Introduction

Changed weather conditions, such as rising temperatures and sea levels, increased precipitation, and severe wind conditions are often described, experienced, and understood as signs of a changing climate. These changes are said to affect large parts of society, not least outdoor workers, whose working conditions are negatively affected. The high temperatures in the summer of 2023 resulted in protests by outdoor workers. The Swedish media reported that garbage workers in Rome threatened to strike and that staff at the Acropolis in Athens refused to work during the hottest hours of the day. According to the media material, President Biden commented on the situation for outdoor workers in the following way:

For the farm workers, who must harvest crops in the dead of night to avoid the high temperatures, or farmers who risk losing everything they planted for the year, or the construction workers, who literally risk their lives working all day in blazing heat, and in some places don’t even have the right to take a water break […] That’s outrageous [1].

The Swedish media has also addressed the situation of Swedish outdoor workers in relation to changing weather conditions, and presents tips on what to consider when working in conditions such as high temperatures. This paper is about how outdoor work is described in the Swedish media in relation to climate change, extreme weather, and high temperatures.

Previous research

This study relates to three fields of research; climate change and working conditions, media representations of climate change, and risks in media representations of climate change.

Aim

The primary aim is to explore how the Swedish media reports on outdoor workers and their working conditions in relation to difficult weather conditions—especially high temperatures—and climate change. The secondary aim is to describe and analyze how an identified risk discourse is legitimized in media representations of extreme weather and outdoor work, and to discuss possible consequences of these representations and the legitimized risk discourse.

Materials and methods

This paper is based on media material available in the digital database retriever.com (Mediearkivet), which means that it only includes published data. The database retriever.com enables searches in 4071 different Swedish media outlets from 1945 onwards (print media, online media, radio and TV, and podcast). We made searches using the keywords “klimatförändring AND utomhusarbete (“climate change” AND “outdoor work”), “storm AND utomhusarbete” (“storm” AND “outdoor work”), “nederbörd AND utomhusarbete” (“precipitation” AND “outdoor work”), “klimat AND utomhusarbete” (“climate” AND “outdoor work”), “kyla AND utomhusarbete” (“cold” AND “outdoor work”), and “värme AND utomhusarbete” (“heat” AND “outdoor work”). These resulted in 2, 7, 11, 72, 118, and 125 hits respectively (total 335). The searches targeted all types of media without a defined time period, and the results include newspapers, online newspapers, online magazines (e.g., health magazines and working-life magazines), as well as online articles published by public service radio (Sveriges Radio) and public service television (SVT). The variety of media types allows them to reach diverse target groups. The first hits were from the mid-1990s and continued until the present. Most of the hits were from the 2010s onwards. We made a strategic selection from among the 335 hits, based on the guiding principle that we wanted data that encompassed argumentative statements about weather and outdoor work, and did not just briefly mention these phenomena. This strategic selection resulted in 72 hits and thus meant that we excluded several of the texts, including duplicates, found in the media material.

It is characteristic of the material in general that it deals with changed weather conditions and rising temperatures in relation to outdoor work. Climate change is mentioned, but not to the extent that we had expected. However, it seems that the writers were taking climate change as an implicit guiding star in their writing.

The material has undergone a qualitative analysis, characterized by an interest in processes of meaning making, the interpretation of symbolic material, and (the possibility of) different interpretations [50]. An important analytical point of departure has been to consider the media material as representations. This means that the articles, which are text-based and give the impression of representing an objective reality, have been treated as governed by conventions, genres, and stylistic expressions [51].

The concrete analysis was divided in two stages. In stage one we were inspired by Braun and Clarke’s [52] analytic process consisting of six phases. In the first phase, we familiarized ourselves with the data, which meant that we repeatedly read the articles in order to gain an in-depth understanding of each text. We also assessed the quality of the data, whether the articles were ambiguous or contradictory. In the second phase, initial codes were identified by focusing on recurring notions and concepts that conveyed similar meanings, and that often related to problems with climate change and difficult weather conditions. The coding phase resulted in categories such as “health problems”, “reduced productivity” and “deficient technologies”. In phases 3–5 we searched for themes, reviewed themes, and defined and named themes based on similarities between the identified categories. A common similarity was notions of danger and threat, which we perceived as expressions of “risk” as the main theme. “Physiological and mental risks”, “technological and economic risks” and “an increased crisis” were defined as sub themes. Braun and Clarke’s sixth phase, producing the report, was completed after stage 2 in the analytical process.

