<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
		<title>Responsible Research Views</title>
		<description>Latest Views From Responsible Research</description>
		<link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/</link>
		<copyright>Copyright: Responsible Research, see http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk for terms and conditions of reuse</copyright><item><title><![CDATA[Trust - its only a little word but has US in the middle]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/40/trust-its-only-a-little-word-but-has-us-in-the-middle</link><pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[As researchers we spend a lot of time talking to customers and consumers. A recurrent theme over the last 5-6 months has been the frequency of references they have made to trust. As consumer uncertainty and concern increases, the spotlight tends to shine ever more brightly on this facet of a brand or organisations make up.
Trust is not an attribute which can be treated like other aspects of the brand .. trust has to be earned - therefore it is a response to some kind of action which has a benefit to a consumer or customer. Is it surprising that the categories which are least trusted currently are banks; newspapers; politicians and energy providers?
In simple terms consumers will be frustrated enough to let rip with comments like - how can you trust people who profit when we are struggling? In this regard it is indeed energy suppliers who are most criticised - trust needs not only to be felt but to be believed. Transparency and honesty are companions of trust in an emotional sense and if they are absent or suspected of being absent then trust cannot develop.
A few years ago we worked with a brand that had the mission to become the most loved brand. Without resorting to scripture there are three facets which tend to go together faith, hope and love - in a similar way our research over several projects has defined the relationship between being personable, trust and friendship. A brand may struggle to achieve love but many brands are seen as friends - and friends above all are people you trust.
Trust takes time to build but it is also evidential - it is the actions taken that underline trust; how an organisation responds, supports or listens. With our focus at Responsible research we believe that trust is the most important attribute brands need to develop during the current climate. It starts with an attitude - organisations need to trust their customers and their staff - uniting the two builds trust more rapidly. 
How many customer facing staff truly trust the organisation or brand that employs them or indeed the values they are asked to embrace as employees? 
So to build trust our experience points to uniting behind some much higher goal - addressing a social need, one which reflects aspects of the brand values of the organisation, but then acting upon them so that they become experienced by customers. This is not Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) even though we believe that is really important here at Responsible research. No, it is about something more tangible, experiential and recognisably credible. The brands that get this right will be matching the needs of the new consumer mindset which is fast developing during this time of economic crisis.
The emergence of new challenger brands who can earn the trust of consumers will thrive in this new world we have entered, because it is easier to demonstrate and develop trusted behaviour if you are challenging established and distrusted brands. Watch this space!
Ref:http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/3031125.article?cmpid=MWE01&amp;cmptype=newsletter&amp;email=true]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Promotional Society]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/39/promotional-society</link><pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Does everything need to be driven by promotional activity?
Birmingham City Council have partnered with Nectar to award points to any household with a Nectar card who put out rubbish for recycling. Each time the bin is emptied the collector scans a bar code which allocates 25 Nectar points to the registered cardholder.
It seems that in a world driven by promotional activity an incentive is required to recycle. Maybe this is true as recycling rates start to plateau after several months of increasing penetration levels - but what value does this place on the act of recycling itself? Turning to schemes that are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, like Nectar, diminishes the impact of any individual redemption and this scheme strikes us as a case in point.
In monetary terms each recycling bin placed for collection gains 25 points. You cannot convert this until 500 points have been amassed and then 500 points = &pound;2.50. So 20 collections is about a year of activity assuming fortnightly collections and throwing in bank holidays and household holiday periods where no / little recycling material is collected. The reward is the equivalent of a cup of coffee.
At Responsible research we are not criticising the initiative, rather we are asking a more philosophical question - tying promotional activity to consumer / citizenship can actually devalue an activity where societal reward - i.e. feeling good about what you are doing - could be far more motivating. From our own work we know that the tipping point for recycling falls on a street by street basis or at least the part of the street you can see on your way home. Once the majority or a high proportion of households recycle there is an increased incentive for non participating households to start to get involved. This domino effect does not need promotional activity - it relies on human nature and a desire to fit in.
We will be following this initiative with interest and would be quite happy to be proved wrong!]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Homo Empatheticus]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/37/homo-empatheticus</link><pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Part of the thinking here at Responsible research has been that we are seeing a move towards responsible consumerism being driven by the way we as human beings empathise and mirror other peoples actions. Often if we see a catalyst to action and it is easy enough to follow that action then we start to see real change occur. Social media is a real enhancement of this movement because it provides the ease together with the ability to see the numbers of others who are acting. Moreover the linkages through services like twitter and facebook show how quickly our fellow human beings are acting.
Lets take the recent Channel 4 Big Fish Fight to which many active calls to get involved are emerging - within a week of the first broadcast 583,647 people had signed up to the campaign with a further 191,186 on facebook. With this in mind and in line with our own thinking we found the following clip a really interesting explanation of why as humans our first instinct is to belong; to empathise and to act in concert with others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ready to Go Grow Your Own Produce]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/34/ready-to-go-grow-your-own-produce</link><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Those of you who have seen us present our research findings will be aware of our evidence of the way the UK is experiencing a return to simpler values through things like the explosion in Grow your Own vegetables; keeping chickens and the waiting lists for allotments in some UK cities.
We were therefore interested to hear about this initiative in Germany through our friends at Springwise who have found a new business who will prepare your veg plot for you. Meine Ernte will rent out a plot which is prepared and all the would be green consumer needs to do is tend to the plot and harvest their crops.
The company currently operate sites near six major cities and hope to double this during 2011. How long before we see a UK version .. or do you know of one already - if so let us know!]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Responsible Packaging Monitor]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/35/responsible-packaging-monitor</link><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[We have a mission currently which is to understand how we can improve on recycling habits within the UK. Clearly we have come a long way with pressures on land fill doing more to drive the need to get local councils to encourage recycling but we still have a long way to go to catch up with some of our European neighbours where washing packaging and distributing between bins is now second nature to most.
Our own research highlighted two things:

