Stage 1 Report 'Creating a Sustainable World: Who is Responsible?' by Ellie Nicholls

STAGE ONE STAGE ONE STAGE ONE

CREATING A SUSTAINABLE WORLD: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Fig 1.

Fig 2. Fig 4.

Fig 3. Fig 5.

Fig 6.

CONTENTS CONTENTS 04

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

RATIONALE

LITERATURE REVIEW

RESEARCH GAP ANALYSIS

PEST ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH METHODS

RESEARCH FINDINGS

KEY INSIGHTS

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ILLUSTRATIONS

40 APPENDIX

PREFACE PREFACE The remarkable worldwide focus towards issues such as sustainability and over-consumption has led to continuous scrutiny over governments and brands efforts to tackle its devasting effects. It has become apparent that there is a new type of consumer emerging in which behaving consciously is becoming an integral part of their everyday lives; not only shaping their purchasing habits but the way they interact with brands too. The growing prevalence of consumers choosing to live a sustainable lifestyle is affecting many industry sectors including fashion, beauty and food & drink. As a result, brands must take the necessary steps to alleviate these issues in order to align with the growing demands of the ‘conscious consumer’; as well as, to compete effectively if the correct tools are used alongside a rigorous Corporate Social Responsibility strategy. A personal passion for creating more sustainable solutions, that not only reduce but eradicate wasteful habits and practices, is the research question’s raison d’être. Sustainability is a particularly compelling topic to investigate as it universally understood; although the effects of global warming will vary across the globe, most people can agree that action needs to be taken.

Fig 7.

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Stage 1 report will explore different themes and events that have contributed to the importance of conscious living today. It aims to explore how brands work collaboratively with consumers, brands and bodies of government in order to create successful sustainable initiatives. Using a variety of primary and secondary research that will be analysed alongside case studies, in order to unearth new insights into the topic which could impel new business opportunities. A literature review will be incorporated into the report, which will provide an overview of current research and theories based around the research topic. The main body of the report will discuss and analyse the primary research and its findingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Following this, the report will end with a critical reflection of the research undertaken and identify key insights that will be considered in the Stage 2 Report.

Fig 8.

Fig 9.

Sustainability has come to the forefront of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumers consciousness, as a landmark report by the UN warned that there is only a mere twelve years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C - beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. As a result of this, many people across the world are changing the face of typical consumerism by demanding for brands to behave more sustainably and transparently. Unsurprisingly, external factors such as Brexit and economic apprehension has exacerbated universal feelings of distrust and anxiety towards major organisations, as consumers no longer feel their futures are in safe hands. Moreover, the rise of social media as a news source; the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fake news phenomenon and growing distrust of facts offered by establishments such businesses and governments has caused public trust to dramatically fall. Both factors have consequently resulted in more people boycotting untrustworthy brands and governments and creating their own movements which tackle many issues surrounding Sustainability. Despite the current state of the world looking bleak and pessimistic, this report aims to evaluate to what extent are individuals, brands and governments taking responsibility over the contribution each has made to destroying the planet and how co-creation, collaborations and innovation can be harnessed to alleviate and improve such issues.

RATIONALE 7

LITERATURE REVIEW A variety of culturally varied secondary research was reviewed for this report, offering insightful and meaningful perspectives from numerous researchers, which helped to build on information gathered beyond initial primary research. Primary research conducted was limited to the UK only, whilst secondary reading was extended globally â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both forms of research will generate ideas for Stage 2. Secondary research will inform for research gap analysis which will focus primary research carried out. Full references for secondary research can be found in both the appendix and bibliography that contributed to the development of this report.

Fig .

Fig11.

Fig 12.

C0-CREATION

Co-creation is the most direct way of connecting to audiences who increasingly seek two-way conversations and the opportunity to create their own content. This comes in age in which consumers are becoming progressively cynical towards trust, authenticity and transparency promised by brands (Bulbshare, 2018). A contributor for the demand for more emotional and authentic relationships with brands, stems from the ‘PostTruth phenomenon’, in which consumers are becoming increasingly vocal about ‘trust scarcity’ (The Future Laboratory, Monotype & Olapic 2017).

Co-creation has been defined in numerous ways but is most commonly elucidated as ‘involving your endusers in one or more stages of the innovation process’ (SUNIDEE, 2017) to ‘give voices to real people, empowering them to create richer brand experiences that better resonate with themselves and peers’ (Bulbshare, 2018). There are two main features of co-creation as an approach to improve consumer-brand relationships: one being the expansion of organisational boundaries and the second is the involvement of co-creators i.e. the customers (Roser et al. 2013).

The new wave of co-creation technology marks a transformative shift in how brands can connect directly with their audiences in a personal and targeted space; thus making co-creation an attractive way to facilitate conversation, to connect and understand behaviours of younger audiences, such as Gen-Z’s, who have grown up with the ‘ability to broadcast their voices and opinions to thousands of followers and friends’ (Bulbshare, 2018). These co-creation technologies can assist brands who have a focus on younger generations such as Millennials and Gen-Z’s, by not only helping to create-customer centric products and service but transform themselves as a force for good; by incorporating co-creation into marketing campaigns that explore the importance of sustainability to younger consumers who are “choosing to spend more money on goods from sustainable or ethical companies,” (Greenmatch, 2018). According to the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan (USLP) annual progress report ‘half of Unilever’s growth in 2016 came from its sustainable living brands’.

Social media has distinguished itself as a ‘highly interactive platform’ (Kang,2014) through which customers (users) and brands (communities) share, co-create and discuss usergenerated content. User-generated content (UGC) is when customers create their own ‘product’, such as a campaign inspired picture, that is then shared on their personal social media platform. Allowing customers to contribute towards a specific creative initiative can reduce the cost of interaction towards other consumers, as the UGC shared on social media platforms allow for the ‘incorporation of peers’ to give feedback and participate themselves (Piller et al. 2011).

Fig 13.

Although technology has been a driving force behind the accessibility and growth of co-creation, there is reason to question the extent of which conversation and interaction is truly representative of consumers. 65% of people reported that ‘they do not feel social media is a place where they can truly say what they think’ (Bulbshare, 2018), which might suggest this method of co-creation no longer provides a deep enough level of insight to brands.

Fig 14.

