Structural issues for sustainability

The holy grail of climate change - behavourial change - is beginning to get interesting. First the government has launched a series of ads that go beyond the concept of consumers behaving rationally to choices they have. I've posted about the Act on C02 ad and I've just seen another one in today's Observer - I can't find a link for it unfortunately - and yet another TV ad on driving. These ads go beyond the rational behaviour approach and attempt to use more pyschological approaches.

In fact, DEFRA have produced a very useful overview of environmental behaviour and combined with Futerra's rules of the game in climate change communication surely we have enough to get change behaviour started?

Well, not quite. Agency versus structure - the old social science dilemma. The issue is that most people believe that climate change is an issue, but that they are not willing to change their behaviour unless there is a a percieved (there often is a benefit, but it's not always seen in the short-term) financial benefit, or if it is easy or if others do so. Do we have time to experiment whether we can convince people or should we just focus on getting businesses to change and top-down government regulation? At the moment, the government is timid in its approach prefering choice editing and nudge economics.

On the other hand, there are flourishing, if niche, alternative community collective approaches to reducing carbon. For example, transition towns, organic box schemes and car pooling to name but a few.  Not all work, but some go beyond niche and become mainstream. Is Social innovation the holy grail of climate change?

The thing is time. We have 10 years to reduce carbon emissions by 34% and we're unlikely to make it: nuclear won't be back on line until 2020; wind, although growing, is not enough; the Severn Tidal barrier may be complete in 2020; wave energy is still in its infancy; there may be an increase in solar but it's not cost effective; and, yes, we'll have lots of anaerobic digestion or biomass, but it's just not enough. We have to have significant reductions in emissions and energy. It's not, in my opinion, going to come from consumers. We might get some interesting innovations from a few community projects, but it's more cost effective to change business behaviour.

What I can see, however, is some smart businesses realising that there is a lot of innovation from community groups. Would it be so crazy to imagine a large business offering to support community groups with the view that they might benefit from a new way of production or consumption? I can see developers offering land and contributions to people who want to build eco homes and go off grid. I can see supermarkets offering funding for local food networks to understand how it may work. We need radical ideas and smart businesses will know they ain't going to come from their own ranks. They will need to fund mavericks or employ them...

Is there a happy ending?

I have mixed feelings about this advert by Act on CO2 - the government's consumer campaign on climate change. I am haunted by my children's future questions of: "daddy, what did you do to stop climate change?" Indeed, what am I doing?

But, on the other hand, I also know that the majority of the population will turn away. Adverts are tricky to get right for one segment. To get right for all segments with one message is virtually impossible. Besides, TV ads are a risk now aren't they? Who watches TV? There needs to be an understanding that it's the middle classes that have to be targeted (they generate most of the emissions) and they tend to watch TV the least.  The message needs to be less overt and more covert. How? Don't sell stuff (stop climate change) sell a lifestyle. Sell Southwold and fish (pollock, remember!)  and chips rather than Australia. Sell working from home once a week rather than a commute for five days. Sell a banter in a shared car journey rather than a depressed M6 traffic jam solo journey.   Better still, sell fitness for free by cycling rather than a drive...

The End of the Line

Last night I went to a viewing of The End of the Line sponsored by Adnams. It's a disturbing film made by the same director of Black Gold that highlights the problem of over fishing. Using figures from the Charles Glover's book, the film has a dramatic conclusion: all the fish we consume on a regular basis will disappear by 2050.

The science is there and pretty robust - there's a debate about exactly when the fish will run out, but everyone agrees that fish stocks are declining at a rapid rate. The solution is obvious, we need to consume fish more sustainably. This is one of the questions in this week's lesson in Sustainability. How DO we get people to consume more sustainably?

The film promoted the idea of sustainable consumerism. If we buy fish from sustainable sources, then businesses will match demand. At the same time businesses may stop selling fish from depleted stocks. Since the film, Marks and Spencers, Pret a Manger and Waitrose have all agreed to stop selling fish that are endangered. How can we help? We buy fish that is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Like Fair Trade, it has sustainability standards, a logo and is growing fast. But we need to be more proactive and demand sustainable fish at our restaurants, shops and even our chippies.

It's hard, isn't it, to change habits? Is Mary Janes at Cromer really going to offer sustainable fish and chips? Should I tell my kids that we won't be having cod anymore and their monthly treat is over? Sustainable fish is also more expensive. It's a hard sell.

There is also a strong argument that advertising and awareness doesn't work for sustainability campaigns: for every successful fair trade logo there are others that fail. Anyone using the carbon footprint logo, for example? We don't buy stuff according to neo-classical rationality. Behavourial economics suggests we buy depending on what others do - we are tribal.

So what do we do? For me, awareness, eco-labelling and campaigns are not enough - our consultancy project with Adnams was clear: people responded tribally, not because of climate change. We need to change businesses. Sometimes businesses change because people at the top want change. Cadburys is moving to fair trade chocolate not because of pressure from consumers, but because the board thought it was the right thing to do. But because not all businesses change we also need strong government legislation. Change the structures and attitudes will follow. However, structural changes that, for example, ban types of fish, require pressure from people lobbying politicians. Social movements get more access, and, ultimately, more success if they can show evidence of sustainable consumption.

