PLACAS DE UNIÓN DE TRAVIESAS

of Consumption

It has been long acknowledged by various disciplines that overconsumption imposes an urgent and grave danger to the world’s diverse ecosystems and life support systems.

Warde (2014: 277), for example, when challenging our understandings of consumer behaviour from a sociological point of view, argues that “[e]xisting patterns of personal and domestic consumption constitute a major, perhaps the primary threat to human well-being on Earth.” Ironically, this threat is not imposed by a systematic failure, but by an emerging sense of affluence that can be seen as a success story from an economic or industrial vantage point. For Baudrillard (1998: 25), there is a sense of “fantastic con-spicuousness of consumption and abundance” that leads to a “fundamental mutation in the ecology of human species”. When he focuses on the changing human ecology by the pervasive ethos of goods, Baudrillard (1998) stresses a peculiar temporal dimension that distinguishes the “age of affluence” from all the previous ages:

We live by object time: by this I mean that we live at the pace of objects, live to the rhythm of their ceaseless succession. Today, it is we who watch them as they are born, grow to maturity and die, whereas in all previous civilizations it was timeless objects, instruments or monuments which outlived the generations of human beings. (25)

Living by “object time” may well amount to the imposition of an essential “mutation”

that has an impact not only on “the ecology of human”, but also on the ecology of the entire globe, the critical order of nature. Shorter life cycles of objects means

greater numbers of production and consumption, as well as an accelerating burden on the Earth’s resources. From extraction of raw materials to global transportation and production lines, or to landfills overflowing with massive volumes of waste, each phase imposes diverse burdens including, for example, toxic emissions. A well-known burden that affects the entire global population is the warming of the planetary surface caused by the radiative gases that surround the atmosphere. This can be best observed as the phenomenon of climate change. For example, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the “accepted” version of the final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Bearing a large catalogue of risks, the report not only harbours hypothetical future projections, but also outlines observed impacts of climate change on real-time situations that reach “natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans” (IPCC 2014a: 6).

In light of this, one can easily realise that climate change is not a question that concerns distant future generations or some certain local communities only, but rather the present public at a global scale. According to the Global Risks Report 2017 edition, for example, “environment-related risks” including “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” have reached the most significant position in the publica-tion history of the annual Global Risks Perceppublica-tion Survey (World Economic Forum 2017). Today, human activities are seen as the primary cause for the environmental

degradation such as the dramatically increased rate of extinction of mammals and marine life species that is estimated to be 100 to 1000 times more than the rates shown by fossil records (Rockström et al. 2009). The previous IPCC report (2013:

60), relying on the rapidly growing body of climate science literature, increased the likelihood of human influence on global warming from “very likely” (as characterised in the 2007 report) to “extremely likely [for] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.” It is almost certain for the scientific committee that the global climate change is stimulated by human activities causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere. Hence, the final version of the Fifth Assess-ment Report (Synthesis Report) states clearly that limiting the impact of climate change requires reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a substantial and sustain-able fashion (IPCC 2015). Given increasingly commonplace extreme weather events and the growing recognition of its reality, pressure continues to grow on policy mak-ers to address the problem.

2016 marked the third year in a row breaking the global average surface temperature record since modern recordkeeping began in 1880 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2017). Despite the urgency of the situ-ation, governments have been slow to commit to binding targets while sacrificing short-term economic rewards. The difficulties faced by the Kyoto Accord, which had experienced the withdrawals of Canada, Japan and Russia, are a case in point.

Announcing its withdrawal, Canada noted the lack of cooperative capacities of an environmental accord that does not involve the largest two emitters of greenhouse

gasses: the United States and China (The Guardian, 2011). These withdrawals and the reasoning behind them indicate that governments wasted precious time struggling with a Prisoner’s Dilemma³, with mutual distrust and self-interested action that together damage rational cooperation. This all seemed to be changing with the Paris Climate Agreement signed in December 2015 by 195 countries adopting legally-bind-ing programmes due to 2020 to reduce emissions rapidly (European Commission 2015). Hopes were strengthened in the late 2016 as the United States and China rati-fied the Paris Agreement (United Nations News Centre 2016). However, it came out that it may be too early to adopt an optimistic stance about the potential impact of the agreement.⁴ As a matter of fact, in 2017, the announcement of withdrawal of the United States from the Paris agreement by the Trump administration indicates how far we are away from achieving effective capacities for world-wide climate action.

