Price: The biggest barrier to conscious consumption

Though lack of knowledge, lack of time and the pressure associated with the sheer size of some issues remain troublesome for many North Americans, sticker price is by far the biggest barrier when it comes to making socially responsible and sustainable lifestyle choices and purchase decisions.

61% of North Americans ranked price as a significant barrier to conscious consumption. And within the overall population, 25 to 34 year olds proved to be most sensitive to the price of things with 71% of respondents identifying cost as a hurdle.

Of particular interest is the difference between the US and Canada. When it comes to identifying the region for which price is the most significant barrier to conscious consumption, there is very little difference within the United States. A review of the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West, Northwest & Southwest reveals that there is only a 4% difference between the regions. Midwesterners are the most sensitive with 64% of respondents claiming price was a barrier to conscious consumption, while at the other end of the scale 60% of Southeasterners claimed price was the greatest barrier to making socially responsible and sustainable lifestyle choices and purchase decisions.

Canadians show greater regional differences. Supported by the burgeoning petroleum industry and to a lesser extent, agriculture and technology, Alberta’s economy is one of the strongest in Canada and the per capita GDP in 2006 was by far the highest of any province in Canada. As a result, 48% of respondents identified price as an issue when it came to making conscientious purchases.

Compared with other provinces these figures look positively modest. In stark contrast, 83% of Maritimers Identified price as the biggest reason why they would not make a conscientious purchase. Of course, this only tells part of the story. When asked ‘Do you want to know about the socially responsible behaviour of brands you buy?’ Albertans demonstrated less interest than the vast majority of Canadians, while 85% of Maritimers answered ‘Yes’. And tend to demonstrate their desire to conscious consumers in other ways. They tend to cook at home and support locally based businesses more than other Canadians and their American neighbours. As well as place a higher value on Community relations. But what does this all mean?

From our conversations with consumers across North America, we know that people want to be conscious consumers. A massive 72% of North Americans said they wanted to know about the socially responsible behaviour of brands they buy. There are lots of motivations for making the decisions we do, and the current economic climate is obviously a dominant factor. Slowly, we are all becoming familiar with a broader concept of ‘cost’ - factoring in the cost of time, our health as well as the environment – but as a general population we are still struggling with long-term sustainability vs. short term financial needs. Higher cost is a strong reason why being a conscious consumer is perceived to be less accessible, and a key reason why consumers – mainstreamers as well as trendsetters - are cherry picking various social responsibility aspects of their lives, in a way that works for them.

For more, email info@ci-shift.com

Introducing the Sustainabiity Passion Index™  

The segmentation analysis of the latest installment of The SHIFT Report (April, 2008) has revealed five distinct clusters that reflect the true sustainability segments of the North American general population. Market research, like many industries, is engaging in knee jerk green. And the myriad “shades of green” consumer does not reflect the range of issues that define sustainability for consumers. Ci has taken these issue from the Four Pillars of Sustainability™ and uncovered the true sustainability segments, based on consumers’ passions for the various issues.

The Sustainability Passion Index™, the five clusters are segmented according to how they rank according to a myriad of sustainability related issues, ranging from pollution and climate change to community connections to being paid a fair wage and employee treatment. As we pointed out in our last newsletter, although 'green' issues are generating headlines they do not top the list of important sustainability issues for most North American consumers.  

The five segments are:

The Vocal Globalist

They are passionate about social and environmental issues. They are more concerned about Global Warming than any other group. They are very much connected with their community, talking amongst friends and writing blogs.  They take the time to be aware of the issues, and are simultaneously anxious and confident about the future. They make up 41% of the gen population.

The Casual Spectator

They are not particularly passionate about any issues. Connecting with family, friends and community is important, but they don’t think it’s important to make a contribution. They read blogs regularly, but they do not write them. Leading a balanced life, being paid a living wage and treating others with respect is important to them – but no more than any other group believed. They make up 24% of the gen population.

The Hyper Local

They are passionate about local. Supporting local businesses is important to them. Buying local is important to them. They are active in their neighbourhoods and engaged with what is going on.  Family, friends and community is central to their lives, but they are also very realistic about the choices they make. They shop at mega-brand stores like Wal-Mart, and are generous in giving credit to brands that are trying to make a difference. They make up 19% of the gen population.

The Pragmatic Believer

They are distinctly passionate about spiritual issues. Having a higher purpose is important to them, yet at the same time they are grounded and focused on what they can achieve. They rate family, friends and community highly, support locally based businesses and volunteer frequently.  Price is a major barrier to making better decisions. Buying organic is not important to them. Climate change is not important to them. They make up 8% of the gen population.

The Self-serving Non-believer

They are distinctly dispassionate about issues that do not affect them directly. Issues such as pollution, global warming and buying environmentally conscious products rank very low in terms of importance. Buying fair trade and local products and services are not important.  Instead they rate issues such as connecting with friends and family, leading a balanced life and nurturing personal relationships. As well as broader issues that could affect them including employee treatment and being paid a living wage. They make up 8% of the gen population.

