Acknowledgements I take this opportunity to give a big thank you to Manolis Papastravrou, Rhian Solomon and Daniel Shin for their fantastic insight and guidance, of which has been invaluable. I thank my Mother and Father for their loving support throughout my education and university career, and my friends who have always been there for me. I would also like to thank the participants of the focus group that dedicated their time to my dissertation. This paper is dedicated to the sustainable and prosperous future of the world.
Abstract
The role of bio-materials in society is slowly becoming more prominent, but will society be as accommodating as it should be? This paper sets out to investigate this with a focus on mycelium. Mycelium has many versatile ways of adopting form, being grown in moulds and as a leather-like material. The advantages of mycelium are astounding, being antibacterial, fire resistant, carbon negative and durable. It can easily replace current materials that are extremely harmful like polystyrene that degrades after hundreds of years, and can replace leather, which is a by-product of the unsustainable and immoral cattle industry. Mycophobia (a fear of fungus) and a mental phenomenon known as ‘contamination’ as discovered in the literature review are prime inhibitors of this acceptance. A study by Ninela Ivanova has investigated this and found various results that have coincided with this investigation’s focus group. Another major factor includes ‘consumer innovativeness’, the likelihood of adoption of new technologies by consumers (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008). This showed that the younger and more cash rich consumers are more likely to buy mycelium products. All these factors would aid the mycelium marketers in finding targets for advertising. The information gathered and analysed concludes that mycelium still needs more development if it is to appeal to potential customers, no matter how innovative. Although still in early stages, it shows great promise in terms of practicality and potential consumer adoption. A societal shift in the perception of mushrooms would also greatly aid adoption of this material.
Table of Contents -
-
-
-
-
1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………….. p.1 - 1.1 Aims ……………………………………………….. p.1 - 1.2 Objectives …………………………………………. p.1 2.0 Literature Review …………………………………………. p.2 2.1 Time, Location and Cost ………………………………….. p.2 2.2 Business of Manufacture ………………………………….. p.2 2.3 Additive Manufacturing …………………………………... p.4 2.4 Durability …………………………………… ………….…. p.5 2.5 Redundancy of Current Processes ………………………... p.6 2.6 Changing Perceptions …………………………………….. p.7 - 2.6.1 Contamination …………………………… ……... p.8 - 2.6.2 Mycophobia and Mycophilia …………………... p.9 2.7 Marketing Obstacles ……………………………………… p.12 - 2.7.1 Mycelium Leather ……………………………… p.14 3.0 Methodology …………………………………………….… p.15 - 3.1 Aims of Focus Group ……………………… ….….. p.15 - 3.2 Justification ………………………………… ….…. p.15 - 3.3 Research Approach ……………………………….. p.16 - 3.4 Data Collection ………………………………….... p.16 4.0 Finding and Analysis …………………………………….... p.17 - 4.1 Theme 1 – Perception ………………………….…. p.17 - 4.2 Theme 2 – Willingness to Buy ……….…… ……... p.20 - 4.3 Theme 3 – Designer’s Interpretation ………….…. p.21 5.0 Limitation and Further Research ……………………….... p.22 6.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………... p.22 7.0 References ………………………………………….…….. p.23 8.0 Bibliography …………………………………….… ……... p.26 9.0 Figure List …………………………………………… .….. p.27 10.0 Appendices ……………………… ……… ………….…… p.29 - 10.1 Ethical Clearance Checklist & Consent Forms.… p.29 - 10.2 Questionnaire Sheets ………………….… ……… p.35 - 10.3 Transcript and Key Quotes …………….….……. p.40 - 10.4 Images from Focus Group Video …….………... p.46 - 10.5 Declaration …………………………….……….. p.50
Final word count 6485
“I think the biggest innovation of the 21 st century will be at the intersection of biology and technology, a new era is beginning.” – Steve Jobs (Isaacson 2015)
1.0 Introduction With the need for sustainable and renewable practices and technologies slowly becoming one of the main trends being seen in the consumer’s everyday life. Consumers are waking up to these facts and beginning to adopt eco-friendlier life-styles. But how far are they willing to go? Bio-materials is a science that has been on the rise in the past few decades, (Zadpoor 2013) with promising breakthroughs being achieved. How quickly can these new processes and materials be infused into the consumer market and how well will they be accepted? Although still a young and growing field, this investigation will focus on and discuss the different opportunities and obstacles of a unique bio-material: Mycelium. Specifically, whether the UK public are ready for such a concept to be adopted or not.
1.1 Aims The executive aim of the study is to identify the potential obstacles that could impede large scale adoption of mycelium leather. Through a thorough investigation, this paper asks: what is the current landscape of consumers’ attitudes toward a fungus-based material, and how could potential problems be rectified in the future?
1.2 Objectives The objectives of this paper provide an understanding of the obstacles and opportunities of various aspects of mycelium as a material. The goal is to understand the perception of mycelium from a consumer point of view. The consumers provide a spotlight on the window of opportunity that future mycelium products should take when marketing mycelium. • •
Gather and analyse information on the potential limitations of future wide spread manufacture and consumer acceptance of mycelium based ‘leather’. Conduct research into the potential stigmas seen by consumers on fungus-based materials and identify if this would impede buying such material goods.