Moreover, there is a lack of empirical research regarding repurchase and brand loyalty in relation to social co-creation (Kang, 2014). Therefore, brands should look to develop a base of loyal customers who frequently interact with co-creation and create strategies that boost repeated consumption behaviour in order to successfully implement social co-creation platforms. Brands should consider ‘value equity’ when implementing co-creation as a marketing strategy, this represents a customer’s assessment of how well ‘the firm’s products are meeting expectations’ (Vogel et al, 2008). For example, comparing what is being given up (i.e. the price paid for a product or service) to what is received in return (value of product to the consumer); a good price-quality ratio indicates high-value equity. A perceived level of high value equity of social co-creation may lead to increased levels of commitment and repurchase loyalty to sustainable brands.

SUSTAINABILIT Y AS A SELFCONCEPT Fig 15.

Fig 16. In their behaviour, humans are often guided by individualist short-term concerns. But this is not always the case: as humans are ‘cognitively equipped to extend their self-concept so that it includes other humans, nature and their common future.’ (Postmes, 2013). The extensions of self-concept are likely to advocate sustainable actions and can lead to taking on sustainability as a self-concept. As a large majority of the public in western countries accepts that global warming is taking place, the population as a while is ‘moderately willing to endorse’ making changes to their lifestyles to alleviate its effects (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006). Despite this, it is evident in the continuation of global warming and depleting resources that individuals remain reluctant to make change to their own behaviours.

This power struggle between positive intent and reluctance to change can ‘actually produce remarkable amounts of collaboration and prosocial behaviour’ (Ostrom, 2000). The rise of social media has a large role to play in forming sustainability of a self-concept, as consumersare quite often exposed to images and videos ofconscious lifestyles such as share images and videos of conscious living , such as veganism and secondhand thrifting accounts. As a result of this, consumers may subconsciously decide to behave the same as a result of Social Identity Theory (Tajfe, 1972), which suggests that in order to ‘belong’ we take on the ‘beliefs and rituals’ of a group we desire to be in. Thus suggesting, peers can have a large effect on buying behaviours, particularly if they require beliefs.

Fig 17.

A POST-TRUTH ERA

Fig 18.

A common theme found from analysis of secondary research is the idea of a post-truth era as a driving force for disconnection and distrust amongst consumers. As Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2016, post truth is defined as ‘the circumstances in which claims that appeal to emotion and personal belief have more influence on public opinion than objective facts’ (The Future Laboratory, Monotype & Olapic 2017). A number of sources have claimed that the world has entered a ‘post-truth era’, which has been fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered by establishments such as businesses, media outlets and nonprofits operating independently from the government (NGOs).

41% 41%

Public tust in government has fallen by 41%. -Edelman’s Trust Barometer

‘Brands that are more transparent and have an authentic purpose that consumers can align themselves with, are the ones that they respond to because they feel true.’ - Rodney Abbot Consequently, the digital landscape of today offers no place to hide, as consumers are demonstrating their strong dislike of dishonest communication. There have been many cases of brands found to be misreporting emission levels and workers conditions, such as Volkswagen and Apple. High profile cases such as these, has resulted in consumers questioning the promises and facts provided by such organisations and even boycotting. Neil Levy proposed that ‘in order for promises to be sustained, people’s decisions and therefore their beliefs, must be guided by evidence.’ (Levy, 2017). This suggests that brands need to adopt ultra-transparent messaging, which illustrates their ability practice ethically and sustainably, in order to engage with consumers and build trust.

Emerging from the post-truth era are future-facing brands that have a more authentic relationship with consumers and interact using a ‘two-way conversation’. This will be important in building loyalty as consumers such as GenZ’s and millenialls like brands that align with their own beliefs. A survey by the Edelman Trust Barometer found that ‘56% of the public said ethical and open business practices are important to building their trust in a company’ (2017).

Moreover, developing a consumer into a brand advocate through transparent marketing campaigns can increase the likelihood of similar consumers placing trust into a brand. A new study by the Edelman Trust Barometer found that 60% of people consider a person ‘like yourself is considered a far more credible source of information about a company than a CEO or government’.

41% 41%

‘56% of the public said ethical and open business practices are important to building their trust in a company’ Edelman Trust Barometer Gardener proposes that as consumers look for more honest and trustworthy brands to purchase from, transparent marketing campaigns can open a dialogue about twoway responsibility (Gardener et al, 2018). Brands who recognise their responsibility for all aspects of their supply chains to be transparent and available to research by consumers, including ‘traders, processors, retailers and investors’, are likely to encourage consumers to be conscious about items they purchase in the future, thus taking responsibility themselves. According to Bruce Duckworth, brands which create conversation and a genuine relationship with customers, are “breeding a different type of consumer: The New Evangelical.” He proposes that by constructing authenticity and affinity through consumer involvement, such as conversation as to why new products are developed and used, will encourage the new evangelical audience to ‘recruit customers’ (The Future Laboratory, Monotype & Olapic 2017).

Fig 19.

SEE NOW, BUY NOW EFFECT Whilst there is evidence to suggest that sustainable lifestyles and the demand for sustainable products are increasing, there is much to be said for those who continue to buy less consciously, despite being aware of the implications of doing so. Much of this behaviour stems from the availability of products at low prices, causing consumers to purchase items before thinking of a rational reason to do so, this is known as ‘impulse buying’. Applebaum (1951) described impulse buying as out-come of promotional stimuli and that buying items are not in advance in a consumer’s mind before a shopping trip. Whilst other theories of consumer behaviour believe that impulse buying and buying in general is far a more complex action. The System 1 and System 2 theory proposed by Psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, suggests that both emotional (System 1) and rational (System 2) factors contribute to decision making. However, System 1 is often neglected in traditional marketing, as it is harder to access (Hollingworth and Barker, 2018). Both theories suggest that rational factors such as discount promotions contribute to impulse buying, as customers are focused on the low price of the product over the need for it.

Fig 20. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory that emphasizes how basic human needs can drive consumption’ Maslow’s basic human needs are structured in a way that lower-order needs, such as physiological and safety, are to be satisfied first in order to reach ‘self-actualisation’ (Maslow, 1965) – this is referred to as the ‘gratification/activation principle. Self-actualisation can be achieved by ‘being the most one can be’, consumers decisions are often led by the need to reach self-actualisation and can be used to explain why impulsive buying occurs (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The See now, Buy Now Effects goes beyond impulse buying, it is a consequence of the changes in the power structure in the market; as consumers are no longer passive agents, increasingly demanding lower prices and faster availability of new trends (Chandra, 2017). Consequently, this has engrained on modern consumers as this growing demand pressures brands to comply- thus feeding the cycle of over-consumption.