    make it simple for people to recycle and they will - neighbourhoods over a short space of time recycle more if they have street side collections provided;
    consumers now are really trying to do the right thing and recycle in the right way but are often compromised by the difficulty in multi-material packaging having to be treated in different ways.

So always on the look out for bright ideas we showcase the 100% compostable coffee cup which originates in Australia. PLAnet cups are not just made using forest-friendly paper, theyre also lined with biofilm instead of petroleum-based plastic. That biofilm is made from renewable plant material; in part as a result, the cups comply with the harmonised European standard EN 13432 and are 100 percent compostable in commercial facilities.
All we need to do then is find a way to collect them all together and separate to other rubbish in public locations. Getting Starbucks; Costa and Cafe Nero to comply as well would be a great next step!]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Local food: a matter of trust]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/17/local-food-a-matter-of-trust</link><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Local food is a current issue for consumers.  In our research, people told us that they strongly identified buying locally with the idea of being a responsible consumer.  They like to buy local food because they want to keep money in the local economy, because they think it has a lower carbon footprint or just because they believe it to be fresher because it hasnt travelled as far.  However, a recent column in The Observer suggests that in many cases, none of these beliefs may actually be true.
It identifies two main problems with ostensibly local food.  The first problem is with the definition of local itself; according to The Observer many local claims are in fact red herrings.  In other words, theyre classic greenwash.  The other problem is with packaging and distribution systems, which means foods that genuinely are locally produced may still have travelled hundreds of miles before returning to their area of origin and appearing on a supermarket shelf.  So much for fresher food with a lower carbon footprint.
This lack of clarity presents both an obstacle and an opportunity to retailers.  When making purchase decisions that have a responsible dimension - such as buying local food - belief is crucially important to consumers.  If they believe their actions can make a difference, those actions bring a corresponding emotive pay-off.  But if that belief is not present, there is far less incentive for a consumer to act on his or her responsible feelings.  If a consumer feels that they cannot rely on the credibility of local claims, then their belief is likely to be undermined.  In this case, the recent increase in sales of local food could slow or even reverse.
On the other hand, it is obvious that a responsibly-motivated desire to buy local food does exist.  Therefore, retailers with a clear and credible local offering stand to make significant gains in this regard, but theyll need to avoid the kind of pitfalls outlined in The Observer.  Theyll also need to pay attention to how they get the message out to consumers.  Our research indicates that most of the responsible initiatives the Big Four supermarkets undertake &ndash; such as Asdas local hubs scheme  &ndash; are not well known among their customers.  But this is precisely the kind of information that is required to support consumer belief in the effectiveness of responsible, local purchasing.
Above all, local food is an issue of trust; trust in the provenance of your food.  But trust is in short supply.  If retailers offer food that genuinely is local &ndash; and effectively communicate that - consumers will buy it and brand equity will be enhanced.  But if they fudge the issue, or make local claims that dont stand up to close scrutiny, consumers will loose faith, trust in supermarkets will be eroded and the opportunity will be lost.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[How many labels can we put on food?]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/16/how-many-labels-can-we-put-on-food</link><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Tesco are to start printing the carbon footprint of their milk on the label, calling it an awareness raising measure.  Since carbon footprint has traditionally been one of the least well-understood responsible issues among consumers, its tempting to uncritically accept ideas like this as a good thing.

