Study finds large majority of consumers say “ingredient transparency” among top purchase drivers for food, beauty and household products, yet only 57% regularly check the list of ingredients before purchasing

A study by BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility finds that nearly 9 in 10 consumers globally (86%) say “ingredient transparency is extremely important or very important” for companies to address as part of their products, services, or operations, including 88% of consumers in emerging markets and 84% of consumers in developed markets. However, only 57% regularly “check the list of ingredients before purchasing” products, highlighting the gap between interest and action in sustainable consumption.

According to the report – Re:Thinking Consumption: Consumers and the Future of Sustainability – ingredient transparency is also a “very important” or “important” factor in purchase decisions across key categories, such as food and beverage (82%), beauty and personal care (82%), and household products (82%). The study draws from an online survey of 6,224 consumers across Brazil, China, India, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

“Many consumers globally believe they have the right to know what products are made of and they want companies to ensure their products are safe and effective,” said Eric Whan, Sustainability Director at GlobeScan. “However, there’s a gap between interest and action when it comes to actually reading the list of ingredients on product packaging.”

“The overwhelming majority of consumers identifies ingredient transparency as an important consideration in making purchase decisions for food, beauty and household products,” said Raphael Bemporad, co-founder of brand innovation consultancy BBMG. “Across multiple markets and product categories, consumers are expressing interest in what goes in, on and around their bodies.”

Download the report / Read the press release in full

New study finds two-thirds of consumers love to shop, while also feeling responsibility to society and the environment

January 30, 2013 – Is there such a thing as sustainable consumption? A new study by BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility finds that a majority of consumers across six international markets are seeking to reconcile their desire for shopping and style with responsibility to the environment and society through their purchases. According to the report, Rethinking Consumption: Consumers and the Future of Sustainability, nearly two-thirds of consumers globally equate shopping with happiness (63%) while also feeling a sense of responsibility for society (65%). The study draws from an online survey of 6,224 consumers across Brazil, China, India, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States conducted in September and October 2012.

Key findings are:

• Happy Shoppers: Nearly two-thirds of consumers globally say “shopping for new things makes me happy” (63%), including 77% in emerging markets and 48% in developed markets.
• Style Seekers: More than half of consumers say “I care a lot about how I look, my style” (56%), including 68% in emerging markets and 45% in developed markets.
• Socially Responsible: Two-thirds of consumers globally say they “feel a sense of responsibility to society” (65%), including 81% in emerging markets and 50% in developed markets.
• Buying Better: Similarly, two-thirds of consumers globally believe they “have a responsibility to purchase products that are good for the environment and society (65%), including 82% in emerging markets and 49% in developed markets.

In exploring the intersection of consumer values, motivations and behaviors, the study identifies four consumer segments on the sustainability spectrum: highly committed Advocates (14%); style and social status-seeking Aspirationals (37%); price and performance-minded Practicals (34%) and less engaged Indifferents (16%).

Aspirationals represent hundreds of millions of consumers globally, and the largest consumer segment in Brazil, China and India. More than any other segment, Aspirationals care about style (65%), social status (52%), and equate shopping with happiness (70%). Yet, they are also among the most likely to believe that we need to “consume a lot less to improve the environment for future generations” (73%), and feel “a sense of responsibility to society” (73%).

“Aspirationals represent the persuadable mainstream on the path to more sustainable behavior. They love to shop, are influenced by brands, yet aspire to be sustainable in their purchases and actions,” said Raphael Bemporad, Co-Founder of BBMG. “This consumer segment represents a significant opportunity for forward- looking brands to unite consumerism with social and environmental values.”

“Aspirationals are looking for brands to provide solutions that both improve their lives and serve society as a whole,” said Pam Alabaster, Senior Vice President Corporate Communications, Sustainable Development & Public Affairs at L’Oréal USA, a sponsor of the study. “Understanding this dynamic tension provides the greatest opportunity for companies to create positive impact through consumers’ purchasing decisions and social actions.”

