcomes of climate change campaigns and the incremental and incidental benefits achieved throughout the course of campaigning, which support the ongoing survival and growth of the groups and broader movement. Demonstrating the substantial volume and range of campaign successes may help environmental organizations to engage more supporters in their campaigning work and enable the prioritization of campaigns more likely to achieve success. These factors can help campaigners maximize the ability of their groups to continue to grow and succeed in their advocacy in the future.

INTRODUCTION

Climate change is a global problem that requires collective efforts to halt the many human activities directly or indirectly generating greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the call for grassroots advocacy to drive the urgent environmental action needed [1], evidence of successes of environmental advocacy is scant. In fact, some researchers have even argued that environmental groups do not impact the process of social change at all [2], nor achieve political change [35]. Rising greenhouse gas emissions and the lack of political will to address the root causes of climate change could be considered as evidence of the lack of impact of climate change advocacy.

Climate change advocacy activities are frequently framed as campaigns. Campaigns involve the mobilization of actors to achieve a specific aim [6], with some environmental groups implementing multiple campaigns. However, one challenge of climate change advocacy is that there is no single emission source nor one single emission reduction solution: climate change arises from emissions generated through systems embedded in global economic, political, and social structures. As a result, climate change campaigns can have both political and social goals [7]. Some campaigns focus on persuading governments to enact policy measures to reduce carbon emissions, and others focus on promoting individual change to reduce their consumption-related emissions [8], with groups choosing advocacy strategies which maximize the likelihood of achieving a successful outcome within the timeframe, finances, and other resources available to them [9]. Given that a significant proportion of environmental groups are entirely volunteer-run (see Gulliver et al. [10]), lack of resources may hinder informed decision making within advocacy groups. In the absence of data on campaign outcomes, choosing among advocacy strategies will be based, at best, on the leadership teams’ distilled intuitions or hunches.

Furthermore, achieving a successful campaign outcome (e.g., such as the closure of a coal-fired power station) is not only important in itself but also communicating the successful outcome can be influential for motivating increased engagement in pro-environmental actions [11, 12]. Previous researches demonstrate that peoples’ shared belief that their group can produce successful results is an important antecedent of collective behavior [13, 14]. Therefore, measuring and conveying the successes that climate change advocacy has achieved may be an important component in increasing grassroots advocacy.

Australia provides a suitable context in which to undertake this investigation. As an advanced industrial democracy, advocacy can occur freely and openly. Very high levels of access to digital communications also enable widespread access to environmental groups and their online and offline communications. Furthermore, Australia is at the forefront of climate impacts and has a diverse and active environmental movement responding to this collective crisis [10]. These factors enable us to gain a clearer picture of the characteristics of climate change advocacy and the level of success it is achieving.

CASE EXAMINATION

This case study identifies the success and failure of climate change campaigns run by climate change advocacy groups in the Australian national environmental movement. It then considers the additional benefits of campaigning that can bring to organizations beyond campaign success or failure. Finally, it considers what organizational factors may influence campaign outcomes.

It uses the data gathered from the following three sources:

  • A content analysis of 83 Australian climate change advocacy group websites was conducted to identify the environmental group characteristics and specific campaigns undertaken.

  • Text analysis of the 58 campaigns (identified in the content analysis) listed on the study group websites in early 2017 was conducted to identify campaign goals and targets, following by an online search for evidence demonstrating whether the specific goal for each campaign had been achieved 24 months later. Each campaign was then assessed as achieving either a “Successful,” “Partially Successful,” “Unsuccessful,” or “Unknown” outcome. This assessment process involved searching for news stories, reports, or any data available online indicating whether the goal of the campaign had been achieved. It does not enable claims of causation between the activities of each group and the particular campaign outcomes that were identified.

  • In-depth semi-structured interviews with 26 environmental campaigning practitioners working in a wide diversity of formal and informal organizations across the local, regional, state, and national geographical areas were conducted. Thematic coding identified two themes: (1) the benefits accrued from running campaigns and (2) influences on campaign success.

To summarize: the content and text analyses enabled the identification of the distinguishing characteristics of climate change groups within the study population and construction of a database of climate campaigns and their outcomes. The thematic analysis of interviews provided a view from within the environmental movement: insights from experienced campaigners were gained about additional benefits of campaigns and factors that facilitate or impede campaign success.

CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP CHARACTERISTICS

The content analysis allowed the characterization of climate change groups in terms of their age, focal issue, geographical range, and the number of campaigns they run. These characteristics are important in influencing strategic and tactical approaches to advocacy (for example, see Dalton [15] and Johnson et al. [16]).

Table 1 shows that the majority of climate change groups are young and are formed after 2006. Of the 83 groups, 55 operate at a local scale such as within a neighborhood, town, or city area. There is a wide diversity of focal issues for their climate change advocacy (see also Kent [17]). The majority of groups describe themselves simply as “Action” groups, such as the “Bayside Climate Change Action Group” and “Climate Action Hobart.” Other groups focus on diverse issues from promoting zero emissions across communities and industries to organizing divestment campaigns. Some groups do not describe a particular focal issue at all (labeled “General” in Table 1). A total of 58 campaigns were undertaken by 24 groups, with the majority of campaigns run by groups operating on a national scale.

TABLE 1.

Climate change advocacy group characteristics and campaigns.

Geographical rangeLocal CampaignsState CampaignsNational CampaignsTotal





Focal issueLocalStateNationalFounding Year (range)GroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaigns
“Action” 28 1997–2013 15 – – 26 
General* 12 – 2000–2014 – – 
“Transition” 13 – – 2008–2014 – – – – – – – – 
“Zero Emissions” – 2015–2016 – – – – 
“Finance” – – ** – – – – 
“Health” – – 2010 – – – – 
“Art” – – 2010 – – – – 
“Policy” – – 2014 – – – – 
“Education” – 2014 – – – – – – – – 
“Eco theology” – – 2007 – – – – 
“Justice” – – ** – – – – 
“Resilience” – – ** – – – – – – – – 
 
 
 
 
  
 55 26  20 – – 18 37   

 
Total = 83         24 56 
Geographical rangeLocal CampaignsState CampaignsNational CampaignsTotal





Focal issueLocalStateNationalFounding Year (range)GroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaignsGroupsCampaigns
“Action” 28 1997–2013 15 – – 26 
General* 12 – 2000–2014 – – 
“Transition” 13 – – 2008–2014 – – – – – – – – 
“Zero Emissions” – 2015–2016 – – – – 
“Finance” – – ** – – – – 
“Health” – – 2010 – – – – 
“Art” – – 2010 – – – – 
“Policy” – – 2014 – – – – 
“Education” – 2014 – – – – – – – – 
“Eco theology” – – 2007 – – – – 
“Justice” – – ** – – – – 
“Resilience” – – ** – – – – – – – – 
 
 
 
 
  
 55 26  20 – – 18 37   

 
Total = 83         24 56 

*Websites with no description of advocacy focal area.

**No founding dates stated on websites.

ASSESSING CAMPAIGN OUTCOMES: SUCCESS

Currently, there is no pre-existing open-access database of climate change campaign outcomes at the movement scale. This is partly due to the fact that methodologies used to assess the success or failure of advocacy are contested [18, 19]. Thus, assigning the causes and effects of complex advocacy systems is challenging. In addition, activists’ judgments of what constitutes successful advocacy can vary significantly depending on their own goals and expectations. To circumvent this debate, the outcomes of specific campaigns were used to inform this case study rather than general advocacy. This approach was chosen to capitalize on the information about the goals and targets contained in each campaign description [6, 20], which provide an opportunity to then assess outcomes against that information. While this enables an analysis of campaign goals and outcomes, the extent to which the campaigns themselves influence the outcomes remains unknown.

Using the data acquired from the content analysis of climate change websites, we constructed a dataset of Australian climate change campaigns. Across this dataset, a wide diversity of campaign goals were identified. These include several campaigns focusing on divestment, fossil fuel subsidies, and mining/power station closures. A contrasting advocacy approach focused on influencing individual behavior as a mechanism to reduce emissions, such as by planting trees or encouraging alternative individual consumption practices to reduce emissions by one tonne of CO2 per day. The targets of the campaigns included a broad range of social, economic, and political sectors, ranging from politicians and governments to businesses, religious communities, health and education providers, and individuals. Campaign data and outcomes are presented in Appendix S1.

