Check back here from 1.30pm for the live blog.
We’re all set up at the Royal Society.
Victoria Hurth
What is sustainable marketing?
Business Model - value creation process.
The question - what is value? This is the sticky point. The bit we have to think about objectively. Value leads to wellbeing.
We have needs. Eg. participation, relaxation, subsistence etc. How we meet these needs has infinite possibilities. Ways of meeting needs are not set in stone. There is little room for innovation if that wasn’t the case. Theoretically we can increase our wellbeing within the finite resources we have by consuming in very different ways. As long as businesses keep innovation obsessively focused on needs and we can meet needs using less resource. Symbolic threads between needs and ways to consume.
Problem of the current unsustainable connection between needs and unsustainable consumption. Offerings add value in one area but erode it in another. Fast food increases leisure time/pleasure but erodes your longevity. Face cream ‘if you don’t use it you’re ugly’ - short term goals but erodes self esteem.
Companies with a sustainable approach will be the ones who survive.
Wellbeing needs to be increased. Various types of capital must be enhanced not destroy.
We can only create new business models if we work with the various stakeholders to develop these. Marketing sits at the interface between stakeholders, value and business.
Marketing creates value for people external to the organisation all along the value chain.
Is that a surprise? Not just about sales and advertising. Sales is important but marketing is the engine room which connects a company with society. Marketing should shape a company’s future business models. Marketing should be the driving force of a business model.
What is sustainable marketing?
If marketing should be at the heart then a company can’t be maintaining or moving towards a sustainable business model unless it’s doing sustainable marketing?
Friends of the Earth Report
Framework of evolved marketing.
6 areas… a starting point. Aim to provide a common language with which frontline staff can communicate the role of marketing in sustainability and barriers to change.
Business Purpose? Doing some work on this too. Conceptualising the term of what we mean by purpose.
6 foundations - broad enough to encompass all sectors and areas of marketing.
Isabelle Szmigin
I’m ‘for business’. I sit on the Portman Group’s interdependent complaints panel. I’ll start with a piece from the Responsibility Deal, which has received a lot of criticism over recent years. “Enabling” our customers to eat and drink fewer calories.
Emphasis of my talk - how can we expect individuals to change behaviour when its so difficult? Look at food - the onous does need to be on business.
We can’t stop eating and sugar and fat. Food can be as addictive as drugs. Highly palatable. Various streams of research which show that we don’t make rational choices over food. This isn’t about being critical of people, it’s about understanding how people make decisions about food. Fat people can eat healthily. If we eat a lot of anything we’ll put on weight.
We all have a limited cognitive capacity. It’s hard to process all that information. There have been lots of books about this. We also have self control issues. Inability to look into the future. Or we’d all have brilliant pension plans. These are issues we know human beings have.
Obfuscation. Lots of areas. The way businesses tend to do it. Heuristics. Businesses simplify. If we respond to these we are caught in a trap. Businesses don’t always try and catch us in a trap but it does happen. Obesonegenic environment. There are a lot of calories out there. All effected by the various cues and norms and this often leads us to passively overeating. We are not even aware of it.
Also the technological change in food production means that food is cheaper. Commercial success but market failure.
What’s wrong with the REsponsibility Deal? It’s voluntary. I’m not suggesting heavy regulation. It’s incremental. I can buy 3 or 4 types of Coke. Coke gets more shelf space. End of aisle displays and food. What about getting something really healthy on the end of aisle displays?
Concurrent are what businesses actually do. The sugar tax. It takes business so long to change. The ‘5 finger’ kitkat. Didn’t take them too long to change that!?
Portion sizes- businesses need to decrease the portion sizes. Lots of research on this. Confectionary companies agreed to withdraw kingsize but replaced with similar products with more calories. Businesses need to respond to this in the right way. They look for loopholes to get us to eat more.
Big sizes ‘for sharing’ but people don’t share. 2000 calories bar! ‘Slice and share’?
