WEBVTT - The green consumer paradox: Can we walk the talk on sustainability? | EP 48 0:00:02.029 --> 0:00:07.580 The following is a C and a podcast. Welcome to 0:00:07.580 --> 0:00:12.470 the climate conversations, I'm Jeremy Hall. If you walk into 0:00:12.470 --> 0:00:16.280 a supermarket, chances are sustainability will shout out at you 0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.270 more these days, sustainably farmed fish coffee that is ethically 0:00:20.270 --> 0:00:23.960 sourced and perhaps even pet food made from insects. Green 0:00:23.960 --> 0:00:26.540 products have no doubt become a significant part of the 0:00:26.540 --> 0:00:29.540 consumer goods market. In part, this has no doubt been 0:00:29.540 --> 0:00:31.970 driven by a greater awareness of the impacts of climate 0:00:31.970 --> 0:00:35.360 change and a drive to turn awareness into action. But 0:00:35.360 --> 0:00:38.419 human habits are also hard to break, especially when we 0:00:38.420 --> 0:00:41.570 live in a world where e-commerce continues to grow, where 0:00:41.570 --> 0:00:44.000 you can buy anything you want in just two or 0:00:44.000 --> 0:00:47.120 three clicks and when someone can deliver it within the day. 0:00:47.510 --> 0:00:49.519 So when it comes to the very act of consuming 0:00:49.520 --> 0:00:51.769 is that gap between what we believe in and what 0:00:51.770 --> 0:00:55.590 we practice. Can consumers walk the talk on living sustainably? 0:00:55.910 --> 0:00:58.160 And what does that look like? Does it mean simply 0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:01.730 buying greener or just buying less? Or is that a 0:01:01.730 --> 0:01:06.360 hard bridge to cross? With me to talk about this 0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:11.220 is Sharon, an associate professor of marketing, Nanyang Business School. Welcome, Sharon. 0:01:11.310 --> 0:01:12.809 Good afternoon and thanks for having me. 0:01:12.990 --> 0:01:16.020 Let us start with this first question. Studies show that 0:01:16.020 --> 0:01:20.250 awareness of sustainability and climate change have obviously increased driving, 0:01:20.250 --> 0:01:23.790 sort of like a mindful consumerism and caution over buying 0:01:24.030 --> 0:01:27.820 products and wastefulness. And you teach at a local university. 0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:30.000 So give me a sense first, whether you've seen this 0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:32.670 awareness grow over the years. What are some of the 0:01:32.670 --> 0:01:35.699 things your students talk about now in this area, your 0:01:35.700 --> 0:01:38.190 sense of what they think? And maybe, you know, compared 0:01:38.190 --> 0:01:40.170 to when you were in school and how things have 0:01:40.170 --> 0:01:41.369 changed in this period of time? 0:01:41.580 --> 0:01:45.569 I think the younger generations are definitely more environmentally conscious. 0:01:45.750 --> 0:01:48.690 I teach a bunch of kids there are about 20 0:01:48.690 --> 0:01:51.630 years old to 22 in the classes. We talk a 0:01:51.630 --> 0:01:55.080 lot about sustainability. And usually I get them to make 0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:59.040 choices between different products, green products versus non green products. 0:01:59.370 --> 0:02:03.270 And if we measure attitude, I would say that a 0:02:03.270 --> 0:02:08.460 significant portion of them definitely support sustainability. They feel this important, 0:02:08.490 --> 0:02:12.030 any shift of behaviours. I can't say for sure, though, 0:02:12.030 --> 0:02:14.970 whether they really are willing to put the money where 0:02:14.970 --> 0:02:15.420 it is. 0:02:15.460 --> 0:02:16.590 Well, that's the key thing. Yeah. 0:02:16.980 --> 0:02:20.549 We see this kids during break time. You can get drinks. 0:02:20.610 --> 0:02:23.340 I ask them, Why do you pick a plastic bag 0:02:23.340 --> 0:02:25.780 when you don't need it? And the reasons will be 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:29.220 always convenient is easier to carry. But do you consider 0:02:29.220 --> 0:02:33.269 the fact that it's not environmentally friendly? Oh yeah, I do, 0:02:33.419 --> 0:02:36.870 but it's just easier. The trade off is still hard 0:02:36.870 --> 0:02:39.690 for a lot of us to make. But in general, 0:02:39.690 --> 0:02:42.810 if you ask just about attitude, I think definitely this 0:02:42.810 --> 0:02:46.459 generation is way more conscious of the environmental impact of 0:02:46.470 --> 0:02:50.280 bad behavior compared to my generation's. And Varma isn't actually 0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:52.500 quite a conversation. And if not, then 0:02:52.650 --> 0:02:54.420 yeah, I'm going to talk about the trade offs and 0:02:54.419 --> 0:02:56.250 it is an excellent point. This is something that I've 0:02:56.250 --> 0:02:58.770 been thinking about a lot as well, and I'll use 0:02:58.770 --> 0:03:02.910 the example of e-commerce. E-commerce has existed. It's grown significantly. 