The analysis of campaign outcomes was undertaken through coding campaign descriptions from the study population websites and then searching online 24 months later for evidence regarding whether individual campaign goals had been successful, partially successful, unsuccessful, or unknown. Successful campaigns are those where their goal has been achieved; for example, a campaign targeting a university to divest from fossil fuels was assessed as successful if the university made a formal, public commitment to do so. Likewise, a campaign was deemed unsuccessful if the goal had not been achieved. For example, a campaign to stop a coal mine would be considered as unsuccessful if the coal mine proceeded or continued to progress in its approval or construction process. Partially successful campaigns are those where there may be multiple goals or targets, of which one or more were achieved. The outcomes of campaigns targeting changes in behavior, such as reducing the amount of meat an individual eats, were unable to be assessed because data on individual behavior (e.g., meat consumption) in the areas targeted by those campaigns are unavailable. Links to evidence for each assessment are provided in Appendix S1 and on the OSF link: https://osf.io/q2yef/?view_only=6069256771af4374ae14c718427f6e0b.

In total, 11 of the 58 (18.97%) campaigns achieved outright success, 14 of the 58 (24.14%) campaigns achieved partial success, 12 of the 58 (20.69%) campaigns were unsuccessful, and 21 of the 58 (36.21%) campaigns’ outcome were unknown (Table 2). Partial success most commonly arose for divestment campaigns, as well as one major coal mining project that was delayed over a five-year period through successive targeting of the political and financial groups associated with the project. Examples of the 12 unsuccessful campaigns include those that advocate for the elimination of subsidies to, or investments in, fossil fuel companies by the Australian Federal Government and the large Australian banks. While these outcomes are labeled “unsuccessful,” campaigning on these issues continues. As noted previously, the outcomes of campaigns that focused on awareness-raising or individual behavior change activities were not able to be ascertained due to the absence of data on individual behaviors to assess outcomes. Successful campaigns were more likely to be achieved by local groups, with 6 of the 20 (30%) local campaigns achieving this outcome compared to 5 of the 38 (13.16%) national campaigns. In contrast, partial success was more likely to be achieved by national campaigns (12/38, 31.58%) than local campaigns (2/20, 10%). This may imply that local campaigns choose more achievable targets or implement less complex campaigns involving multiple targets.

TABLE 2.

Outcomes of campaigns run by local and national climate change groups.

Local GroupsNational Groups

Campaign OutcomeN (%)N (%)N (%)
Unknown 21 (36.21%) 6 (30%) 15 (39.47%) 
Partially successful 14 (24.14%) 2 (10%) 12 (31.58%) 
Unsuccessful 12 (20.69%) 6 (30%) 6 (15.79%) 
Successful 11 (18.97%) 6 (30%) 5 (13.16%) 

 
Total 58 20 (34.48%) 38 (65.52%) 
Local GroupsNational Groups

Campaign OutcomeN (%)N (%)N (%)
Unknown 21 (36.21%) 6 (30%) 15 (39.47%) 
Partially successful 14 (24.14%) 2 (10%) 12 (31.58%) 
Unsuccessful 12 (20.69%) 6 (30%) 6 (15.79%) 
Successful 11 (18.97%) 6 (30%) 5 (13.16%) 

 
Total 58 20 (34.48%) 38 (65.52%) 

Nine campaigns had more than one target, taking the total number of targets to 73 (see Table 3). Of the 58 campaigns focusing on these 73 targets, 31 targets either fully or partially achieved the campaign goal (42.47%). Paradoxically, political and government targets were both overrepresented in the unsuccessful target cohort (8/12, 66.67%) and overrepresented in the successful target cohort (6/15, 40%). An unknown outcome was most likely to occur when individuals were targeted (11/30, 36.67%), primarily due to the lack of data on any individual behavior changes achieved. The highest proportion of successful outcomes was achieved by businesses, with 12 of the 19 campaigns targeting businesses (63.16%) achieving a partial or fully successful campaign outcome.

TABLE 3.

Outcomes of climate change campaigns by campaign target.

