S1: The following is a C and a podcast. Welcome to
S1: the climate conversations, I'm Jeremy Hall. If you walk into
S1: a supermarket, chances are sustainability will shout out at you
S1: more these days, sustainably farmed fish coffee that is ethically
S1: sourced and perhaps even pet food made from insects. Green
S1: products have no doubt become a significant part of the
S1: consumer goods market. In part, this has no doubt been
S1: driven by a greater awareness of the impacts of climate
S1: change and a drive to turn awareness into action. But
S1: human habits are also hard to break, especially when we
S1: live in a world where e-commerce continues to grow, where
S1: you can buy anything you want in just two or
S1: three clicks and when someone can deliver it within the day.
S1: So when it comes to the very act of consuming
S1: is that gap between what we believe in and what
S1: we practice. Can consumers walk the talk on living sustainably?
S1: And what does that look like? Does it mean simply
S1: buying greener or just buying less? Or is that a
S1: hard bridge to cross? With me to talk about this
S1: is Sharon, an associate professor of marketing, Nanyang Business School. Welcome, Sharon.
S2: Good afternoon and thanks for having me.
S1: Let us start with this first question. Studies show that
S1: awareness of sustainability and climate change have obviously increased driving,
S1: sort of like a mindful consumerism and caution over buying
S1: products and wastefulness. And you teach at a local university.
S1: So give me a sense first, whether you've seen this
S1: awareness grow over the years. What are some of the
S1: things your students talk about now in this area, your
S1: sense of what they think? And maybe, you know, compared
S1: to when you were in school and how things have
S1: changed in this period of time?
S2: I think the younger generations are definitely more environmentally conscious.
S2: I teach a bunch of kids there are about 20
S2: years old to 22 in the classes. We talk a
S2: lot about sustainability. And usually I get them to make
S2: choices between different products, green products versus non green products.
S2: And if we measure attitude, I would say that a
S2: significant portion of them definitely support sustainability. They feel this important,
S2: any shift of behaviours. I can't say for sure, though,
S2: whether they really are willing to put the money where
S2: it is.
S1: Well, that's the key thing. Yeah.
S2: We see this kids during break time. You can get drinks.
S2: I ask them, Why do you pick a plastic bag
S2: when you don't need it? And the reasons will be
S2: always convenient is easier to carry. But do you consider
S2: the fact that it's not environmentally friendly? Oh yeah, I do,
S2: but it's just easier. The trade off is still hard
S2: for a lot of us to make. But in general,
S2: if you ask just about attitude, I think definitely this
S2: generation is way more conscious of the environmental impact of
S2: bad behavior compared to my generation's. And Varma isn't actually
S2: quite a conversation. And if not, then
S1: yeah, I'm going to talk about the trade offs and
S1: it is an excellent point. This is something that I've
S1: been thinking about a lot as well, and I'll use
S1: the example of e-commerce. E-commerce has existed. It's grown significantly.
S1: It's made it so easy for people to basically consume
S1: exactly and especially the younger crowd as well. So they
S1: are faced with this potential trade off and we buy
S1: everything from furniture even to phones and stuff like that.
S1: Do you think then separate from the kids that the
S1: pandemic itself in a way has shifted our approach to
S1: consumerism and consuming in ways actually made it easier? And
S1: I wonder whether sometimes is that making it easier? The
S1: environmental sustainable consciousness has taken a little bit of a backseat.
S2: It does, at least from my casual observations. That's two pastors.
S2: I don't think attitude white people are becoming less environmentally conscious.
S2: I think the pandemic actually highlighted the idea that we
S2: are connected to a disease in one place affect all countries,
S2: and therefore it actually creates this whole belief that we
S2: need to take care of each other and we need
S2: to take care of the Earth. That said, I think
S2: at the individual level when it comes to consumption because
S2: we are all stuck at home, we want to feel good,
S2: we buy comfort food, we buy things to sell just
S2: because we are so bored and then nothing better to do.
S2: We buy online products, we buy takeaways. And if you
S2: think about all these things that we'll be doing is
S2: actually really bad for the environment at the consumption level,
S2: at individual level, people are probably not thinking about it.
S2: But if you just measure attitude, I believe that actually
S2: the pandemic should make people more conscious. But the consciousness
S2: does not translate. The tradeoff is still difficult to make.
