From Sustainability to Beauty

Talk to company representatives about Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR - and they are likely to see it as an important thing to integrate into their business practices, if that has not already been done. Talk to your neighbours or colleagues, i.e. to "normal" people about CSR, and they are likely to mistrust the whole concept as just another empty promise.

Mistrust is responsible for the seemingly fragile or sometimes nonexisting relationship of companies, brands, institutions or authorities towards their users, consumers, or citizens. Yet, without trust, communities cannot bring about change. We cannot even speak about communities, if there is no trust that knits the players (in CSR terminology: "stakeholders") together.

In terms of sustainability, Michael Braungart, a key proponent of the Cradle-to-Cradle-concept, puts his finger on the shortcomings of sustainability: Sustainability, as it is practiced today, has the empty promise, that people suspect to be there, often built into it. All the talk about reducing carbon footprint or using less toxic material or reducing waste still is about being a little less bad, it is just "guilt management and celebrating mediocrity", as Braungart puts it. More radical approaches are needed: Having a big footprint, but a positive one (like ants). Using no toxic material at all. Eliminating the concept of waste - what we call waste today should be (technical) nutrients. Design that follows these principles is no longer eco design or sustainable design or green design in Braungart's view, but Total Beauty Design ("If it's toxic it is not beautiful.")

Also among designers I noted that Beauty (without quotation marks!) is being charged with new meaning: Beauty stands for natural, unobtrusive design, it is timeless and functional, often biomimetic, it makes you feel connected to the Earth and to your fellow beings.

The great thing is that Total Beauty is a lot easier to communicate than CSR, as it is does not even need words. Beauty can be recognized through the eyes, through touching, tasting and smelling. When people stop trusting glossy PR brochures, they still trust their senses.

Are companies ready to trust their own senses?

Surviving LOHAS

The New York Times recently had an article on Americans who are preparing for the worst - the worst being natural catastrophes like Katrina, blackouts, terrorist attacks or any other incidents that would make essentials like energy or food unaffordable or unavailable: People start to stockpile canned food and medicine, they grow vegetables in their gardens and install solar panels on their roofs.
The phenomenon was coined “New Survivalism” and is backed by authers like Barton M. Biggs, the former chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley, who wrote in his new book “Wealth, War and Wisdom”, that people should stock their homes with “seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.”

Sounds too gloomy ? Compare this to a sunnier view of the future:

“The LOHAS market forecast is sunny and is predicted to grow to $420 billion by 2010, and $845 billion by 2014. Fortunately, the influential LOHAS market believes that it is important for companies not just to be profitable, but to be mindful of their impact on the environment and society.” (American wellness network – but could have been found elsewhere too)

LOHAS is short for Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability – and people adopting that lifestyle are seen as the pace makers for the economy. LOHAS means consumption. Critical consumption. Green consumption. Sustainable consumption. Therefore, countless surveys, marketing strategies and business cases are developed around the LOHAS market potential. But the LOHAS industry is built on an overly optimistic scenario: Climate change leads to ecological awareness and more conscious consumption patterns. What if climate change and other catastrophes come closer to home? Will people still fall for green marketing and sustainability messages?

The “New survivalists” offer some lessons.

See also my earlier post on likely effects of climate change.

Renewable emails?

Shocking news: emails, avatars, blogs like this - well everything that is part of the internet is adding to climate change! Süddeutsche wrote today (based on an NYT article) that a single Google search requires the same energy as a 11-Watt-light bulb per hour and a Second Life avatar needs an average 1752 kwh per year - more than some real humans for instance in India. Research from Prognos Institut estimated that electricity consumption for internet is responsible for CO2 emissions of 4 million tons per year in Germany alone, putting Internet on the same level as the aviation industry. As data traffic is constantly increasing, internet is a real (climate) killer application.
This puts a lot of internet offers - from eco-innovation blogs like the one at treehugger to established green brands like greenpeace and every one in the LOHAS (lifestyle of health and sustainability) customer segment at a serious dilemma. An equivalent to recycled paper is needed: Recycled webpages? Well, close: If you choose a black instead of a white background for your site, this will substantially reduce energy consumption for most monitors. For the clear eco-conscience, you can get a CO2 free e-mail address from atomstromfreies Internet an initiative of Greenpeace Energy. A great idea is also to ban email, at least for one day, as U.S.Cellular did with its "email free friday" (see story in Wall Street Journal), an initiative meant to ease workers' overload. Or just pull the plug.