Campaign Target

Campaign OutcomeTotal CampaignsTotal TargetsPoliticians and GovernmentsHealth and Education ProvidersCommunity GroupsReligious GroupsBusinessesIndividuals

N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Unknown 21 (36.21%) 30 (41.1%) 5 (16.67%) 1 (3%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 7 (23.33%) 11 (36.67%) 
Partially Successful 14 (24.14%) 16 (21.92%) 3 (18.75%) 1 (6%) – – 8 (50%) 4 (25%) 
Successful 12 (20.69%) 15 (20.55%) 6 (40%) 1 (7%) 1 (6.67%) – 4 (26.67%) 3 (20%) 
Unsuccessful 11 (18.97%) 12 (16.44%) 8 (66.67%) – 1 (8.33%) – – 3 (25%) 

 
Total campaign outcomes 58 73* 22 (30.14%) 3 (4%) 5 (6.85%) 3 (4%) 19 (26.03%) 21 (28.77%) 
Campaign Target

Campaign OutcomeTotal CampaignsTotal TargetsPoliticians and GovernmentsHealth and Education ProvidersCommunity GroupsReligious GroupsBusinessesIndividuals

N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Unknown 21 (36.21%) 30 (41.1%) 5 (16.67%) 1 (3%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 7 (23.33%) 11 (36.67%) 
Partially Successful 14 (24.14%) 16 (21.92%) 3 (18.75%) 1 (6%) – – 8 (50%) 4 (25%) 
Successful 12 (20.69%) 15 (20.55%) 6 (40%) 1 (7%) 1 (6.67%) – 4 (26.67%) 3 (20%) 
Unsuccessful 11 (18.97%) 12 (16.44%) 8 (66.67%) – 1 (8.33%) – – 3 (25%) 

 
Total campaign outcomes 58 73* 22 (30.14%) 3 (4%) 5 (6.85%) 3 (4%) 19 (26.03%) 21 (28.77%) 

*Nine campaigns had more than one target.

ASSESSING CAMPAIGN OUTCOMES: BENEFITS

Campaigns often require a range of activities conducted over an extended period [21]. These activities, such as undertaking litigation and organizing community workshops, usually require substantial human and organizational resources. The act of campaigning can be used to increase the supply of these resources available to groups, such as attracting more volunteers and increased donations. It can also offer opportunities for more supporters to become engaged [22]. Greater resources, which enable groups to respond to issues more quickly, can implement complex projects such as community renewable energy systems and undertake more campaigns over a longer period. The acquisition of these resources through campaigning can therefore provide the foundation for achieving successful advocacy [23].

Three benefits of undertaking campaigns emerged from the thematic analysis of interview data. The first of these benefits was the acquisition of additional funds and volunteer time. All 26 interviewees highlighted the importance of these resources due to their influence in both increasing the capacity of the group to undertake research, litigation, and other activities, as well as to assist with the running costs of these largely volunteer organizations. Many volunteer leaders interviewees were self-funded and worked largely full time on their climate change advocacy, with minimal resources available to fund or train new workers. Therefore, attracting and retaining volunteers with skills, financial security and the ability to “slot in” were highlighted as an important, yet rare, benefit of undertaking campaigns. To the extent that organizations can communicate their campaign successes, this could have the benefit of attracting new members to the cause [24, 25]. However, this is challenging when such a high proportion of campaigns target individual behaviors and thus do not have measurable outcomes, making claims of success difficult to convey.

Second, all 26 interviewees highlighted building relationships with other environmental groups as a substantial benefit of undertaking a campaign, particularly during critical phases of campaigning. These relationships facilitate building knowledge, skills, and expertise of recipient groups, and through doing so, boost the strength of the network as a whole. Campaigners also noted that an additional benefit of increasing links between groups was that it afforded smaller groups political access. Many larger groups have greater access to politicians, and more resources to enable them to engage in legislative processes (such as nominating representatives to committees or developing detailed submissions). Developing strong connections between the climate change groups therefore provides a window of opportunity for the campaigns of smaller and more local groups to be heard, and possibly heeded, by political representatives.

The third campaign benefit stated by 25 interviewees was the strengthening of bonds among the core team within each climate change group. This bond provided support to individual campaigners, enabling them to engage in campaign activities over a period of years despite periods of failure and setbacks. According to climate change campaigners, finding and retaining reliable individuals with a shared drive to undertake climate advocacy were seen as a significant, if not vital, benefit of campaigns. In fact, the quality of the relationships between the core group members was described by interviewees as fundamental to the ability of groups to undertake any campaigns at all. Campaigners identified the inter-personal relationships developed or supported through their campaigning work as both the most important aspect of their ongoing campaigning work, as well as the most personally rewarding outcome of their climate change advocacy experiences.

