Someday, maybe in the not too distant future, every kind of product and service we consume will be purchased with the knowledge that all of its various components from inception to the end of its life cycle will be part of a continuous and sustainable loop that does no harm to the planet. That is to say, the “take – make – waste” way of linear thinking that has been the prevailing method for conducting business over the past one hundred-plus years will have shifted to a place where sustainability is the only way of doing business.
For some people, if such a radical change in business practice were to occur, it would have come only as a result of determined environmentalists “winning” their argument where protecting the environment trumps any notion of potential losses or curbing freewill in the marketplace.
Today, at least in the US, there is a clear divide between those who are seeking and proactively working towards a sustainable future and those who aren’t interested or are skeptical about anything that is “green”. The new triple bottom line known as “People, Planet and Profit” is a real daily mantra for some companies while others seem focused on short term goals. What will it take to change these attitudes for consumers and businesses?
In the past, most big changes that shifted consumer attitudes were due to tenacious advocates such as Ralph Nader’s huge efforts in 1965 for mandatory seat belts in cars, or twenty odd years later when independent consumer groups demanded that McDonald’s stop using styrofoam in its Big Mac clam shells because they contained harmful CFC’s.
In both instances the changes were made and, in the case of the automobile industry, safety went on to become a major pillar in its marketing plans. And now, with the rise of social media, the ability for individuals to create change can happen instantly. However, there still is a divide among consumers that often mirrors political lines.
For instance, during the past ten to twenty years there has been a growing segment of the population that views the planet as a finite and exhaustible resource. This is of course true, but for some people it’s not an issue because there is no definitive end-date. However, whether it’s twenty years or five hundred years from now, the earth will eventually give up all of its retrievable non-renewable resources. The overriding message is that “dwindling resources and a rising population [will] mean we need disruptive change.” So what can be done to get everyone on the same page?
The shift in consumer thinking may be realized sooner than we think and it may occur on several fronts where different consumer segments, separated by differing political views and agendas, may all agree if only by accepting different messages and ideas that each arrive at same end-result.
In a new study on consumer “worldview thinking” the Shelton Group and John Marshall Roberts have revealed greater insight on how and why people react to sustainability messaging. According to the study, “there was a need to understand the why of sustainable consumer behavior in order to move sustainability messaging forward with more resonant and motivating communication.” The study focused on the premise that consumers typically fit into four predominant categories that are “specific, habitual ways of looking at the world that helps answer the why of consumer behavior.” The study found that consumers are either skeptical or indifferent on the one hand or they’re seeking information or actively participating in sustainable behaviors on the other.
By understanding these attitudes and behaviors, researchers are able to identify the kinds of customized messaging that will resonate and appeal to each consumer’s particular “worldview thinking”. For skeptical or indifferent consumers their attitude towards sustainability may be negative unless they can fully realize the idea of “what’s in it for me” which most often takes the form of competition and the need for social acceptance. Where as consumers who seek more information will be motivated by how sustainability affects the greater well being in their community; and for those who are actively involved the message should be about being pragmatic and empowerment.
With these consumer insights in hand, marketers can craft messages that focus on the needs, desires and values of each category of consumer and get them to agree and buy-in with their ideas. The notion of sustainability will mean different things to different groups and individuals and as long as there is a real, tangible benefit that adheres to their beliefs then there is a good chance that our attitudes will all change for the better.
As more and more companies are looking to implement and embed sustainability initiatives into their business plans, one company stands out as a beacon on how to be totally committed to changing the way business is done. InterfaceFLOR, which was founded by the late Ray Anderson, embarked on a mission in the mid-90′s at becoming 100% sustainable by the year 2020 where it would achieve the goal of completely eliminating any negative impact on the environment across its entire enterprise.
The company is squarely focused on selling great products (carpet tiles) that incorporate functionality with popular design and is based on an “innovative manufacturing processes to reduce waste and eliminate toxins from [its] products and facilities… and to completely eliminate any negative impact [it] may have on the environment by 2020.”