We need consumers to lead change to get government to introduce policies to make businesses who haven't changed, change.  In the meantime, ask for pollock at your chippy.

Corporate Responsibility OR Greenwash?

In the Carbon MBA we share one or two modules with other masters courses and Sustainable Consumption is one of them. It's a great module as business approaches engage with more community and grassroots approaches. The majority on the course from other masters appear, at first glance, anti-big business. Perhaps they see me as anti-grassroots!

This week, businesses, particularly multi-national companies, were under scrutiny for not caring about the environment, labour rights and ethics. We were treated to the story of stuff which reaffirms all the stereotypical negative stuff about businesses. You know the sort of thing: they slash and burn forests, make workers work too hard and pollute the environment.

It's good to be challenged, but we mustn't get lazy and just be anti-business. What struck me in the class debate was the poverty of clarity in criticisms of business practices, yet at the same time people demanded that there should be high levels of transparency from MNCs. MNCs should be transparent, but lets argue on what we know not what we think we know. For example, some argued that marketing and advertising were evils that created unsustainable consumption. If it's that easy then a few marketing campaigns will change the behaviour of individuals and reduce emissions - bingo - we have solved climate change. Hmmm...It's not as simple as that is it?

Wal-Mart - the largest supermarket in the world with over $400billion in revenues - has launched a supply chain sustainability index. It's not perfect and there are critics, but it's an enormous job and pushes those in the supply chain to do the same. VW-Audi are pursuing their PowerTrain Strategy to make all their models electric or bio-fuel. What's interesting is that Wal-Mart's customer base are not the organic/muesli/liberal type, more the Joe the plumber. Equally, not all car manufacturers are adopting VW-Audis strategy. With both companies, there's an element of saving money, gaining a competitive advantage and more profit or simply doing the right thing.

So, some businesses are ahead of the customer and government. Some need to do more - a lot more. But all businesses whether they are limiteds, plc's, co-ops or public sector have to run so that they pay their way and balance the books or make a surplus. It's not profit that is differentiating which businesses follow sustainable practices. It's the people running them. If we can influence them, then changing a billion dollar industry is going to have a big impact.

Blogs as a learning tool

One of our latest modules: Theories of Sustainable Consumption has, as part of our homework, a request from tutors that we all use blogs to write down our thoughts. It's a great idea for sharing ideas and resources.

I'm really looking forward to this course as it looks at some of more radical green ideas that people are doing now. In marketing and innovation we talk of diffusion of technology, here we're talking about the diffusion of ideas - I think the term is social diffusion of ideas. I remember recycling 10 years a ago and people thought I was a bit mad - well we've come a long way.

Perhaps the Transition Towns movement will eventually diffuse into society - who knows, but if we can find out what works early on then it becomes easier to reduce emissions. So, I'm looking forward to sharing all those crazy ideas and trying to be as open minded as possible.

Here's a quick reminder why we need to figure all of this out....

Carbon Combat!

As part of our consultancy project with Adnams I mentioned that we were on a quest to find the holy grail of carbon reductions. We ran a project with two Hotels in the Adnams group: the Swan and the Crown. Both are old buildings restricted by planning regulations and by-laws in Southwold, but the staff are keen and aware of environmental issues.

Our project, named Carbon Combat at the suggestion of the hotel teams, involved a competitive element and a financial incentive. For a four week period each hotel team battled to see who could save the most carbon emissions. Each week, after meter readings, posters were displayed in staff rooms and in other areas where staff would notice them. We used a baseline of the last three years' meter readings and the staff were told that all financial savings would be passed on to the hotel team that saves the most emissions.

The project ran at short notice and at the busiest time of the year for both hotels. Guidance was given on "quick wins" or low hanging fruit: switching off lights; keeping fridge doors closed; changing lightbulbs to low energy bulbs; switching off the gas when not needed in the kitchen. All staff - from cleaners, chefs, bar staff and waitresses - were encouraged to think about how to reduce emissions and guests were discreetly guided with quirky messages in their bedrooms.

The results are very interesting. The Swan won with a 32% reduction for the four weeks year on year. The Crown still managed a respectable 9% reduction. The Swan did have an advantage in that they had more efficient boilers and a newer kitchen. The Crown serves more covers using a more inefficient kitchen. However, emissions per room were higher for the Crown than for the Swan.

What's pretty clear, we think, is that around 9%-10% of the reduction in emissions was due to behavioural change - the switching off of lightbulbs and so on. Even the sceptics in the hotel still wanted to beat the other team and there was much discussion on the best method and how the figures were calculated. We're clear that "green teams" are not enough: there needs to be financial incentives -we recommend up to 50% of the savings to be passed on to the staff- with a competitive element attached to it.

What's pleasing is that the management team were very happy - they saved £1000 in the four weeks - and they're looking to extend the project all year round to all four hotels. We will also be recommending to Adnams that they extend the project to their retail outlets and offices. A 10% reduction is easily within reach and given that Adnams have signed to the Guardians 10:10 campaign - it's all come together nicely.