RESEARCH GAP ANALYSIS

Although, the Literature Review assisted in gaining insight from academic journals and studies regarding how co-creation and post-truth eras have shaped consumer attitudes towards Sustainability. The following points were taken into consideration after completing the Literature Review, in order to identify gaps in research, which will be used to explore these themes further using a variety of primary research methods.

Fig 21.

What does sustainability mean to different demographics? To what extent are consumers prioritising conscious consumption in their daily lives? Are brands taking on a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;conscious consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; voice on social media to align to conscious generation attitudes? Is there an element of denial in responsibility amongst consumers and brands?

Fig 22.

Do people feel pressured to behave and shop consciously, in a time where sustainability has such a large focus? What are the key deterrents for purchasing sustainably? Which types of co-creation are Gen-Zs most likely to participate in?

PEST ANALYSIS P

Political uncertainty is a huge external factor for Sustainability as its prevalence in everyday life continues to grow. Lack of trust towards governments and irresolution’s caused by Brexit, are contributing towards growing doubts that not enough is being done by governments and brands in efforts to create a more sustainable future; including the achievability of meeting the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) set by the United Nations. As a result of this, consumer activism is contributing towards a large shift in buying behaviours as more people continue to look for brands that share their beliefs and promote sustainable initiatives, such as specialising in vegan diet or reducing the use of plastic in packaging.

E S T

The volatility of the pounds value as a result of Brexit is creating concern for many, as consumers may become reluctant to spend their disposable income on ecofriendly products, which typically are more expensive than ‘normal’ products. Moreover, brands may not have finance to invest in implementing innovations that could improve their sustainability on a mass production scale and could therefore be considered a large financial risk.

The social factors associated with sustainability will differ across each generation, as its importance varies across the ages. In particular, younger generations such as Gen-Z and Millennials who grew up in a society where eco-consciousness was a norm, therefore environmental consciousness is more likely to be engrained into their identity and buying behaviours; this has likely led to the rise in popularity of eco-trends such as metal straws and thrifting secondhand clothes. In addition to this, younger consumers have the opportunity to become more connected with like-minded people, who share their concerns for the environment, as often consumers seek to integrate with people similar to themselves. Technology is a huge aspect contributing to the increased focus on sustainability as we ‘transition into the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ (Salamen, 2017), that incorporates technological infrastructures and digital economies. Scientific and technological innovations contribute largely to this report’s research objectives, which will explore areas of innovation that could be applied by brands to improve their sustainability.

METHODOLOGY AIM

The aim of this research is to explore the current value of sustainability to consumers and identify the effect it has on behaviour and consumer-brand relationships, in order to inform successful sustainable initiatives.

OBJECTIVES

In order to achieve the stated aim above, objectives have been tailored to ensure in-depth and specific insights are explored in relation to the topic. The objectives will provide a clear focus to the primary research carried out and will be referred to when discussing findings.

1 2 3

To determine the shifting societal behaviours and influencing drives, regarding sustainability. To investigate different types of co-creation and collaboration and asses each’s level of engagement with consumers. To evaluate co-creation and collaborations according to type, including advantages and drawbacks, as a tool to create sustainable initiatives.

To explore areas of innovation that have yet to be exploited in the mass market and discuss how future advances in technology and science could assist collaborations.

SECONDARY RESEARCH For the Stage 1 Report a variety of secondary data was reviewed and analysed to understand ‘what is already known and what remains to be learnt’ (Johnston,2014) regarding the chosen topics such as Post-Truth Era and The See Now, Buy Now Effect. The analysis of the secondary data has been utilised in several ways: helping to conceptualise the research question; forming research aims and objectives; and identifying key gaps in research to inform survey and interview questions. In the case of this research a comprehensive literature review of areas of interest was carried out, examining the previous work of experts in the field of sustainability and co-creation. Through the literature review, further theories and business models were identified that were applied in to the analysis of both primary and secondary data further in the report. Prior to conducting the literature review each piece of secondary research was reviewed using evaluative steps to ensure all information gathered met the criteria, for example: who was responsible for collecting the information; what information was collected; when was the information collected; and the consistency of data gathered versus data from other sources. For the purpose of this report academic journals and books, news articles, TED Talks and lectures were investigated.

Fig 23.

DEMOGRAPHICS “Keep in mind that generations are a lens through which to understand societal change, rather than a label with which to oversimplify differences between groups.” Michael Dimock, President of Pew Research

Considering demographics is key to effective market research, particularly primary, as selecting the opinions of relevant consumers will reveal ‘key truths’ (Bridges,2013) about areas of interest such as the impact that these populations have on the market or their buying behaviour. The demographics focused on by the online survey (Appendix 1) covered a broad age range, from 18 years of age to 74 years of age, to act as a baseline of opinions and scope attitudes towards sustainability and consumer purchasing behaviours. The data gathered from the survey was used to inform questions for both the shopping observation and individual interviews. Both of which focused primarily on Generation-Z, defined by Pew Research as individuals ‘born from 1995 onwards’ (Dimock, 2019). However, due to ethical reasons further research only focuses on those aged between 18-24.

The research will target Gen-Z’s aged 18-24, this generation is expected to become the largest consumer market by 2020 (Turk, 2018) and have been recognised as having huge spending power over brands. Whilst there is debate surrounding the age range which qualifies those to be apart of the Gen-Z community, there are significant behavioural differences that makes Generation-Z a unique set of consumers. For example, gen-z’s choose to spend more on products from sustainable and ethical companies; the population isn’t as concerned with brand loyalty as their predecessors, including millennials; and are more willing to boycott companies that fail to meet their values and connect with them on an emotional level. Therefore, targeting gen-z’s through primary research, will capture consumers that are focused on purchasing from brands that share their own beliefs, this will help to determine how vital it is for brands to align with changing consumer behaviour.

PRIMARY RESEARCH Conducting a Literature Review based on secondary research, informed this report by identifying key areas that required further exploration by carrying out primary research. This section wil discuss and evaluate primary research methods used.