Research shows that there is a real problem with sharing bars. Retailers only stop the larger sizes. Consumers - give consumers the responsibility BEFORE purchase rather than after. Stop them from trying to share it.
Need for policy intervention. We know about the public health and economic cost. Should we tax sugar? Effect low income households? Regressive to keep giving people sugar. There are unintended consequences.
Fat tax - Denmark - that’s what can go wrong with taxes. Think about the unintended consequences. There may be a reorientation of prices… Currently happening…
What should businesses be doing?
Sarah Woolaston.
Tax could work in what it might do to the companies in terms of the products they produce.
Richard Wright
1.1billion people in the world defecate in the open and half of those live in India. A huge problem and there have been lots of toilet building initiatives. Is this a toilet or a woodshed. An example of ‘what people ‘need’ isn’t necessarily what they want’. People get the toilet but go back to what their habit is.
If a business had done this they would have attempted to understand what people wanted to make the experience better. Businesses look at turning need into what people want.
What we ‘need’ to do as a behaviour change community is to take models and theories and help businesses use them. And generate models and theories which businesses can use.
Unilever- sells in 190 countries. Huge. Potentially a powerful force for good.
Interestingly, half our work is in developing countries. Unilever has committed to
How achieve?
Important thing - we can sustain this effort. It isn’t about CSR: It’s about doing well by doing good. It’s part of the business model. Positive impact AND returning the value to the shareholders. Important to help this big organisation change behaviours.
Lots of marketers spread around the world in Unilever. Need to get better at implementing theory. People aren’t interested in theory. They just want a way of changing behaviour.
We turned 130 theories into 5 principles. Facilitated process for marketers. Using 5 levers for change. Levers relate to the theoretical constructs. Implementation/campaign based on these levers.
Not a perfect plan. A good solution. I could criticise it. But it does it’s job. It disseminates theory in a usable way. interventions have some rather than no theoretical basis.
We tend to push interventions to people. We select a target population and then systematically PUSH the intervention to people. These are bounded. We have schools programs. People go into schools in India and do handwashing campaigns but there is also the PULL:
Business/societies and clubs don’t set out to change behaviour but do in the process of how they operate. E.g RSPB get people to feed birds in their garden. People who do the behaviour are self-selected. Not RCT. Unbounded. Can’t evaluate.
It’s hard to consider ‘pull’ approaches scientifically. Population is self selected.
Ocado has changed behaviour in shopping. Ocado reduced use of plastic bags and trips to the shops. Hugely important in changes in behaviour. People wanted their offering. People didn’t get ‘pushed’. They were pulled by the new offering.
2 requirements.
Get rid of RCTs. Scurge of this. Good science but they don’t work for what we’re talking about here. That’s what I’d like to see.
Questions.
Jilly Hall - Natural ENgland. How do you train people who have no experience at all?
Liz Broadbent - director of marketing at UWE. Parental responsibility/education.
Department for Energy and Climate Change - Daniel Alford.
COnflict between abstract future cost and short termism. Daniel black. What does Unilever think about tax? Does Unilever try and stop intervention from government or not?
Richard - don’t know what our position is.
Ecuador - extended responsibility is a law. Law is about social justice.
Henry Ashworth
Partnership. And looking at how collective corporate action can be achieved. Aligning objectives so that the consumer objective and the corporate objective can start aligning.
Context of alcohol in the UK. Some positive trends. Significant decline amongst young people. Some troublesome areas still.
PHE produced a map - longer lives map. Showed that we have some stark discrepancies between national and local picture of alcohol consumption.
Partnership - key point is about how the partnerships can target the communities which need the most support.
Collective corporate action - Responsibility Deal. Relatively controversial in some areas. thinking behind the deal was about tapping into the potential for partnerhsips. Achieving collective action for benefit.
Unilever - all about aligning corporate goals with public health etc. goals. Commitment from the CEO. The Responsbility Deal commitments could have been bigger.
Collective commitments. Substantial change will happen when there is a collective commitment. You can then cut to the heart as to why things don’t work - competitive advantage. Has to be collective or competitive advantage gets in the way.