On the other hand, perhaps we should  consider how consumers actually react to responsible cues on food labels.  Our research indicates that even consumers who are responsibly motivated fail to act responsibly when they make food purchases.  Consumers are already confronted with an array of responsible cues on food labels; organic, Marine Stewardship, Fairtrade, Freedom Food, recycled packaging, and so on, and so on.  In most cases, these responsible cues do not form a conscious part of purchase deliberation.  We know this, because our research specifically compared what people say they do with what they actually do.

An important reason for the gap between sentiment and action is the confusion caused by the number of responsible cues that exist.  Theres too much choice, and not enough clarity about what any of them mean.  Yet another symbol is unlikely to improve matters.  It may help build awareness of the issue among the responsibly-motivated consumers who are pre-disposed to listen to such messages, but our experience to date suggests that it will only prompt conscious action among a tiny minority of them.

And even if all consumers were engaged with all the single-issue labelling schemes - such as Tescos carbon footprint label - how are they supposed to choose between them?  Is it more important to buy a product with a low carbon footprint than one that says Freedom Food?  Does Fairtrade trump organic?  Does a truly responsible product have all of them?  If it did, would there be room for anything else on the label?

It may be time to retreat from single-issue labelling schemes, and think instead about how we could offer consumers an overall responsibility score that allows them to directly compare products.  Although it does not yet offer product-level comparison, Wal-Marts progress towards its Sustainability Index shows that the worlds biggest retailer is taking the idea seriously.  The flower-shaped multi-criteria sustainability label proposed by Sustain is another example of an integrated label, which could offer product-level comparisons.  Such approaches may have problems of their own, but when it comes to driving consumer behaviour it may stand a better chance of success than a proliferation of responsible labels that consumers cant directly compare and find difficult to understand.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Unlocking the competitive advantage of responsible retailing]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/15/unlocking-the-competitive-advantage-of-responsible-retailing</link><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Wal-Marts recent announcement of its Sustainability Index marks a positive step by one of the worlds biggest retailers.
Currently, the index rates Wal-Marts suppliers - rather than individual products &ndash; on a limited range of sustainability indicators, but the eventual aim is to arrive at a product labelling scheme.
Our research indicates that consumers with responsible attitudes usually dont act on them, and that confusion about what responsible messages really mean may be an important reason for this.  By eliminating the confusion, a transparent rating scheme could have a meaningful impact on consumer behaviour.
However, the ultimate success of the scheme will depend on how well it is communicated to the consumer.
Assuming Wal-Mart doesnt fluff it, engaging those consumers who are already responsibly aware should be relatively easy.  As long as they trust the scheme, the benefit will be clear to them; they get to feel better about the products that they buy.
The problem is in persuading those consumers who are not responsibly aware.
Our research shows that such consumers could represent as much as half of the population, a significant proportion of whom arent just ignorant of the issues, but actively dont care about the responsible agenda.
A sustainability index offers such people little in the way of benefit; they dont need to feel better about the products that they buy. Therefore, to drive mass engagement with their Sustainability Index, Wal-Mart and its partners may need to start at the beginning and establish the salience of the entire responsible agenda, not just the labelling scheme.
Whether a retailing behemoth can find a way of conveying this message credibly will be interesting to see. This consideration may be one of the reasons why Wal-Mart is at pains to point out that it does not own the index.  Its designed and implemented by an independent consortium that includes academics as well as other companies.
However, Wal-Mart is now inextricably identified with the index and, after all, any eventual labelling scheme will be visible in their stores on their own-brand products.  Wal-Marts brand image will be a significant influence on the reception of the Sustainability Index and vice versa.
In a sense, none of this matters.  Even if the Sustainability Index just helps consumers who are already engaged to make better choices, this is obviously a good thing.
