Maslow’s theory, published in 1943, created a hierarchy of mans’ needs. The main thesis provides that once basic needs are met, then man is able to fulfil his higher needs – the ‘growth needs’ that form the pinnacle of man’s desires.
Basic ‘deficiency needs’ comprise the bottom four layers of the five-level pyramid. Basic needs encompass (1) physiological necessities (air, food, sleep etc); (2) safety needs, or basic human rights provisions which, once satisfied, establish the threshold of happiness; (3) social needs (friendship, family, sexual intimacy and so on); and (4) self-esteem (respect and a sense of achievement).
Once basic physical and psychological needs have been satisfied then the opportunity to develop spiritual needs is maximised. According to Maslow there is a desire to search for meaning, which may include a transcendence of ego.
Intuition suggests that the idea of self-development or a hankering after meaning and value in life remains true to experience. If we are fortunate enough to enjoy the security that society can provide us – if we have a secure job and the means to achieve a comfortable level of subsistence protected by our fundamental rights – then there often arises a desire, or we flirt with the idea, that there is more to life than basic survival.
So what does all this have to do with sustainability or social and environmental issues you might be asking yourself? Is there a link to be made with the market, brands and companies?
In today’s consumer society, brands can help people to progress through all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At the most basic level, they provide the means to eat and stay warm. At higher levels, they provide the means to express and even develop personal identity.
Brands are beginning to recognise what research clearly shows: that despite the proliferation of possessions and significant rises in personal wealth, people are no happier now than they were thirty years ago. This represents, in part, a failure on the part of brands to enhance people’s emotional lives.
Some say that this is an impossible goal; that true happiness cannot come from material possessions. This is partly true, but too easily dismisses the important role that brands can play in delivering sustainable development. Brands can be the key to separating the material from the emotional, reducing environmental impacts while maximising customer satisfaction.
Consumers are increasingly developing an ethical conscience in the face of threats such as global warming and human rights abuses. There is an increasing awareness that consumption habits have causes and effects, just like everything in the world, and how we act and/or consume may often have negative impacts in the world and on our personal and collective well-being. These impacts are often not visible and account for the reckless economically driven consumption patterns that have become the norm.
Consumers increasingly want to be seen to have a conscience and, as such, there has been a huge shift towards ‘sustainable consumption’ as a process of social identity formulation. Material goods assume a certain importance in our lives, above and beyond their practical function, for their embodied symbolism. If we are seen to be a ‘green consumer’ then we may be associated as a person with a worthy moral outlook, one who is able to fight the mundane existence that has come to represent traditional unsustainable consumption patterns.
‘Sustainable Development’ is shorthand for attempts to bridge the divide between economic growth and environmental protection. It seeks to develop means of supporting economic growth whilst supporting biodiversity; it embodies goals of relieving poverty and, fundementally, a means of long-term progression and development without the depletion of this planet’s "natural capital".
Sustainable development is often misinterpreted as focusing solely on environmental issues. In reality, it is a much broader concept that embodies not only the environment, but society and the economic performance as well.
Though concerned about environmental and social issues, most consumers do not have these issues in mind when they are doing their shopping. Instead, they go for whatever is convenient, trendy, fashionable or whatever else they have as their primary need. Consumption is about habit – whilst consumers are aware of the problems of the world they tend to push them to the back of their minds and dissassociate actions from their hidden consequences. In this form of traditional consumption ‘growth needs’ cannot be satisfied.
Consumers want to invest in products that embody their ethical ideals; however, they want to without too much cost or inconvenience to themselves. Most of the true pressure on business to become more sustainable comes from others, such as NGOs, investors and government. This distracts businesses from the enormous commercial potential of delivering “responsible” brands to consumers. There are plenty of CSR reports, but few sustainable products or brands. Consumers do not read CSR reports; they do buy brands they can trust to be responsible.
At the end of the 1990’s apparel and footwear brands such as GAP and Nike were embroiled in scandals over the working conditions in the factories that supplied them. Since then, they have made tremendous progress in eliminating these abuses, and incorporate social and ethical values into their business practices. Nike is today one of the most innovative companies when it comes to sustainability business practises. However, most of this good work has remained hidden from consumers and therefore useless in building positive brand value or laying to rest the ghosts of past reputational crises. Why? because Nike has not yet successfully integrated into the brand message.
Communicating with consumers in today’s cluttered and democratic media environment is expensive and difficult. Consumers who are interested in the ethical performance of brands can turn to a proliferation of ethically guided magazines and websites.
Surveys also reveal, however, that ‘functional’ factors such as quality, price and convenience still dominate purchasing decisions. There is a real value gap in the market that brands can fill. If brands can bridge the gap between values (in terms of sustainable production and sourcing) and a product that functions as well as the best on the market, then commercial success shall undoubtedly follow.
Consumer choices are dependent on information and product awareness. Paradoxically though, many consumers are cynical about advertising strategies that deliberately market products as ‘ethical’. For brands to succeed they must be trusted to deliver on their promises. Brands must internalize the emerging values of the modern consumer and embed them throughout the entire organization. Aligning values will make the brand more relevant to the consumer and differentiate it from its competitors. If brands claim to be ethical without properly embedding sustainable and social values into their make-up then accusations of “green washing”, or exaggerating environmental and social progress, are bound to surface.
In short, any CSR message must be representative of the brand as a whole. Companies must honestly define and understand what they are about and their values must be honestly communicated to their stakeholders and to consumers.
I agree with Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of the National Consumer Council, who signalled that whilst marketing got us into this mess [of unsustainable consumption], it may be that marketing can get us out. By leading consumers with engaging messages and useful, sustainable products, brands can lead consumers on a mutually beneficial journey that safeguards and improves quality of life for this and future generations. Consumers cannot be relied upon to demand responsible brands, but they will respond positively to ones they are offered.
Perhaps there is a new layer for the top of Maslow’s hierarchy that goes beyond “self actualisation” to address the needs of future generations. We might call this “genetic actualisation”, since the ultimate winners are yet to be born.
Posts
