Proof

A climate advocacy organisation asked for help to influence a European government that held shares in a major energy company. The organisation wanted the government to vote in support of a shareholder resolution requiring stronger alignment with climate commitments.

Its initial pitch started with several valid climate statements, then long background and ‘About us’ sections, and a direct demand to support the resolution. What it lacked was any real recognition of the audience and the political risks faced by the government decision makers.

We built the pitch by applying Audience Logic. Instead of one unrealistic demand, we offered options that reflected the constraints of a government answerable to journalists and the public. We emphasised that every finding of gaps in the company’s climate strategy was supported by research from sources the government already trusted. In fewer than one hundred words, the pitch started by offering a clear, compelling and politically safe path to ongoing engagement that could not be ignored.

The immediate result was the most realistic outcome available. The government engaged, invited the advocacy organisation back for ongoing discussions, and praised the quality of its analysis. It did not take the strongest possible stance, yet it moved in the right direction. That step forward would not have occurred with the original approach.

The new chairman of one of Australia’s largest publicly listed companies wanted board reports overhauled because they were too long and not hitting the mark.

My proprietary templates represented a complete shift. There was no Executive Summary because Audience Logic makes summaries unnecessary. There was no Background section because any relevant background belongs in the rationale. Context focused on what was needed from the Board rather than a recap of past events. My templates answer the Board’s questions in the logical order the Board would ask them.

To demonstrate the approach, I rewrote five papers from C-suite executives. These were shared with the executives before I met with them all.

Within the first minute of that meeting, one of the senior executives, whom I will call Amos, pushed back strongly. I was not defensive. Instead, I asked whether he had had time to look at the rewritten paper from his own division. He had not.

I invited him to take a moment to read it because it would help me understand his concerns. He found his reworked paper in the pack, skimmed it, and immediately signalled that we could continue.

At the end of the meeting, the CEO stood and shook my hand as a deliberate sign of commitment. He also expanded the work to include all company communications rather than only board reports.

The deeper point is that Amos was not wrong to resist. His professional identity had been built on following widespread traditional approaches, including the standard templates promoted by well-known governance associations. By steering him toward his own improved paper, I gave him space to recognise the strength of Audience Logic and to shift his position without losing face.