0:03:02.910 --> 0:03:05.669 It's made it so easy for people to basically consume 0:03:05.700 --> 0:03:08.820 exactly and especially the younger crowd as well. So they 0:03:08.820 --> 0:03:12.510 are faced with this potential trade off and we buy 0:03:12.510 --> 0:03:15.870 everything from furniture even to phones and stuff like that. 0:03:16.270 --> 0:03:19.230 Do you think then separate from the kids that the 0:03:19.230 --> 0:03:23.760 pandemic itself in a way has shifted our approach to 0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:28.500 consumerism and consuming in ways actually made it easier? And 0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.820 I wonder whether sometimes is that making it easier? The 0:03:31.860 --> 0:03:36.480 environmental sustainable consciousness has taken a little bit of a backseat. 0:03:36.810 --> 0:03:40.590 It does, at least from my casual observations. That's two pastors. 0:03:40.590 --> 0:03:44.520 I don't think attitude white people are becoming less environmentally conscious. 0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:48.840 I think the pandemic actually highlighted the idea that we 0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:53.490 are connected to a disease in one place affect all countries, 0:03:53.820 --> 0:03:58.590 and therefore it actually creates this whole belief that we 0:03:58.590 --> 0:04:00.540 need to take care of each other and we need 0:04:00.540 --> 0:04:03.420 to take care of the Earth. That said, I think 0:04:03.420 --> 0:04:07.410 at the individual level when it comes to consumption because 0:04:07.410 --> 0:04:10.230 we are all stuck at home, we want to feel good, 0:04:10.650 --> 0:04:14.520 we buy comfort food, we buy things to sell just 0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:17.190 because we are so bored and then nothing better to do. 0:04:17.550 --> 0:04:21.900 We buy online products, we buy takeaways. And if you 0:04:21.900 --> 0:04:24.270 think about all these things that we'll be doing is 0:04:24.270 --> 0:04:27.480 actually really bad for the environment at the consumption level, 0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:30.000 at individual level, people are probably not thinking about it. 0:04:30.420 --> 0:04:33.750 But if you just measure attitude, I believe that actually 0:04:33.750 --> 0:04:37.860 the pandemic should make people more conscious. But the consciousness 0:04:37.860 --> 0:04:40.710 does not translate. The tradeoff is still difficult to make. 0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:43.080 Well, that's really the crux of it, isn't it, in 0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:47.700 that while awareness while attitudes are trending in the right direction, 0:04:48.150 --> 0:04:51.600 the crux is whether it actually translates into meaningful action 0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:54.839 and educated action as well. I'll use the example of 0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:59.130 what people may think is ethical consumption or green products, right? 0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:01.380 So some will say that actually that there's no such 0:05:01.380 --> 0:05:03.210 thing as a green product. And one of my favorite 0:05:03.210 --> 0:05:06.479 examples is the cotton tote bag. For a while when 0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:08.969 people started trending towards a tote bag because they felt 0:05:08.970 --> 0:05:11.730 it was a bit more environmentally friendly than a plastic bag. 0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:14.550 But I'm not sure yet if people understand the environmental 0:05:14.550 --> 0:05:17.220 footprint of a tote bag and how many times you've 0:05:17.220 --> 0:05:19.980 got to use that tote bag for it to make 0:05:19.980 --> 0:05:23.190 sense in terms of emissions and in terms of sustainability 0:05:23.190 --> 0:05:25.560 and the production of the cotton bag. And therefore there 0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:29.250 was this shift away from plastic bags to which sometimes 0:05:29.250 --> 0:05:30.600 if you think about it, it may not be such 0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:33.810 a bad thing as an alternative if you consider what 0:05:33.810 --> 0:05:37.229 the cotton tote bag brings itself. So that's the thing 0:05:37.230 --> 0:05:41.130 of people firstly aware enough, you think, from your studies 0:05:41.520 --> 0:05:45.060 of these trade offs and then after that being even aware, 0:05:45.390 --> 0:05:48.360 then being able to really make the hard decisions. 