But if Wal-Mart wants to unlock the competitive advantage a labelling scheme offers and not just follow in the wake of responsible sentiment, it may need to give some serious thought to how it prepares the ground.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Harnessing the Power of One]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/14/harnessing-the-power-of-one</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[In his recent series of Reith Lectures Professor Michael Sandel discusses what he terms a politics of the common good as a reaction to the erosion of trust in the free-market system.
A politics of the common good is at the heart of Responsible Researchs mission.
In May 2009, Responsible Research conducted a major consumer research study to understand the role of responsible influences in grocery shopping.  It may seem outlandish to bracket shopping with Sandels grand scheme for a new kind of politics, but in fact the two are intimately connected.
As Sandel himself says, a politics of the common good invites us to think of ourselves less as consumers, and more as citizens.  In other words, when consumers are able to place their activities in a wider context &ndash; political, social, environmental &ndash; they become empowered to make responsible choices in which they act as citizens.
At Responsible Research we are committed to harnessing this power of one &ndash; the individual consumer making a positive choice &ndash; to affect broad social change.
But habits die hard; and this is a key finding from our research.  Consumers revert to type and buy the same old products with same old cost/benefit calculations that ignore such inconveniences as climate change or the exploitation of producers.
Although responsible attitudes are quite common among consumers, it is rarer for these attitudes to be put into practice.
In short, consumers are yet to be persuaded that the power of one is theirs.
Consumers can be catalysed into responsible actions, as recent single-issue campaigns have proven, but momentum towards responsible citizenship has yet to emerge.
Large supermarkets arent helping here.  In the wake of the global financial crisis there has been a proliferation of recession-busting messages from major retailers.  They want to offer value in hard-pressed times.  They want to be the consumers friend.  But this is not the same thing as being the citizens friend.
At a time when market dogma looks discredited, the supermarkets have responded by offering&hellip; more market dogma.
Responsible Research would like to see an end to the false distinction between value and responsibility.   Recently, both Tate &amp; Lyle and Cadburys Dairy Milk converted all of their production to Fair-trade at no extra cost to customers, so it can be done.
And while were at it lets clean up responsible messaging, simplify the terminology and eliminate the confusion that surrounds the issue in the minds of consumers and marketers alike.
We intend to give ethical marketers the insight and knowledge they need to look their customers in the eye and say The power is yours.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Eating responsibly and saving &Acirc;&pound;10 billion]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/13/eating-responsibly-and-saving-10-billion</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:01</pubDate><description><![CDATA[A survey by the action on waste group WRAP last year reckons the average family household throws away more than a quarter of the food they buy and that 60 per cent of the dumped food was untouched.
As well as adding 3.6 million tonnes to UK landfill the wasted food had cost UK households around &pound;10 billion. Most of the wasted food could have been eaten if better stored, better managed in terms of usage or not left uneaten on the plate.
More recently, the Change4Life campaign has been encouraging parents not to overload their childrens plates with supersize portions in an effort to combat obesity.
In a challenging economy, both of these issues offer a chance for food manufacturers and kitchen storage suppliers to encourage Responsible buying through innovative packaging, stronger storage and food management advice, portion control and pack size.
Make it easy for the consumer to save cash, be the buddy who takes the hassle away and theres a whole new profitable relationship to be had.
Meat and fish made up 18 per cent of the avoidable cost of waste on the family budget with 5,500 whole chickens were thrown away each day in the UK while the two most significantly wasted foods that could have been eaten were potatoes and bread.
The most expensive meals in the dumpster were &quot;Mixed foods&quot; like the 440,000 ready meals thrown away each day which make up 21% of the total cost of waste while the most commonly dumped food was Yoghurt with an estimated 1.3m unopened pots ditched each day.
Time to lick the replaceable lid of a more Responsible life?]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Searching for the Responsible Mavens]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/11/searching-for-the-responsible-mavens</link><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:00:00</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The road to responsible consumerism is a long one - but the economic crisis is a big reason to act differently.