Labelling alcohol products
Reducing high strength products:
REsponsibility deal were about collective action. Is what we do going to make a difference? A voluntary solution?
Consequences? Unintended? Legal comfort? If we do something together is it anticompetitive?
Maintenance of a level playfield - if one company takes action how do they know the others will too? The pledge is about going public. Industry wide pledge. Could choose how they achieved the pledge. Reformulate etc. Can packaging.
Result - 5 of the big supermarkets and big 3 producers signing up covering 75% of the market. Taking 15% of the alcohol out of every can of superstrength beer. Various steps to go together. Aligned objective is corporate damaged reputation.
Aligning objectives - if we want to make progress we have to align goals. Won’t work in the long term. Not good for any body.
2010 - halved beer duty on low alcohol beer and doubled duty on duty of higher alcohol beers. Created opportunity for innovation on low alcohol beers. Incentivised collective action.
Project working with restaurants - reducing alcohol content in house wine and also encouraging 125ml glasses. 45% less alcohol in every glass. Incentive being set by retailers up the supply chain to producers. We don’t want super strength wines. Consumers in some instances are asking for lighter wines. Mostly they’re not aware of the alcohol content they are buying. Short termism kicks in - upselling in bars. In terms of profit you make more profit from a smaller glass although more cash in the till from a bigger glass.
Commitment to take a billion units of alcohol out the market. Industry action was about lowering the strength amongst other things. 35 companies signed up. 1.3 billion units has been removed from the market.
Marisa de Andrade
The flip side of the debate. Hidden truths of CSR.
CSR is designed to increase profitability. Not designed for philanthropy or to be charitable. This is always going to be the case because this is how business models are set up.
Apparent generosity - targeting consumers. Targeted at stakeholders. Subversion of public health.
We are talking about charitable acts. We are all well intended but I’m talking about the bigger picture. Stakeholder marketing reduces accountability - increases business performance. Part of business. - mutes critical analysis. Stops us thinking critically in society because of the ‘good’ charitable acts. Softens regulatory responses.
Why does it matter?
Food, alcohol, tobacco. Massively problematic. Obesity will take 1 in 5 health dollars in the US. 4th greatest cause of premature death is alcohol even though half the world doesn’t drink - 2005 peak in drinking but has now dropped but no reduction of health harms. People also don’t tell the truth in surveys. What we see isn’t a true representation of what is going on. 1 in 2 smokers are killed by smoking.
We have a problem and a lot of this is driven by corporate marketing. Changing people’s behaviours and consumption habits. Marketing has an effect. It works. Evidence is out there. People consume more as a result of this.
Stakeholder marketing - seductive but targets those in power. In need of power and to stay in power for political gain. Need is to burnish these corporate reputations. Identity is your life blood. Corporate marketing ‘gets us’. It links up with good causes. You can’t argue. We do need to tackle these issues. It takes these causes and makes sure the world knows about the good work they do. Philip Morris spending money on women’s shelters in the US.
CSR wraps up benevolent causes into marketing. Strategic. Not a sporadic good deed. Mutually beneficial relationship between corporates and government.
Narrative changes. Collaboration togetherness, partnership. The light is turned away from conflicts of interest. As a result, this is why regulation in public health is a NECESSITY. Because flexible and soft forms of regulation are the result. There are blurred lines between the public and private. Harmony. Groupthink. You don’t know whose idea it was in the first instance. Consensus is at the start not the end. No space for criticality. Not about CSR. It’s about corporate regulation within the strategy.
Example -
Regulation stifled the industry. Bans - industry thought we can either roll over or we can demonstrate we are responsible. SO we can use stakeholder marketing to demonstrate they are responsible and avoid the regulation. Avoid the risk of regulation. Keeping it back for as long as it can.
Effectively - there will be a regulatory backlash so let’s set up a soft voluntary regulatory body so that we can avoid it.
Mutes critical thinking. we want people to question how things are. People are investing in really good causes so it’s hard to think critically about them. We don’t do the critical analysis. The industries have a vested interest.