0:05:48.750 --> 0:05:51.540 I don't think people are necessarily that aware and most 0:05:51.540 --> 0:05:55.950 people want to feel good about helping the environment. I mean, 0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:59.380 that is an excellent example in my heart. We have 0:06:00.180 --> 0:06:04.010 plenty of tote bags and some point I was. Telling 0:06:04.010 --> 0:06:05.810 my kids that we have so many of them, we 0:06:05.810 --> 0:06:09.230 don't use it. And each of these actually take longer 0:06:09.230 --> 0:06:13.340 time to biodegrade than competitor plastic bags, so it's not 0:06:13.339 --> 0:06:17.510 necessarily a good thing. But that said, the question is 0:06:17.510 --> 0:06:21.900 what is the alternative? I've always been telling my students 0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:26.029 when we teach sustainability, the best solution is to reduce consumption. 0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:29.870 The best solution is not to consume as much as 0:06:29.870 --> 0:06:33.750 we have been consuming. If we cannot stop consuming well, 0:06:33.770 --> 0:06:36.980 then the next best alternative is to hopefully throw the 0:06:36.980 --> 0:06:40.700 security economy, tried to reuse the materials and products that 0:06:40.700 --> 0:06:45.289 we have. Reducing consumption is not something that is structurally 0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:50.479 embedded in a society. Businesses have no incentive to reduce consumption, 0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:54.080 to encourage us to reduce consumption the businesses or try 0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:58.039 to be as sustainable as they can. There are various methods, 0:06:58.040 --> 0:06:59.779 but I'm not going to ask you to consume less. 0:07:00.110 --> 0:07:02.750 Consuming less is not good for business. Neither is it 0:07:02.750 --> 0:07:05.960 necessarily good for the country's economy, if you will. The 0:07:06.080 --> 0:07:11.750 hardest choice to make is to reduce consumption, to reduce consumerism. 0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:15.290 But the structurally the way our world works, the way 0:07:15.290 --> 0:07:19.400 the society works does not support that. Therefore, the next 0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:24.350 best alternative is at least have some green awareness, at 0:07:24.350 --> 0:07:29.030 least do something to make the consumption that we have 0:07:29.030 --> 0:07:32.000 to consume a little bit more environmentally friendly. 0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:34.880 Yeah, I mean, that's a deep frustration that I have 0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:37.430 as well, because it would appear to me that what 0:07:37.430 --> 0:07:40.100 we've been doing in the last decades, even as we've 0:07:40.100 --> 0:07:43.640 become more environmentally conscious, is that we have been trying 0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:47.360 to solve a problem related to consumption. We've just consuming 0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:52.310 differently and consuming something else. Exactly. So whether it is 0:07:52.310 --> 0:07:56.810 a stainless steel straw versus plastic straws, we just consume differently. 0:07:56.810 --> 0:07:59.360 And again, it's no guarantee that the stainless steel straws 0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:02.090 any better than 10 plastic straws that you may have 0:08:02.090 --> 0:08:02.870 replaced it with. 0:08:02.960 --> 0:08:05.330 Exactly edible by putting stainless steel straws. 0:08:05.710 --> 0:08:09.440 Yeah, exactly. So that's the trick for me. And whether 0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:12.770 or not when you do your courses, when you speak publicly, 0:08:13.280 --> 0:08:16.310 do you think there's been enough done to talk about 0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:20.090 the first priority, which is to reduce consumption? Do you 0:08:20.090 --> 0:08:22.590 think there's more that can be done, as you said, 0:08:22.590 --> 0:08:26.570 to ask so much economic structural impediments to talking about 0:08:26.570 --> 0:08:29.630 consuming less? But that's the truth. Can more be done there? 