Our study looked at the effects of framing on the public perception of corporate compliance action and government policy, closely mirroring the design of the Federal backstop of the Pan-Canadian Framework. There were three key findings.First, companies that simply pay their taxes as a penalty for emissions ("merely complying" with the policy) are considered to be less moral, to have less-acceptable practices and to be harming the environment. Alternatively, companies that invest to decrease their carbon footprint ("proactively engaging" with the policy) are more likely to be perceived as acting morally, having acceptable practices and helping the environment.Secondly, consumers were more willing to bring their business to the proactive companies rather than the merely compliant ones.Finally, the response of companies also had an effect on citizens' perception of the policy itself. If companies were engaging proactively rather than merely complying, consumers were more likely to view the carbon pricing policy as fair, to support the political party that implemented it, to rate the policy as helping the environment, to rate it as helping Canada's image and reflecting Canadian values, and to rate the policy as helping the economy.There are key implications for both industry and government to draw from this research. For industry, communicating proactive policy engagement improves public image and increases consumer support. For the government, communicating to industry the positive benefits-environmental, economic and social-of proactive engagement could increase overall private-sector engagement and thereby improve the public's perception of the policy itself. Overall, this suggests that compliance with and support for carbon pricing policies is a promising opportunity for the private sector to communicate their environmental and social commitments.

This study looked at the effects of framing and payment structure on the public reception of acarbon pricing policy. The study closely mirrored the design of the Federal backstop of the Pan-Canadian Framework, under which consumers receive a direct payment to offset the carbon taxes collected in their province. There were four key findings. First, framing the payment as an “incentive” increased the likelihood of consumers spending their return on green renovations as opposed to everyday purchases. Alternatively, calling the payment a “rebate” pushed people towards spending the money on everyday expenses.Second, if the policy was designed so that payments were disbursed monthly in smaller amounts, they were more likely to be spent on everyday purchases. Conversely, annual lump sum payments were more likely to be allocated towards savings. Third, there was an interaction effect between framing the payment as a “dividend” and the lump sum annual payment structure; in this case, consumers were much more likely to put the money towards savings. Finally, in terms of public perception of the policy, framing it as an “incentive” led to the most positive response, notably in terms of how well the policy reflects on Canada’s image and its alignment with Canadian values. These findings offer insight into how the use of different language to describe a carbon pricing policy, and the use of different payment schedules, can affect what consumers would spend their rebates on and their perception of the policy. How to frame public policy issues advantageously is an important part of political communication. These preliminary findings offer insight into how a carbon pricing policy can be framed and structured so as to promote the changes in consumer behaviour that the policy seeks to bring about.