RESEARCH RESEARCH MATRIX MATRIX

ONLINE ONLINE SURVEY SURVEY

Fig 24.

RATIONALE RATIONALE :: To scope attitudes towards sustainability and consumer attitudes and purchasing behaviour surrounding it. There are many advantages associated with the use of collecting information using technology, online surveys, which can help contribute towards analysing responses, one being that by ‘using web-based evaluation questionnaires can bypass many of the bottlenecks in the evaluation system’ (Watts, 2002). By simplifying the measuring and data collection of attitudes and behaviours on a large number of participants far more cheaply and quickly than other research methods This research method was chosen to gather and scope general opinions and behaviours of a varied sample group, aged 18 to 74 years, to compare how generations differ. The online survey, which received 116 responses, was made up of multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions which gave participants opportunities to expand on their answers if needed. A variation of questions allowed for participants to specify reasoning behind sustainable purchases; barriers to purchasing sustainable products and specify sustainable products or brands they have bought in the past. This research method allowed for the research to gain quantitative data, providing statistics and numerical figures; as well as qualitative data which ensured the information collected was true to the respondent’s beliefs and not based around an option that does not suit them.

This resulted in a variety of responses (Appendices 1,2), which led to insights about the different brands and products that consumer groups identify with as ‘sustainable’; which helped to inform questions for both the shopping observation and individual interviews. The limitations of the online survey included potential misunderstanding of terms used regularly throughout the research, for example ‘sustainable’ and ‘ethical’. Although, this was not flagged up as an issue by participants, on reflection it may have been useful to provide definitions of jargon used, to ensure the participants understood exactly what they were answering. Additionally, the survey was shared via social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which limited the opportunity to reach an older demographic. This is reflective in the responses collected, as 89% were from participants aged 18-24 years old. Consequently, the data gathered will not be truly representative of the beliefs of the whole sample.

OBSERVATION RATIONALE RATIONALE ::

Fig 25.

To analyse and compare participants System 1 and System 2 reasoning to understand thought process behind decision making, in relation to sustainable and ethical purchases. The aim of this research method was to access System 1 and System 2 reasoning to understand the consumers thought process behind sustainable and ethical purchases. The System 1 and System 2 behavioural theory suggests that most buying decisions are made on autopilot rather than logically thought out. The theory was popularised by psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, whose book Fast and Slow Thinking has had huge influence in the marketing industry. Typically, most formal communication and messaging is tailored towards the rational and analytical, System 2, however â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;this neglects decision making from System 1.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Hollingworth and Barker, 2018). System 1 decision-making is driven by emotion and reaction. Whilst each have distinct roles in the decision-making process, one cannot operate without the other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; however modern-day marketing fails to appeal to the more unconscious System 1, as it is harder to access. Appendix 4 illustrates a detailed comparison of each systems features.This research method had a sample size of 4 participants, aged 18 to 24 years, and was comprised of three components that focused on sustainable and ethical purchasing: a short online questionnaire (Appendix 2); a seven-day shopping diary (Appendix 3); and an accompanied shopping trip (Appendix 4). The research targeted two males and two females, aged 18 to 24 years.

The questionnaire and diary were used to examine participants System 2 decision making, in which the participants will report why they think they purchase items, such as price and reliability. Whilst, the observed shopping trip was intended to access System 1 decision making, in which more subtle drivers were identified such as emotion, colour and logos. Comparison and analysis of responses shown at each stage of the research method concluded that emotion and brand values have a huge part to play in purchasing sustainable products. However, all participants considered price and functionality as an important factor for this too, suggesting that brands should leverage both system 1 and system 2 if they wish to creative the best marketing campaign.

Fig 26.

“Customers need a rational excuse to justify their emotional decisions so always include one.” - David Ogilvy

INTERVIEWS

RATIONALE RATIONALE ::

To advance perspectives into the value of sustainability and emotional connections with brands. This research method used a semistructured interview design (App 7.) in which 6 participants aged 18-24 years, were asked a series of questions focusing on sustainability and cocreation. A semi-structured design was chosen for this method as it allows for more ‘conversational style with open)ended questions’ (Coolican, 2017). This was ideal for the research as stimulus was used, to support the oneto-one interviews, which occassionally required further prompting from the interviewer. The interview questions were sectioned into themes: with part 1 consisting of questions about sustainability. After which participants were shown various stimuli (App5) which comprised of various campaigns with a strong sustainability focus; participants were then prompted to use emotion cards (App 6) provided to describe initial responses to the stimuli, this was followed by a series of questions specific to each stimuli.

Part 2 focused on co-creation: this began with questions about relationships and experienced formed by brands. After which, participants were presented with stimuli which illustrated the 5 Types of Co-Creation (SUNIDEE, 2017). Listed below are the brands, products and services used as examples to help define each type of co-creation.

Co-creation workshops – DHL Parcelcopter Crowdsourcing – Oreo Daily Twist Open Source – Benetech Code Alliance Mass Customisation - NikeID UGC – #mycalvins

Five questions followed the stimuli, in which participants were asked to discuss each type of co-creation including: engagement levels; likelihood of participation; and the use of hashtags in marketing campaigns. Responses were analysed and organised into themes and attitudes, in order to identify commonalities amongst the participants. The semi-structured interviews produced invaluable insights, as the nature of the method allowed for a more informal and relaxed atmosphere which can produce meaningful and forthcoming answers (Coolican, 2017). All participants were enthusiastic about the themes discussed and provided interesting examples to support answers, such as campaigns they had participated in. These insights prompted further research for the Stage 1 report, such as researching emotive campaigns described by the participants. The sample selected for this research method may have produced biases in the findings, as all six participants came from similar backgrounds; all attended university at Nottingham Trent and came from the same social backgrounds. Consequently, these factors may have influenced participants to closely share beliefs and opinions alike, which may not be reflective of gen-z as a whole.

Fig 28.

EXPERT INTERVIEWS RATIONALE :

To gain industry specific knowledge regarding upcoming advances in innovation and the use of co-creation amongst brands to form sustainable initiatives. The industry expert interviews were designed to gain industry specific information about sustainability and co-creation, that was missing from previous methods. From a marketing perspective, an expert interview is an ‘exploratory’ research technique, therefore it was crucial to select the experts based on factors such as credibility and credentials (Tougas, 2008).

Fig 27.