0:08:29.810 --> 0:08:33.079 Oh, definitely. But I don't think this is something that 0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:37.760 one company can solve. It probably requires an entire shift 0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:41.060 in societal norms. If you think about why we consume 0:08:41.059 --> 0:08:43.910 so much from a marketing point of view, we always 0:08:43.910 --> 0:08:47.540 say that people consume so fulfill some social needs to 0:08:47.540 --> 0:08:51.800 fulfill some psychological needs. We consume so that we can 0:08:51.800 --> 0:08:55.069 celebrate our success. We consume because we see some people 0:08:55.070 --> 0:08:58.490 having something and we desire that and we connect our 0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:01.580 identity to the products that we consume, to the things 0:09:01.580 --> 0:09:05.959 we buy. So until that piece is resolved, if you will, 0:09:05.960 --> 0:09:08.150 or at least we tempered the way we look at 0:09:08.150 --> 0:09:11.209 our own identity with the products we buy, that is 0:09:11.210 --> 0:09:13.310 going to be a hard piece to solve because there 0:09:13.309 --> 0:09:15.680 will always be people who want to buy a better car. 0:09:16.190 --> 0:09:18.800 You buy things to show you buy things just a 0:09:18.800 --> 0:09:22.610 few good to pamper yourself that social norms with the 0:09:22.610 --> 0:09:26.750 way we have to identify ourself with the products that 0:09:26.750 --> 0:09:30.980 we purchased needs to go in. That piece doesn't go 0:09:31.309 --> 0:09:33.550 no matter what you try to do is going to 0:09:33.590 --> 0:09:36.710 be very hot to reduce consumerism. And that's actually what 0:09:36.710 --> 0:09:39.830 we have been observing for the past decade that people 0:09:39.830 --> 0:09:42.679 has been consuming more because as you get more affluent, 0:09:42.890 --> 0:09:45.740 you can afford it. And so you don't think about it, 0:09:45.740 --> 0:09:48.470 you buy more things, you used it to identify your stuff, 0:09:48.470 --> 0:09:50.930 you buy a bigger house, you buy a bigger car. 0:09:51.350 --> 0:09:53.930 Now we can go out to restaurants. You eat more 0:09:53.929 --> 0:09:59.910 expensive food, food that actually probably has more environmental impact 0:09:59.929 --> 0:10:02.750 to have the cows to farm. And so all of 0:10:02.750 --> 0:10:05.300 these things comes into picture. But when we consume, we 0:10:05.300 --> 0:10:07.730 don't think about it. We only think about it when 0:10:07.730 --> 0:10:11.580 the environment, somehow the context trigger us to think about it. 0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:13.850 So if I ask now, you said, what if he 0:10:13.850 --> 0:10:16.790 has that, nobody would say, no, I guarantee you that 0:10:17.140 --> 0:10:19.559 you have never seen anybody telling us, no, but can 0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:24.140 you willing to eat less? Not really. Are you in 0:10:24.140 --> 0:10:31.640 Dubai loss? Not all will. Until we disconnect self-identity through products, 0:10:31.970 --> 0:10:33.109 that's going to be hard to sell. 0:10:33.230 --> 0:10:35.990 Yeah. You know, one of the industries that fascinates me 0:10:35.990 --> 0:10:38.990 the most as well is fashion. And because as you see, 0:10:39.140 --> 0:10:41.930 so much of our identity is linked to fashion and 0:10:41.929 --> 0:10:45.590 we've seen how the explosion of fast fashion has had 0:10:45.590 --> 0:10:49.080 such a significant environmental impact and footprint. I'm not sure 0:10:49.110 --> 0:10:52.850 again whether people know the consequences of the fashion industry 0:10:52.850 --> 0:10:56.000 and cotton and the materials that go into it. But 0:10:56.000 --> 0:10:58.550 you see on the fringes of movements day in the 0:10:58.550 --> 0:11:01.730 fashion industry, there are some brands who try to at 0:11:01.730 --> 0:11:04.900 least see what's needed to be said. Who may try 0:11:04.900 --> 0:11:07.569 to do what's needed to be done? But do you 0:11:07.570 --> 0:11:10.990 think that using the industry as an example, there are 0:11:10.990 --> 0:11:15.400 sparks of potential that the industry itself certainly industries themself 0:11:15.670 --> 0:11:19.270 may see? Actually, the focus should not be on volume 0:11:19.270 --> 0:11:22.480 of consumption, but the quality of consumption, and I'm willing 0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:24.460 to go there and push the boundaries. Or do you 0:11:24.460 --> 0:11:28.360 think the economic structures are so embedded and so stuck 0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:30.040 that we're not going to be able to move away? 0:11:30.309 --> 0:11:33.130 My personal opinion is, I think, is pretty much back 0:11:33.370 --> 0:11:36.180 until the companies are willing to say that I'm OK. 0:11:36.179 --> 0:11:39.460 I'm making less sales short of that. I think that 0:11:39.460 --> 0:11:42.250 would be hard. That's why I think the next best 0:11:42.250 --> 0:11:46.150 alternative is really to look at the circular economy. And hopefully, 0:11:46.450 --> 0:11:50.199 if we don't really take so much resources from the US, 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.960 we don't pollute the Earth as much and hopefully through 0:11:53.230 --> 0:11:55.809 re using a recycling the materials that we have, we 0:11:55.809 --> 0:11:58.900 can reduce a little bit on the impact on consumerism. 