“The ideals, influence and size of the Aspirationals segment – particularly in developing markets – is what makes them so compelling for sustainable brands,” said Mark Lee, Executive Director at SustainAbility. “But simply helping people to consume more products that are incrementally ‘better’ is not necessarily the answer. Leading companies will seek to meet the needs of the Aspirationals beyond just products by delivering value through services, sharing, expertise and purposeful engagement.”

Eric Whan, Sustainability Director at GlobeScan, added: “In our fifteen years of market analysis, we’ve never seen an opportunity like this. The Aspirationals will chart the future of sustainable consumption, as long as their favorite brands offer them what they want.”

Background and Methodology

Developed by BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility, The Regeneration Consumer Study is an in-depth online survey of consumer attitudes, motivations and behaviors relating to sustainable consumption among 6,224 respondents across six major international markets (Brazil, China, Germany, India, the United Kingdom and the United States) conducted in September and October 2012. Drawn from consumer research panels, global data are comparable to having a margin of error of +/- 1.3 percent. Analysis of country-level data reflects a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

The study is part of the The Regeneration Roadmap, a collaborative and multi-faceted thought leadership initiative designed to engage the private sector in advancing sustainable development by improving sustainability strategy, increasing credibility and delivering results at greater speed and scale.
Presenting Sponsors of The Regeneration Roadmap are BMW Group and SC Johnson. Sponsors include Cisco, DuPont, Interface and Pfizer. The Regeneration Consumer Study is sponsored by Campbell Soup Company, Itau, L’Oréal, Shell and Starbucks.  For more information on the project click here.

Join BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility for a special webinar on Thursday, February 7, 2013, featuring highlights from a new global study on how consumers are balancing environmentalism and materialism to shape the future of sustainability.

Can we shop our way to sustainability? What actually motivates behavior change? What is the role of consumers in shaping a more sustainable economy?

Based on the views of 6,224 consumers across Brazil, China, India, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, the webinar will highlight sustainability market trends, key purchase drivers, barriers, engagement pathways and opportunities for action.

Topics Include

• Sustainable Consumption: Consumer Beliefs and Behaviors
• Barriers and Levers to Sustainable Purchasing
• The Source of Trust
• The Aspirationals: Consumer Segmentation across the Sustainability Spectrum
• Implications and Opportunities for Action

The webinar is designed for sustainability officers, branding and marketing directors, consumer insights specialists and executive leadership and will provide ideas and implications for corporate strategy, policies and practices.

To discover what your brand can do to drive demand for more responsible products and inspire a more collaborative and purposeful marketplace, register here.

About The Regeneration Roadmap

The webinar is part of The Regeneration Roadmap, a collaborative and multi-faceted thought leadership initiative by GlobeScan and SustainAbility designed to engage the private sector in advancing sustainable development by improving sustainability strategy, increasing credibility and delivering results at greater speed and scale.

For more information about The Regeneration Roadmap, its partners and sponsors please visit the about us page.

Article originally published in Guardian Sustainable Business on Friday 23rd November 2012. 

The shelves are stacked, the credit cards are primed, the queues are forming. As Black Friday dawns (the day after Thanksgiving in the US that signals the start of the Christmas shopping season), there’s not much more a consumer brand can do to influence its target audience, at least not for this year. But once the dust has settled, those who are serious about driving demand for more sustainable products and services would do well to pause and reflect on what today’s consumers really think about the nature of consumption.

A new survey from BBMG, SustainAbility and GlobeScan offers some insights. Rethinking Consumption, to be published next week, aggregates the views of 6,224 consumers across Brazil, China, India, Germany, the UK and the US.

Of those surveyed, 66% agreed that as a society we need to consume a lot less to improve the environment for future generations, and 65% agreed that they feel a sense of responsibility to purchase products that are good for the environment and society.

But we rarely, if ever, see an environmentally and socially responsible product vastly outsell its less sustainable alternatives – so it’s clear there is a significant gap between consumer intentions and behaviours. What’s going on?

When respondents were asked why they weren’t buying more responsible products, the top two most cited reasons were no surprise: 75% of consumers claimed they would buy more responsible products if they performed as well as or better than products they usually buy and 70% said they shouldn’t cost more. So although people want more sustainable products, positive impact won’t trump performance or price.