Were gathering friends, family and useful contacts around us.
Theres a sense of common cause in adversity.
Were aware of the bigger picture but more concerned at whats happening in our own back yard. Firstly because we feel the direct effects and secondly, because in the scheme of things, theyre at least easier to understand - if not to like.
Were already beginning to think more about changing the how, when and where of our purchasing habits.
In the past what we bought defined us.
In the future, how we define ourselves will change what we buy.
Big Government is pushing us along. But a few more social media Responsible Mavens would come in handy. Convincing one friend to buy more responsibly and seeing that friend convince two more friends is more effective in the short-term.
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown have both held out the promise of a new green economy that creates new green jobs which in turn provide the income for new green consumers.
But its still some way off.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Will todays children grow up to adopt Great Grandmas values of thrift, respect for institutions and sensitive conformity?]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/10/will-today-s-children-grow-up-to-adopt-great-grandma-s-values-of-thrift-respect-for-institutions-and-sensitive-conformity</link><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:10:13</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Consumer reactions to the current economic crisis have reawakened interest in the jointly authored books of writer and historian William Strauss and economist and demographer Neil Howe.
If Strauss and Howes theory of generational attitudes is correct, the young shoppers of the future could adopt Responsible Consumerism and Responsible Consumption in ways more widespread and more effective than anything their parents or grandparents could ever imagine.
The first signs are already out there - the days of easy credit and 100 per cent mortgages are over.
Now, just like Great Grandma, you have to save before you buy.
Try mending the old before thinking of buying new and buy what you need rather than what you want.
And havent we already got enough stuff anyway - as the rise of commercial storage sheds to cope with garage, attic and spare room overflow attests?
In their books Generations, The Fourth Turning and Millennials Rising, Strauss and Howe examined the cyclic pattern of connections between major historical events and the common generational attitudes of Anglo-Americans who lived - and are living - through them.
Their work brings new resonance to the words of 20th century philosopher George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Strauss and Howe argue strong evidence that historical events and generational attitudes reaching back as far as the War of the Roses all follow the same cycle - offering a pointer to how consumer and societal attitudes and actions will be affected by the current worldwide recession.
The duo believe modern history can be divided into 80 year eras each linked to four ever-repeating cycles or Turnings spanning around 20 years with the attitudes of each generation defined by the Turning in which each is born.
While the flowery descriptions may sound a tad too New Age Pseudo Science for some in the UK, the core concept is backed by strong historical evidence.
Wikipedia describes the first turning, known as a High, as a period of confident expansion as a new order becomes established after the old has been dismantled.
Next comes an Awakening, a time of rebellion against the now-established order, when spiritual exploration becomes the norm.
Then comes an Unravelling, an increasingly troubled era of strong individualism that surmounts increasingly fragmented institutions.
Last comes the Fourth Turning, an era of upheaval, a crisis in which society redefines its very nature and purpose.
Looking back over the past 50 years, Strauss and Howes historical event and generational attitude cycle matches the post-war boom, the peace and love of the 60s, the Yuppie greed of the 1980s and the global economic, environmental, peak oil and ideological challenges we face today.
In their 1997 book The Fourth Turning, Strauss and Howe point out that during past historical calamities of similar impact to global recession, the children are always Artists, the young adults are Heroes, the middle-aged are Nomads, and the elders are Prophets:
Prophets (or Idealists) are values-driven, moralistic, focused on self, and willing to (see other people) fight to the death for what they believe in. They grow up as the increasingly indulged children of a High, come of age as the young crusaders of an Awakening, enter midlife as moralistic leaders during an Unravelling and are the wise, elder leaders of the next Crisis. The Baby Boomers (born in the period post WWII to the early 1960s) are an example of a Prophet generation.