Given your initiatives in this space – what to communicate, to whom and how – The Sustainability Passion Index™ can help you nail exactly who you ought to be talking to, and what you ought to say. For more, email info@ci-shift.com 

Is a recession good or bad for the environment?

Now that talk of a recession – sorry, ‘economic downturn’ - has touched both sides of the Atlantic, it got us thinking whether a recession would be a good or a bad thing for the environment and the overall cultural shift to sustainability.

In the short term, the answer - of course - is yes. Faced with an economic downturn, most of us tighten our belts and lower levels of activity means less pollution. With less money in their pockets, people buy less, drive less and fly less. Emissions – in that respect – go down. That’s the upside.

The downside in an economic downturn is the fact that politicians tend to take their eye off the ball as far as the environment is concerned, preferring to focus on short term indicators of economic activity rather than reducing CO2 emissions in 20 years time. They focus on short-term indicators of economic activity and tend to go for a dash for growth and the environment takes a back seat.

Previous recessions have tended to follow this path. For example, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were formed in the early 70’s during a boom - yet faced with mid 70’s oil crisis the activism drained away. Similarly, the levels of positive action dropped several notches at the end of the 80’s and during the 90’s, when people tended to focus more on their homes and businesses that they were on the environment?

Has anything changed? Is conscientiousness subject to the swings of the economic cycle? Is the environment something we only think about during the good times?

If you believe half of the rhetoric that is being bounced around at the moment we are set for a sea change in the economic cycle. David Cameron, the opposition leader of the Tory Party in the UK, announced on June 16th he would not abandon his commitment to green policies in light of the global economic downturn.

"When oil is moving towards $140 a barrel, when families are being hit hard every time they pay their gas bill, fill up their cars or do the weekly shop, are you telling me we shouldn't - we can't - go green? We've got to. The era of cheap oil is well and truly over". Cameron insisted, "We are not going to drop the environmental agenda in an economic downturn."

Traditionally, the Tory party in Britain tends to govern in the interests of big business and the uber-wealthy. They are market fundamentalists, with a razor-sharp keenness to privatize every aspect of the welfare state. Whenever they are in government, inequality rises, and in the past have happily matched their foreign policy with whatever the American Republican party comes up with.

President Bush recently called on Congress to end the 27-year moratorium on most offshore drilling. Betting that the White House can finally break a decades-old Washington deadlock between those who favor domestic oil exploration and those who say conservation is the key, Bush recognized the solution to high prices was to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative-energy technologies, a view widely shared across the political spectrum. But “in the short run,” he said, “the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home.”

With only seven months left in his presidency and the relationship between Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats already set, the focus is on presidential hopefuls McCain and Obama. Will the need for cheaper energy eclipse their desire to capture the green vote?

Both have acknowledged the need for the US to lessen its dependence on foreign oil. Both candidates are open to expanding nuclear energy. McCain’s focus has been on electric vehicles - he recently called for big federal government tax incentives, and proposed a massive $300 million prize to encourage development of "zero-emissions" automobiles. Obama supports subsidies for corn-based ethanol, and would mandate that all new vehicles be able to run on ethanol blends.

Of course, talk is cheap. In response to public and international criticism, rising oil prices and his opposition stealing a march on the climate change issue, the UK Prime Minister - Gordon Brown - announced on June 26th, a £100bn investment in renewable energy that would meet the EU-imposed target of producing 15% of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020. Greenpeace described the new strategy as "visionary", but the environment group warned that ministers had promised much before and had so far failed to deliver. The ambitious plan, after all, does not foresee any action until 2010.

Regardless, every country needs a plan and that will require investment. Act now and we can do something about the environment while at the same time address escalating energy costs. We don’t have to go through the very painful reductions in carbon emissions through a deep dark recession. We can actually do things now, so that raises in oil prices don’t lead to pain, but to gains for the environment and quality of life. Rather than build roads and spending more on our infrastructures (a traditional tactic for most governments), providing free insulation for homeowners and making it easy not to use the car will mean that when we eventually emerge from this downturn we will have a far more sustainable economy to build on.

Your chance to vote for sustainability review of rival brands.  

We plugged a list of 50 brands into the latest installment of the SHIFT report. We included a number of rival brands. Microsoft & Apple, Whole Foods & Safeway, Coke & Pepsi, BestBuy & RadioShack, Method Home & Clorox… we wanted to gauge the difference between the brand’s respective consumers, and specifically the relationship they had with sustainability issues.

We are now opening up to opportunity for you to vote on which brand rivalry you’d like us to showcase. In the analytical review, we’ll build a top line profile of the individual brand’s consumer, and most importantly the relationship they have with specific sustainability issues.

Now’s your chance - if you’d like to see more data on a brand that you work on OR a brand that you have a great affection for, click here and vote for the rivalry you’d like us to review. The poll will be open until July 28th, and the findings for the most popular choice will be posted on our site on Aug 4th, 2008.