So what can brands do to drive demand for more responsible products? Here are three things that the survey suggests are worth considering:

1. Focus on total value

After performance and price, the next three most cited barriers to purchasing more sustainable products were all about communication: 64% of respondents said companies’ health and environmental claims need to be more believable; 63% said they didn’t understand what truly makes a product more environmentally or socially responsible, and 63% want to see the environmental or social benefits of a product right away.

There is a clear opportunity for improved marketing here and blending values with value is key. According to the survey this is particularly true in developing markets, where consumers are twice as likely to report purchasing more sustainable products and to express a willingness to pay more for them.

2. Use consumer collaboration

Consumers are ready to help companies innovate, with two-thirds of those surveyed saying they were “interested in sharing their ideas, opinions and experiences with companies to help them develop better products or create new solutions.”

Successful brands are no strangers to consumer engagement, but perhaps they need to rethink the nature of the conversations they are having. Consumer collaboration can be an important driver of sustainability by uniting both experts and consumers in generating smarter ideas and solutions because they come from both the makers and users of the products themselves. In this way, perhaps new opportunities can be uncovered to bridge the gap between consumers’ aspirations and actions.

3. Connect with the “me” and the “we”

Particularly in emerging markets, consumers see themselves as brand fans, co-creators and champions, and they’re weighing in on corporate promises and practices – whether asked to or not. More than eight in 10 consumers in our study said friends and family are the most important thing in their life, and 42% said they would buy more a sustainable product if it connected them to a community of peers that shares their values. And in India, China and Brazil a majority of respondents claimed they encouraged others to buy from companies that act responsibly. So to drive demand for sustainable products, answering ‘what’s in it for me?’ is not enough; success depends on also addressing ‘what’s in it for we?’

Perhaps brands would be best advised to focus their engagement efforts on the group of consumers we might collectively refer to as the aspirationals: those people, especially in China and India, who are seeking to reconcile a tendency toward materialism with a growing awareness of social and environmental values. Exploring this dynamic tension – between material possessions and social and environmental progress – is a critical opportunity for companies to advance sustainable consumption and create positive social impact.

To download a free copy of the Rethinking Consumption study click here.

Raphael Bemporad is co-founder and chief strategy officer of BBMG, a brand innovation firm based in New York which designs disruptive business solutions . Chris Coulter is the president of GlobeScan, a global research consultancy that measures and builds value-generating relationships. Mark Lee is executive director of SustainAbility, a thinktank and strategic advisory firm working to inspire transformative business leadership on the sustainability agenda

The discussion was opened with an introduction to The Regeneration Roadmap and some of its insights. Chris Coulter, GlobeScan President, shared the latest quantitative expert and global public opinion findings to help set the state of sustainable development.

“The extractive industry has been at the forefront of addressing sustainable development challenges for many decades,” said Chris. “The perspectives shared at the ICMM meeting have broad applicability to The Regeneration Roadmap’s goal of accelerating sustainable business leadership in the next five years.”

The survey of sustainability experts shows that while there is a clear expectation that governments should be exerting greater leadership, there is great disappointment in the performance of government, leaving a growing expectation that the private sector must fill some of this leadership gap. While dramatic solutions rather than incremental steps are generally seen as what is required, a lack of political will and vested interests and the complexity of the challenges present the most significant obstacles to this.

Additionally, while business is starting to make its voice heard, it, like government, still suffers from a trust deficit. It is problematic for governments and businesses to be at odds with each other and a hopeful sign is that collaboration is seen as a possible solution. Despite this a sense of optimism about the future persists, particularly in developing markets but also elsewhere, and there may be some low-hanging levers of change to be grasped in terms of high levels of trust in scientists and academic institutions among the global public.

The existing and future role of government came in for a great deal of focus throughout the discussion. While governments are rated highly on expectations to move the sustainability agenda forward they are perceived very poorly in their actual performance. But the question was raised – who exactly do we mean by ‘government’? There is often a disparity between very dedicated and committed civil and public servants and short-termist ‘politicians’ who are seen to hold the process up. There was some interest in possible future studies exploring the clarity around who in government is doing well, who is not, how we hold them to account, and how can we make use of those within government who are committed to making a real impact.