The lessons for all businesses, as expressed by Mr. Anderson, concentrate on eight major points that includes a “cultural shift” that needs to occur where the way we view business practices moves from “just seeking profit” to adopting a new paradigm that truly recognizes our place in the industrialized world.
From a branding perspective, InterfaceFLOR maintains a wide catalog of carpet products that are modern, fashionable and high quality. The environmental aspect of sustainability is not at the forefront of the company’s marketing efforts as Interface recognizes that the consumer is not buying the product because it comes from a sustainable business, rather, it has to meet their needs.
Have you ever thought about what buying organic products means to sustainability and the environment? The folks at So Nice in Canada produced this infographic illustrating some of the effects.
Lars Breneman is planning a vacation to visit his relatives in Germany next year and after reviewing his flight options he’s chosen to fly with Lufthansa. Lars’ decision wasn’t based on any loyalty to his German ancestry, rather he chose the German airline because he’s doing his best to save money – and reduce his carbon footprint. Lars, who lives in Seattle, discovered that Lufthansa has recently begun testing bio-fuels to help lower its carbon emissions, which also means the airline may eventually pay less towards the new EU carbon fees.
The New York Times recently reported, “starting Jan. 1, 2012 the European Union will require all carriers entering or leaving its airports to either reduce their [greenhouse gas - GHG] emissions or pay a charge — whether the airline is United, Air France or Lufthansa… and the “cleanest” airlines will pay less in emissions fees.”
Depending on the size and model of aircraft, airplanes on average spew 244 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions for every mile flown. Source: Blueskymodel.org
For Lufthansa the objective is to become the “driver of change” in reducing GHG emissions with its new biofuels and has estimated a savings of 1,500 tons of CO2 emissions during the recent test period.
On the other hand the US airline industry has taken a different approach having recently filed a lawsuit before the European Court of Justice.
It would be safe to say that the impending fee has caused some friction. “The European Union is imposing this on U.S. carriers without our agreement,” Wendell Albright, director of the Office of Aviation Negotiations at the State Department, said in a recent NY Times interview. “It is for the U.S. to decide on targets or appropriate action for U.S. airlines with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.”
How Long Can the Airline Industry Avoid Being Part of the Solution?
Despite loud protests from the airlines in the US, China and Canada, the issue really stems from the United States defiant position on what proper measures should be for reducing GHG emissions and the true impact of climate change. Since 2005, the EU has been obligated under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions, whereas the US had opted out of the agreement. The fact is, 191 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, therefore all US industry involved in global trade may eventually be facing a future where GHG fees and penalties will have become standard practice.
When asked about the US airlines opposition to the planned carbon fee, EU commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, commented, “we would have liked to see a global agreement, but for how long can this [airline] sector avoid being part of the solution to the climate problem?”
The First Carbon Neutral Airline in North America.
If only the North American airline industry had emulated the forward thinking approach that the world’s largest seaplane airline undertook starting in 2007.
Harbour Air, based in Vancouver B.C., is today a fully carbon neutral airline.
The 50-plane operation managed the feat by partnering with Offsetters, Canada’s leading provider of carbon-management solutions.
In the past, most big changes that shifted consumer attitudes were due to tenacious advocates such as Ralph Nader’s huge efforts in 1965 for mandatory seat belts in cars, or twenty odd years later when independent consumer groups demanded that McDonald’s stop using styrofoam in its Big Mac clam shells because they contained harmful CFC’s.
By understanding these attitudes and behaviors, researchers are able to identify the kinds of customized messaging that will resonate and appeal to each consumer’s particular “worldview thinking”. For skeptical or indifferent consumers their attitude towards sustainability may be negative unless they can fully realize the idea of “what’s in it for me” which most often takes the form of competition and the need for social acceptance. Where as consumers who seek more information will be motivated by how sustainability affects the greater well being in their community; and for those who are actively involved the message should be about being pragmatic and empowerment.