S1: Well, that's really the crux of it, isn't it, in
S1: that while awareness while attitudes are trending in the right direction,
S1: the crux is whether it actually translates into meaningful action
S1: and educated action as well. I'll use the example of
S1: what people may think is ethical consumption or green products, right?
S1: So some will say that actually that there's no such
S1: thing as a green product. And one of my favorite
S1: examples is the cotton tote bag. For a while when
S1: people started trending towards a tote bag because they felt
S1: it was a bit more environmentally friendly than a plastic bag.
S1: But I'm not sure yet if people understand the environmental
S1: footprint of a tote bag and how many times you've
S1: got to use that tote bag for it to make
S1: sense in terms of emissions and in terms of sustainability
S1: and the production of the cotton bag. And therefore there
S1: was this shift away from plastic bags to which sometimes
S1: if you think about it, it may not be such
S1: a bad thing as an alternative if you consider what
S1: the cotton tote bag brings itself. So that's the thing
S1: of people firstly aware enough, you think, from your studies
S1: of these trade offs and then after that being even aware,
S1: then being able to really make the hard decisions.
S2: I don't think people are necessarily that aware and most
S2: people want to feel good about helping the environment. I mean,
S2: that is an excellent example in my heart. We have
S2: plenty of tote bags and some point I was. Telling
S2: my kids that we have so many of them, we
S2: don't use it. And each of these actually take longer
S2: time to biodegrade than competitor plastic bags, so it's not
S2: necessarily a good thing. But that said, the question is
S2: what is the alternative? I've always been telling my students
S2: when we teach sustainability, the best solution is to reduce consumption.
S2: The best solution is not to consume as much as
S2: we have been consuming. If we cannot stop consuming well,
S2: then the next best alternative is to hopefully throw the
S2: security economy, tried to reuse the materials and products that
S2: we have. Reducing consumption is not something that is structurally
S2: embedded in a society. Businesses have no incentive to reduce consumption,
S2: to encourage us to reduce consumption the businesses or try
S2: to be as sustainable as they can. There are various methods,
S2: but I'm not going to ask you to consume less.
S2: Consuming less is not good for business. Neither is it
S2: necessarily good for the country's economy, if you will. The
S2: hardest choice to make is to reduce consumption, to reduce consumerism.
S2: But the structurally the way our world works, the way
S2: the society works does not support that. Therefore, the next
S2: best alternative is at least have some green awareness, at
S2: least do something to make the consumption that we have
S2: to consume a little bit more environmentally friendly.
S1: Yeah, I mean, that's a deep frustration that I have
S1: as well, because it would appear to me that what
S1: we've been doing in the last decades, even as we've
S1: become more environmentally conscious, is that we have been trying
S1: to solve a problem related to consumption. We've just consuming
S1: differently and consuming something else. Exactly. So whether it is
S1: a stainless steel straw versus plastic straws, we just consume differently.
S1: And again, it's no guarantee that the stainless steel straws
S1: any better than 10 plastic straws that you may have
S1: replaced it with.
S2: Exactly edible by putting stainless steel straws.
S1: Yeah, exactly. So that's the trick for me. And whether
S1: or not when you do your courses, when you speak publicly,
S1: do you think there's been enough done to talk about
S1: the first priority, which is to reduce consumption? Do you
S1: think there's more that can be done, as you said,
S1: to ask so much economic structural impediments to talking about
S1: consuming less? But that's the truth. Can more be done there?
S2: Oh, definitely. But I don't think this is something that
S2: one company can solve. It probably requires an entire shift
S2: in societal norms. If you think about why we consume
S2: so much from a marketing point of view, we always
S2: say that people consume so fulfill some social needs to
S2: fulfill some psychological needs. We consume so that we can
S2: celebrate our success. We consume because we see some people
S2: having something and we desire that and we connect our
S2: identity to the products that we consume, to the things
S2: we buy. So until that piece is resolved, if you will,
S2: or at least we tempered the way we look at
S2: our own identity with the products we buy, that is
S2: going to be a hard piece to solve because there
S2: will always be people who want to buy a better car.