There also seems to be a strategic tension between ‘holistic’ and ‘focused’ approaches among businesses. It was noted that previously the issue was around ‘climate change’ as an imminent disaster facing every business, government and individual equally, however, it seems to have broken down into a myriad of individual environmental and societal issues that businesses focus on specifically. ‘Focus, focus, focus’ has become the mantra for many industries in recent years but it is worth considering whether this works to the detriment of more collaborative and all-encompassing approaches; to break down the wider environmental issue into multiple strands may be to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’ that is the imminent macro-threat of climate change itself.

There is a broad consensus that collaboration is absolutely essential but it hasn’t quite gained momentum yet. It is fundamentally difficult for companies, governments, and other actors to work together. This is an issue of cutting across global and corporate cultural barriers and creating a new culture of collaboration.

Cultural barriers are also not the only obstacle. Sustainability initiatives are simply not attractive at the moment. Top-down agreements are very hard to implement let alone achieving broad consensus and cooperation. What is needed is the enthusiasm from the bottom up which is how scaled change takes place. There is a sense that, in trying to stress the importance of sustainability and the dangers of climate change we are ‘selling them the journey and not the beach’. It could be a fruitful exercise to stress the benefits of creating a more sustainable and equitable world rather than purely focusing on the dangers of not doing so

While consensus across the issues raised is often hard to find, there is little doubt that collaboration and dialogue, including between societal actors traditionally at odds with one another, must be an essential component if real solutions are to be pursued.

“The Regeneration Roadmap aims to create a new pathway for sustainability leadership,” said Rob Cameron, Executive Director at Sustainability. “It will succeed in its aims if it can bring influencers and businesses together to co-create the way forward. The ICMM meeting proved to be an ideal forum to achieve this – and rightly so given the importance of the extractive industries in creating a sustainable future.”

Through our on-going and future events in Beijing, Shanghai, San Francisco and Mumbai, The Regeration Roadmap will continue working to facilitate and consolidate this dialogue.

About ICMM

The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) was established in 2001 to improve sustainable development performance in the mining and metals industry. Today, it brings together many of the world’s largest mining and metals companies as well as national and regional mining associations and global commodity associations. ICMM’s vision is one of leading companies working together and with others to strengthen the contribution of mining, minerals and metals to sustainable development.

For more information, visit www.ICMM.com

As Holiday Shopping Season Begins, Study Finds Consumers Buying Less and Buying Better, While Price, Performance and Credibility Remain Barriers to Further Growing Sustainable Consumption 

Over the last two decades, we have seen too much talk and too little action on sustainable development. In the latest in our series of weekly videos on Guardian Sustainable Business, Pioneers give a call to action in the aftermath of a disappointing outcome at Rio+20. Some encourage business leadership, others speak of new networks, and consumer education. The energy and belief in the power to create change is palpable.

Alternatively you can view the full range of videos published so far by visiting the Pioneers section.

As the Pioneers imagine our future in twenty years, they paint a picture clouded by urgent, intense, challenges brought about by an era of human destruction. Some fear that we may face a series of shocks, either economic or ecological, before we wake up. One thing is clear, we must be more responsible and work together to restore the foundation of the planet.

In the latest in our series of weekly videos on Guardian Sustainable Business, pioneers David Suzuki, Yolanda Kakabadse, Jim MacNeill, Rainer Feurer (BMW), Linda Fisher (DuPont), Doug Miller, Daniel Hendrix (Interface) and others elaborate..

Alternatively you can view the full range of videos published so far by visiting the Pioneers section.

Guest post from SustainAbility’s Geoff Lye

At the end of the Rio+20 Summit Ban Ki-moon agreed to meet the 9 ‘major groups’ who have a formal role in the preparatory process and the conference, they include business, trades unions, scientists and young people’s NGOs. In practice, only four representatives of the groups were invited to speak. I was struck by the pointlessness of this process, just as I was by the main UN plenary sessions and by the inclusive RioDialogues which were billed as giving everyone a chance to vote on which issues were judged the most critical for world leaders to address, even though the final text was agreed by the time the results were announced. (Interestingly, the overall ‘winner’ was a call for fossil fuel subsidies to be eliminated while another high scoring suggestion was that taxes and incentives should be introduced to secure better environmental outcomes. Neither features in the final text).