It would be convenient to blame governments as self-serving systems estranged from public opinion. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that political agendas simply reflect the fears and short-sightedness of average voters, the greed of corporate-controlled businesses, and the wider competitive dynamics of interna-tional affairs.⁵ It amounts to “willing blindness” as Orr (2002) diagnoses it, a form of ecological denial that provides superficial solutions in order to escape the challenges of the real problems involved. Yet if there is someone to blame, the circle is very large, large enough to comprise great segments of society in economically privileged countries. In short, climate change, as well as broader environmental issues, are of societal concern and necessitate inclusive social behavioural change Such change includes commercial agents. Corporations, for example, are required by consumers to conduct business more responsibly for the environment and the society within the environment (Blombäck and Scandelius 2013). The idea of a shared future recruits society as a whole, addressing individuals within the society. In a circular market economy, where every stakeholder interacts with each other, personal consumer eth-ics are an integral and indivisible part of corporate sustainability. Both sides need to establish a rational and balanced relationship in every single phase of consumption from purchase to disposal of no-longer-needed products.

3 In this context, the Prisoner’s Dilemma means that governments’ decisions and actions in pursuit of their own best interest prevent cooperative behaviour and lead to a worsening situation for every party involved.

4 A survey, held among global business leaders attending the World Economic Forum 2016, for example, reveals that “climate change and environmental damage” remains at the bottom of the list of key threads to business growth prospects. Falling far behind economic concerns such as overregulation and exchange rate volatility, environmental worries of the business world still remains to be secondary despite the momentum of the Paris Agreement (The Guardian 2016).

5 A valuable exception is the Sweden’s Green Party, the minor partner of the Swedish coalition government. The party created an initiative to become one of the world’s first fossil fuel-free nation (see Romson 2015).

Questioning my own individual ecological footprint, I find myself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma between the costs and risks of environmental issues and an appetite for mobility and consumption. I am hardly alone; most people face consumption-related dilemmas every day when it comes to selective behaviour. For example, a common dilemma occurs between long-run health benefits and the im-mediate convenience of fast food or alcoholic beverages; decisions about these can be traced in the everyday behaviour of individuals. Yet, the pressing environmental problems impose a “social dilemma” with relation to consumption that goes far beyond the scope of individual health concerns. Dawes (1980: 170) points out the crucial paradox of such dilemmas when they cross over between the level of the in-dividual and that of larger groups of people: “(a) the social payoff to each inin-dividual for defecting behavior is higher than the payoff for cooperative behavior, regardless of what the other society members do, yet (b) all individuals in the society receive a lower payoff if all defect than if all cooperate.”

A “social dilemma” occurs in the context of calls for cooperative behaviour that will benefit actors greatly in a relatively distant future in comparison to short-run self-interests. In terms of climate change, as the above reports clearly indicate, the rapidly impending crisis and the global phenomena being experienced close the gap temporally between present behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour in the future, thus increasing the perception of benefits to be derived from cooperative behaviour. From an optimistic point of view, this can be seen as the advantageous side-effect of the emerging climate change phenomena, one that may crucially facilitate the creation of an atmosphere where the desired behaviour can be fostered.

The growing awareness of climate change, for example, is well illustrated in Kvaløy et al. (2012), who found that public concern for global warming is as widespread in poor countries as it is in affluent countries. In the same vein, the IPCC’s (2014b:

2) report underlines, in light of “robust evidence”, that people from major climate change contributing countries “highly” agree that “[a]daptation to climate change is transitioning from a phase of awareness to the construction of actual strategies and plans in societies.” The report also highlights that this awareness has arisen due to the increasing number of cases in both developed and developing countries where people have had to adapt to higher temperatures. One can claim that a more responsible understanding is in the process of maturing among people globally, as is evidenced by the 83% of people in the U.S.A. who demand action to reduce global warming despite the potential economic costs (Leiserowitz et al. 2014). This aware-ness resonates with the 72% of Europeans who have said that they are willing to pay more for products that are “specifically environmentally friendly”. In the meantime, 69% also think that their own contribution to the protection of natural resources is not enough (TNS Opinion and Social 2011: 2).

