I have just been reading through Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change, T. Jackson 2005. I don't think I have ever seen so many theories on one paper. How can there be so many possible theories to try to explain consumer choices and which one is correct? I think the main problem here is that consumer choice is so intangible. It is shaped by so many different factors; long and short term, internal influences, external influences, peers, society, education, parents, local community, political orientation, sex, income, culture, the list can go on and on. How can anyone expect to create a single theory that encompasses such a large scope of different stimuli?
Thinking about it, and taking myself and my consuming habits into account, I think they are all correct, though not at the same time. I think that trying to apply a single theory to cover all consumption habits is a mistake. To me it makes sense that for some products I would apply a rational choice theory approach but for other products I might apply Ecological Value Theory, or maybe even a hybrid combination of several theories. Other aspects may also affect which theory applies to a specific consumption activity such as a persons mood, a recent conversation, whether they are tired or ill, whether they are shopping with another person, and other influences leading up to a purchase. Depending on a combination of these factors may determine which theory of consumption needs to be applied to the specific situation.
Some theories of consumption obviously are more generalist and have been effectively leveraged for many years now, such as the means end chain theory used in marketing (Jackson 2005). But I still think this only explains part of consumer behaviour, it gives us a nudge but does not result in a definitive purchase commitment.
Perhaps an Integrated Theory of the Theories of Sustainable Consumption needs to be developed which examines why different purchases are subject to different people in different situations for different products. A theory that leads to determining which theory is most likely to be applicable in different situations.
In addition I think I have identified a theory of consumption that has not been identified in the literature, please correct me if I am wrong! It is the Theory of Rejecting the Recognition of Rational Choice, or for short, the Sod It Theory of Consumption. This is where you rationally weigh up all the pros and cons of a product as explained by Rational Choice Theory and, even if rationally you have no reason to buy it, you think to yourself "Sod it, I'm going to buy it anyway!".
How can we expect to apply rational theories to a species which is so evidently irrational in so many of its choices?
Friday, 22 October 2010
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Missed Opportunity?
I have found the theories of sustainable consumption very interesting, particularly nefs approach to restructuring society. However, I have been very disappointed at the efforts to actually implement any significant changes. I realise that some ideas are starting to filter through, things are starting to change, a bit. Any of the proposed changes need to go through the traditional channels before they are passed as legislation or policy but I feel that in itself is already a huge barrier. The problem with these traditional channels is exactly that they are traditional.
Democratic governments practice "short termism" and, even with the new 5 year terms, many of the radical changes take will take longer to implement. Political parties want to retain their position of power, so policy is geared to keep people happy in the short term. This results in governments which are unwilling to feed money into projects which may be cancelled by their successor and instead directs the funds into short term, less effective schemes which often give limited, short term results. We are therefore stuck in a cycle of governments shying away from opportunities to make a real difference and instead opt for quick (limited) wins, instead of making big strides we make tiny baby steps. So how do we break this cycle?
With all the cuts proposed by the new coalition government I feel that we will move even further away from sustainable development, when actually this could have been a great opportunity to change direction. With people looking for a new fresh government and a way out of the recession, the government could have taken the initiative and begun building a new society from the ground up. A year ago many people felt they didn't have much left to loose, and when you feel like that most people are willing to try something new, but instead we are back to business as usual. This opportunity appears lost. In any case, I do not think any of the political parties in contention would have been brave enough to attempt such a radical move.
Sometimes progress needs risk, to try something new, put some of these new ideas into practice and see what happens.
Democratic governments practice "short termism" and, even with the new 5 year terms, many of the radical changes take will take longer to implement. Political parties want to retain their position of power, so policy is geared to keep people happy in the short term. This results in governments which are unwilling to feed money into projects which may be cancelled by their successor and instead directs the funds into short term, less effective schemes which often give limited, short term results. We are therefore stuck in a cycle of governments shying away from opportunities to make a real difference and instead opt for quick (limited) wins, instead of making big strides we make tiny baby steps. So how do we break this cycle?
With all the cuts proposed by the new coalition government I feel that we will move even further away from sustainable development, when actually this could have been a great opportunity to change direction. With people looking for a new fresh government and a way out of the recession, the government could have taken the initiative and begun building a new society from the ground up. A year ago many people felt they didn't have much left to loose, and when you feel like that most people are willing to try something new, but instead we are back to business as usual. This opportunity appears lost. In any case, I do not think any of the political parties in contention would have been brave enough to attempt such a radical move.