Nomads (or Reactives) are ratty, tough, unwanted, diverse, adventurous, and cynical about institutions. They grow up as the under protected children of an Awakening, come of age as the alienated young adults of an Unravelling, become the pragmatic, midlife leaders of a Crisis and age into tough, post-crisis elders during a High. Generation X (born early 60s to early 80s) is an example of a Nomad generation.
Heroes (or Civics) are conventional, powerful, and institutionally driven, with a profound trust in authority. They grow up as the increasingly protected children of an Unravelling, come of age as the Heroic, team-working youth of a Crisis, become energetic and hubristic mid-lifers during a High and become the powerful elders who are attacked in the next Awakening. Those born between the mid-1980s and 2001 are expected to emerge as the next generation of this example.
Artists (or Adaptives) are subtle, indecisive, emotional and compromising, often having to deal with feelings of repression and inner conflict. They grow up as the overprotected children of a Crisis, come of age as the sensitive young adults of a High, rebel as indecisive midlife leaders during an Awakening, and become the empathic elders of an Unravelling.
The Silent Generation (born 1925-45) is an example of an Artist generation - as may well be those born in the period post September 11, 2001 until 2020 into a life experience as digital natives and a global downturn childhood.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Where is the Amazon and eBay champion of responsible consumerism?]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/9/where-is-the-amazon-and-ebay-champion-of-responsible-consumerism</link><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:10:25</pubDate><description><![CDATA[When researchers used to look for signs of fundamental consumer behaviour change it was all about identifying the beginnings of visible mass action - the first few steps on the path toward a possible tipping point into mass adoption.
But even in todays wired world we believe the move to Responsible Consumerism is, and will be, a little different.
All the pointers are that small individual acts, often carried out in isolation and then communicated and adopted by peers by choice, have been the most effective viral conduit.
You start buying organic, start recycling, start buying market fresh and suddenly so do many of your friends.
But at the moment theres no big herd mentality - or appetite for it - and no effective focal point to coalesce around.
Government may try valiantly. But do you readily acquiesce to Government cajoling?
Thought not.
The connected online world offers huge possibilities. But as yet theres no sizeable, popular and dedicated eBay or Amazon to act as mainstream Responsible Consumer cheerleader - no one to make it hassle-free, affordable and quick.
While we may recall Government urges for us to reduce carbon emissions, recycle, walk not drive and eat healthily we rarely internalise and remember the how.
The true catalyst to a world of Responsible Consumerism is not sentiment or good intent but money - and at the moment theres not a lot of that around.
For Responsible Consumerism to hit the mainstream theres got to be a financial benefit - to the producer, to the retailer and ultimately to the home consumer - for everything from food to energy.
And if the likes of eBay, Amazon and the comparison sites can make the buying process easy for us for a whole range of goods - allowing us to quickly see the financial benefits - the door is open for a White Knight or two to do the same for Responsible purchases.
Price, particularly in these hard-pressed times, is one benefit consumers understand more than anything else.
For most of us, priority Number 1 right now is keeping a job and ensuring the paying the mortgage. Priority Number 2 is getting through all this and coming out OK the other end.
If the price of Responsible Consumerism - both in cost and across factors like time and ease of purchase - can come down, then the barriers to buying Responsibly disappear at the unconscious level.
Whats not to like when responsible purchasing has a genuine and immediately apparent benefit in getting you and your family get through all this and preventing similar problems in the future?
It just needs something, or someone, to co-ordinate positive action with genuine scale - and to date, thats not been a role in which either government or pressure groups have been effective.
Theres simply been too many organisations occupying the Responsible space and the message has been drowned out by the noise of delivery from each and every one.
Earn the attention with widespread benefits genuinely relevant to the busy lives of struggling ordinary people, start talking with one voice and people will both listen and act.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Jumping the Green Generation Gap]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/1/jumping-the-green-generation-gap</link><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 11:31:09</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Responsible. Smart. And Cool. These are the three words 13-29 year-olds (the generation known as Millennials) most associate with the Green movement according to a recent survey by New York youth media and youth trends company Generate.