INFLUENCES ON CAMPAIGN SUCCESS

From the perspective of climate change campaigners, campaign success (i.e., achieving the stated goal of the campaign) and campaign benefits (i.e., additional benefits that ensue to the group from the campaign) were seen as equally important. However, success can bring additional burdens to organizational growth and increased demands on individual campaigners’ time and energy. The increased expectations generated through achieving campaign success, or experiencing ongoing failure, can also have an emotional toll that can lead to individual burnout and group fragmentation. Interviewees identified three common individual and group characteristics that they believed influenced the outcomes of campaigns. The following sections consider each in turn.

Mutual Support

A key characteristic of an enduring and active volunteer group was the presence of a founding team. This was most commonly two people with like-minded values and desire to effect change. Relatedly, environmental group leaders consistently noted the importance of a reliable and steadfast core team to prevent burnout. Leaders who had experienced burnout recounted feeling an overwhelming sense of responsibility and despair, combined with a lack of personal and group support, with 24 of the 26 interviewees identifying these types of responses as negative consequences of group conflict. Conversely, those who persevered identified that they did so with the support of their team. Fifteen interviewees stated that being with like-minded people and sharing commons goals were the best aspects of their advocacy work. Thus, group dynamics emerge as a critical aspect which influences campaign implementation over the long term.

Despite the critical importance of a supportive core team highlighted above, finding, retaining, and managing like-minded volunteers can be challenging. New volunteers who were recruited during campaigns were described as often unreliable, lacking confidence, and need significant mentoring support. Therefore, the acquisition of additional resources such as money or volunteers, while welcome, was most commonly thought to bring additional burdens to volunteer leaders. Many leaders identified as a stressor the conflict between managing others (whether volunteers or paid staff) and having time and energy for advocacy tasks. Put simply, while recruiting competent and supportive others initiated a virtuous cycle of resilience and growth, failure to recruit and retain a healthy team was often part of a feedback loop eroding personal and organizational strength.

Network Links

Networks act as mobilizing structures [26], which enable increased volunteer engagement in group activities as well as increased pathways to political and economic power [27]. However, our data highlighted the factors that may constrain the ability of the group to capitalize on these opportunities. For 23 interviewees, prioritizing collaboration with other groups was also seen to come at a cost: reduced time for managing volunteers, activities, and campaigns within their own groups. For this reason, despite valuing the benefits of network collaboration, as highlighted above, most campaigners either did not work closely with other groups or had participated with and then left other groups in the past. Constraints perceived to restrict the ability of groups to work together constructively on campaigns included: a lack of financial or human resources to collaborate and implement campaigns, tensions around leadership and branding, and groups operating at different geographical or financial levels. Despite the opportunities to share and implement campaigns within the existing network links, there is little evidence of groups sharing campaign information between groups.

Strategic Choices

A final source of conflict versus energy within a group was the existence of consensus versus debate over strategic choices. Campaigns require individuals to engage in collective action and require group leaders to organize and drive that action [28]. Campaigns also require significant individual expertise, knowledge, and skill in effectively implementing and maintaining advocacy often in the face of significant hostility from individuals outside the group. The decisions around whether to focus on educating the public, lobbying politicians, or undertaking direct action can be highly contentious and therefore difficult for groups to manage effectively. Individuals appear to choose strategic approaches rooted in individual values and beliefs. This makes the choice of climate advocacy strategy challenging to debate and reach consensus over, particularly for those working on urgent, reactive campaigns. Thirteen campaigners identified situations where conflict over strategic choice had led to the break-down of a group, or loss of key individuals. Managing the conflict around the choice of strategies and tactics as groups grow and age can be an extremely challenging aspect of climate change advocacy work.

However, this creative tension may offer an insight into why such large numbers of groups persist across environmental movements. The proliferation of groups may be a positive mechanism to support an ongoing ecosystem of diverse grassroots activism, enabling people to find a group with strategies and tactics that align with their own personal motivations and theories of change [29].

LESSONS LEARNED

This research has demonstrated that the climate change movement is diverse and achieving a substantial degree of campaign success. In addition, as shown in the campaign benefits section, campaigning can deliver significant benefits to advocacy groups through increasing financial and human resources available to the group, creating stronger links with the movement, and building the cohesion and unity of the core team. These benefits can accrue even when the campaigns themselves do not achieve a successful outcome.