Sometimes progress needs risk, to try something new, put some of these new ideas into practice and see what happens.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
The Sustainability Minefield: AKA The Supermarket
I try to go to farmers markets, local butchers and green grocers but I find that I still need to go to the supermarket to pick up other bits and pieces. However, I still try to be an intelligent consumer, buy organic, try to avoid packaging, bring my own bags, try to keep the food miles down etc. Unfortunately I have found this is not as easy as it sounds.
The other day I went to a well known supermarket with my girlfriend to pick up some of the afore mentioned bits and pieces. My girlfriend asked me to grab some oranges so I dutifully hunt down some of the delicious spherical, segmented delights. After locating the orange section (and it was quite a section!) I start trying to figure out which oranges are most sustainable. Obviously oranges don't grown in the UK, well not in East Anglia anyway, so I'm looking for something in Europe, no packaging and Fair Trade/Organic. There are quite a lot with no Organic/Fair Trade labeling and they're in net bags so they are immediately out of contention. I'm left with two choices:
1. Organic, Fair Trade, in net packaging, grown in South Africa.
2. Not Organic, not Fair Trade, loose (no packaging), grown in Spain.
Where are the loose (unpackaged), Organic, Fair Trade Oranges which have been grown in Europe? How can I choose between the options I am presented with? Do I go with the polluting and exploitative but unpackaged with less CO2 oranges, or the ethically grown but packaged CO2 engorged oranges? Here's an alternative perspective of my two choices:
1. Pros - Sustainable, planet friendly agricultural methods; a happy, fairly treated farmer.
Cons - turtle murder due to ingestion of the net packing mistaken for a jelly fish; irreversible climate change.
2. Pros - Avoided turtle murder; and keeping the global temperature increase closer to 2°C
Cons - Increased possibility that female fish in local waterways may grow testes; exploited farmers.
How do these issues weigh up against each other when they are all so inherently different but intricately linked?
I've noticed that when something is Organic or Fair Trade, or labelled with something like that, it almost always comes in packaging. Be it recycled, or recyclable, or biodegradable, or something else, it always seems to come in packaging. They want you to say "Hey look, that's ORGANIC, and by buying it I'm saving the world!!!" (Mainstream Approach). I always wonder how they decided to become an Organic producer. I would like to think that they are not doing it just to sell more stuff. Though I also think if it was because they believed in sustainable consumption and development they would be more aware of issues around the topic, such as reducing packaging. If you're going to be Organic, please pay attention to why organic practices were introduced, go all the way and do everything right, not just bits and pieces.
I've used oranges as an example but you can barely walk anywhere in the supermarket without being faced with different products with the same dilemma. Bananas, Apples, Chicken, Broccoli, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Garlic, Baken Beans, Runner Beans, Black Beans, String Beans, Butter Beans (sorry, beans came up in a lecture the other day), everything seems to suffer from the same oversight.
The other day I went to a well known supermarket with my girlfriend to pick up some of the afore mentioned bits and pieces. My girlfriend asked me to grab some oranges so I dutifully hunt down some of the delicious spherical, segmented delights. After locating the orange section (and it was quite a section!) I start trying to figure out which oranges are most sustainable. Obviously oranges don't grown in the UK, well not in East Anglia anyway, so I'm looking for something in Europe, no packaging and Fair Trade/Organic. There are quite a lot with no Organic/Fair Trade labeling and they're in net bags so they are immediately out of contention. I'm left with two choices:
1. Organic, Fair Trade, in net packaging, grown in South Africa.
2. Not Organic, not Fair Trade, loose (no packaging), grown in Spain.
Where are the loose (unpackaged), Organic, Fair Trade Oranges which have been grown in Europe? How can I choose between the options I am presented with? Do I go with the polluting and exploitative but unpackaged with less CO2 oranges, or the ethically grown but packaged CO2 engorged oranges? Here's an alternative perspective of my two choices:
1. Pros - Sustainable, planet friendly agricultural methods; a happy, fairly treated farmer.
Cons - turtle murder due to ingestion of the net packing mistaken for a jelly fish; irreversible climate change.
2. Pros - Avoided turtle murder; and keeping the global temperature increase closer to 2°C
Cons - Increased possibility that female fish in local waterways may grow testes; exploited farmers.
How do these issues weigh up against each other when they are all so inherently different but intricately linked?
I've noticed that when something is Organic or Fair Trade, or labelled with something like that, it almost always comes in packaging. Be it recycled, or recyclable, or biodegradable, or something else, it always seems to come in packaging. They want you to say "Hey look, that's ORGANIC, and by buying it I'm saving the world!!!" (Mainstream Approach). I always wonder how they decided to become an Organic producer. I would like to think that they are not doing it just to sell more stuff. Though I also think if it was because they believed in sustainable consumption and development they would be more aware of issues around the topic, such as reducing packaging. If you're going to be Organic, please pay attention to why organic practices were introduced, go all the way and do everything right, not just bits and pieces.
