What We Really Need Is Not To Need

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 fundamentally, 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 taditional 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 even in to
incorporating social and ethical values into their business practices. 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. I know people to this day who boycott Nike.

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. Ethical shopping has
exploded, helped along by opinion leaders such as Lucy Siegel of the
Observer.  According to Co-operative Bank’s Ethical Purchasing Index 2005,
the market for ethically produced goods and services is growing four times faster
than household expenditure in the UK and is currently worth over £25 billion a
year . The
Guardian suggests that ethical investments are currently worth £6 billion
in the UK [2] and
that there are around 1500 Fairtrade product lines.

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.

Contributed By Diana Verde Nieto of Clownfish Marketing