We need to become critical thinkers.
ABV - to work with government. Make responsible consumption the right thing to do. Tax breaks on low ABV products. Profit making product. Win win product. Government is keen. Fascinating talking to people who work in industry -unintended consequences. From a population level - if these new products are being introduced. Might capture kids or capture new consumer who weren’t drinkers in the first place. Bigger public health problem? Tea/lemonade and now low alcohol - not a solution!
Need to maximise profit every step of the way.
In summary - i’ve pushed the debate to the other end. CSR is of itself a good thing. These acts are great. Companies should be behaving to the highest moral imperative. But statutory provision should never be replaced.
Partnerships will always be fundamentally conflicted.
Questions:
Victoria: Legislation is expensive and difficult. There are things that lend themselves to regulation but other areas that lend themselves to voluntary change. Need different things in different arenas.
Marisa - no one size fits all. Example in France. Banning things in content advertising. But partnership in some ways can work. There has to be a desire from the right kind of people.
Victoria - ultimate purpose of business to make money. Some becoming social enterprises. But also orgs actively seeking different kinds of shareholders so that commitment is altered. Not necessarily a hard line.
Steph - how much was competition part of the commitment?
Henry - didn’t share what competitors were doing. Was sharing what they had done against the commitment they had made.
Good companies maximise profit in the long term. When companies get caught in a short term cycle this endangers optimising profit for the long term. This is what attracts both employees and consumers. Consumers play an important role. There are more voices out there than there ever have been.
Portman group set up by Number 10 - to combat alcopops. I don’t think things that have to be good for PH and bad for business. Now fewer young people drinking and starting to drink at a later age.
Isabelle - Who said those quotes? (anonymised). Ultimately business is to do business. There are businesses other than Philip Morris which make a profit and do good. Would you said all business should not be evolved in CSR?
Marisa - CSR is good. But it coopts critical thinking and profit maximisation comes first. If you’re doing good in one sector and removing from another then it’s counter productive. We know price increases works but it’s not responsible to lobby against this. Do the good things but continue to do good things in other sectors as well. Do good with good and continue to add on the good.
Trying to present the bigger picture. It’s a complex issue.
Henry - Self regulation done well is better than statutory regulation. Industry buys into it. Government buys into. Sanctions bite. Myth is that it’s all voluntary. ALl traders sign up to the code of practice. If a complaint against a product is upheld then traders have to remove the product. Producers have to be part of that. and the marketplace will be removed if they breach the rules. The business have to sign up to the spirit of the rules not the letter. Spirit not just the letter. Difference is that you can impose commercial sanctions.
Marisa - self regulatory ban on tobacco marketing. Didn’t work. Complaints piled up and lots of whistleblowing. Same behaviour was occurring. Putting forward a different side.
Henry - I think it’s a mistake to base everything on the playbook of tobacco. Limitations to take this beyond tobacco. Ban on drinking in France isn’t working.
Will Gardner
CEO of Childnet.
How do we work with Big business? About making the internet safe for children.
Children interact with technology - 25% of 11-16 year olds use 6 or more apps to interact and other reasons. 0-4 year olds also. Work includes working with young children. Basic information to impart. ¾ of 0-4s using apps and tablets. 25% of 0-4s have their own devices! Empowering young people to make good decisions whenever and wherever they are using the internet.
Internet safety - shared responsibility. Parents have a roll and so do schools. Self-regulatory model. Industry has their part to play. A number of advantages to further the mission that we have. Some of these advantage:
Working with business so we are informed about the different service providers. Specific questions. Documents about how to be safe on Twitter etc. need to be up to date.
FUnding has to be from a mixed source. No one organisation. Will compromise the independence we have. Government, EC, various charities and service providers. Change of government has made this hard but EC and trusts have provided some funding.
Reach these organisations have - we can provide safety information but if you can persuade that advice to be part of the service itself then so much the better. If these organisations sign up and promote then we can make a much bigger reach.
