Sustainable Consumption Advertising

In almost every article I read regarding how to induce pro-environmental behaviour through adverting, the consensus seems to be that it needs to be "regular" in order to have a sufficient effect. Something I've noticed personally when either trying to promote sustainable consumption in the workplace is that many switch off. They seem to think "oh this is this climate change stuff again" and switch off without absorbing hardly any information, even if it is a stimulating argument designed for their specific audience. Perhaps it is because people seem to be inherently stubborn, or (which I lean towards) many have an arrogance whereby they believe they have "heard it all before" and thus have already formed their viewpoint.

I would therefore propose that we need to adopt a clever, more subtle approach. For example, using a (minimally used) hard-hitting advert which uses new ideas from the off that effectively sucks the viewer in. I remember a few years ago, a film advert began with a Batman shaped shadow, thereby enticing the viewer in due to its popularity, however it turned out to be a Scooby Doo advert - this film didn't appeal to me but nevertheless I ended up paying attention to the rest of the advert and had acknowledged its existence.. maybe this is the first step?

The issue of 'retrieval cues', highlighted in the Futerra article (Step 10), is particularly important as subtle reminders make the individual relate to a past advert, for example. This technique makes the whole issue a bit less imposing, especially as it is the individual that brought it to mind (be it by only joining the dots), rather than a blunt advert.

I suppose my main thoughts, when I look back over this quick rant, is that a varied approach is crucial since the audience can easily become bored with a subject that is constantly thrust at them. This, I believe, may help in engaging those 'non-believers'.

'New Consumers'

For my book review assignment I have chosen 'The New Consumers: The Influence of Affluence on the Environment' by Norman Myers & Jennifer Kent.


The New Consumers are essentially middle class consumers from developing countries, who have reached a level of wealth whereby they are able to purchase/consume more and more. The book claims to be the only publication to examine the implications of these 'consumers', who are said to total 1.1 billion people. These issues interest me as people must be educated with regard to the transition required of 'western' consumers. This mentality, the authors claim, is what these new consumers desire and target, in terms of status etc.

The book is packed full of facts and figures, with a references section spanning 40 pages! Although this may alienate some as it could halt the flow whilst reading, I myself prefer it since it adds to the credibility and thus readbility.

If anyone is interested in having a look, the first chapter is available on Google Books:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B5ega7k-uJAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+consumers#v=onepage&q=&f=false

GDP or GNH?

The 2009 NEF publication 'National Accounts of Well-Being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet' examines the reasons behind choosing GNH over GDP. Moreover it surveys the personal and social well-being of 22 European countries, and lays out a framework for developing National Accounts of Well-Being. The link for the PDF is http://neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/iglzyk45xj2jksb01c14fvq424012009010050.pdf Although it requires registering (free of charge) with the NEF, I would recommend reading it, even if it is just the 7 page Executive Summary.


Within the document, I stumbled across the following quote from Robert Kennedy (the younger brother of JFK):

"The Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertisings, and...the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl...Yet [it] does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play...the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages...it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

This quote appealled to me as it really emphasised the irony of how society measures (economic) progress and the current standing of society.


In addition, a finding that particularly interested me was that Britain only came 13th (out of 22) in terms of their total social/personal well-being score. The results also revealled that those aged 16-24 had the lowest level of trust/belonging (a key element of social well-being) anywhere in Europe. Contrastingly, older citzens were much more trusting.


This makes for interesting debate regarding policy approaches - for instance, should the government just accept the change in the feeling of 'belonging' as inevitable or should they target its improvement in the younger age groups? Such issues may seem fairly pedantic, but in the context of measuring GNH, and thus future progress (assuming that GNH is incorporated as a greater influencing performance indicator), they are more significant than first thought.

The Duty of Promoting Sustainable Consumption

This is a tricky question, and one that I believe has no easy answer. My instinct is to insist that everyone (individuals and businesses alike) has a responsibility to act sustainably with a view to protecting the environment - the primary justification being that the potentially devastating impacts of climatic change will affect everyone. Moreover, a responsibility exists to ensure that the Earth's natural resoures are maintained for future generations

However, businesses are understandingly reluctant to make significant changes, particularly if that 'change ' doesn't give them a competitive advantage. Surely if a business culture existed whereby environmental consequences were included in cost evaluations, then market forces would indirectly promote sustainability, thus ridding of such debates. Of course making such a transition, although theortically attractive, is rather more challenging in practical terms.

It has already been reiterated by several other bloggers that decisions businesses make are largely controlled by their shareholders. Since the shareholders are typically profit-driven, promoting sustainability is usually triggered by (and thus limited to) PR benefits and/or adhering to legislation.

This leads me to start questioning the role the government has in tackling this issue - this is where I believe the real 'Duty' lies. It is the government who have the responsibility to take action that will ultimately benefit the population in the long-term and to make those so-called tough decisions. This I know was highlighted by Annie Leonard in 'The Story of Stuff'.

The government are in the unique position whereby they can:

• Legislate - e.g. set legally binding carbon reduction or waste minimisation targets.
• Incentivise - e.g. through carbon taxes. When working for West Norfolk Council, the Climate Change Levy charge that was placed on fossil-fuel derived electricity meant that the total cost difference between a green and brown elec tariff was only a few thousand pounds. Thus the Financial Director chose to use 'green' electricity; without the CCL tax, the cheapest brown electricity would always have been chosen.
• Raise Awareness - campaigning to ultimately convince businesses to make that step change
• 'Lead by example' - this is perhaps the most important issue. The government can not expect businesses (or even individuals) to really tackle climate change if they are not doing so themselves.