0:11:58.900 --> 0:12:02.320 That would be great. But I really don't think structurally 0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:04.840 right now, at least at this stage, they begin to 0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:07.809 see companies saying that, yes, it's OK to consume less 0:12:08.050 --> 0:12:10.720 by less and we OK. We can tell investors and 0:12:10.720 --> 0:12:13.840 our stakeholders that we're doing good for the environment and 0:12:14.140 --> 0:12:16.239 it's okay that we are making less revenue. I can't 0:12:16.240 --> 0:12:18.220 see that happening, and it's mind as they look at 0:12:18.220 --> 0:12:21.560 the number of smartphones we're buying. That's how we achieve 0:12:21.559 --> 0:12:22.689 a level that we two years. 0:12:23.020 --> 0:12:25.150 I was slightly more pessimistic, but is hoping for a 0:12:25.150 --> 0:12:27.940 positive take from you. But never mind. Let me use 0:12:27.940 --> 0:12:32.030 another example that as I introduce this, I spoke about supermarkets, right? 0:12:32.500 --> 0:12:36.310 And this whole thing about organic produce is also quite recent. 0:12:36.730 --> 0:12:39.300 It's all within our lifetimes where we saw this trend 0:12:39.309 --> 0:12:43.750 was people consuming differently, knowing full well that organic products 0:12:43.750 --> 0:12:47.110 have comes with its benefits. And it showed that people 0:12:47.110 --> 0:12:51.280 were willing to consume differently, consume maybe less but better, 0:12:51.460 --> 0:12:53.860 or at least knowing what they are consuming and therefore 0:12:53.860 --> 0:12:57.520 making decisions based upon that. Are we not hopeful that 0:12:57.520 --> 0:13:01.360 some of this can sort of translate elsewhere, especially with 0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:03.429 the younger as we now go back to talk about 0:13:03.429 --> 0:13:06.070 your students and stuff like that? Is this something that 0:13:06.070 --> 0:13:10.390 governments need to do? Society NGOs? Where does it start 0:13:10.390 --> 0:13:12.280 from to start these conversations? 0:13:12.429 --> 0:13:15.910 Oh, definitely. I'm sure that the younger generations, for example, 0:13:15.910 --> 0:13:19.660 my students, they would definitely be more supportive of organic products. 0:13:19.990 --> 0:13:22.630 But one of the caveat is this a lot of 0:13:22.630 --> 0:13:26.470 these so-called green products, as organic products are more expensive 0:13:27.100 --> 0:13:29.880 and need the technology to do these products right now, 0:13:29.890 --> 0:13:32.620 it's not mature enough such that you they are a 0:13:32.620 --> 0:13:36.280 lower cost or the same price as a regular products, 0:13:36.580 --> 0:13:40.209 so it can attract people who have the economic means 0:13:40.630 --> 0:13:43.350 to buy such products. At the same time, feel that 0:13:43.370 --> 0:13:47.140 it's important to support the environment, but that still leaves 0:13:47.170 --> 0:13:49.720 a whole group of people who may not be willing 0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:52.360 to make the financial trade off the fact that the 0:13:52.360 --> 0:13:56.290 organic products cost significantly more on average. I think at 0:13:56.290 --> 0:13:59.980 this stage it will have an impact on the small 0:13:59.980 --> 0:14:02.920 segment of the market that can afford it and feel 0:14:02.920 --> 0:14:07.479 this important. But we need more advances in technology such 0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:10.540 that the price of organic products will be similar to 0:14:10.540 --> 0:14:12.820 the price of the regular products that you can't really 0:14:12.820 --> 0:14:15.460 see a major push towards such consumption. 0:14:20.850 --> 0:14:23.760 I'm going to Segway and move our conversation maybe a 0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.910 little bit higher level and then talk about trends globally 0:14:26.910 --> 0:14:29.240 and what we can learn or at least look out for, 0:14:29.250 --> 0:14:32.160 we look at countries in the region, for example, when 0:14:32.190 --> 0:14:37.770 you talk about consumerism consuming and consumption. Obviously, there may 0:14:37.770 --> 0:14:40.350 be two groups of countries and societies that you can 0:14:40.350 --> 0:14:43.290 look out for. Obviously, there are the rich economies and 0:14:43.440 --> 0:14:47.400 societies like the United States, like Singapore, which have the 0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:51.270 highest purchasing power and ability to change things through consuming. 