It is important for climate change groups to communicate their successes, as this may attract greater support for their activities [11, 12]. Successful outcomes achieved through campaigning work should be a key message communicated consistently across all communication platforms and materials. Conveying the sense of accomplishment and purpose that can be experienced through being part of a climate change advocacy community may also encourage more supporters to become more active. Currently, 36.21% of campaigns have goals that are not measurable. Ensuring that campaigns have measurable outcomes will enable groups to communicate success, and thereby increase the likelihood that others will become involved.

More broadly, stopping climate change requires a fundamental realignment of the way our species, and each of us individually, interact with our environment. Recognizing the power of climate change advocacy to drive this realignment may require shifting our concept of success away from achieving the ultimate goal, to recognizing and celebrating the additional benefits of engaging in climate change advocacy along the way. Our data indicate that campaigns, whether successful or not, can enhance a group’s potential to achieve their advocacy goals. The challenge campaigners face is to communicate this potential effectively to mobilize a groundswell of advocacy demanding action against climate change. In doing so, we will move closer to addressing this most urgent and dire threat to our future.

CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

On Advocacy Characteristics

Q1: Engaging others in advocacy: How can people be encouraged to engage in grassroots climate advocacy? Is it more important to encourage individuals to understand and change unsustainable individual habits or politicians to enact legislation reducing carbon emissions?

Q2. Choosing to be an advocate: Imagine you wanted to do something about climate change. What type of advocacy or campaign would you choose to do? What motivates this choice? What opportunities and barriers exist with this type of advocacy that may affect whether others would want to join you?

Q3. Overcoming challenges: What kind of challenges do groups face when choosing and implementing their advocacy strategies? How would they overcome these challenges?

On Social, Economic, and Political Context

Q4. Negative consequences: Strengthening environmental protection can come with a price, occasionally leading to the backlash by businesses, farmers, community members, and others. How can climate change advocacy minimize backlash by these groups and encourage them to work together for the common good?

Q5. Context considerations: Campaign decisions are influenced by public opinion, political representation, and socio-economic features of a particular town or area. How would these contextual factors affect decision-making about campaign strategy, as well as reflect diverse theories of social change and worldviews? How could an advocacy group undertake a climate change campaign in a situation where all contextual factors work against them?

Q6. Political considerations: Advocacy groups in Australia can undertake campaigns in relative freedom. How would campaigns need to be adapted to work in countries where protest is illegal, or in authoritarian, non-secular or tribal nation-states?

On Measures of Advocacy Success

Q7. Goals and targets: What sort of goals and targets could be set for advocacy campaigns? Who is responsible for setting those targets and reporting against their outcomes?

Q8. Measuring success: How do advocacy groups know if they are making a measurable difference in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even if their campaigns are successful? How can advocacy activities be tested to further our understanding of the factors that influence advocacy success?

Q9. Advocacy potential: Is advocacy against climate change capable of creating the changes required to stop climate change? What would this advocacy look like to be able to achieve this level of success?

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

RG conducted the collated analysis of the three data sources and associated materials and led the writing of the original draft of this article. KF and WL supervised all stages of the article development process and provided feedback and editorial review.

FUNDING

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Appendix S1. Climate change campaign characteristics and outcomes. docx