Yet while younger consumers (and particularly the generation currently at school) are better informed and more strident about green issues than any other age group, their knowledge and attitudes often have little bearing on their actions.

The most startling statistic from the Generate report is that given a choice between a brand that has green credentials and a similar one at a lower price, 71 per cent of 13-17 year-olds say theyd go for the cheaper option. The balance swings in entirely the opposite direction for 22-29 year-olds with 63 per cent saying theyd be willing to fork out for a more expensive brand if it supports an environmental cause.

Support for ethical consumerism appears strongest in older groups. In a study on sustainable packaging by marketing and investor relations company The Sage Group, almost 90 per cent of people aged over 56 claim they always recycle with over three quarters stating the green impact of associated packaging had a significant impact on product purchasing decisions.

The Sage study has particular resonance for food manufacturers and retailers as much of the packaging perceived as either green or environmentally damaging is associated with food and drink products.

According to the survey, products with an additional green hurdle to overcome before purchase include anything wrapped or contained in:

Overkill packaging
Single serve portions
Hard plastic
Takeaway food containers
Polystyrene burger boxes
Most plastic water bottles
Something with a plastic ring pull
Non recycled material
Non recyclable material

However, anything packed in the following ways was perceived to be greener:

Glass containers
Aluminium cans
As a bulk product
Cardboard packaging
Paper bags
As a concentrated liquid
In recycled material

Both reports highlighted a need for brands to help younger consumers through the bewildering fog of information about green issues, ethical consumerism and sustainability with clear product and marketing messaging.

For younger consumers this was all about connecting the benefits of responsible consumerism to immediate and, if possible, instantly tangible results relevant to their lifestyle.

They want to save the Earth but it seems like a big job and how can one action affect it?

For older consumers, it was more about a higher profile for product eco information.

And for everybody &ndash; no greenwash hype.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[Which brands are you going to trust your love to now?]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/2/which-brands-are-you-going-to-trust-your-love-to-now</link><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 11:40:53</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Who do you trust these days? Your bank? Your employer? Your favourite brands?

With Governments playing Russian roulette with national debt, climate change warnings becoming ever more dire and the news media serving up an endless diet of scary news, its no wonder were searching out any scrap of safety and security to hang on to.

Consumer behaviour is changing &ndash; in both obvious and not so obvious ways &ndash; and signs are that, like the global crunch, this change is going to be seismic.

For the first time in years were now saving for the rainy days ahead and paying off debts at a record rate. Weve also found comfort in the safety of the past &ndash; when the scary monsters of today didnt exist and life seemed so much simpler.