To begin, 10 experts were contacted via LinkedIn, a business and employmentorientated service available on-line and mobile apps. Initial correspondence summarised: who was conducting the research and why; what the interview would be entail; and a response date. After a response was received, the experts were sent the main interview and ethics forms to complete (App 8). Information provided was collated and analysed into common themes. Some limitations of this method included issues with response rate, despite all 10 experts responding to the initial correspondence, only four experts answered the interview questions sent after this. The small sample size created a missed opportunity to gather insights into the science and technology industry, which may have informed potential innovations that brands might use in the future to improve their sustainability. Despite this, the depth in which the four experts responded to each question lead to huge insights, based on their credentials such as CEO’s of sustainable brands ‘ReWorks’ and ‘Ditto’. Their industry experience meant they all referred relevant figures and case studies which illuminated their points of view.

Fig 29.

RESEARCH FINDINGS The following section aims to further analyse the question ‘Creating a Sustainable World: Who is Responsible?’ by using both primary and secondary research undertaken for the Stage One Report. The final findings depicted have been sectioned into common themes and arguments, that have informed key insights to take forward into the Stage Two Report.

SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY AS AS AA SELF-CONCEPT SELF-CONCEPT CO-CREATION CO-CREATION TRANSPARENCY TRANSPARENCY IS IS KEY KEY

SUSTAINABILIT Y AS A SELFCONCEPT

Findings from both primary and secondary research conducted for the Stage One Report, indicates that ‘Sustainability as a Self-Concept’ will continue to occur amongst consumers, as they now widely accept responsibility for the devasting effects of global warming. Consumers now expect to see brands operating with sustainability and ethics in mind and will boycott those who continue to change. Of the 116 respondents from the online survey (App 1) conducted, 59% said they would stop buying from their favourite brand if they found out they were being dishonest about how ethically/sustainably they operate. This is reflective of the huge spending power Generation-Z has, which is expected to be the largest consumer market by 2020 (Turk, 2018). Moreover, we are seeing a shift in the motivations behind purchasing consciously, as more consumers are feeling gratified when they purchase consciously. The online survey found that 63% of respondents said they purchase a sustainable product because ‘it makes me feel like I’m doing my bit’. This could suggest that buying sustainably is not a hassle and is something enjoyed by the consumer. However, 53% of respondents said they would buy a sustainable/ethical product but ‘only buy from brands that they trusted’. This finding is particularly significant as it aligns with posttruth era attitudes, which demands for more transparency amongst brands.

Although, consumers are beginning to buy their products, sustainable and ethical brands need to ‘open a dialogue about two-way responsibility’ (Gardener et al, 2018) for consumers to fully engage with them. On the other hand, the survey found that 81% of respondents agreed ‘It is harder to behave and purchase with sustainability in mind because it requires me to break habits.’ This was a common theme throughout primary research, in particular amongst the respondents in the one-to-one interview (App 7). Section 1 found that despite all interviewee’s expressing ‘sadness’ to the ‘No Palm Oil Christmas Campaign’, the majority of interviewee’s reported that they did not make a conscious effort to cut palm oil out of their diets after viewing the campaign. Interviewee 3, who had seen the campaign previous to the interview, expressed “sadness” when asked how it made them feel but said “I had seen the advert before, but I don’t know if it has made me check for palm oil in products.” This demonstrates the complex nature of consumer behaviour, in which they actively recognise that global warming is taking place but are ‘moderately willing to endorse’ making changes to their lifestyles to alleviate its effects (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006).

Whilst tackling consumer behaviours can be hard, industry expert Roberta Lee believes that environmentally-conscious brands have the ability to change current consumer behaviours.

Fig 31.

‘Absolutely, I think what we buy and use in everyday life has a profound impact on the way we perceive things. Throw away or single-use disposable items don’t have much perceived value and the lack of respect for them is noticeable. However, when we invest in something that is made with noticeably better quality materials and shows some level of craftsmanship, we tend to value it more.’

Fig 30.

The shopping observation identified that quality was a driver when buying sustainably. Observations from a shopping trip with Participant B noted ‘as a consumer, participant B prioritises quality over price, and often chooses products made from quality materials’ (App.4). This was found to be the case amongst respondents of the online survey, when asked if they had recently bought sustainable/ ethical products, over 50% responded with ‘Yes’. Moreover, the majority of products specified by those respondents were high quality reusable bottles and travel mugs from brands such as Chilly’s and KeepCup.

KEY INSIGHTS Significant knowledge-gap: Consumers lack knowledge in ‘ecolingo’ and user-benefits this can prevent purchasing, due to lack of confidence and ability to assess value equity of products.

Co-creation is key: The more the consumer realises the power

they hold with brands, the more they will be able to exert pressure on them to make sustainability and integral part of their business plan.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, this report has critically explored the extent to which consumers and brands are responsible for creating a more sustainable world. The report recognises how co-creation and transparency can initiate a two-way conversation between brands and consumers, in which responsibility for behaving consciously is shared. These strategies may allow such brands to appeal to the growing demands of conscious Generation-Z consumers as well as establishing brand loyalty; through creating an authentic voice demonstrating care for not only the consumer but the world, as a bigger picture. This could contribute towards significant change in the way we view ‘sustainable living’, as we begin to understand that action required goes beyond the responsibility of brands to operate consciously at every point of the supply chain; but they way in which brands can appeal to consumers and tackle stubborn behavioural habits, through emotive and credible campaigns, which appeal to both System 1 and System 2. The following section describes the recommendations devised for Stage Two, the recommendations have been informed by insights gained from primary and secondary research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The first recommendation takes into account the observation that there is a significant lack in consumer knowledge about sustainable brands and products. Information such as jargon used to describe sustainable products and the user benefits are often unknown, which could deter consumers from buying particularly if the cost of the item is high. Creating an app or website, which connects users with the relevant knowledge before purchasing, would be an interesting route to consider in Stage Two, as it will further explore connecting with Gen-Z’s by using technology. This platform may be useful for smaller sustainable brands, who are looking to gain main-stream recognition, but do not have the investment to do so.

The second recommendation for Stage Two is the use of a platform that incentivises consumers to shop sustainably. It would involve brands registering their products to the platform, each product will equate to a certain amount of ‘sustainable points’ based on several factors: sourcing, materials, air-miles etc. Users can earn these points by purchasing the products through the app, as points build up users can exchange them for vouchers or perhaps a contribution towards a sustainable charity or project. This recommendation will bridge the knowledge gap experienced by consumers alongside providing a platform in which sustainable brands are recognised.