I've used oranges as an example but you can barely walk anywhere in the supermarket without being faced with different products with the same dilemma. Bananas, Apples, Chicken, Broccoli, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Garlic, Baken Beans, Runner Beans, Black Beans, String Beans, Butter Beans (sorry, beans came up in a lecture the other day), everything seems to suffer from the same oversight.
On a related not, I think it would be really useful, and interesting, to make it compulsory for all products to have their carbon footprint printed on their labels. People have gone to the effort of working out how many calories, grams of fat, sugar, cholesterol, potassium, carbohydrates, saturate fat, unsaturated fat, etc. I really don't think it would be too much effort to add CO2 emissions to this list. You could even have a recommended daily/monthly/yearly allowance or set up some kind of points scheme for keeping your consumer carbon footprint below a given figure over a pre-determined period of time.
Well I'm sure you are dieing to know which Oranges I chose! I chose turtle murder and irreversible climate change, but in reflection I think I will go for trans-gender fish but a livable climate next time.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Better off dead, or am I?
WARNING: This post is a bit of a rant!
This week I found out that the past year I have had a horrific carbon footprint, 84000 Kg CO2. I think it was the highest in the class. Let me put this number in perspective. Apparently (to be sustainable) every person on the plant would need to have a carbon footprint of 3000 Kg CO2 (Gill Seyfang). That means in the past year I consumed as much carbon as 28 people. I knew it was going to be big, and I know why it was big.
Approximately 80000 Kg CO2 were purely because of my job. I have spent the past two years working as a technology consultant for one of the Big 4 accounting firms in New York City. "Woo New York City YEAH BABY!" I hear you say! That's what I thought too! For me the reality of living in NYC wasn't as glamorous as the idea of living in NYC. Faced with terrible public transport, filthy crowded streets and an average working week of about 60-70 hours it wasn't much fun. Add on top of that the fact that I was based on a project in Tampa, Florida for 1 year and 4 months and the dream of living in NYC kind of faded. So for almost a year and a half I flew down to Tampa on a Monday and flew back to NYC on a Friday.
The company I was working for claims to be a "Green Leader" in America, aiming to cut its carbon emissions by 20% by 2012. But the claims they make on their website regarding the actions they are taking to achieve this seem to completely contradict the action that I saw taking place in the office. On numerous occasions I tried to get involved with green initiatives that had been advertised, only to be told that they were no longer running or had never existed. I tried to provide ideas to the corporate responsibility group and was either ignored, or when I did get a reply I was told that the changes I had suggested would cost too much to implement and make too insignificant a difference (even simple things like changing to recycled toilet paper was apparently too much for the firm to handle). I later found out that the corporate responsibility group comprised of a single employee in Chicago who also had other responsibilities. With regards to my project, on a few occasions I asked why we weren't temporarily relocated nearer to the project or why local employees couldn't take over (we were based in our own company's office in Tampa). I was told that; the management that set up the project liked to earn the hotel points and air miles; we had a cheap deal with the local hotel; this was always how the project had worked; and that it was a New York Office project, so Tampa employees couldn't work on it. Not the sort of answers I expected from a "Green Leader".
If these are the sort of Green Leaders America is producing it's no wonder the country is the largest emitter on the planet. I have had no experience with corporate jobs in the rest of the world but I hope that companies do not use the company I worked for as a role model. So how do we know who is really making the right moves? Who is taking this challenge seriously?
Surely companies should be held accountable for the claims they are making, transparency is needed so we can determine the true champions from the fraudsters jumping on the green bandwagon. I used to just accept that whatever a well known company said was true, I no longer hold this trust.
Frustrated and disillusioned I quit my job to do this course and change my career. But has quiting my job really made any difference? To me personally, yes. To the emissions I was producing by being employed there, no. Someone else will have willingly taken my place and will, right this very moment, be emitting that CO2. And the company has thousands of projects all over the world, employing thousands of people and flying them thousands of miles. We need these companies to pledge more than just words and we need some way to monitor their progress, not trust them to audit themselves and believe they will do the right thing.
From my experience I can only conclude that only one green thing matters in corporate America and it is not the environment.
They also told me that they supported a healthy work-life balance!