S2: You buy things to show you buy things just a
S2: few good to pamper yourself that social norms with the
S2: way we have to identify ourself with the products that
S2: we purchased needs to go in. That piece doesn't go
S2: no matter what you try to do is going to
S2: be very hot to reduce consumerism. And that's actually what
S2: we have been observing for the past decade that people
S2: has been consuming more because as you get more affluent,
S2: you can afford it. And so you don't think about it,
S2: you buy more things, you used it to identify your stuff,
S2: you buy a bigger house, you buy a bigger car.
S2: Now we can go out to restaurants. You eat more
S2: expensive food, food that actually probably has more environmental impact
S2: to have the cows to farm. And so all of
S2: these things comes into picture. But when we consume, we
S2: don't think about it. We only think about it when
S2: the environment, somehow the context trigger us to think about it.
S2: So if I ask now, you said, what if he
S2: has that, nobody would say, no, I guarantee you that
S2: you have never seen anybody telling us, no, but can
S2: you willing to eat less? Not really. Are you in
S2: Dubai loss? Not all will. Until we disconnect self-identity through products,
S2: that's going to be hard to sell.
S1: Yeah. You know, one of the industries that fascinates me
S1: the most as well is fashion. And because as you see,
S1: so much of our identity is linked to fashion and
S1: we've seen how the explosion of fast fashion has had
S1: such a significant environmental impact and footprint. I'm not sure
S1: again whether people know the consequences of the fashion industry
S1: and cotton and the materials that go into it. But
S1: you see on the fringes of movements day in the
S1: fashion industry, there are some brands who try to at
S1: least see what's needed to be said. Who may try
S1: to do what's needed to be done? But do you
S1: think that using the industry as an example, there are
S1: sparks of potential that the industry itself certainly industries themself
S1: may see? Actually, the focus should not be on volume
S1: of consumption, but the quality of consumption, and I'm willing
S1: to go there and push the boundaries. Or do you
S1: think the economic structures are so embedded and so stuck
S1: that we're not going to be able to move away?
S2: My personal opinion is, I think, is pretty much back
S2: until the companies are willing to say that I'm OK.
S2: I'm making less sales short of that. I think that
S2: would be hard. That's why I think the next best
S2: alternative is really to look at the circular economy. And hopefully,
S2: if we don't really take so much resources from the US,
S2: we don't pollute the Earth as much and hopefully through
S2: re using a recycling the materials that we have, we
S2: can reduce a little bit on the impact on consumerism.
S2: That would be great. But I really don't think structurally
S2: right now, at least at this stage, they begin to
S2: see companies saying that, yes, it's OK to consume less
S2: by less and we OK. We can tell investors and
S2: our stakeholders that we're doing good for the environment and
S2: it's okay that we are making less revenue. I can't
S2: see that happening, and it's mind as they look at
S2: the number of smartphones we're buying. That's how we achieve
S2: a level that we two years.
S1: I was slightly more pessimistic, but is hoping for a
S1: positive take from you. But never mind. Let me use
S1: another example that as I introduce this, I spoke about supermarkets, right?
S1: And this whole thing about organic produce is also quite recent.
S1: It's all within our lifetimes where we saw this trend
S1: was people consuming differently, knowing full well that organic products
S1: have comes with its benefits. And it showed that people
S1: were willing to consume differently, consume maybe less but better,
S1: or at least knowing what they are consuming and therefore
S1: making decisions based upon that. Are we not hopeful that
S1: some of this can sort of translate elsewhere, especially with
S1: the younger as we now go back to talk about
S1: your students and stuff like that? Is this something that
S1: governments need to do? Society NGOs? Where does it start
S1: from to start these conversations?
S2: Oh, definitely. I'm sure that the younger generations, for example,
S2: my students, they would definitely be more supportive of organic products.
S2: But one of the caveat is this a lot of
S2: these so-called green products, as organic products are more expensive
S2: and need the technology to do these products right now,
S2: it's not mature enough such that you they are a
S2: lower cost or the same price as a regular products,
S2: so it can attract people who have the economic means
S2: to buy such products. At the same time, feel that
S2: it's important to support the environment, but that still leaves
S2: a whole group of people who may not be willing
S2: to make the financial trade off the fact that the
S2: organic products cost significantly more on average. I think at
S2: this stage it will have an impact on the small
S2: segment of the market that can afford it and feel
S2: this important. But we need more advances in technology such
S2: that the price of organic products will be similar to
S2: the price of the regular products that you can't really
S2: see a major push towards such consumption.