0:14:51.630 --> 0:14:54.900 But at the same time, you have rapidly developing countries 0:14:54.900 --> 0:14:59.370 with huge populations who similarly, as we've said earlier, aspire 0:14:59.370 --> 0:15:02.700 to consume. And that's the whole point of moving from 0:15:02.700 --> 0:15:06.240 being developing to more developing to developed. And where do 0:15:06.240 --> 0:15:08.520 you think the challenges are going to be in the 0:15:08.520 --> 0:15:11.700 long term? Is it possible for us to start looking 0:15:11.700 --> 0:15:15.060 at some of these developing countries? Is it fair for 0:15:15.060 --> 0:15:17.850 us to look at their consumption patterns? Or is it 0:15:17.850 --> 0:15:20.700 more realistic to look at developed countries and developed societies 0:15:20.700 --> 0:15:23.550 and tell them to take the first actions and to 0:15:23.550 --> 0:15:26.160 lead the pack, so to speak? Or is it a 0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:28.680 mixture of both in terms of how we attack the 0:15:28.680 --> 0:15:30.780 problem of overall consumption patterns? 0:15:31.110 --> 0:15:34.380 I don't see that from a financial trade off perspective. 0:15:34.680 --> 0:15:38.040 I think that if you look at the more affluent countries, 0:15:38.430 --> 0:15:42.030 the fact that they are more able to pay for that, 0:15:42.030 --> 0:15:44.580 the more expensive green products. I think that will be 0:15:44.580 --> 0:15:47.700 one direction you can go. But if we look at 0:15:47.700 --> 0:15:51.630 just from a consumer attitude perspective, from our research, we 0:15:51.630 --> 0:15:55.020 don't see a difference between affluent and unappealing countries. So 0:15:55.020 --> 0:15:58.890 we have to actually conduct the surveys in four neighboring countries. So, 0:15:58.890 --> 0:16:02.370 for example, Indonesia's and Malaysia and some of the neighboring 0:16:02.370 --> 0:16:05.520 countries of Vietnam and such. And we do not see 0:16:05.520 --> 0:16:10.680 a major difference actually in the Delta two towards green consumption. 0:16:10.980 --> 0:16:14.550 So it's not that the more affluent the country people 0:16:14.550 --> 0:16:18.600 are more likely to feel that it's important. In fact, 0:16:18.810 --> 0:16:21.390 there's a few bits that we see. For example, Indonesia 0:16:21.390 --> 0:16:25.680 people are actually quite supportive of sustainable consumption. The difficulty 0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:27.540 comes when the cost comes the picture. If you can't 0:16:27.540 --> 0:16:31.320 afford it, then yes. At the consumption level, the barriers 0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:33.850 to entry are too high. The price difference is too high. 0:16:33.870 --> 0:16:36.060 You're not going to see it. But if the difference 0:16:36.060 --> 0:16:40.080 is not significantly higher, I don't think you've noticed that 0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:45.090 in affluent countries necessarily will be more supportive of sustainable 0:16:45.090 --> 0:16:49.020 consumption compared to a non affluent countries. That's right to me. 0:16:49.020 --> 0:16:51.210 I think at the end of the day, the technological 0:16:51.210 --> 0:16:54.060 piece needs to be solved. If we can make it 0:16:54.060 --> 0:16:58.230 such that the green products that you see are at 0:16:58.240 --> 0:16:59.910 least seen by so that people do have to make 0:16:59.910 --> 0:17:02.430 a tradeoff in our research, what we did in one 0:17:02.430 --> 0:17:05.359 of the studies is we give people the same products 0:17:05.400 --> 0:17:07.800 they want is green. One is not as green, but 0:17:07.800 --> 0:17:11.070 same price almost 90, and the higher percent people choose 0:17:11.070 --> 0:17:12.690 a green product. But the minute I increase the price 0:17:12.690 --> 0:17:15.030 of a 10 percent, the percentage of people choosing the 0:17:15.030 --> 0:17:18.080 green product we use close to 30 to 40 percent 0:17:18.330 --> 0:17:20.850 is just 10 percent. Is that the ceiling? 0:17:21.340 --> 0:17:23.100 Okay, this is one sample. So I don't want to 0:17:23.100 --> 0:17:25.770 say generalize to the whole population. That would not be 0:17:25.770 --> 0:17:28.530 scientifically correct, but at least one that one study you 0:17:28.540 --> 0:17:31.169 reduce is quite a lot. So really, it's at the 0:17:31.170 --> 0:17:34.020 end of the day. I think the attitude I don't 0:17:34.020 --> 0:17:36.359 see a difference between affluent and on the following countries 0:17:36.690 --> 0:17:41.340 her chased the conversion. That's the piece that we may see, 0:17:41.580 --> 0:17:44.990 and that purely is economically driven in the extra 10 0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:47.250 percent could mean quite a bit to do on this 0:17:47.280 --> 0:17:47.940 one country. 