One thing about the web 2.0 movement – it’s putting a lid on unilateralism. By this I mean the exploitation of ignorance, and the “selling” of a single point of view through propagandist marketing. 

We need more openness – to address the ignorance and the complexity of issues. 

Here is an example: 

In a recent biofuels study, only 26% of UK opinion formers agreed they don’t know enough to have a real opinion about biofuels. Whether the other 74% really know enough to have an informed opinion is matter of debate. At any rate, only 56% gave biofuels their stamp of approval. But 92% said their opinions about biofuels could be favourable if their concerns were addressed. 

·         92% majority agreed / strongly agreed that if their concerns were addressed they would be happy to use biofuels

·         What are these concerns? Impact on food production and impact on the natural environment come first, and cost viability comes third.

·         The “cost” issue is not just individual economic cost.   59% strongly disagreed with the statement that they were ‘not bothered’ as long as the fuel in their tank is cheap and doesn’t damage their car.

What this says to me is there is a massive upside to getting the right open, multi-lateral discourse going. There are real issues, there are ignorance issues, and different stakeholders will see these differently. 

The question is, can we count on the biofuels or larger energy industry to do its bit to change the conversation, address these concerns, fill this ignorance vacuum? Would we trust them, anyway? 

·         Biofuel producers and specifically oil companies are flagged as the least trustworthy source (only 10% support) for information on biofuels.

·         Scientists are at the top of the trust hierarchy with 83% support.  They are followed by NGO’s at 48% and Government at 38%. 

We expected the financial services industry to keep us appraised, and they didn’t. The US automotive companies put tremendous resource into making darned sure the right discourse didn’t happen. As a result, two of the automotives will essentially be dismantled. 

Why should we expect anything different from the energy majors? 

“The oil companies have frequently run advertisements expressing their interest in new forms of energy, but their actual investments have belied the marketing claims. The great bulk of their investments goes to traditional petroleum resources, including carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands and natural gas from shale, while alternative investments account for a tiny fraction of their spending. So far, that has changed little under the Obama administration.” (NY Times, April 7, 2009) 

I believe the web 2.0 movement could be harnessed to help the energy industry be more straightforward, without threatening them in a traditional sense. 

Knowledge in today’s societies is about connections, links, participation, transparency and openness, and speed. This results in better listening, better trust, generosity, efficiency as well as effectiveness. In effect we are able to harness the creativity and wisdom in all of us. 

Here are some things I think about: 

1.                  Who will play the trusted interlocutor and broker? Trust is earned and conferred, not claimed. All parties must feel this entity (or person) is suited to convene the right debate, that this entity cannot just act to further their own interest. Academia sometimes fills this role. Some commercial entities are granted “permission” to convene the industry.

2.                  Is there a grand “unifying theory” of biofuels? It’s simply too complicated. There are too many ecosystem ripples. Anyone with one approach cannot be trusted.

3.                  There has to be a way for “sectarian” groups to interact and have dialog with each other. The key is to create environments where the other parties’ context – as they perceive it – can be understood and shared.

4.                  The ignorance in the general population must be addressed for political support.  The population at large must have access to information and must be aware that there are no absolutes. It becomes imperative to throw open access to information, through learning environments.

5.                  Disruptive players, if their purpose is simply to prevent discourse, have to be managed. 

What matters is transparency, and a multilateral knowledge and relationship building process. And transparency cannot be a trite tip of the hat anymore – industry has to be seen to be transparent rather than just talking about it. Knowledge is not about the content – it’s about the networks of contributors who test and improve that knowledge, round it out. 

The energy industry has an opportunity to profit from the fallout in other strategic industries, and radically open the debate about alternatives, and the industry’s own strategy, so that the market can address the shortfalls. 

Source: Opinion Leader Research Reputation Thermometer, Feb 27, 2009

Posted by Mark Linder  mlinder@wpp.com