The second recommendation for Stage Two focuses on the use of co-creation and collaboration in a marketing campaign. The campaign would focus on a larger brand collaborating with a series of relatively unknown sustainable brands. The large brand would have a monthly ‘spotlight’ brand in which they sell their items.

2 3

References Applebaum, W. (1951). “Studying Consumer Behaviour in Retail Stores,” Journal of Marketing. pp 172-178. [Accessed on 7 February 2019]. Birn, R. (2002). The International Handbook of Market Research Techniques. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page, pp.43-51. Bridges, A. (2013). Demographics: The key to effective market research | Kelton Global. [online] Kelton Global. Available at: https://www.keltonglobal.com/ perspectives/demographics-the-key-to-effective-market-research/ [Accessed 1 Jan. 2019]. Bulbshare (2018). Co-creation: The future for brands. [online] pp.4-24. Available at: https://resources.bulbshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Bulbshare-ThePower-of-Co-creation-2018-final-comp.pdf [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Chandra, P. (2017). “Consumers are Now More Demanding than Ever”. [online] Digital Terminal. Available at: http://digitalterminal.in/news/consumers-arenow-more-demanding-than-ever/10375.html [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019]. Coolican, H. (2017). Research Methods and Statistic in Psychology. Psychology Press - M.U.A, pp.168-171. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). The Costs and Benefits of Consuming. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2). Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Gardner, T., Benzie, M., Börner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., Godar, J., Grimard, A., Lake, S., Larsen, R., Mardas, N., McDermott, C., Meyfroidt, P., Osbeck, M., Persson, M., Sembres, T., Suavet, C., Strassburg, B., Trevisan, A., West, C. and Wolvekamp, P. (2018). Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Development. Hackshaw, A. (2008). Small studies: strengths and limitations. European Respiratory Journal, 32(5), pp.1141-1142. Johnston, M. (2014). Secondary Data Analysis: A method of which time has come. [online] Available at: http://www.qqml.net/papers/September_2014_Issue/336QQML_ Journal_2014_Johnston_Sept_619-626.pdf [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Levy, N. (2017). Nudges in post-truth world. Journal of Medical Ethics, [online] 43(8), pp.495-500. Available at: https://jme.bmj.com/content/43/8/495.info [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Owen, L., Goldwasser, C., Choate, K. and Blitz, A. (2008). Collaborative innovation throughout the extended enterprise. Strategy & Leadership, 36(1), pp.39-45. Piller, F., Vossen, A. and Ihl, C. (2011). From Social Media to Social Product Development: The Impact of Social Media on Co-Creation of Innovation. Die Unternehmung, 65(1), pp.1-22.’ Postmes, T. (2013). Encouraging sustainable behavior: Psychology and the environment. Psychology Press.

Roser, T., DeFillippi, R. and Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co‐creation mix: co‐creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European Business Review, 25(1), pp.20-41. Salamen, Z. (2017). DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY KEY TO NEW ERA OF SUSTAINABILITY | Qatar Today. [online] Qatartoday.online. Available at: http://qatartoday.online/ digital-connectivity-key-to-new-era-of-sustainability/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. SUNIDEE. (2017). Five types of co-creation. [online] Available at: https://www. slideshare.net/sannedekoning/five-types-of-cocreation-3881999 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2018]. The Future Laboratory, Monotype & Olapic (2017). Beyond Authenticity: Winning consumer trust through co-creation, transparency and typography. [online] Woburn, pp.4-17. Available at: http://www.olapic.com/beyond-authenticity-winningconsumer-trust/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2018]. Tougas, J. (2008). How to Conduct an Expert Interview. [online] Blogspot.com. Available at: http://expertinterview.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-conduct-expertinterview.html [Accessed 7 Dec. 2018]. Turk, R. (2018). New study shows that Gen Z will strengthen sustainability trend. [online] Fashionunited.uk. Available at: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/ new-study-shows-that-gen-z-will-strengthen-sustainability-trend/2018092139068 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Vogel, V., Evanschitzky, H. and Ramaseshan, B. (2008). Customer Equity Drivers and Future Sales. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), pp.98-108. Watt, S et al. (2002). Electronic course surveys: does automating feedback and reporting give better results? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4): 325–337.

Bibliography Applebaum, W. (1951). “Studying Consumer Behaviour in Retail Stores,” Journal of Marketing. pp 172-178. [Accessed on 7 February 2019]. Adetunji, I. (2003). THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS THINKING TO THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY. pp.1-10. [Accessed on 20 January 2019]. Birn, R. (2002). The International Handbook of Market Research Techniques. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page,p p.43-51. [accessed on 20 January 2019]. Bridges, A. (2013). Demographics: The key to effective market research | Kelton Global. [online] Kelton Global. Available at: https://www.keltonglobal.com/ perspectives/demographics-the-key-to-effective-market-research/ [Accessed 1 Jan. 2019]. Burrows, D., Simpson, A. and Wright, M. (2011). Winning the persuasion game. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/behaviour-change-sustainability-persuasion-success [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Bulbshare (2018). Co-creation: The future for brands. [online] pp.4-24. Available at: https://resources.bulbshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Bulbshare-ThePower-of-Co-creation-2018-final-comp.pdf [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Chandra, P. (2017). “Consumers are Now More Demanding than Ever”. [online] Digital Terminal. Available at: http://digitalterminal.in/news/consumers-arenow-more-demanding-than-ever/10375.html [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019]. Coolican, H. (2017). Research Methods and Statistic in Psychology. Psychology Press, pp.168-171. Crommentuijn-Marsh, P., Eckert, C. and Potter, S. (2010). Consumer Behaviour Towards Sustainability in Fashion. [online] pp.1-4. Available at: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/48989722_Consumer_behaviour_towards_sustainability_in_fashion [Accessed 3 Dec. 2018]. Di Boscio, C. (2019). 5 Sustainable Fashion Trends We Love - And 5 We Hate! Eluxe Magazine. [online] Eluxe Magazine. Available at: https://eluxemagazine. com/magazine/sustainable-fashion-trends/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. [online] Pew Research Centre. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Duncan D. Nulty (2008) The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:3, 301-314, DOI: 10.1080/02602930701293231 [Accessed on 20 January 2019] Franco, E. (2018). We live in a post-truth age. Companies need to rebuild trust. [online] World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2018/03/we-live-in-a-post-truth-age-companies-need-to-rebuild-trust/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018].