0:17:48.080 --> 0:17:50.189 Yeah, I'm going to start closing off and you're an 0:17:50.190 --> 0:17:54.360 educator as well. So obviously we've spoken about huge structural 0:17:54.359 --> 0:17:58.199 impediments to changing the mindsets overall within societies as far 0:17:58.200 --> 0:18:01.560 as consumption is concerned. But you're an educator. Obviously, the 0:18:01.560 --> 0:18:05.010 most significant efforts will have to be focus on even 0:18:05.010 --> 0:18:09.030 younger and younger people to imbibe or at least make 0:18:09.030 --> 0:18:12.449 them aware that there are alternatives to the kind of 0:18:12.450 --> 0:18:16.470 consumption that we have become used to overall as a society. 0:18:16.740 --> 0:18:19.350 As you see where there's a phone, whether it's a flat, 0:18:19.350 --> 0:18:22.260 whether it's a car, all these things are part of 0:18:22.740 --> 0:18:25.859 us as a society in terms of consuming them. What 0:18:25.859 --> 0:18:29.250 would you say? You, I would say, try and develop 0:18:29.250 --> 0:18:32.430 a curriculum, or at least something that can start as 0:18:32.430 --> 0:18:35.729 young as possible to make people more aware so that 0:18:35.730 --> 0:18:37.500 by the time you reach a certain age, but you 0:18:37.500 --> 0:18:42.619 become environmentally conscious when you start thinking about economic theory, right? 0:18:42.630 --> 0:18:45.000 And suddenly I'm reminded of Y equals a C plus 0:18:45.000 --> 0:18:48.030 I plus g that sometimes you know the C can 0:18:48.030 --> 0:18:50.970 be rethought a little bit. How would you design that 0:18:51.240 --> 0:18:54.869 to insert a little bit different conception into overall consumption? 0:18:55.109 --> 0:18:59.159 I'm from New Zealand to you. We actually have many causes. First, 0:18:59.160 --> 0:19:02.480 we have a cost to holding on sustainability and in 0:19:02.490 --> 0:19:06.359 all the other causes that are not unsustainability. We also 0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:10.170 insert a couple of lessons on sustainability. So just to 0:19:10.230 --> 0:19:14.040 get the students to really have some awareness of the 0:19:14.040 --> 0:19:17.460 impact of consumption that is for marketing, for example, then 0:19:17.460 --> 0:19:20.510 power consumption and sustainability and how if they're going. To 0:19:20.510 --> 0:19:23.629 be future business leaders, what are some of the thought 0:19:23.630 --> 0:19:26.689 process that she comes into their mind if they're going 0:19:26.690 --> 0:19:31.430 to lead a company? How would the action affects the environment? 0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:36.020 If you have a positive environment potentially leads to a 0:19:36.020 --> 0:19:39.609 better outcome for the company in the long run. In A., 0:19:39.619 --> 0:19:41.659 we do have a number of causes that looks at 0:19:41.660 --> 0:19:46.340 sustainability already, and we also embed sustainability in most of 0:19:46.340 --> 0:19:49.490 the classes at the university level. The students are already 0:19:49.490 --> 0:19:53.270 fairly mature. They know they know these issues. So what 0:19:53.270 --> 0:19:55.399 we are trying to do is to develop a next 0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:58.790 set of business leaders who are conscious of these issues. 0:19:59.330 --> 0:20:01.490 If you look at, for example, my son is in 0:20:01.490 --> 0:20:05.090 secondary school, they are actually also having classes that talks 0:20:05.090 --> 0:20:07.580 a little bit about the impact of the environment. They 0:20:07.580 --> 0:20:10.460 are writing essays about it from young. If we can 0:20:10.460 --> 0:20:15.440 just keep reminding the kids the impact of how our 0:20:15.440 --> 0:20:20.600 behavior influences the environment. We will eventually be able to 0:20:20.600 --> 0:20:24.350 see a next generation of students and younger generations while 0:20:24.350 --> 0:20:28.850 conscious of it. Consciousness does unnecessary equate to consumption because 0:20:28.850 --> 0:20:32.270 the trade is an issue, but at least they are 0:20:32.480 --> 0:20:37.070 more aware. They are more conscious that the action has impact. 0:20:37.550 --> 0:20:40.550 And how are they going to convert that to at 0:20:40.550 --> 0:20:43.910 least reduce their impact on the environment? All we can 0:20:43.910 --> 0:20:47.090 do at this moment increase the saliency of the problem. 0:20:47.690 --> 0:20:51.530 Change the mindset and when the technology is really advanced. 0:20:51.530 --> 0:20:54.470 Where we can actually make the products the same in 0:20:54.470 --> 0:20:58.580 terms of pricing. In terms of attributing into the features, 0:20:58.910 --> 0:21:02.990 I can really see the younger generations being more green, 0:21:03.320 --> 0:21:06.710 being more sustainable and choosing the more sustainable product. 