This week I found out that the past year I have had a horrific carbon footprint, 84000 Kg CO2. I think it was the highest in the class. Let me put this number in perspective. Apparently (to be sustainable) every person on the plant would need to have a carbon footprint of 3000 Kg CO2 (Gill Seyfang). That means in the past year I consumed as much carbon as 28 people. I knew it was going to be big, and I know why it was big.
Approximately 80000 Kg CO2 were purely because of my job. I have spent the past two years working as a technology consultant for one of the Big 4 accounting firms in New York City. "Woo New York City YEAH BABY!" I hear you say! That's what I thought too! For me the reality of living in NYC wasn't as glamorous as the idea of living in NYC. Faced with terrible public transport, filthy crowded streets and an average working week of about 60-70 hours it wasn't much fun. Add on top of that the fact that I was based on a project in Tampa, Florida for 1 year and 4 months and the dream of living in NYC kind of faded. So for almost a year and a half I flew down to Tampa on a Monday and flew back to NYC on a Friday.
The company I was working for claims to be a "Green Leader" in America, aiming to cut its carbon emissions by 20% by 2012. But the claims they make on their website regarding the actions they are taking to achieve this seem to completely contradict the action that I saw taking place in the office. On numerous occasions I tried to get involved with green initiatives that had been advertised, only to be told that they were no longer running or had never existed. I tried to provide ideas to the corporate responsibility group and was either ignored, or when I did get a reply I was told that the changes I had suggested would cost too much to implement and make too insignificant a difference (even simple things like changing to recycled toilet paper was apparently too much for the firm to handle). I later found out that the corporate responsibility group comprised of a single employee in Chicago who also had other responsibilities. With regards to my project, on a few occasions I asked why we weren't temporarily relocated nearer to the project or why local employees couldn't take over (we were based in our own company's office in Tampa). I was told that; the management that set up the project liked to earn the hotel points and air miles; we had a cheap deal with the local hotel; this was always how the project had worked; and that it was a New York Office project, so Tampa employees couldn't work on it. Not the sort of answers I expected from a "Green Leader".
If these are the sort of Green Leaders America is producing it's no wonder the country is the largest emitter on the planet. I have had no experience with corporate jobs in the rest of the world but I hope that companies do not use the company I worked for as a role model. So how do we know who is really making the right moves? Who is taking this challenge seriously?
Surely companies should be held accountable for the claims they are making, transparency is needed so we can determine the true champions from the fraudsters jumping on the green bandwagon. I used to just accept that whatever a well known company said was true, I no longer hold this trust.
Frustrated and disillusioned I quit my job to do this course and change my career. But has quiting my job really made any difference? To me personally, yes. To the emissions I was producing by being employed there, no. Someone else will have willingly taken my place and will, right this very moment, be emitting that CO2. And the company has thousands of projects all over the world, employing thousands of people and flying them thousands of miles. We need these companies to pledge more than just words and we need some way to monitor their progress, not trust them to audit themselves and believe they will do the right thing.
From my experience I can only conclude that only one green thing matters in corporate America and it is not the environment.
They also told me that they supported a healthy work-life balance!
Monday, 4 October 2010
Starting New
This blog is part of a module I am taking called Sustainable Consumption. It is part of a MSc Environmental Sciences I began at the end of September 2010. I decided to take this course after becoming frustrated with my job and the general disregard for our environment that I experienced in the world around me.
Onto sustainable consumption. As the title of this blog suggests, it can start with you. Sustainable consumption, in its most basic definition, is only using resources as quickly as they can be replenished. However, it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
In terms of you, the individual, you can address activities in your own life such as driving, food, clothing, electronics, holidays, etc. All of these aspects of your life can be approched in a sustainable fashion. Some more than others but all can be improved.
Governments and organisations can also address sustainable consumption with respect to sustainable development, greener business practices, promotion of green economies, tax incentives and grants.
There are many issues with sustainable consumption from enconomics and infrastructure to cultural and religious differences.
I aim to look into sustainablility in all its facets and try to find ways to increase our sustainability as a planet.
Onto sustainable consumption. As the title of this blog suggests, it can start with you. Sustainable consumption, in its most basic definition, is only using resources as quickly as they can be replenished. However, it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
In terms of you, the individual, you can address activities in your own life such as driving, food, clothing, electronics, holidays, etc. All of these aspects of your life can be approched in a sustainable fashion. Some more than others but all can be improved.
Governments and organisations can also address sustainable consumption with respect to sustainable development, greener business practices, promotion of green economies, tax incentives and grants.
There are many issues with sustainable consumption from enconomics and infrastructure to cultural and religious differences.
I aim to look into sustainablility in all its facets and try to find ways to increase our sustainability as a planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)