Clear consumer research, better indicators and more bad news for fish
Sustainable consumption: a research roadmap
There can be few lines of consumer research less fruitful than those directed towards buyers’ ethical preferences. “All things being equal, nine out of 10 consumers would rather buy an eco-friendly product than not.” So read the headline findings of countless studies over the last decade or so. Such results are presented as evidence of a groundswell of support for ethical consumption.
Absolute tosh. As any marketing manager worth his or her salt will know, people say one thing in principle but behave quite differently in practice. What’s more, in Supermarket World, rarely are all things equal.
At last, here’s a paper that brings some much-needed clarity to the whole consumer research question. Its roster of authors (there are seven in all, from multiple universities) provide an invaluable blueprint for the way ahead. Their attentions home in on three main areas.
The first covers the old chestnut above: namely, the inconsistencies between consumers’ attitudes and behaviour. Are buyers guilty of “wilful ignorance”? Are eco-products perceived to be functionally inferior? Market analysts simply aren’t sure. They need to be.
Such micro-level focus gives rise to a second broader question: as a citizen, what role does an individual play in society? Citizens are subject to an implied social contract. Consumers, on the other hand, obey economic self-interest. Investigating how Citizen Me influences Consumer Me when browsing the shelves could offer some real insight.
Ultimately, however, consumers operate within an institutional context. Hence the third research imperative: to discover how institutions, through public policy initiatives, can begin and sustain change in the future. This touches on the nub of current debate. We consume at present as if there’s no tomorrow. That must change. Which public policies can make that happen remains a big, unanswered question.
All are timely and potentially powerful lines of enquiry. But be quick, researchers. Marketers won’t hang on forever.
“Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy”, Susan Debscha et al, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol 30, No 1, pp 31-38, 2011.
Number puzzle
“What can’t be measured can’t be managed.” If ever there’s an overused management saying, it’s this one. Like all clichés, it has its faults. What of management intuition, for example? (Think of former GE chief Jack Welch, who, to paraphrase, warned of measuring everything and understanding nothing.)
Yet, for the most part, the maxim proves true. Certainly fewer have taken it more to heart than corporate responsibility practitioners. Hard numbers have helped bring substance and seriousness to a subject previously dismissed as “soft”. Look no further than the non-financial reporting boom for proof. The pursuit of quantifiable indicators for environmental and, more especially, social impacts has had a marked effect on corporate practice. Progress can now be more accurately understood and relative performance compared. Such transparency has been a boon for investors and other interested parties too.
But what of regulators? Does distilling corporate impacts into digestible figures help attempts to draft appropriate legislation? This intriguing paper addresses these questions. Based on an empirical study of the UN-backed Global Reporting Initiative, the author concludes that what works for corporate managers doesn’t always work for lawmakers.
Incorporating indicators in regulation carries “potential costs”, he argues. Some are well known already, such as the promotion of box-ticking and superficial compliance. Others read as genuine insights. The paper argues convincingly, for example, that public values can become distorted when reduced to numerical form.
Take human rights. GRI requires companies to quantify violations involving the rights of indigenous peoples. Nothing, however, is asked about the seriousness of such violations.
The paper provides legislators with some solid recommendations: design meaningful indicators, avoid data overload, require third-party verification, and expand citizen participation. Corporate reporters would do well to pay head as well.
“Regulating Through Numbers: A Case Study of Corporate Sustainability Reporting”, Galit Sarfaty, Wharton Business School, working paper, August 2011.
Sustainable fisheries
Global fish stocks are plummeting. Nearly a third of fish stocks are currently over-exploited, according to the United Nations. That’s obviously bad news for fish. But it’s bad news for us too – both the billions who regularly consume fish in their diet and, more immediately, the 180 million people who rely on the fish trade for their livelihoods.
This short strategy paper from McKinsey provides a methodological framework for how the global fisheries industry (the estimated annual revenues of which tot up to $90bn) can move to a more sustainable footing.
Sustainable fishing is “not a straightforward task”, the authors admit upfront. For starters, it almost certainly means catching fewer fish – a move that will have marked impacts on revenue, at least in the short term. It also involves costly measures to allow fish stocks to replenish themselves.
Looking through an economic lens, the paper explores numerous scenarios of how things might pan out for different actors in the fisheries’ value chain. Short on specifics, but a strong methodology for moving the industry forward collectively.
“Sustainability and Resource ProductivityDesign for Sustainable Fisheries – Modelling Fishery Economics”, Sheila Bonini et al, McKinsey Quarterly, September 2011.
On campus
Campus group NetImpact has released its latest annual MBA guide, Business as UNusual.
The changing role of business in developing economies is the subject of the Academy of Business in Society’s annual colloquium due to take place on October 26-28 at Insead business school.