S1: I'm going to Segway and move our conversation maybe a
S1: little bit higher level and then talk about trends globally
S1: and what we can learn or at least look out for,
S1: we look at countries in the region, for example, when
S1: you talk about consumerism consuming and consumption. Obviously, there may
S1: be two groups of countries and societies that you can
S1: look out for. Obviously, there are the rich economies and
S1: societies like the United States, like Singapore, which have the
S1: highest purchasing power and ability to change things through consuming.
S1: But at the same time, you have rapidly developing countries
S1: with huge populations who similarly, as we've said earlier, aspire
S1: to consume. And that's the whole point of moving from
S1: being developing to more developing to developed. And where do
S1: you think the challenges are going to be in the
S1: long term? Is it possible for us to start looking
S1: at some of these developing countries? Is it fair for
S1: us to look at their consumption patterns? Or is it
S1: more realistic to look at developed countries and developed societies
S1: and tell them to take the first actions and to
S1: lead the pack, so to speak? Or is it a
S1: mixture of both in terms of how we attack the
S1: problem of overall consumption patterns?
S2: I don't see that from a financial trade off perspective.
S2: I think that if you look at the more affluent countries,
S2: the fact that they are more able to pay for that,
S2: the more expensive green products. I think that will be
S2: one direction you can go. But if we look at
S2: just from a consumer attitude perspective, from our research, we
S2: don't see a difference between affluent and unappealing countries. So
S2: we have to actually conduct the surveys in four neighboring countries. So,
S2: for example, Indonesia's and Malaysia and some of the neighboring
S2: countries of Vietnam and such. And we do not see
S2: a major difference actually in the Delta two towards green consumption.
S2: So it's not that the more affluent the country people
S2: are more likely to feel that it's important. In fact,
S2: there's a few bits that we see. For example, Indonesia
S2: people are actually quite supportive of sustainable consumption. The difficulty
S2: comes when the cost comes the picture. If you can't
S2: afford it, then yes. At the consumption level, the barriers
S2: to entry are too high. The price difference is too high.
S2: You're not going to see it. But if the difference
S2: is not significantly higher, I don't think you've noticed that
S2: in affluent countries necessarily will be more supportive of sustainable
S2: consumption compared to a non affluent countries. That's right to me.
S2: I think at the end of the day, the technological
S2: piece needs to be solved. If we can make it
S2: such that the green products that you see are at
S2: least seen by so that people do have to make
S2: a tradeoff in our research, what we did in one
S2: of the studies is we give people the same products
S2: they want is green. One is not as green, but
S2: same price almost 90, and the higher percent people choose
S2: a green product. But the minute I increase the price
S2: of a 10 percent, the percentage of people choosing the
S2: green product we use close to 30 to 40 percent
S1: is just 10 percent. Is that the ceiling?
S2: Okay, this is one sample. So I don't want to
S2: say generalize to the whole population. That would not be
S2: scientifically correct, but at least one that one study you
S2: reduce is quite a lot. So really, it's at the
S2: end of the day. I think the attitude I don't
S2: see a difference between affluent and on the following countries
S2: her chased the conversion. That's the piece that we may see,
S2: and that purely is economically driven in the extra 10
S2: percent could mean quite a bit to do on this
S2: one country.
S1: Yeah, I'm going to start closing off and you're an
S1: educator as well. So obviously we've spoken about huge structural
S1: impediments to changing the mindsets overall within societies as far
S1: as consumption is concerned. But you're an educator. Obviously, the
S1: most significant efforts will have to be focus on even
S1: younger and younger people to imbibe or at least make
S1: them aware that there are alternatives to the kind of
S1: consumption that we have become used to overall as a society.
S1: As you see where there's a phone, whether it's a flat,
S1: whether it's a car, all these things are part of
S1: us as a society in terms of consuming them. What
S1: would you say? You, I would say, try and develop
S1: a curriculum, or at least something that can start as
S1: young as possible to make people more aware so that
S1: by the time you reach a certain age, but you
S1: become environmentally conscious when you start thinking about economic theory, right?
S1: And suddenly I'm reminded of Y equals a C plus
S1: I plus g that sometimes you know the C can
S1: be rethought a little bit. How would you design that
S1: to insert a little bit different conception into overall consumption?