During the first stage of the analysis, we noticed that the authors of the media texts used rhetorical techniques when arguing for different risks of climate change and difficult weather conditions. Therefore, in stage two of the analysis, we focused on identifying storytelling techniques such as simplification, polarization, intensification, concretization, personification, and stereotyping [53, 54]. These techniques often have the purpose or effect of reducing the amount of information—there is an excess of media information in general—and capturing people’s attention [55]. However, these same techniques can also be used to legitimize or justify different ideas about weather, climate, and temperatures; for example, the writers express an implicit or explicit ambition to convince their readers that rising temperatures and climate change are real and proven phenomena. We came to interpret this ambition in terms of strategies of legitimation: different rhetorical strategies being used with the purpose of justifying or legitimizing a message. Here we were inspired by Reyes [56] and the legitimation strategies that he identified in political rhetoric, such as references to experts and to a hypothetical future. It may be noted that there is a difference between persuasion and legitimation. While the former is usually linked to individual abilities [57], such as the capacity to influence other people, the latter focuses on how credibility is created in a text without involving individuals.

A qualitative analysis can be perceived as “purely” inductive, but in our case, it is probably more accurate to call it abductive, since there has been an interaction between material, theory, and previous research [58]. For example, “risk” is a discourse identified in the material, but it would be misleading to describe this discourse as the result of a strictly inductive process. Both before and during our investigation, we came across texts that deal with the connection between changing weather and (experiences of) risks, and these have influenced our analysis, implicitly or explicitly. The set of concrete examples of what characterizes risks were, however, inductively identified in the material.

The results of the different stages of the analysis were repeatedly compared with the media material and with earlier interpretations in the analytical process to avoid misinterpretations. Furthermore, the two authors discussed the analytical process repeatedly until a consensus was reached to ensure the quality of the analysis [59].

Theoretical perspectives

In this paper, we adopt a social constructionist perspective, which means that we assume the understanding or interpretation of objects and societal phenomena is dependent upon culture, environment, context, etc., and not (only) on the object and the phenomenon itself [60]. In line with this, we regard climate and weather as socially and culturally constructed phenomena, whereby climate can be described as an idea that humans use to organize the relations between weather and their lives [61]. However, the fact that we regard climate and weather as culturally constructed does not mean that we deny the existence of facts showing, for example, a changing climate over time with rising temperatures, but, according to our theoretical point of view, such facts, and how they are interpreted, used, and communicated, are dependent upon actual (and dominant) ideas about climate and weather:

That we can reduce the complex phenomenon of climate change to a few words and use a rhetorical flourish to give it enormous emotional power tells us that this phenomenon is a social construction and not just a collection of facts about temperatures, emissions, rainfall patterns and the like. Even the facts are for the most part social [62].

For example, talking about weather in terms of rising temperatures and devastating droughts will convey different ideas about climate change than talking about weather and rising temperatures in relation to an extended growing season and increased harvests. Thus, there is a relative component to stories about changed weather conditions and climate change.

Inspired by the social constructionist perspective, we are interested in how risks are “shaped” and presented in the media material. We thus consider risk to be a construction, which means that risks are created in interaction between different actors, ideas, and forces, and should not be seen as something given or fixed, as is often assumed [63]. Risks can be seen as a kind of shared and historically changing agreement, and an agreement that is related to late modern society. As stated by Beck [64], risks as a central organizing principle have substantiated a culture of fear and contributed to the rise of risk-handling companies and organizations, for example insurance and security companies. Media communication about risks usually also has certain purposes, such as informing the public, warning of a threatening future, starting political debates, or obtaining many “clicks” on social media according to the logic of capitalism.

