As net zero by 2050 looms and the urgency builds for businesses to reduce their impact on the environment, where does the responsibility lie for galvanising this movement?
There are multiple possible answers. Should governments be doubling down on businesses and introducing even more legislation to force the agenda forwards, perhaps with greater incentives dangled for ‘early’ adopters?
Or should companies be carving out the way by reshaping their business models on sustainable principles and, where there is stock, taking full responsibility for only using environmentally friendly materials and production methods? This way, consumers would have no choice but to buy ‘eco’.
Or should the momentum be driven by consumer demand? If shoppers only buy sustainable products and services from responsible firms, they will push the economies of scale and force less responsible firms to either pivot or go under.
The answer is, of course, a complex combination of all these.
However, until now too much responsibility has been placed on the shoppers themselves, for example through a focus on stamping out greenwashing so they can make educated choices. The choice to only buy ‘sustainable’ places an impossible burden on consumers. It requires a significant investment of time to research the sustainable products available and verify their claims. Furthermore, what is even more prohibitive, is that buying eco almost universally still comes with a higher price tag. The ‘sustainability premium’ placed on these products makes them simply not an option for most consumers.
Nonetheless, despite cost-of-living pressures, nine in ten consumers are prioritising sustainability in their buying practices with 80% willing to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods, according to research. In fact, some consumers are prepared to pay on average 9.7% more for such products. Another study suggests that consumers are willing to spend up to 24% more for sustainable products.
But why should they?
What does the sustainability premium pay for?
There is no question that there are factors which make producing, moving and selling sustainable products more expensive. For example, eco-friendly materials like organic cotton, recycled or biodegradable plastic, or responsibly sourced wood can cost more to source and come in smaller volumes. The administration behind developing and certifying sustainable products also adds time and costs, among other factors.
Nonetheless, the end consumer should stay front of mind throughout production decisions, and if the end product will outprice most consumers, then sustainable brands should try harder to innovate and knock that down or at least absorb some of that cost. We need to encourage more people to shop responsibly rather than sabotage the sustainability drive by making it exclusive. Making eco products more affordable will ultimately help retailers’ bottom line because it will bring more consumers to the market and shape buying habits. Enhanced brand loyalty is another benefit, so it’s a win-win.
Sustainability as a luxury
Unfortunately, there are many sectors in which sustainability is still seen as an opportunity to inflate prices, arguably without justified cause. Taking the baby sector as an example, brands often appear to treat sustainability like high-end fashion by adding a dramatically inflated price tag and a hubris of luxury. This approach to products that are targeted at parents of young families, who may be experiencing a particularly challenging time financially, makes little sense and lends sustainable products an air of exclusivity.
For example, some parenting brands charge upwards of £16 – and much more – for one baby plate, or the equivalent of £4 for a baby spoon, in a market where both these items are readily available at £1 each, and less. Quality and safety are paramount in this sector, but these do not need to be compromised for retailers to be realistic about what the average family can afford. Parents shouldn’t be forced to make the decision between being environmentally responsible or cost savvy.
To lean on an example, this sentiment was central to Vital Baby’s decision to fully absorb the cost of developing a biodegradable range of everyday baby products by incorporating innovative EarthSmart technology, proving that the cost of being more sustainable does not have to be passed on to the consumer.
Retailers, like all businesses, have a duty to do their bit to respond to climate emergencies. Even if a portion of consumers are prepared to spend more, by making sustainable products exclusive it disincentivises those shoppers who would like to ‘buy eco’ but cannot absorb the additional cost and is counterproductive.
Society does not need ‘high-end sustainability’, it just needs it to be affordable and businesses should be doing all they can to make sustainability become the standard.