Unsurprisingly, brands are picking up on the trend.

Nationwide, the dull grey brand of the building society sector, now promotes itself by celebrating its boring but safe approach and long-term history.

Likewise Persil. Gently pushing reassurance through down-the-decades images of the unconditional (and washing powder assisted) love of that most trusted person of all &ndash; mum.

Even sofa kings DFS have got in on the act, putting Linda Barker on ice and ditching the never-ending half-price sale for ads proclaiming the companys longevity and heritage.

Witness also the rise of comparison websites and the popularity of online user-led reviews and social media as we turn to friends, acquaintances and even strangers rather than official sources &ndash; so long as the reviewers appear to be People Like Us.

One of the emerging battlegrounds for our trust is being scouted out by, guess who &ndash; the supermarkets.

The big supermarket chains have achieved success because they make it their business to know us &ndash; sometimes even better than ourselves.

Of all the major organisations that get us through our day to day lives, the supermarkets are in pole position simply because they have the most contact with us and a vast and constantly updated databank of our purchasing behaviour.

In the current chaos of mistrust, the major supermarkets have a golden opportunity to capitalise on the special place they hold in our shrinking wallets.

Worried about the toxic debt and of your regular bank? Well Tesco is about to come to the rescue with the Tesco Bank. Despite worries over Tescos High Street dominance, the brand has a track record of being totally in tune with the needs of family shoppers.

Want something more funky? Well Virgin are looking to fish in the same pond.

Even Sainsburys has tapped into the trend. As we gather around the family fireplace and seek normality in preparing family meals again, good ol Jamie is showing us how to rustle up a quick and wholesome meal for a fiver.

As Gordon Brown told Euro MEPs ahead of the G20 meeting: A good society and a good economy must have a strong set of values - not values that spring from the market, but values that we bring to the market.

The changing values consumers are bringing to the market are becoming ever more visible through their behaviour &ndash; and its not only errant bankers that need to take heed.]]></description></item><item><title><![CDATA[What will it take for &amp;ldquo;responsible&amp;rdquo; consumerism to gain traction?]]></title><link>http://www.responsibleresearch.co.uk/index.php/views/article/3/what-will-it-take-for-ldquo-responsible-rdquo-consumerism-to-gain-traction</link><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:59:55</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Concerns for the environment, issues of sustainability and an uneasy sense that the gimme more growth bubble had to burst, have been with us for some time.

Everything from increasing purchases of organic food to lead&ndash;free petrol, corporate commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility, healthy eating campaigns, the rise of the reusable shopping bag and a new interest in urban allotments stem from an underlying unease with the past direction of travel.

All of these activities tap into our innate desire to do good and, more importantly for consumers, to get positive emotional payback for their purchases, to feel good about the decision as well as product value.

Make it easy for us to do good. Remove any trade off against our regular brand (in fact build in some additional benefits) and youve got us hooked &ndash; as brands from Innocent Drinks to Sainsburys have found.

But ingrained habits can be hard to break &ndash; which is why Government has been so active. But who trusts Big Government these days &ndash; banking failure, job insecurity, sensitive data loss, accusations of nanny state meddling and even adult videos on expenses have all chipped away at our confidence.

Does switching off the standby switch really change the world? Are dustbin monitors really meant to encourage recycling &ndash; or raise tax?

The eco&ndash;warriors have similar problems. Strident single&ndash;issue protest rubs up hard against the mainstream isolating minority views from the established consensus.

But the context has been set up &ndash; and even though only around 10 per cent of us are actively and genuinely green in our consumer and lifestyle habits, the recession has prompted many more of us to think about a simpler life lived against what might have seemed, pre&ndash;Crunch, old&ndash;fashioned values.

Yesterdays message was all about reducing the environmental impact of household food waste.

Todays message is all about maximising what you can do with your food.]]></description></item></channel></rss>