Gardner, T., Benzie, M., BĂśrner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., Godar, J., Grimard, A., Lake, S., Larsen, R., Mardas, N., McDermott, C., Meyfroidt, P., Osbeck, M., Persson, M., Sembres, T., Suavet, C., Strassburg, B., Trevisan, A., West, C. and Wolvekamp, P. (2018). Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Development. Gauthier, J. and Wooldridge, B. (2011). Influences on Sustainable Innovation Adoption: Evidence from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Business Strategy and the Environment, [online] 21, pp.98-110. Available at: https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bse.716 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Goworek, H., Oxborrow, L., Claxton, S., McLaren, A., Cooper, T. and Hill, H. (2018). Managing sustainability in the fashion business: Challenges in product development for clothing longevity in the UK. Journal of Business Research, [online] pp.1-5. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0148296318303345 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Gooch, A. (2017). Bridging divides in a post-truth world - OECD. [online] Oecd. org. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/governance/bridging-divides-in-a-posttruth-world.htm [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Grappi, S., Romani, S. and Barbarossa, C. (2017). Fashion without pollution: How consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, pp.1164-1173. Greenmatch.co.uk. (2018). 4 Ways Gen Z Supports Green Companies. [online] Available at: https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2018/09/gen-zs-sustainableshopping-habits [Accessed 26 Jan. 2019]. Hackshaw, A. (2008). Small studies: strengths and limitations. European Respiratory Journal, 32(5), pp.1141-1142. Harbick, S. (2016). Transparency drives sustainability. [online] Eco-Business. Available at: https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/transparency-drivessustainability/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019]. Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of Post Truth, Post Politics, And Attention Economies. Communication, Culture & Critique. [online] pp.1-3. Available at: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/272752872_Regimes_of_Post-truth_Post-politics_and_ Attention_Economies [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Healy, J. and McDonagh, P. (2012). Consumer roles in brand culture and value cocreation in virtual communities. Journal of Business Research, [online] 66(9), pp.1528-1540. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ pii/S0148296312002512 [Accessed 2 Dec. 2018]. Hirscher, A., NiinimĂ¤ki, K. and Joyner Armstrong, C. (2018). Social Manufacturing in the fashion sector: New value creation through alternative design strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 172, pp.4544-4547. Available at: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617326719 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Hitt, M. (2012). Using Secondary Data to do Quality Research. [Accessed on 20 January 2019].

Hollingworth, C. and Barker, L. (2018). System 1 and System 2: Two Modes of Thinking. [online] Rwconnect.esomar.org. Available at: https://rwconnect.esomar. org/system-1-and-system-2-two-modes-of-thinking/ [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019]. Hooper, L. (2017). 8 sustainability trends that will define 2018, according to Cambridge leadership network — Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. [online] Cisl.cam.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/newsitems/8-sustainability-trends-that-will-define-2018-according-to-cambridgeleadership-network [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. I-scoop.eu. (n.d.). IoT, data and connectivity for sustainability – looking ahead. [online] Available at: https://www.i-scoop.eu/technology-sustainability/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Johnston, M. (2014). Secondary Data Analysis: A method of which time has come. [online] Available at: http://www.qqml.net/papers/September_2014_Issue/336QQML_ Journal_2014_Johnston_Sept_619-626.pdf [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Kang, J. (2014). Repurchase loyalty for customer social co-creation e-marketplaces. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, [online] 18(4), pp.452-464. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018]. Kang, J. (2017). Customer interface design for customer co-creation in the social era. Computers in Human Behaviour, [online] 73, pp.554-558. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.032Get rights and content [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Levy, N. (2017). Nudges in post-truth world. Journal of Medical Ethics, [online] 43(8), pp.495-500. Available at: https://jme.bmj.com/content/43/8/495.info [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. MBA Knowledge Base. (n.d.). Nicosia Model of Consumer Behavior. [online] Available at: https://www.mbaknol.com/marketing-management/nicosia-model-of-consumerbehavior/ [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019]. Mortimer, R. (2011). The six consumer groups marketers need to know – Marketing Week. [online] Marketing Week. Available at: https://www.marketingweek.com/2011/11/30/ the-six-consumer-groups-marketers-need-to-know/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Owen, L., Goldwasser, C., Choate, K. and Blitz, A. (2008). Collaborative innovation throughout the extended enterprise. Strategy & Leadership, 36(1), pp.39-45. Pal, R. and Gardener, J. (2018). Modelling environmental value: An examination of sustainable business models within the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 184, pp.251-255. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0959652618303056 [Accessed 8 Dec. 2018]. Palmberg, I., Hofman-Bergholm, M., Jeronen, E. and Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Systems Thinking for Understanding Sustainability? Nordic Student Teachers’ Views on the Relationship between Species Identification, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development. Education Sciences, 7(3), p.72. Piller, F., Vossen, A. and Ihl, C. (2011). From Social Media to Social Product Development: The Impact of Social Media on Co-Creation of Innovation. Die Unternehmung, 65(1), pp.1-22. Postmes, T. (2013). Encouraging environment. Psychology Press.

sustainable

behavior:

Psychology

and

the

Qualres.org. (n.d.). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project | Semi-structured Interviews. [online] Available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html [Accessed 6 Feb. 2019]. Robinson, M. (n.d.). Which Generation Are You?. [online] Careerplanner.com. Available at: https://www.careerplanner.com/Career-Articles/Generations.cfm [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Rogers, G. (2013). The rise of Generation Y in the sustainable marketplace. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/blog/rise-generation-y-sustainable-marketplace [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Roser, T., DeFillippi, R. and Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co‐creation mix: co‐creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European Business Review, 25(1), pp.20-41. Salamen, Z. (2017). DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY KEY TO NEW ERA OF SUSTAINABILITY | Qatar Today. [online] Qatartoday.online. Available at: http://qatartoday.online/ digital-connectivity-key-to-new-era-of-sustainability/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2015). Business Models for Sustainability. Organization & Environment, [online] 29(1), pp.3-10. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1086026615599806 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2019]. Sismondo, S. (2017). Post-truth?. Social Studies of Science, [online] 47(1), pp.36. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312717692076 [Accessed 4 Dec. 2018]. Sourcing Journal. (2019). Do Millennial Consumers Really Care about Sustainability?. [online] Available at: https://sourcingjournal.com/topics/sustainability/ millennial-consumers-really-care-sustainability-80072/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019]. Stave, K.A.; Hopper, M. What Constitutes Systems Thinking? A Proposed Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA, USA, 29 July–2 August 2007. Available online: https://www. systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/STAVE210.pdf [accessed on 20 January 2019]

Illustrations Front Cover. Stella McCartney (2017). Winter 2017 Campaign. [image] Available at: http://www.stellamccartney.co.uk [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019].