0:21:07.070 --> 0:21:09.889 A final question that I have for you coming from 0:21:09.920 --> 0:21:13.670 Nanyang Business School. Yes, right? Representative of business schools all 0:21:13.670 --> 0:21:16.340 around the world in my mind, there seems to be 0:21:16.340 --> 0:21:18.590 a little bit of a disjunction as well in the 0:21:18.590 --> 0:21:21.740 traditional mindset of what a business school is going to 0:21:21.740 --> 0:21:24.619 teach its students, which obviously, as we see, is built 0:21:24.619 --> 0:21:29.930 upon basic economic theory of consumption, economic growth and building 0:21:29.930 --> 0:21:35.030 a business through customer consumption. That's on the one hand. Increasingly, though, 0:21:35.030 --> 0:21:36.709 as you say, you're going to build in more and 0:21:36.710 --> 0:21:40.940 more sustainable elements of it, as well as you design 0:21:40.970 --> 0:21:44.180 curricula now and in the future. Do you think that 0:21:44.180 --> 0:21:47.179 there will come a point where you realize, you know, 0:21:47.180 --> 0:21:51.649 the entire structure of how we teach business has to change? Yes, 0:21:51.650 --> 0:21:56.600 business decisions are one thing, but sustainability must be really 0:21:56.600 --> 0:22:00.110 part of it, and that may change downstream. How business 0:22:00.109 --> 0:22:00.830 is taught? 0:22:01.070 --> 0:22:04.369 Definitely. That's why I said in our causes right now, 0:22:04.640 --> 0:22:06.619 this is why I have been teaching the students now 0:22:07.070 --> 0:22:11.080 is that there are few major considerations. One is, of course, 0:22:11.090 --> 0:22:14.150 clearly the financials are economic. But the other piece is 0:22:14.150 --> 0:22:17.119 actually the company's purpose and the company's role in the 0:22:17.119 --> 0:22:21.770 society and sustainability being one. But there are many other 0:22:21.770 --> 0:22:25.760 broader social impact companies can make in the society and 0:22:25.760 --> 0:22:29.000 how they make decisions. The best position that you can 0:22:29.000 --> 0:22:31.760 have is at the intersection of these two, where it 0:22:31.760 --> 0:22:34.220 makes financial sense. At the same time, you are making 0:22:34.220 --> 0:22:37.850 a positive impact on society, and companies that can do 0:22:37.850 --> 0:22:41.330 that has a longer runway into the future so that 0:22:41.330 --> 0:22:45.620 the thought process cannot purely be a financial and economic 0:22:45.619 --> 0:22:48.410 position that you are taking is something that we have 0:22:48.410 --> 0:22:51.320 already been teaching, and I definitely think that this trend 0:22:51.320 --> 0:22:54.680 is going to continue. I don't see how we can 0:22:54.680 --> 0:22:57.530 move back and just look at a company purely from 0:22:57.530 --> 0:23:00.710 a commercial point of view. Companies no longer just commercial entities, 0:23:00.770 --> 0:23:03.979 are social entities. They're part of the broader society, the 0:23:03.980 --> 0:23:06.200 part of the world. And therefore, to be able to 0:23:06.200 --> 0:23:09.410 think of how the company's role in the broader society 0:23:09.500 --> 0:23:12.379 is as important is not something that is upcoming is 0:23:12.380 --> 0:23:15.080 something we are doing, something that we have been doing 0:23:15.320 --> 0:23:17.510 and we will continue to do. That's why we are 0:23:17.510 --> 0:23:21.680 hoping to educate the next next generation of business leaders 0:23:21.680 --> 0:23:25.340 to understand that, understand that business decisions is not just 0:23:25.340 --> 0:23:30.470 a purely financial economic decision. There's also another big piece 0:23:30.470 --> 0:23:33.050 that you have to start thinking about, which is your 0:23:33.050 --> 0:23:36.620 company's role, your company's purpose in the society and how 0:23:36.619 --> 0:23:37.609 you affect the environment. 0:23:37.730 --> 0:23:40.130 Going back to something that we said at the start 0:23:40.130 --> 0:23:43.460 of our conversation that hopefully this translates to at least 0:23:43.460 --> 0:23:47.000 consuming less companies being on the right to do that. 0:23:47.000 --> 0:23:49.070 But if not that, then then of course you mean very, 0:23:49.070 --> 0:23:51.679 very much differently. Sharon, thank you very much. 0:23:51.740 --> 0:23:52.220 Thank you. 0:23:55.480 --> 0:23:57.880 Listening to the Time.com station, stay up to date on 0:23:57.880 --> 0:24:01.300 CNN's coverage of climate change on CNN. You can find 0:24:01.300 --> 0:24:03.940 this in other CNN podcasts and our website and on 0:24:03.940 --> 0:24:07.780 iTunes and Spotify. The team behind this podcast, Christina, Robert 0:24:07.930 --> 0:24:11.230 and Insulating and Erin Lowe. I'm Jamie Holt till next week.