Choices, choices, choices
June 22nd, 2012
Dan and I have been doing a whole lot of thinking about strategy and planning in advance of a number of exciting meetings. Thinking is dangerous – it leads to ideas and crazy concepts. At the same time I’ve been reacquainting myself with Edward De Bono and his ideas on thinking in the new millennium. And I have had something of a revelation. I think I realised it all along, but it is now becoming crystallised more firmly. Choice is bad, especially when the options have far reaching and complex implications – as most do in the realm of sustainability.
Look around, everywhere people are choosing, being forced to choose and having more options than most are comfortable with placed before them. Whether it is the Greek electorate, delegates at Rio+20 or comedians deciding to avoid paying tax. We are all faced with choices, sometimes we make a good selection and sometimes not. It’s a crap-shoot.
Are we really equipped to make the right choice? Do we have either the intellectual capacity or have we acquired sufficient knowledge to make a selection, good or bad. And anyway who is to say that the choice is bad, it is after all our choice.
When the implications of a choice, in a world where everyone knows everyone else’s business instantly, are widely felt, the burden is becoming enormous. Think of the pressure that a Greek citizen must feel under at the moment. Not only is their vote a personal thing, it likely has ramifications across the globe. Let’s ignore whether or not the politicians are up to the task, the people in a democracy have enormous responsibility to make a good choice.
Consumers have a duty to make a good choice, but again the individual factors and desires involved in selection are complex and often driven by emotion. Edward De Bono makes the point that while our society has benefited from a dominance of judgement thinking where we base decisions on critical analysis and reasoned debate, we now need to move to develop more creative or design based thinking methods (which are currently not covered in most education systems in the world). By encouraging design thinking we find ways to move beyond problem solving and find alternatives.
Choosing alternatives needs education and we are not really geared up yet. When politicians then hark back to a former glory days of education, this doesn’t help us to move forwards. We live in a largely democratic world, where choice is not only seen as a good thing, it is seen as a right. Surely limiting choice must begin to happen. We can’t go on expecting people to make good choices when there are so many alternatives, so much pressure and such far reaching implications from making any one of those decisions.
If we are to be more sustainable, economically, socially and environmentally, surely we must start to limit choice. Companies and brands should have as part of their strategy a programme to limit product ranges and to make items more durable so we don’t have to decide to replace the worn out as often as we do today. How much angst and depression would be removed from our lives if choice was limited.
Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy doing endless research before choosing which new piece of mountaineering kit to buy. Then justifying my choice in a variety of ways. Companies are now starting to make a move in this direction. Almost all of Patagonia’s clothing uses recycled fibres, Howies use organic cotton and so on. The move has started. So when asked what characterises a sustainable business/brand, I think I now believe that it has a lot to do with the limiting of choice. If the manufacturer or specifier chooses the right materials or process then we do not have to choose. Take away the randomness of individual choice. Radical perhaps, but look at what the leading companies are doing.
A final thought that makes this approach very challenging – if the customer is always right then why should we go down this path? We now live in a more interconnected and resource limited world and so leaving customers in charge is potentially very dangerous.
6 Responses to “Choices, choices, choices”
Leave a Reply
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
Categories
- Adaptation
- Agriculture
- Benefits
- Biodiversity
- Blog
- Carbon Labelling
- Certification
- Climate Change
- Communications blog
- CSR
- Emotional selling
- Environmental management system
- Infrastructure
- ISO14001
- leadership
- Oomph
- Oomph Seminars
- Renewable Energy communication
- Renewables
- Reporting
- Retail
- Running
- Stories
- Sustainability
- Sustainability Pathfinder model
- Transport
- Uncategorized
- USP
Testimonials
It is fantastic to leave a seminar feeling inspired and full of practical ideas. Thursday’s oomph seminar did exactly that, Ben and Dan are naturals at putting an audience at ease which meant real participation from the group. As environmental professionals often form a one person team, it is fantastic to share a room with like minded individuals from local businesses who have faced and tackled similar challenges and can offer insight and advice. Eagerly anticipating the next installment of Oomph!
Nicola Duffy, Environmental Co-ordinator at Highcross, Leicester
Thank you both for inviting us to today’s Oomph seminar. From our point of view, we found the stimulus material and subsequent debate insightful from a sustainability perspective, but also in a wider context applicable to the successful deployment of general business initiatives.
Participant at Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011
Really enjoyed this morning. I have attended very few seminars over the past two years simple because they are all too similar, often the the same speakers and follow the same theme. Today was most importantly enjoyable, interesting and got the brain cells working. I like small groups with variety of people and backgrounds.
Participant at first Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011
Ben
Got round to reading it this evening. Sounds as if you are advocating communism! It has to be a double edged sword, suppliers of goods and services will try and differentiate and the buyers have more of the same. Add to that the power of marketing and big advertising budgets purchasers will be coerced into buying stuff without giving too much thought to sustainability. Price will also be a key driver.
Patagonia make some good gear (I have some which has lasted years) however it is a premium brand. It is a start but I feel that we do have a long way to go. Maybe in addition to less choice we should endorse the approach of “less is more”?
Jeremy
Ben/ Jeremy,
We definitely have a way to go but not sure if is back to communism. Choice was the absolute mantra of our leaders 10 years ago but surely providing ultimate choice and letting the people decide is merely abdication of responsibility. Leaders need to lead; to take the mandate and make choices for us and that includes brands and organisations. Let’s face it the politicians won’t do it so I believe more and more it will fall to progressive organisations, who used to sit in the premium or niche space (Patagonia, Howies) but are now more and more mainstream, like P&G, McDonald’s and Unilever. These organisations will grab the mandate and do the right thing and edit the choices for the consumer. I believe consumers will thank them for it – let’s face it who wants to choose from a huge menu – and it will mean a more resource efficient and considerate future.
I think choice is a good thing as long as options are all of a decent quality and ethical. I personally like the “Nudge” approach which says “you’ve got a choice, but we reserve the right to make the most sustainable one easier than the the least sustainable one.”
For example, one of my clients will let employees take short haul flights, but they have to buy the ticket themselves and claim a refund which takes weeks. Rail tickets are bought directly by the company, so the employee is never out of pocket. Which would you choose?
Thanks Gareth, a great example of nudge.
I tend to agree with Ben, but limiting choice is a big step for society to take, so I like Gareth’s idea of the nudge – getting there a bit at a time. Although I’m not sure we have the luxury of time to make our world truly sustainable… Too much choice makes us buy more stuff, and that is inexorably connected to wasting more stuff. Whilst in some cases it may enrich our lives (thinking here of Ben’s million rucksacks!), it also deflects us from the real meaning of being human, which is our interactions with each other and our environment. How much philosophical debate is there these days (outside academic circles and this blog)? But there is a huge amount of chatter about shopping and the cult of “celebrity”. (*steps off soapbox*)
Completely agree – far too many rucksacks in the world. But are we gonna be able to rebalance? Shiny new stuff is so attractive and surrounds us in the West. Fanciful notions of nations being judged on happiness indices not GDP are lovely but unrealistic in my view. I think we will rebalance because most people are innately good and want to do the right thing, but it needs to be made easy for them – so removing choice (or choice-editing as the marketers say) is key to businesses and brands driving such behaviour change. Also rejection of institutional greed, thanks Mr Diamond, may be a real driver for change – or is it just jealousy. Would we all rig rates for millions in return if we had the idea and opportunity?