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
1.
Ripple W, Wolf C, Newsome T et al.
World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice
.
Bioscience
.
2017
;
67
(
12
):
1026
1028
.
2.
Frank DJ, Longhofer W, Schofer E.
World society, NGOs and environmental policy reform in Asia
.
Int J Comp Sociol
.
2007
;
48
(
4
):
275
295
.
3.
Hall NL, Taplin R.
Confronting climate change a review of theoretical perspectives on environmental NGOs and their campaign effectiveness
.
Griffith J Environ
.
2006
;
2
(
1
):
19
.
4.
Hall NL, Taplin R.
Room for climate advocates in a coal-focused economy? NGO influence on Australian climate policy
.
Aust J Soc Issues
.
2008
;
43
(
3
):
359
379
.
5.
Pearse R, Goodman J, Rosewarne S.
Researching direct action against carbon emissions: a digital ethnography of climate agency
.
Cosmopolitan Civil Soc Interdiscip J
.
2010
;
2
(
3
):
76
103
.
6.
Porta D, Rucht D.
The dynamics of environmental campaigns
.
Mobilization Int Q
.
2002
;
7
(
1
):
1
14
.
7.
Bernstein M.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained? Conceptualizing social movement “success” in the lesbian and gay movement
.
Sociol Perspect
.
2003
;
46
(
3
):
353
379
.
8.
Thomas EF, McGarty CA.
The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction
.
Br J Soc Psychol
.
2009
;
48
(
1
):
115
134
.
9.
McCarthy JD, Zald MN.
Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory
.
Am J Sociol
.
1977
;
82
(
6
):
1212
1241
.
10.
Gulliver RE, Fielding KS, Louis WR.
The characteristics, activities and goals of environmental organizations engaged in advocacy within the Australian environmental movement
.
Environ Commun
.
2019
(in print).
11.
Jugert P, Greenaway KH, Barth M, Büchner R, Eisentraut S, Fritsche I.
Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy
.
J Environ Psychol
.
2016
;
48
:
12
23
.
12.
Klandermans B.
The Social Psychology of Protest
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
;
1997
.
13.
Bandura A.
Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales
.
Self-efficacy Beliefs Adolesc
.
2006
;
5
(
1
):
307
337
.
14.
Fritsche I, Barth M, Jugert P, Masson T, Reese G.
A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA)
.
Psychol Rev
.
2017
;
125
(
2
):
245
269
.
15.
Dalton R.
Waxing or waning? The changing patterns of environmental activism
.
Env Polit
.
2015
;
24
(
4
):
530
552
.
16.
Johnson E, Saito Y, Nishikido M.
The organizational demography of Japanese environmentalism
.
Sociol Inq
.
2009
;
79
(
4
):
481
504
.
17.
Kent J.
Third-sector organisations and climate change: a case study of Australian climate-action groups
.
Third Sect Rev
.
2012
;
18
(
1
):
53
76
.
18.
Blackwood LM, Louis WR.
If it matters for the group then it matters to me: collective action outcomes for seasoned activists
.
Br J Soc Psychol
.
2012
;
51
(
1
):
72
92
.
19.
Hornsey MJ, Blackwood L, Louis W et al.
Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness
.
J Appl Soc Psychol
.
2006
;
36
(
7
):
1701
1722
.
20.
Cox RJ, Pezzullo PC.
Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere
. 4th ed.
Los Angeles
:
Sage
;
2016
.
21.
Richards J, Heard J.
European environmental NGOs: issues, resources and strategies in marine campaigns
.
Env Polit
.
2005
;
14
(
1
):
23
41
.
22.
Han H, Sparks AC, Towery ND.
Opening up the black box: citizen group strategies for engaging grassroots activism in the twenty-first century
.
Int Groups Advocacy
.
2017
;
6
(
1
):
22
43
.
23.
McCarthy JD, Zald MN.
The enduring vitality of the resource mobilization theory of social movements
. In: Turner JH, editor.
Handbook of Sociological Theory
.
New York
:
Kluwer Academic
;
2001
. pp.
533
565
.
24.
Van Zomeren M.
Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action
.
Soc Pers Psychol Compass
.
2013
;
7
(
6
):
378
388
.
25.
Van Zomeren M, Iyer A.
Introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action
.
J Soc Issues
.
2009
;
65
(
4
):
645
660
.
26.
Moser SC.
In the long shadows of inaction: the quiet building of a climate protection movement in the United States
.
Glob Environ Polit
.
2007
;
7
(
2
):
124
144
.
27.
Giugni M, Grasso MT.
Environmental movements in advanced industrial democracies: heterogeneity, transformation, and institutionalization
.
Annu Rev Environ Resour
.
2015
;
40
(
1
):
337
361
.
28.
Bimber B, Flanagin AJ, Stohl C.
Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment
.
Commun Theory
.
2005
;
15
(
4
):
365
388
.
29.
Louis WR, Chonu GK, Achia T, Chapman CM, Rhee J.
Building group norms and group identities into the study of transitions from democracy to dictatorship and back again
. In: Wagoner B, Bresco I, Glaveanu V, editors.
The Road to Actualized Democracy
.
Charlotte, NC
:
Information Age Publishing
;
2018
;
27
58.

Supplementary data