Changing people’s relationship with ‘things’ is much more important than changing the ‘things’ themselves, says Tashi van der Waerden
How do we build trust in a post-truth world? Misinformation and false claims compounded by inaccessible scientific jargon has made understanding the world infinitely more arduous. You only need to look at how far expert and scientific opinion has been discredited in this Covid-19 pandemic by a particular section of society in order to see the disastrous effects mistrust wields on local communities and the world at large. The green movement has equally suffered, with climate change sceptics and deniers discounting scientific analysis as hyperbole engineered by the likes of ‘project fear’.
‘Trust’ – that all too elusive currency that is easy to lose but takes an age to earn – is vital to future-proofing the environment, businesses and the human race. Governments have struggled to garner this in their subjects. And while some brands and large corporates have equally struggled (and sometimes lost) consumer trust through misdemeanours, insensitive campaigns and unethical practices – they are in a unique position to incur transformative change that benefits the health of the world and that of its citizens.
How? Every day, people – in a sense – ‘vote’ with their money. This has become all the more apparent in the boycotting of brands that have been shown to mistreat their staff, exploit misfortunes for commercial gain and neglect communities in their greatest time of need. Who we choose to invest in is partly shaped by our personal principles (e.g. don’t agree with animal cruelty? Then you probably won’t purchase a Gucci calfskin bag. Passionate about climate change? Then you probably won’t buy that Range Rover Sport). Indeed, consumerism, if done ‘consciously’, can do good.
People’s relationships with brands are changing. But how about people’s relationship to the material goods they buy – and how might that impact positively on a sustainable future? Great innovations have been made in the way of biomaterials – that is eco alternatives to much maligned materials such as plastic. But all of this counts for nothing if the engrained human behaviours that drive usage and consumption of the object negates the innovation. For businesses to be sustainable, they must address people’s relationships to ‘things’ in order to incur and sustain truly sustainable, world-saving outcomes.
The seeds of doubt and the era of misinformation
After the Second World War, there was a great rush to redefine how people ate and understood nutrition to minimise the disastrous effects of starvation and malnutrition. Governments issued advice and food coupons and, for the first time in history, meat became an accessible part of each man’s diet. The meat industry experienced high consumer demand and very quickly corporate greed took over. Farmers lost sight of the fundamentals.
Chickens, once all relatively free-range were battery bred, with their beaks clipped and pumped full of antibiotics to meet the high consumer demand at a low price. At first, consumers didn’t understand the implications of their desire but with time this example became part of the wider problems which were arising in the food production chain resulting in today’s consumer: wary of brands and doubting of labels.
We’ve all been led to believe that ‘natural’ is best, but how far is that statement true? An expensive, uncoated, chemical-free apple fresh from the orchard might be seen as the ‘best’ option in the supermarket but actually, it spoils more quickly than its chemically sprayed cousins, in turn adding to the food waste problem. Similarly, smartly targeted petrochemistry is often a far safer, more effective and environmentally sound option than natural additions like peppermint or eucalyptus to skin and hair care products. Petrochemistry only makes up 4% of oil production, its effect on global warming is tiny compared to that of fuel, but ask any consumer on the street if they would prefer their moisturiser held claims of petrochemistry over peppermint eucalyptus or and you probably already know their answer …
Our first challenge is to rebuild the reputation of science and experts.
Trusting the science
If there is a silver lining to be found in the pandemic it is in the higher level of trust we are now putting on our scientists to find a solution to the crisis. Globally, scientists have done an astounding job. Never before have we witnessed collaboration in the scientific world in such a way. With this renewed trust, comes a once in a lifetime opportunity to translate this to impact in an environmental sense.
If we, the consumers, let the experts develop more sustainable solutions for us (and indeed much of that can happen under our radar) we won’t doubt or second guess brands’ sustainability claims.
If this is to work then sustainability must be considered in the same way that product safety is – something that is a given and verified by experts motivated by fact and empirical evidence, not emotion. However, like safety improvements, these technical improvements do require the consumer to change their habits.
For example, back in the 1970s experts found that retaining people in their car seats was the safest option during a crash, but wearing seatbelts was considered an imposition on civil liberties – in much the same way as mask-wearing in a pandemic has been considered as such, by a particular section of society.
Along with legislation, communication campaigns were built which added to a comprehensive change in behaviour and, thus, many lives were saved. This communication was a key aspect in effecting positive change and the same will be true in moving to more sustainable behaviours. Design and communication will, together, make the changes more convenient, desirable and repeatable for the consumer.
Convenience over convention
The consumer is driven by the overriding priorities of convenience and value and has subsequently formed habits that are often called rivers of thought: ‘I do this because it’s the easiest for me and the best for the planet’. It’s estimated that the average adult makes about 35,000 decisions each day. We might all have good intentions but if we’re unable to form a habit with ease then it’s unlikely to stick.
We know, for example, that bathroom products are less likely to be recycled because most people put a small bin in their bathroom but it is not emptied regularly and is far away from the recycling bin. Therefore, when it comes to emptying it the whole lot goes into our main waste bin. We can tell people in as many ways as we can think of to recycle bathroom products and make packaging more convenient to recycle, but if we adopt a different tactic and remove the need for the bathroom bin in the first place we will have solved the problem in one fell swoop. If we find durable alternatives to the regular bathroom disposables like cotton buds, then those items become redundant, as does the bin. We need to nudge consumer behaviour in a nonmanipulative and positive way, taking the onus away from the consumer.
Reconnecting with our possessions
Beyond the challenge of pushing consumers to recycle habitually, the end goal is to move to more durable, circular solutions. We used to value possessions. When they were harder to come by, we’d monogram hankies, own a fountain pen for life and pass down furniture to the next generation. Now we blow on a tissue and toss it, write a few lines and lose our biros under the sofa, and leave IKEA with much more than intended. We enjoy greater hygiene, convenience and variety, but have lost lasting emotional connection to what we own. To achieve the circular economy, we’ll have to reconnect to our ‘stuff’, but is it possible to feel responsible for sweet wrappers, cherish something plastic, or feel part of circular systems? For decades, designers and brands stimulated mass consumption and disposable lifestyles by creating a desire for the shiny and new. Now it’s time to create a desire for the circular and sustainable. One way to achieve this is in employing the tried and tested EAST framework from The Behavioural Insights Team:
Easy – designing the path of least resistance by reducing complexity, choices and making products and systems simple and effortless to use.
Attractive – designing enhanced value through improved utility, experience and aesthetic. This often relates to salience and personalisation.
Social – designing to build community, new social norms and positive peer pressure that encourage group commitments.
Timely – designing products, activations and communications to prompt people when they are likely to be most receptive and maximising immediate benefits
If we adopt this framework, we design products and services with the consumer in mind, rather than the brand.
Changing people’s relationship with ‘things’ is much more important than changing the ‘things’ themselves. We’re influencing consumer mindset, which is where the key to our future on this planet lies. Brands need to work out how they can offer solutions which fit into consumers lifestyles and require minimum overall effort from the consumer. We need to lean into science and the experts to influence these decisions, ensuring trust from our consumers. We will build back better but only with greater trust, innovative design and long-lasting communication.
Tashi van der Waerden is Director of Innovation at brand design company Echo. Echo focuses on creating more sustainable futures from a brand, positioning and product perspective.