The media logic is important here. As stated by Altheide and Snow [65], journalism is not based on objective investigations of what is happening in “the real world” and what is essential there. Instead, journalism is shaped by the media’s own production conditions, its own media formats, and time rhythms. For example, according to the media logic, it is important to avoid (too much) complexity in reports. Moreover, the social reality that journalists write about is already adapted to the media logic. There is thus no independent reality that can be investigated. Altheide and Snow’s [65] reasoning can also be seen as an example of how news is socially and culturally constructed.

Findings: Dangerous weather

Global heating—a threat against working life. (Our translation) [66]

The media material can be divided into two overall genres. The first deals with extreme weather, rising temperatures, and climate change at a structural level; the second addresses the effects of extreme weather conditions at a concrete, lived level, in everyday working life. Common to the media representations, however, is the fact that extreme weather and high temperatures are perceived as crucial and global problems for humanity. In the long term, everyone is said to be affected by climate change and high temperatures, even though outdoor workers and so-called risk groups are described as the most vulnerable populations. Information stating that more than half of the world’s workforce works outdoors, in the agricultural sector, and in construction and manufacturing industries [67], illustrates that many people are dependent upon the weather. Such information also has the effect of reproducing perceptions of risk in terms of danger and threat, and in the following we address different overall categories (themes) of risk in the media material: physiological and mental risks, and economic and technological risks. These themes can also be supplemented with a temporal dimension, in the sense that the risks are expected to increase over time.

Discussion

The media material we examined was characterized by risk production, and different categories of risk due to rising temperatures were identified: physical and mental, as well as economic and technological risks. The idea that climate, weather, and temperatures are changing at a global scale was something that reporters took for granted, and they legitimized the notion of such a changed scenario by referring to experts as well as by dramatization and personification.

Repeated references were made to scientific reports and experts, and journalists accepted these reports and expert opinions “straight up”—they did not question them, or engage in critical investigative journalism. This substantiated the idea of changing weather conditions and rising temperatures as primarily a threat. However, there were a few hints of other perspectives; for example, that changing weather conditions could promote shipping, as less icebreaking is needed, and with rising sea levels the risk of running aground decreases [74]. But such examples of positive effects in some areas were exceptions.

Dramatization as a strategy of legitimation appeared in media representations that predicted a very large increase in the number of climate-related deaths, and emphasized that many places would become uninhabitable due to sharply rising temperatures. Personification as a strategy of legitimation could be identified in articles where individuals described their own experiences of difficult weather conditions, especially high temperatures. Here, too, notions of risk and danger were reproduced, as the heat was believed to cause anything from direct burns to dizziness and nausea. However, there were also a few hints of alternative experiences, when individuals emphasized that high temperatures were appreciated.

It can thus be concluded that the studied media representations are involved in the social construction of risks, which means that, first and foremost, they reproduce and convey ideas about dangers and threats [24]. This construction results in what can be described as a relatively fragmented risk discourse, as the articles differ in terms of content. They cover everything from rising temperatures as a global phenomenon to tips on drinking a lot of water and drinking often when working outdoors in high temperatures. However, the articles are organized by the same nodal point in the risk discourse: the changing weather conditions are exclusively associated with danger and threat.

In the following, we seek to discuss potential consequences of the media representations and the identified risk discourse. An “advantage” of the risk discourse is that it indicates a serious and global threat posed by rising temperatures, and also highlights the importance of acting. It can also, as Painter [49] points out, be more nuanced to speak of “risk” instead of, for example, “disaster,” because the latter can give the impression that the situation is totally hopeless.

Any negative consequences of the media representations are related to the fact that they are characterized by risk communication, and they legitimize ideas according to which climate, weather, and temperatures are changing irreversibly, and exclusively represent dangerous and threatening phenomena. The effect of this can be understood as a depoliticization of these changes, because they are (indirectly) presented as inevitable, and because of the absence of articles demanding that state authorities take measures.