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/inspiring-asean-youth-on-climatechange [Accessed 9 Feb. 2019]. Fig 2. Remake World. (2018) Are Our Clothes Doomed for Landfill? [Image] Available at: http://remake.world/uncategorized/are-our-clothes-doomedfor-the-landfill/ [Accessed 30 October 2018] Fig 3. NATAN DVIR (n.d.). Global Warming Is Here. [image] Available at: http://natandvir.com/editorial/hurricane-sandy/#slide=11 [Accessed 8 Feb. 2019]. Fig 4. CNN (2017). The March for Science. [image] Available at: https:// edition.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/global-march-for-science/index.html [Accessed 6 Feb. Fig 5. Olson, R. (2018). Dakha, Bangladesh. [image] Available at: https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/editor-letter-plasticplanet-waste-pollution-crisis/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 6. Fashion Revolution (2017). Who Made My Clothes – Cotton Field. [image] Available at: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/fashion-revolutionreport-hm-zara-transparency [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019]. Fig 7. Olson, R. (2018). Dakha, Bangladesh. [image] Available at: https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/editor-letter-plasticplanet-waste-pollution-crisis/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 8. Süel (2016). Inspired Süel Campaign. [image] Available at: http:// asalon.hu/en/news/what-does-stella-mccartney-have-to-do-with-suel_1503 [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 9. Chias, J. (2018). National Geographic - Turtle. [image] Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plastic-planetanimals-wildlife-impact-waste-pollution/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 10. Environmental Voters Society (2015). Wake up humans. [image] Available at: https://business.facebook.com/EnvironmentalVoterProject/ [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 11. Lennihan, M. (2017). Anti-Trump Protests. [image] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/12/us/elections/photographsfrom-anti-trump-protests.html [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 12. Textile Worker. (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://thedeskgram. com/post/BhJnbvFBgGE [Accessed 2 Feb. 2019]. Fig 13. Social Media on Phone. (2017). [image] Available at: https://www. ypulse.com/post/view/instagram-vs-snapchat-whos-really-winning-with-genz-millennials [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019].

Fig 14. currentMood Magazine (2017). currentMood X whomademyclothes. [image] Available at: https://www.currentmoodmag.com/2017/09/18/currentmood-xfashion-revolution/ [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019]. Fig 15. What Is A Conscious Consumer? (2018). [image] Available at: https://medium.com/naturehub/what-is-a-conscious-consumer-and-why-doesit-matter-4b7a14ca08fc [Accessed 9 Feb. 2019]. Fig 16. Market. (2018). [image] Available at: https://medium.com/naturehub/ what-is-a-conscious-consumer-and-why-does-it-matter-4b7a14ca08fc [Accessed 9 Feb. 2019]. Fig 17. Fabrice Monteiro (2018). The Prophecy. [image] Available at: http://griotmag.com/en/the-prophecy-fabrice-monteiro-pollution-climatechange/ [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019]. Fig 18. CNN (2017). The March for Science. [image] Available at: https:// edition.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/global-march-for-science/index.html [Accessed 6 Feb. 2019]. Fig 19. Planting Wall. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.pinterest. co.uk [Accessed 6 Feb. 2019]. Fig 20. Shopaholic. (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://www.pinterest. co.uk [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 21. Teller, J. (2011). Vivienne Westwood Africa Campaign. [image] Available at: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/vivienne-westwood-andjuergen-teller-in-africa [Accessed 1 Feb. 2019]. Fig 22. Remake World. (2018) Are Our Clothes Doomed for Landfill? [Image] Available at: http://remake.world/uncategorized/are-our-clothes-doomedfor-the-landfill/ [Accessed 30 October 2018] Fig 23. Shutterstock (2016). Gen-Z. [image] Available at: http://www. justluxe.com/luxe-insider/trends/feature-1963947.php [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019]. Fig 24. Wear No Evil Label. (2014). [image] Available at: https://www. goodreads.com/book/show/18079899-wear-no-evil [Accessed 9 Feb. 2019]. Fig 25. Chan (2008). Shopping. [image] Available at: https://unsplash.com/ photos/HNbo4jSxQAY [Accessed 2 Feb. 2019]. Fig 26. Tatiana Sturdza (2014). Tortoise and Hare Marketing. [image] Available at: https://bombbomb.com/blog/video-for-sales-thinking-fastand-slow-kahneman/ [Accessed 5 Feb. 2019]. Fig 27. Gogoro (2016). Charging Station. [image] Available at: https:// www.eco-business.com/news/10-sustainable-products-you-need-in-your-life/ [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019].

Fig 28. Ditto Hangers (2018). Ditto Hangers. [image] Available at: http:// econews.com.au/30656/hang-smart-with-ditto-eco-hangers/ [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]. Fig 29. Fashion Revolution (2017). It’s Time for a Revolution. [image] Available at: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/fashion-revolution-reporthm-zara-transparency [Accessed 7 Feb. 2019]. Fig 30. Chilly’s (2017). Summer campaign. [image] Available at: https:// refill.org.uk/chillys-bottle/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2019]. Fig 31. KeepCup (2017). Keep Cup Coffee. [image] Available at: http://www. manwants.co.uk/top-10-zero-waste-plastic-free-everyday-swaps/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2019].

ORDER OF APPENDIX App App App App App App App App

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Questionnaire Results – Bar and Charts Questionnaire 2 Responses Shopping Dairy Entries Shopping Observations One-to-one interview stimulus One-to-one interview emotion cards One-to-one interview transcripts Expert Interview Responses

CONSENT FORMS - SEE WALLET ATTACHED