This article has was submitted to and appeared in edited form at the European Business Ethics Network annual conference, Lille (France), Autumn 2013
Research on sustainable consumption has boomed since the mid 2000s. The emergence and growth of social media as news tools for interaction with, and scrutiny of, brands has increased the interest of consumers towards sustainability, alternative products and lifestyle. It is hence logical that marketing research is also progressively focused on understanding and characterising these new purchasing and consumption patterns.
In sight of 8 years worth of sometimes contradictory reports, papers and research, the key question though is: Which among these results are accurate and confirmed? Which ones are but accidental and one-off?
As these results are assumed to be a reflection of the markets, and eventually influence a corporation’s strategic and operational business decisions to a critical degree, it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between validated, confirmed research, and incidental results.
Validating available research on sustainable consumption, assessing results and finding commonalities among them is a recognised academic method to ascertain which of the results can be accepted as proven, and hence valid characterisation of the new consumers.
For this purpose, the recently released Better Consumer report analysed and assessed the results of nearly 60 studies and papers on sustainable consumption, particularly, in textile and fashion. The report hence consolidates so far existing marketing research results.
The relevance of the report’s outcome is therefore twofold: first, it identifies research results across some 60 studies which can be considered proven and valid; and second, it further identifies results that could not be validated and must therefore be considered anecdotal outcomes and of little strategic use to companies.
The validation shows that the following statements can be considered proven and accurate.
The Better Consumer:
- Is neither purposely ethical nor unethical. Purchasing decisions are made as a response to very particular needs and choices related to the range of products available, and therefore purchasing decisions are not based on a pre-meditated ethical intent.
- Relies on, and generally trusts, product labels, as well as certification and accreditation labels for better products. The level of knowledge about a specific label and certification correlates with the level of trust consumers have in a specific label.
- Finds that sufficient information and comparable price/quality ratios of products is still not available to them. Further, the product label jungle, particularly in fashion, does not help to remedy this situation, and neither gives sufficient support to consumers in their purchasing decisions.
- Values convenience and pragmatism as key factors when shopping, therefore consumers would like to see more sustainable products in mainstream retail.
- Believes that buying locally equals buying more sustainably, for 2 reasons: one, because they can give back to their national economies; and two, because they assume that national regulation enforces social and environmental responsibility.
More important and relevant are without doubt the presumably proven insights of past research, which however could not be validated:
- Consumers ignore ‘green claims’ of corporations. Quite to the contrary, the vast majority is conscious of companies’ claims. But they feel that green-washing is prolific. They hence require tangible proofs for any claims to influence their purchasing behaviour.
- Consumers ignore the problems inherent of global ‘fast fashion’ supply chains. This is impression that many global brands have but which is distinctly incorrect. Consumers are aware of the in-transparency and challenges. They however feel powerless to address these issues in their role as consumers.
- Consumers do not demand and do not care about ‘better products’. This is simply inaccurate. Consumers are on the look out for better products but feel that producers are inattentive to either their specific needs or demands.
- For consumers, price is all that counts. In the discussion about better products, far too long the balance between quality, credentials and their proofs and price has been ignored. Often either quality or proof of credentials was lacking, leading to consumers unwilling to even consider price variations.
- Consumers are unwilling to collaborate with companies. Quite to the contrary, many consumers are quite keen to engage with companies and share their insights and knowledge with them. The motivation exists to an extent that as far as consumers are interested in a product and trust a brand, no further incentives are needed.
Finally, for some areas the results of the Better Consumer report’s meta-analysis did not allow for a definite conclusion. Knowledge gaps where further methodical research is required: are:
-
Are consumers really willing
to pay a premium for better products?
Existing research disagrees on this aspect. There exist 2 primary
and equally probable outcomes:
- Consumers would be happy to pay between 10% and 20% more if products carried proof of either social and environmental credentials.
- Consumers are not ready to pay a premium as they expect companies to produce responsibly in first place.
- Do consumers really boycott the products of unethical corporations? Word of mouth is the single most powerful information channel consumers rely on. It is the source of consumers’ critical stance with regards to green claims, as this network provides them with proofs and information that such claims are untrue, and that companies purposely act contradictory to claims. It is also known that negative information about a company influences consumer behaviour more than positive information, and attachment to a brand attenuates judgements of unethical behaviour.
But would consumers go as far as boycott products of unethical corporations, and if so, what would be the ultimate trigger of a boycott?
- Do consumers really want to be informed about corporations’ sustainability strategies and programmes? Results of existing studies result in opposite claims: consumers requesting such information in some cases; and consumers rejecting it on others.
- Do consumer really care to buy ‘Made in Europe’? The answer here is incoherent, and depends on the type of product and country we are looking at. For example: Italy seems generally be less inclined to buy Made in Italy than the UK. However, when it comes to leather goods and fashion, Italians have a higher preference to products made within in their own country than the British do.
| Proven true | Proven wrong | More research is needed |
| Consumers are neither ethical nor unethical as such | Consumers ignore ‘green claims’ of corporations | Are consumers REALLY willing to pay a premium? |
| Consumers rely on product labels | Consumers ignore the problems inherent of global ‘fast fashion’ supply chains | Do consumers boycott unethical companies? |
| Consumers find that sufficient information and comparable price/quality ratios of products is still not available to them. | Consumers do not demand and do not care about ‘better products’ | Do consumers want to hear about sustainability programmes of companies? |
| Consumers value convenience and pragmatism as key factors when shopping | For consumers, price is all that counts. | Do consumer really care to ‘Made in Europe’? |
| Locally made products are seen as sustainable. | Consumers are unwilling to collaborate with companies |
|