S2: I'm from New Zealand to you. We actually have many causes. First,
S2: we have a cost to holding on sustainability and in
S2: all the other causes that are not unsustainability. We also
S2: insert a couple of lessons on sustainability. So just to
S2: get the students to really have some awareness of the
S2: impact of consumption that is for marketing, for example, then
S2: power consumption and sustainability and how if they're going. To
S2: be future business leaders, what are some of the thought
S2: process that she comes into their mind if they're going
S2: to lead a company? How would the action affects the environment?
S2: If you have a positive environment potentially leads to a
S2: better outcome for the company in the long run. In A.,
S2: we do have a number of causes that looks at
S2: sustainability already, and we also embed sustainability in most of
S2: the classes at the university level. The students are already
S2: fairly mature. They know they know these issues. So what
S2: we are trying to do is to develop a next
S2: set of business leaders who are conscious of these issues.
S2: If you look at, for example, my son is in
S2: secondary school, they are actually also having classes that talks
S2: a little bit about the impact of the environment. They
S2: are writing essays about it from young. If we can
S2: just keep reminding the kids the impact of how our
S2: behavior influences the environment. We will eventually be able to
S2: see a next generation of students and younger generations while
S2: conscious of it. Consciousness does unnecessary equate to consumption because
S2: the trade is an issue, but at least they are
S2: more aware. They are more conscious that the action has impact.
S2: And how are they going to convert that to at
S2: least reduce their impact on the environment? All we can
S2: do at this moment increase the saliency of the problem.
S2: Change the mindset and when the technology is really advanced.
S2: Where we can actually make the products the same in
S2: terms of pricing. In terms of attributing into the features,
S2: I can really see the younger generations being more green,
S2: being more sustainable and choosing the more sustainable product.
S1: A final question that I have for you coming from
S1: Nanyang Business School. Yes, right? Representative of business schools all
S1: around the world in my mind, there seems to be
S1: a little bit of a disjunction as well in the
S1: traditional mindset of what a business school is going to
S1: teach its students, which obviously, as we see, is built
S1: upon basic economic theory of consumption, economic growth and building
S1: a business through customer consumption. That's on the one hand. Increasingly, though,
S1: as you say, you're going to build in more and
S1: more sustainable elements of it, as well as you design
S1: curricula now and in the future. Do you think that
S1: there will come a point where you realize, you know,
S1: the entire structure of how we teach business has to change? Yes,
S1: business decisions are one thing, but sustainability must be really
S1: part of it, and that may change downstream. How business
S1: is taught?
S2: Definitely. That's why I said in our causes right now,
S2: this is why I have been teaching the students now
S2: is that there are few major considerations. One is, of course,
S2: clearly the financials are economic. But the other piece is
S2: actually the company's purpose and the company's role in the
S2: society and sustainability being one. But there are many other
S2: broader social impact companies can make in the society and
S2: how they make decisions. The best position that you can
S2: have is at the intersection of these two, where it
S2: makes financial sense. At the same time, you are making
S2: a positive impact on society, and companies that can do
S2: that has a longer runway into the future so that
S2: the thought process cannot purely be a financial and economic
S2: position that you are taking is something that we have
S2: already been teaching, and I definitely think that this trend
S2: is going to continue. I don't see how we can
S2: move back and just look at a company purely from
S2: a commercial point of view. Companies no longer just commercial entities,
S2: are social entities. They're part of the broader society, the
S2: part of the world. And therefore, to be able to
S2: think of how the company's role in the broader society
S2: is as important is not something that is upcoming is
S2: something we are doing, something that we have been doing
S2: and we will continue to do. That's why we are
S2: hoping to educate the next next generation of business leaders
S2: to understand that, understand that business decisions is not just
S2: a purely financial economic decision. There's also another big piece
S2: that you have to start thinking about, which is your
S2: company's role, your company's purpose in the society and how
S2: you affect the environment.
S1: Going back to something that we said at the start
S1: of our conversation that hopefully this translates to at least
S1: consuming less companies being on the right to do that.
S1: But if not that, then then of course you mean very,
S1: very much differently. Sharon, thank you very much.
S2: Thank you.
S1: Listening to the Time.com station, stay up to date on
S1: CNN's coverage of climate change on CNN. You can find
S1: this in other CNN podcasts and our website and on
S1: iTunes and Spotify. The team behind this podcast, Christina, Robert
S1: and Insulating and Erin Lowe. I'm Jamie Holt till next week.