So Ban Ki-moon listened politely to those allowed to speak, often distracted by advisers briefing him on other developments, and then the NGOs few minutes of fame were gone. I did not have a chance to pose a question, if I had been given the opportunity I would have asked Bank Ki-moon the following: “I came to Rio in 1992 as a father of four children and I am here today the grandfather of four grandchildren. Those of us who left Rio in 1992 full of hope that we would seriously address the huge environmental and development challenges would have been shocked to read the final text being signed up to today. Do you share our deep disappointment that we have wasted a whole generation – making little progress on any of the issues identified as critical 20 years ago?”

To his credit Ban Ki-moon has expressed reservations about the outcomes of this conference and NGOs have struggled to find rays of light but we should also not overlook the fact there have been some welcome advances. Thanks to Thompson Reuters for the following headline responses from some key NGOs selected for their positive comments, although it should be noted that these were heavily outnumbered by negative ones.

Oxfam’s Barbara Stocking, chief executive, on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): “It’s been a painful birth but the vision of an ambitious set of goals on environment and development, applicable to all countries, is a solitary light in the fog of Rio.”

Christian Aid’s Alison Doig, senior advisor on sustainable development: “We’re pleased with much of what the text says on the SDGs – for instance that they must be universal, developed by a wide range of different interests and integrated with whatever replaces the Millennium Development Goals. But we’re disappointed that the text is so vague on how – and even if – the SDGs will be merged with what succeeds the MDGs to produce a single set of strong global development goals.”

Amnesty International: “For the first time at a major UN summit meeting, countries reaffirmed the right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Governments committed to work to progressively make access a reality for all”.

Ban Ki-moon had separately announced his Zero Hunger Challenge which was also well received:

ActionAid’s Sameer Dossani: “The good thing about the Zero Hunger Challenge is that it sets out an ambitious agenda. Ambition and urgency are exactly what the world needs right now with nearly a billion people living in hunger and no powerful governments taking a stand for meaningful solutions. The Rio summit outcome document seems unlikely to include any commitments to action on hunger – proof that countries are not taking these problems seriously. You can’t have zero hunger with zero money.

Oxfam’s Barbara Stocking: “Ban Ki-Moon’s Zero Hunger Challenge is a welcome ray of hope in a summit that has been shamefully devoid of progress for the almost billion people who go to bed hungry every night.”

And finally another NGO welcomed the good news that disability has been included in the Rio+20 Outcome Document. The Rio +20 Outcome Document, “The future we want”, has five specific references to disability.

So, 20 years on and despite some minor victories, overall little to show for it. I am not sure that I will be around for Rio+40, but if I am, I suspect that economic, social and environmental disruptions will have forced society to respond in ways that will make this conference’s conclusions seem irrelevant in both scope and scale.

This article originally appeared on SustainAbility.com

Guest post from sustainAbility’s Mark Lee

Before the massive Rio+20 conference in Brazil earlier this month, Chris Coulter of GlobeScan, Dan Hendrix of Interface and I published Icebergs Near Rio? The article explored sustainable development progress since the original1992 Earth Summit asked whether policymakers would seize the opportunity of the anniversary event to chart a future course capable of accelerating and scaling sustainability in the manner we believe necessary, or, like that fabled and fated ship, risk a Titanic collision – in this case with the ecosystem rather than an iceberg.

If you followed Rio, you know that the diagnosis of the formal negotiated outcome delivered by governments June 20th is nearly universally downbeat, while the assessment of the contribution made by business, civil society and some emerging economies is, in many quarters, quite positive. These articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times as well as this interview with Ma Jun (recently chosen as Fast Company’s ‘most creative person in business’) in China Digital Times typify this kind of sentiment. Echoing the common theme, The New York Times piece says that while Rio+20 ended “under a shroud of withering criticism” it was notable for its demonstration of “a new assertiveness by developing nations in international forums and the growing capacity of grassroots organizations and corporations to mold effective environmental action without the blessing of governments.”

