We all know on some level that in order for there to be any true, definitive shift in how humans live more sustainably, we must address consumer decision. Purchase decisions target the issue of desire and production: what people seem to want and the processes used to provide those wants. But focusing on green consumption is appealing for another reason: it is well within our comfort zone. Making and selling products is what we are good at in the developed world; it’s part of the ethos and ideology that makes our market-based society motor along.

Recently, however, we are starting to see a movement – slow, quiet, but there nonetheless – that is arguing for a different, deeper approach than green consumption. This approach, most recently articulated in the WWF-UK report, Weathercocks & Signposts, suggests that instead of focusing on what individuals can do, or more specifically, what products they can buy, that we need to target the underlying values and beliefs that drive our lifestyles. When considered in full, this is a powerful critique against remaining in our comfort zone of the market, and instead asking people to radically rethink who and what we are, or more simply, what makes us happy and satisfied.

This is not a new concept, nor is it naïve. In the first book on green marketing in 1998, Toby M. Smith wrote in The Myth of Green Marketing, “In buying the environmentally safer product one is making sense of the world, because the act domesticates that which is threatening and unfamiliar by attaching it to what is comprehensible” (23). In other words, buying green makes environmentalism a lot more palatable. For Smith, consumer choice is not necessarily conscious, but rather driven by discourses “that structure identity and understanding of our relationship to the world” which are almost always latent (23). In focusing on green consumerism, we are basically smoothing over any potential rupture or radical critique of what we are doing in the first place. That is, what does it mean to be human, and to live on a finite and precious planet?

Identities, values, and beliefs – as with attitudes – are not nearly as fixed or static as we assume. Rather they are fluid, shifting according to contexts and influences. Call it consciousness, call it subjectivity, call it values-based approach. This emphasis is the direction the WWF-UK report is (courageously) moving us toward. In suggesting to the environmental movement at large – and most saliently, environmental communicators – that we shift our focus from attitudes and behaviour to values, beliefs, identities, what is being presented is nothing less than a radical re-conceptualization of  how we approach environmental marketing and advocacy. This means working in an interdisciplinary way, alongside psychologists, cultural anthropologists, cultural and social theorists: anyone who may shed some desperately needed insight into what it takes to shape and inform a revolution of values.  Thankfully they are not alone: a team at Yale just published a new report to signal this shift. To learn more about WWF-UK’s work and be part of the debate, visit http://www.valuingnature.org.  Renee Lertzman

It clear now the word ‘sustainability’ has become embedded in our daily language however we should avoid overusing it and brandishing it around like a new toy. It reminds me of the marketing jargon from previous years like CRM (Customer Relationship Management) once the buzzword of the  marketing community in the early 90’s. Clearly I’m showing my age. I think some have labelled the misuse of the word ‘sustainability’ and all things green as ‘middle class environmentalism’ in overdrive. I think even with the huge media frenzy around climate issues and brands jumping on the bandwagon your average Joe Bloggs in the street still doesn’t have much more of an idea of what gas causes global warming, whether Kyoto ever happened or what exactly what a Greenhouse gas is. From a marketing perspective we ‘ve got to think very hard about the use of language and imagery. I’m not sure the ‘carbon footprint’ graphical device has really translated well into public consciousness even though it’s widely  overused to illustrate what our Carbon usage is. It’s amazing how quickly a communications idea can become adopted and then becomes the symbolic representation of global problem even though alot of people would probable struggle to articulate its meaning. This is the communications challenge and we should regularly assess the effectiveness and understanding of the target market rather then adopt accepted buzzwords before rolling out national campaigns. I wonder how well the carbon footprint translates across different religious and cultural identities?