The latter finding suggests that despite the growing motivation for adaptation and consumer willingness, increasing environmental concerns are not developed into substantial sustainable consumer behaviour (World Business Council for

Sustain-able Development 2008, National Geographic Society and Globescan 2014). The lack of consistency between positive attitudes and actual behaviour can be traced to a substantial catalogue of barriers, the multiplicity of issues itself indicating that a sophisticated approach is required. Price obviously plays a role, yet there are also less obvious, deep psychological issues at play as well. For example, a Greendex survey of consumer environmental attitudes in 17 countries illustrate that one’s perception of one’s own consumer behaviour is not grounded in objective reasoning. Individuals develop a more critical approach to the consumption patterns of others, while avoid-ing self-criticism (National Geographic Society and Globescan 2012).

The catalogue of barriers also includes complex countervailing forces that under-lie the adoption of Western-style resource-intensive consumption behaviour among densely populated Asian countries such as India (Gupta 2011). As Gupta highlights, in emerging consumer traits such as credit card use, impulse buying, and the cultural transformation of shopping into a means of enjoyment, one can see the great variety of factors involved in consumption from new technology to new structures of socio-cultural needs shaped by the impact of globalisation. India is a striking sample as it is expected to become the fifth largest consumer market by 2025, exceeding Germany (Jackson 2008). India is not an exception; with burgeoning middle classes, for ex-ample, in emerging BRIICS economies⁶, consumption patterns increasingly emulate developed countries (WWF et al. 2012).

The spread of consumerism and the emergence of consumer-capitalist nations are expected to become a global phenomenon in the twenty-first century (Gardner et al. 2004). The rising global population, now exceeding 7 billion souls, could be seen as playing an important role. However, as Pearce (2010) put it, the focus should be put on rising consumption and growing ecological footprints rather than mere population growth. To this end, Pearce refers to the poorest 45 per cent of the Earth’s population who are responsible for only 7 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions whereas the richest 7 per cent alone produces 50 per cent. Excessive consumption not only has implications in terms of climate change, but also on the depletion of the Earth’s capacity to sustain life. For instance, as the Global Footprint Network (2013) reports, human consumption has been overshooting global ecological resources since the middle of the 1970s. Today, human demand requires the exploitation of resources equivalent to that of more than 1,5 Earths. And the costs are unequal between de-veloped and undede-veloped countries. Biodiversity levels in high-income countries, for instance, have actually increased by 10 per cent in recent years, whereas low-income countries have faced a decline of up to 58 per cent (WWF et al. 2014). Such discrep-ancies further exacerbate global inequality and marginalisation.

Furthermore, excessive consumption can be associated with various self-de-structive social contexts beyond environmental and ecological spheres. The spread of 6 The BRIICS countries are: Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa.

consumer culture, for example, displays clear symptoms that involve not only nations, regions, or economies, but also generations of people. The soaring interest of com-panies in the youth market has drawn young people to the very centre of consumer culture resulting in a profound commercialisation of childhood (Linn 2010; Schor 2004). Another negative aspect of consumerism is in the decline of sociocultural

diversity as the latter become hampered by rampant consumer culture’s totalising ef-fects (Barber 2007). People’s psychological well-being, in this context, also suffers by means of the adoption of materialistic values and desires that grow in close synchro-ny with consumer culture (Kasser 2002). And certainly, declining work conditions globally as workers supply the needs and desires of consumer societies is a major issue. Escalating cases of human rights violations from child labour, and reduced job security to starvation wages in production processes demonstrates the bond between social justice issues and consumer culture (Leonard 2010). These crimes are rampant and not committed in secret. The outrageous symptoms of systematic exploitation of cheap labour include the rise of massive human tragedies including, for instance, the 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh. Over one thou-sand people were killed in this disaster, exposing how world-renowned companies distance themselves from responsibility and take advantage of the conditions of the developing world.

