OUGD601 - Extended Essay - Linking Information / Notes - Problems with creating sustainable consumption

Problems with creating sustainable consumption

Barriers to green

We are moving towards sustainability however the speed of this is inhibited by both perceived and real blocks (brown)

Negative view / aesthetic

The green aesthetic has limited the growth of sustainable design because designers were uncertain about its perceived style (brown)

Certain green aesthetic created that was unappealing (yellow)

Early sustainable marketing by brands was different to previous branding which had a negative effect (yellow)

Negative view of sustainable consumption

less consumption is not popular (yellow)

the idea of life with limits and no pleasure makes green living seem unpleasant, so consumers continue as they did (pink)

material living standards will have to come down to be sustainable (red)

Expensive

Sustainable is usually considered small in scale and expensive (neon orange)

Sustainable design is considered more expensive which puts off designers considering this type design or token design features are added to the product (brown)

Consumers cannot pay more and this belief is further fuelled by discounting (neon pink)

Prices high with ethical products marketed at a premium (green type)

People sometimes won’t pay extra for something because they think it should be a moral basic, not because they don’t care e.g. animal testing (green type)

People have often solved other needs, especially in western countries, so theey are willing to pay more for something that gives them pleasure (orange)

Recession

Less money is better for planet as we buy and waste less (green type )

Recessions affected consumer purchasing, who mainly look for the cheapest rather than greenest products (purple)

Negative View / reliability / quality

Green seen as less effective (pink)

Environmental technologies and products may perform differently to conventional products leading to people thinking they are inferior in quality (neon pink)

Early green design has affected the perception of green product quality (neon pink)

Sustainable design may reduce environmental impact in some way but sometimes not perform as well (brown)

Designers continue to think that to be effective sustainably there needs to be compromise within the design (brown)

Green products did not always work like mainstream ones which led to scepticism over green design (red dot)

Not issue now

Green products are quality and meet expectations (neon pink)

The quality of green products is no longer an issue despite historical examples (neon pink)

Sustainable design does not compromise on aesthetics or environmental success (brown)

Greenwashing / ethos

Greenwashing can negatively impact the legitimacy of environmental / sustainability claims (yellow)

It is impossible for products or companies to be completely green (neon pink)

Green credentials not always based on science (brown)

Sustainable terms are used for market products that are not always true creating a false sense of progress and confused consumers (neon orange)

Green values may be used as a marketing ploy (red)

Corporate brands cannot be completely ethical particularly when the drive is to continually improve profits (green type)

Ethical brands don’t always use ethics as a value it is either used as a token or guilt message (green type)

Nothing will ever be completely ethical (green type)

General public can sometimes fall for green claims however green consumers are less likely to (green type)

Shows that ethics can increase sales – as well as showing how brands can misuse morals to sell things (green type)

Confusion over terms

Common terms used in environmental marketing can mislead customers (neon pink)

It is difficult for green consumers to know which ‘green’ products to buy and which have a genuine impact (neon pink)

Consumers lack information to be green, they are confused about what impact products have (green type)

Do people care about the environment?

Not many people base every purchase on the environment (red)

Sustainability is not always considered in purchasing (yellow)

If define green consumers as basing every purchase on environmental factors there are not many ‘greens’ however if based on people who consider it, it is on the increase (red)

Fears for the environment for the consumer are disconnected, it doesn’t affect them and their survival (green type)

Immunity to damage in the world (green type)

Problem is boxed away (green type)

Minority of people buy because of ethics (green type)

Consumers are more concerned about people over the planet however this does not mean they do not care (green type)

Needs / self – actualisation and consumer wealth

Maslows hierarchy of needs – needs are met in order of importance

Lower needs met for higher needs to be important

Meet immediate physiological needs, then look to maintain them in the future, find a group to belong to, be respected (esteem needs) , time to think (cognitive needs), enjoy artistic endeavour (aesthetic need)

Self actualisation is achieving self fulfilment in life – achieve capabilities and make a difference

People with successful careers, financial security and respect from social groups most likely to be at the self actualisation level

VALS structure similar

People are controlled by lower level needs which are needed for survival

Basic needs are met – consumers then diverge with some becoming inner directed and other outer directed – outer directed are concerned with the opinions of others – inner directed are focused on internal drives

Class

Historically green credentials were an environmental gesture directed at the middle class (green)

Class is determined by opportunities available in earning potential and possession of goods (orange)

Consumption patterns factor of class and a result of class (orange)

Social mobility and reduced wealth concentration breaking down class boundaries and cultural differences between them (orange)

Lowest income brackets less likely to be concerned with the arts, have other concerns (orange)

Initially developing country governments regarded environmental concern as a luxury for the rich, and argued that the environments of people in the developing world were blighted by poverty (light blue)

Environmentalism as a ‘bourgeois’ concern (light blue)

Incremental vs system change

Change is slow and difficult (Light blue)

Efficiency not enough

Eco efficiency does not go far enough and is still part of the same model of consumption creating a sense of change (dark green)

Weak sustainability is convenient as behaviour does not have to change radically (yellow)

Weak sustainability allows economic growth to continue, profits to be made and resources to be used more efficiently and waste reduction making it popular for governments (yellow)

The reaction to environmental damage has been a focus on finding the less bad option for the environment (dark green)

The difficulties of creating an alternative consumption model in existing systems has limited the possibility of sustainable consumption (yellow)

Sustainable design has looked more at the symptoms rather than the cause of environmental damage (pink)

Responses to our impact on the environment do not question the central issues and causes (brown)

Incremental change only makes so much difference, whereas system changes are needed for sustainability (yellow)

Management of technology to lower environmental damage does not challenge societies desire for wealth, technology and services – management of technologies effect on the environment does not challenge the current paradigm (purple)

Reformist approach does not challenge paradigm instead it is encouraged (purple)

Aims to challenge world view rather than just current system (purple)

Green suggest the need for overhaul of societal practices to create a sustainable society (purple)

Environmentalism aims to manage environmental impact within current industrial system (purple)

Environmentalists think technology, rather than reduction in production / consumption, can create sustainability (purple)

Technology cannot create infinite growth in a finite world ….current ‘solutions’ for environmental damage are considered insufficient by greens because they do not look at the wider system (purple)

Greens believe science has cause most of current problems and in some ways don’t think more is the solution (purple)

Reducing consumption is not enough – relying on recycling may hide the fact that a system change is needed – reduction in consumption is more important than recycling (purple)

Difficulties getting people on board

Difficult to persuade enough people for it to have a widescale effect for the environment (purple)

Strong Sustainability 

Strong sustainability encourages efficiency and behavioural change (yellow)

  

Design help change

The designer is increasingly used to make green design attractive to a wider market (green)

There is room for designers to be part of these system changes (yellow)