What About Consumer Responsibility?

Along with the recent sales figures from the automotive makers, we hear lots about how consumers are choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles and abandoning the larger car, SUV and truck markets. Proponents of a corporate social responsibility point to Toyota surpassing GM in worldwide auto sales (and the imminent naming to the top spot in American auto sales) as a testament to the “green” strategies of the firm. Isn’t Toyota such as wonderful friend of the earth, and aren’t all those Prius drivers pitching right in and doing their part? Media and many CSR pundits spin these recent developments as a move toward greater sustainability and responsibility.

Oh really. If there is a sudden consciousness about the state of the planet, why did it come now and not in 2006 when Al Gore made his movie? Or why did it not come in the 80s and 90s when David Suzuki told us everything Al did (albeit with a little less flash and star appeal). And please don’t say “tipping point” because the answer, of course, has to do with the price of oil. We forget that back when oil was 10 bucks a barrel Toyota introduced their V8 Tundra pickup to compete with the F series from Ford. I bet they’re happy now they failed to make a dent in that market.

The market has clearly come to Toyota (and Honda, and other makers who specialize in smaller vehicles). But should we applaud these firms for championing the environment? Do you really believe that if people wanted to buy V8 Tundras from Toyota they wouldn’t have sold those in droves?

Environmental impacts from automobiles lies squarely at the feet of consumers. After all, companies like Toyota and General Motors all try and meet market demand, whether it’s for trucks that get 10km per liter (about 24 mpg) or it’s little cars that go 30 km on a single liter (about 70 mpg). If we want to buy a truck so we can feel safe and cocooned 4 feet off the road, sit in comfort in air conditioning while our kids watch DVDs in the back, why shouldn’t someone be able to sell it to us? We need to stop pointing the finger at companies we see doing evil and start pointing the finger at the real culprit in any consumer-driven society – all of us.

Study after study tells us that consumers are ready to do their part for the environment. But we know that if forced to give up even a small amount of performance or quality, consumers will not make the switch. Surveys with broad, hypothetical examples of purchase decisions do nothing to help us understand how consumers behave at crunch time. When facing the aisle of choices at the supermarket, which brands gets chosen? When shopping for a new car, which ones make the short list? The reason why consumers are now flocking to fuel-efficient cars has nothing to do with the environmental sensitivities of consumers, and everything to do with the economic sensitivities of consumers.

As long as consumers are behind the wheel of what and how much is consumed, they will look out for their own benefit versus the collective good. Consider what would happen to SUV sales if the price of a barrel of oil were to suddenly drop back to $10 tomorrow morning. Would all of the newly minted eco-warriors keep buying Corollas and sit in traffic without the AC? I’m not hopeful.

Still, as a marketer, I know that consumer behaviour can be changed. But marketers are strangely absent from the discussion on climate change. We hear from scientists, politicians, even movie stars. Many people assume that marketers are largely responsible for the problem of over-consumption in the first place, so they can’t possibly be helpful in solving the problem.

Don’t blame the marketers, and don’t blame the companies. Telling a marketer to stop anticipating consumer demand in a market economy is like asking the tide not to come in. Only consumers can make the change, and marketers, like it or not, are needed to help facilitate that change.

July 3, 2008
By John Peloza PhD, Research Fellow, CIBC Centre for Corporate Governance and Risk Management