Another closely related consequence of the media representations and the identified legitimation strategies, not least dramatization, is that they reinforce the apocalyptic and global aspects of changing weather conditions—as Allan et al. [36] have stated, they reinforce (the experience of) imminent risk. The affective and emotional nature of these dramatizations, with a focus on intimidation, danger [23], and shocking details about what is to come, also contributes to perceptions of the risks as becoming more and more threatening [46]. The media logic, according to which communication should be clear and avoid the complexity that characterizes, for example, scientific communication, equally contributes to perceptions of the risks as increasingly serious.

The abundance of similar information about (the effect of) changing weather conditions can work against the explicit or implicit intentions of the media representations, which are to counteract climate change. As stated by Moser and Dilling [86], the strategy of disseminating more information about climate change has no significant effect on people in general. The same applies to information that is based on expert opinions and creates fear. Such information has no significant effect in terms of generating acceptance of the climate threat or increasing people’s support for climate adaptation measures. Instead, the media’s approach to risk communication can have a negative impact on people and their experiences of being able to do anything at all about climate change. As discussed in psychological studies, uncertain prospects mean that people distance themselves from climate change as a real and threatening phenomenon, which also reduces their propensity to engage in climate adaptation measures [87, 88]. At the same time, one cannot totally ignore Roeser’s [89] ideas that emotions are central to effective risk communication, because they can contribute to a deeper understanding of the moral aspects of climate change and contribute to sympathy with its victims. Emotions can also function as a more effective motivator than rational and abstract knowledge [46].

According to Blashki et al. [41], risk communication in relation to extreme weather is usually about short-term measures, but what is really needed is long-term proactive risk communication that focuses on climate adaptation of society’s infrastructure in the long run. The short-term perspective is reflected in the analyzed media material through the advocated risk-management strategies, which focused on how outdoor workers in everyday life can master and alleviate the stress of high temperatures. Suggested measures included everything from varying work tasks to taking long breaks and drinking water regularly. These measures are, of course, understandable from a work environment perspective, but they also focus on short-term adaptation to climate change, not on measures to slow it down. Thus, as mentioned above, the suggested measures give the impression of climate change as an irreversible phenomenon, and that the only thing to do seems to be to accept it and try to handle the changes.

The presentations of tips and advice were also characterized by a high degree of concreteness, such as the suggestion that outdoor work should take place in the shade. Advantages of this concretization are, of course, that the risk of health problems may be reduced, but the enumeration of many different concrete countermeasures can in themselves result in heightened risk perception, just because there are so many. Another aspect of these risk management strategies is that some of them individualize the problems of changing weather conditions and rising temperatures [90]. It is, they seem to imply, primarily up to the individual to take steps to prevent harm.

In previous research, it has been established that there is a strong belief across society that new technologies and technical innovations will solve the climate crisis. For example, Hornborg [91] writes about technology fetishists, i.e., about the strong belief in (new) technology, for example among people in power, as the ultimate climate crisis solution. However, Hornborg also emphasizes that this belief turns a blind eye to the fact that even new technologies result in stress on the climate [91].

In the media material technology is certainly highlighted. But rather than as the solution to climate crises, technological development is described as a necessity in order to adapt to new weather conditions. However, any negative aspects of technological development are not discussed. According to these media representations, it seems as though people can almost continue to live their lives as before based on a few technological adjustments—besides the abovementioned everyday adaptation strategies. Technological development in general seems to be organized by a “logic of efficiency,” according to which it is claimed that people will be able to increase production and consumption without negatively affecting the climate and nature. However, as stated by, for example, Hornborg [91], new and so-called green technologies are not the solution to the problems of climate change, because many of these technologies are based on fossil fuels, and large amounts of metal and plastics.

One conclusion is that Swedish media representations of outdoor work, changing weather conditions, and climate change reproduce the risk discourse identified in previous research. What this study adds, however, is an in-depth account of how this discourse is legitimized and of its “unintended” effects.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Elizabeth Sourbut for a careful language check.