Safer Internet Day. Google putting a strapline on their page. Must work with these organisations to make a real difference. 865 logos. People sent their logos to us. Corporates are an important part of this. If we want behaviour change then we want to develop a conversation between organisations and parents and schools. Partnerships are important. Corporates play their part in that space.
BBC did a study - awareness of safer internet day. ¼ of children had heard of the messages and a third of them had changed their behaviour.
Collaboration between sectors. Aligned issue. Important for parents and schools and corporations. Banks support and that is great because they can use their intranet to get the message out. Reaching as far and wide as possible.
Links with the range of providers - instagram etc. Take the experience of young people to the corporate provider etc. Have to work with them. Children presented to policymakers. Very powerful and impactful. Gathering that voice of young people and allowing them to express that this is an important issue. Children can use technology but they are just children. They need to use this technology safely.
Bernard Burnes
How can organisations manage change more effectively? They are bad at it. Somewhere around 70% of efforts fail. Most organisations try and make too much change.
All decisions in organisations are about behaviour change. There are natural changes. New staff, products. Incremental change. Corporate behaviour is never static. Can we change it deliberately?
Framework for assessing the number of changes and their difficulty - and therefore whether change is possible to achieve. Competences? Can we manage change? Do we know how to change an organisation? Nissan knew how to manage change but other organisations have difficulty knowing where to start. Inland Revenue. Complex environment. Taxing and reimbursing. Change is difficult to achieve when the environment is complex
Sustainability - 3 elements. People, planet, profit. Most organisations know what they have to do to achieve profitability but to move towards sustainability they have to think beyond profit. They can’t articulate what they want to change and they can’t articulate what ‘success’ looks like. What behaviours do they have to change to get towards the goals - and also what behaviours do we want to keep? Wanting to do something isn’t good enough. We have to know what we want to do.
Behaviour change starts at the top. The people at the top have to have the right behaviours. 50 and 75% of senior managers are not effective in their job. Kaplans law. I’ve been successful so I won’t change my behaviour, but my behaviour is not effective as a CEO.
Change your behaviour? Change your chief executive. Not just one person but the whole senior management team. 66% of senior management teams don’t work very well. Get your team working together.
We need proper leadership. Committed and understanding. We are talking about changing the behaviour of most people in the organisation. Get them to participate and give them a part of the change process. Co-create.
Participation and choice are the key issues when talk about effective change.
If people are TOLD there is a problem and how to fix it you will feel resentful. If you come up with a solution you will participate and work hard to deliver the solution. If i have choice I’ll be 5 times committed than if I don’t have a choice.
If corporate behaviour change is to succeed it’ll take 4-6 years. Keep pushing. It won’t happen over night. You need consistent leadership. FTSE100 companies change their execs too regularly. Limits consistency. Difficult to achieve change with such a lack of consistency.
Barclays - after the 2008 crash they decided they needed to change the culture but they are on their 4th CEO since then. What chance do they have?
Failure is not compulsory. It can be successful. We can succeed.
Question
Henry - what percentage of individual behaviour change fails!
LOTS
Isabelle - individual behaviour around food. Human beings - its not the willingness to diet or eat sensibly. I feel strongly that we need to place this responsibility with the individual. Individuals will find it very difficult. Around food.
Bernard - Lewin, pioneers of corporate change. Experiments. Give your children milk. SOme were ‘told’. Some were given the evidence and they understood but didn’t do it. Third group participated and had choice. We are stronger as collectives. Critical mass.
Keep pushing!
How do you translate regulation into participation? Difficult to maintain commitment and get them to volunteer.
DECC Daniel Alford - how do you assess when an organization is ready to take a step?
Bernard- when they recognise it.
People have to work in an environment where they feel they can make change
A lot of change come from indiivduals. Even in Unilever. People have to feel involved.
Business purpose.
Henry - you can be a loyal customer and challenge corporate behaviour.
Richard - no. Corporates fear the consumer more than anything. WE can’t lose customers. Consumer power. More than government.