I keep an eye on the meat (and the alt-meat) developments ongoing in Australia because of the parallels to the discussions and the debates happening here in North America. Beef Central is my favorite source; I find its coverage to be comprehensive and in-depth.

Case in point: Beef Central’s coverage of a presentation made at the Australian Farm Institute agricultural advocacy forum, the kind of meeting that happens across the U.S. on a monthly basis, at least. The topic was also familiar: Communicating across the combative pro-meat/anti-meat divide.

But the thesis intrigued me. The speaker — Mitch Hooke, former CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia and an agricultural ecologist — posited that it isn’t science or data that will span the divide, or even more or better communication. Hooke boiled it down to one word: “Empathy.”

Empathy!?! For a group whose overt goal is to eliminate animal agriculture altogether?

The idea that empathy should be at the forefront of contentious communication is not new, although I have not heard it much discussed when it comes to the meat industry and its opponents. But Hooke described “empathy” as the most effective advocacy method he’s ever participated in.

“'Communication' is not what it is about,” he told the AFI conference. “Engagement is what it is about.” Evidence and facts are important for building integrity and credibility, but they don’t stand on their own; they must be shored up with engagement and empathy, he said.

As Beef Central put it, “The biggest advocacy mistake, he said, was getting ‘lost in the logic of our own arguments.’ Facts are rarely ever an effective advancement.”

Empathy, on the other hand, requires an issue’s combatants to truly understand the other side’s point of view — not agree with it, but grasp why that side’s proponents feel the way they do, then work to meet them somewhere in between.

Speaking of the Australian mining industry, Hooke said that industry’s approach used to be “decide, announce, defend.” Sound familiar? He said it didn’t work for his miners. Has it ever worked for the meat supply chain?

In the U.S., we are fond of our checkoff-funded, demand-spurring advertising campaigns. Some of them have been iconic. I suggest, though, that in the 21^st century, they are less compelling. The audience is changed and they don’t have patience for being marketed to. They want to be heard — they want to deal with industries, companies and individuals who are empathetic to their points of view. That doesn’t mean that “their” solutions are the only, or best, paths to take to the goal, but your ideas won’t be heard if their concerns aren’t heard, first.

If that sounds one-sided, that’s because it is. But the consumer is the ultimate determinant of winners and losers.

What do you think: Does the meat industry need to bring more “empathy” to its dialogue with its opponents? Or perhaps you think it’s been tried and failed?

Can one word be the key?

Join for free* to continue reading.