But we are left with the question: Was the peripheral action at Rio enough? Can we build from there the required momentum to avert eco-catastrophe and serve the economic needs of nine to 10 billion people? That is nowhere near certain.

To be clear: I was inspired by various private sector commitments and actions announced in Brazil. The energy around the concept of a green economy as referenced in the Outcome Document The Future We Want and championed by UNEP at Rio (as I wrote about here) was notable, and I believe its emphasis on ‘decoupling’ (delivering – and sharing – greater economic growth while decreasing environmental inputs) is particularly important.

Similarly, I think the finance sector’s Natural Capital Declaration and thepromise made by the twenty-four major companies (collectively worth a half a trillion dollars) assembled by The Nature Conservancy and Corporate Eco Forum to “demonstrate the business imperative of valuing nature” around developing means to measure and account for natural capital may, in time, prove to be the most transformational events of the summit. As my SustainAbility colleague Lindsay Clinton details here “by calculating the value of what nature provides to make the stuff we buy, and also by measuring the harm a product inflicts on the environment during production or consumption, we can gain a more realistic understanding of the costs of goods and services…[which may] lead to massive changes in the way we make, consume, and dispose of products…[and] that behavior change [might] put us on the path to sustainable development.”

It’s telling that the examples above are not being undertaken exclusively by business alone – UNEP is critical to the green economy work, and the second ‘valuing nature’ effort listed would not have come about without The Nature Conservancy and Corporate Eco Forum – but material, too, is the role not being played by government.

As Rio+20 neared its close and I prepared to fly home to California, I penned this piece challenging business and citizens to demand more of the elected officials who represent us in forums like Rio+20 and who are responsible for setting the policy foundations necessary to encourage and speed the emergence of a sustainable economy and society. My fear is that business and civil society have become so dismissive of governments’ ability to act, so as to discount its part too soon – and thus provide a free pass not to deliver, as elected officials, professionalized and armed with polling data, now naturally devolve to the lowest level capable of meeting our base expectations.

With GlobeScan, SustainAbility undertook global public opinion as well as sustainability expert surveys on expectations for leadership on sustainable development ahead of Rio+20. While we need to augment the findings with further research, this summer (which will take into account Rio+20’s outcomes), some clear messages about how to make future progress are already emerging.

Multi-sector partnerships will be critical. Absolute performance (in terms of eco-efficiency, e.g.) must radically improve in all segments of the economy. Global institutions must rebuild trust, as they are seen as having failed in their fiduciary responsibilities to consumers and citizens. And the very loudest message of all? While there is great dissatisfaction with government performance progressing sustainable development over the last two decades, there is high conviction also that government must do the most to lead in the years ahead. To my mind, this means leadership by example – governments themselves must acknowledge concepts like planetary boundaries and participate in development of the green economy – and set the necessary guardrails for sustainable development with regulation that is as competitively neutral and sustainably positive as possible.

To return to the private sector, while I laud the leaders present in Rio and the commitments made, to celebrate business performance relative to the present initiative of government is to delude ourselves. The business spokespeople at Rio+20 represent a thin cream on top of an uncertain and yet uncommitted whole. Did you see the US Chamber of Commerce acknowledging the human role in climate change and committing to organize its membership to address both mitigation and adaptation? Did you note the American Petroleum Industry’s positive influence on The Future We Want? Neither did I…because these bodies, and their like worldwide, representing mainstream business, are still just as far off the mark in terms of advancing the sustainable development agenda (versus preserving the status quo) as government – maybe more so.

A personal note to end. In spite of everything, I emerged inspired by Rio+20. My favorite moment? The group of young people walking backwards around RioCentro to symbolize governments’ lack of progress on the Outcome Document and since 1992. I believe everything is still to play for in sustainable development terms. And certainly those young people deserve more from those in positions of power today. But business and civil society, while deserving plaudits for their efforts, won’t succeed alone, nor should we confuse the best of them for the norm. Let’s take back our governments and make them do their part, and recognize also how much remains to be done to convert the mainstream of business and society to the cause.

This article originally appeared on Triple Pundit website.