In light of the dire consequences of consumer culture today, consumption is increasingly subject to criticism. This criticism has marked an increase in the level of awareness of the multiply ramifying issues involved, criticism which asks for more social responsibility, control, and commitment. As a result, “traditional consump-tion behaviours” are increasingly challenged by companies and consumers as new methods and relationships in all levels of consumption emerge. This includes slow consumption, for example, that is achieved when consumers resist perceived obsoles-cence through developing a focus on enhanced personal gains rather than material ownership (Luchs et al. 2011). This embryonic attitude may mark the emergence of a new consumer profile called “responsible consumers” and latent inflections of

“industrial mode of production” and “ordinary consumers”. As Ruwet (2007: 144–152) defines, “[...] responsible consumers are aware of their power to act and the need to regulate it politically and/or to give it a social meaning.” In her analysis on responsi-ble consumers, Ruwet proposes a typology with a number of profiles including “the inspired consumer” as an emerging consumer profile. In the eyes of this profile, for example, industrial mode of production is associated with meanings such as “death, soullessness and meaninglessness, dependence, unawareness, manipulation”, whereas ordinary consumer is seen as “dependent, compulsive, [and] unaware”. Sustainable consumption, however, is associated with meanings that fully contrast the industrial mode, such as “life, meaning, awareness, freedom of choice and autonomy”.

As we can talk today about an increasing level of environmentally informed consumers at a global scale, the inspired consumer profile may yield insight into how design may take a role in the creation of access to the ethos of sustainable

consump-tion, in other words directing consumers to “life” instead of “death”. Despite this increasing criticism of the current consumerist paradigm and emergence of respon-sible consumer profiles, whether burgeoning awareness can be turned into adequate action remains an open question. Stehr (2008: ix) acknowledges, for example, that we could be witnessing the emergence of “consumers’ sovereignty” as one can increas-ingly illustrate contemporary consumers as “well-informed, knowledgeable, and sophisticated”. Over two decades ago, perhaps more importantly, hints of such a sovereignty was given by Winward (1994: 88) who argues that consumers are able to show “organized” resistance to manipulative marketing techniques. For him, such consumer resistance goes as far as pushing for “structural change” in business. How-ever, we do not have supportive evidence to claim that the increase in the consumer independency necessarily results in consumer responsibility. In strong contrast, as Stehr (2008: ix) put it, consumer sovereignty could lead to “a strengthened pursuit of narrow self-interest”. This suggests that bridging the gap between consumer awareness and ethical consumer behaviour (attitude-behaviour gap) requires diverse capacities operating at the nexus of social and economic conducts as well as motiva-tions and drivers behind business and consumption.

To develop such capacities, it is crucial to examine how consumers deal with their unethical lifestyle choices and manage their consumer behaviour. Justification, based on economic rationale, for instance, enters the stage to excuse unethical consumption habits despite the awareness of sustainability issues. In an international investigation to find out why ethical consumption remains at a low level, Eckhardt et al. (2010) categorise justifications in three main consumer strategies. Especially common in the U.S.A. and Australia, for example, consumers generate economic rationales where product utility and price play the prime role in shaping the consumer’s decision to purchase, despite ethical concerns such as unfair labour issues. In developing coun-tries, such as in Turkey, consumers’ justification strategy employs the idea that these countries’ lower income rates compared to privileged economies constitute an excuse to consume in unethical ways, as in the buying fake products. Another strategy for justification involves putting all the responsibility on institutions and governmental regulations thereby avoiding self-criticism, sacrifice, and personal responsibility. This study shows that conflicts of interest, such as rising costs, generate self-defensive and

To develop such capacities, it is crucial to examine how consumers deal with their unethical lifestyle choices and manage their consumer behaviour. Justification, based on economic rationale, for instance, enters the stage to excuse unethical consumption habits despite the awareness of sustainability issues. In an international investigation to find out why ethical consumption remains at a low level, Eckhardt et al. (2010) categorise justifications in three main consumer strategies. Especially common in the U.S.A. and Australia, for example, consumers generate economic rationales where product utility and price play the prime role in shaping the consumer’s decision to purchase, despite ethical concerns such as unfair labour issues. In developing coun-tries, such as in Turkey, consumers’ justification strategy employs the idea that these countries’ lower income rates compared to privileged economies constitute an excuse to consume in unethical ways, as in the buying fake products. Another strategy for justification involves putting all the responsibility on institutions and governmental regulations thereby avoiding self-criticism, sacrifice, and personal responsibility. This study shows that conflicts of interest, such as rising costs, generate self-defensive and