1
2.0 Literature Review “The best ideas might not be ours, they might have already been invented” – Janine Benyus (Janine Benyus 2015)
2.1 Time, Location and Cost
“…because the organism is actually doing most of the work in this process. You don't need a lot of equipment to set up a production facility. So, you can have lots of small facilities spread all across the world.” (Eben Bayer 2010) A causal role of this means minimal international shipping costs, time delays and environmental damage from moving the manufacturing ‘material’ around the planet, unlike traditional plastic products that require various chemical components and transport demands. They will not damage ecosystems as traditional plastics do. Mycelium materials are broken down and used by nature with 100% efficiency, unlike some plastics that take hundreds of years to decompose, damaging wildlife and their environment. Mycelium packing corners are grown, so the fungus is doing self-assembling and doing most of the work when growing, the only thing that needs manufacturing are the moulds that they go into and take the shape of (Eben Bayer 2010). This means that production and initial set up costs are low, so many producers can be set up easily around the world in different economically prosperous countries and keep jobs in said country, benefiting that economy.
2.2 Business of Manufacture
“NatureWorks, the bio-plastics market leader with its commercial range of Ingeo™ biopolymers, and BioAmber, a next-generation chemicals company and a market leader in the commercialization of bio-succinic acid, have announced the creation of AmberWorks, a joint venture to bring new performance bio-based polymer compositions to market.” (Anon. 2012) Although these two companies are not focusing on mycelium materials, they are collaborating. This shows that companies that are involved in bio-materials are expanding their business with others. This is a very positive thing to see, as the nurture 2
and exploration of these new technologies are essential for innovation and advancement of that sector (Un and Asakawa 2015). A continuation of this would help speed up the development of other materials and products like mycelium, which means that the consumer adoption can happen faster and help combat threats like climate change. “Although a number of companies with good intentions are committed to the “Go Green” concept and have started taking steps to make moderate improvements, most do not even consider the possibility of 100 percent degradability, much less within 30 days of soil submersion.” (Anon. 2012a) These companies are stating that they are one of the few innovators thinking about the end life of the product, but the actual production is also important. “We believe that while cleaner production was designed to address environmental sustainability only, it has the potential to affect related social, economic and prosperity indicators.” (Khalili, et al. 2015) Fungal grown materials can easily be carbon negative as they use waste products a s feedstock, whereas the bio-plastic most certainly is not a carbon negative product, even though they claim to be extremely sustainable. It is a step in the right direction, but a lot more thought and cultural change needs to go into the idea of sustainability. They mention a potential to affect social indicators, but do not go into any further detail as to how this can be achieved. This shows that they have not considered how the public would respond to these new types of materials and perhaps leave this aspect to the marketers.
3
2.3 Additive Manufacturing
Deloitte investigate Additive Manufacturing as a potential part of how companies can future-proof their production process. Apart from standalone structures that can be fabricated with AM, like machine parts and new products, the structures produced can (and have) been used as moulds for mycelium growth to add internal integrity due to the ease of making hollow structures with AM. A point Deloitte make is that with AM, the producer can improve on structural integrity but with less material and waste. (The Business Case for Scaling Additive Manufacturing, Deloitte 2018) This is of enormous benefit for moulded mycelium producers as they can quickly make waste-free moulds for growing. The fact that these two technologies are still young means that they can go hand in hand in the future. As AM becomes more popular, it will lay the bedrock for the mycelium growing processes.
FIGURE 1 MYCELIUM CHAIR BY ERIC KLARENBEEK IS 3D-PRINTED WITH LIVING FUGUS. 2013 A CHAIR FILLED WITH MYCELIUM AND SHELLED USING A 3D PRINTER. MARCUS FRIARS AVAILABLE AT: HTTPS://WWW.DEZEEN.COM/2013/10/20 /MYCELIUM-CHAIR-BY-ERIC-KLARENBEEK-IS3D-PRINTED-WITH-LIVING-FUNGUS/ [ACCESSED 08/02/19]
“Once it is mature it should be strong enough to support a person. The chair is a metaphor for what can be achieved with materials and production methods.” (Marcus Friars 2013)
4
2.4 Durability
FIGURE 2 THE FUNGI IN YOUR FUTURE. 2016 ROSS STRETCHING MYCELIUM SAMPLE. LUKE GROSKIN AVAILABLE AT: HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=JBXGFOK5_RS [ACCESSED 29/01/19]
The fact that a mycelium chair would be strong enough to support a person according to Friars even at this early stage of mycelium technologies being investigated is a testament to the already powerful raw strength of the material. The use of a straw substrate in the 3D printer shows that instead of conventional materials used for 3D printing, most of the materials used in this process are still bio-materials and organic, furthering the decomposability of the chair. As stated by Phillip Ross in a video by Roskin, “We’ve been working with this material for about three months - we’ve taken it (mycelium leather) from being as strong or stronger than lamb, sheep and synthetic leather and now we have it as strong as deer skin.” (Luke Groskin 2016). The leather technology that Phil Ross is developing is showing signs of becoming much more robust and is being improved upon many times over since they started working on it in 2013. This is a good sign that the technology will be able to hold up to consumer standards once commercialised.
5
2.5 Redundancy of Current Processes "Mycelium offers us the opportunity to create products that not only continue but advance our ethos of sustainability and test our ability as a studio to design for new methods of manufacture". (Amy Frearson 2017) Having established the costs and transportation of producing mycelium by (Eben Bayer 2010), he explains how FIGURE 4 (BLOOMBERG 2015) ECOVATIVE DESIGN, developing mycelium can accelerate new MANUFACTURED WOOD MADE WITHOUT TREES. MYCELIUM GROWING IN LOW-TECH PLASTIC MOULDS. AVAILABLE AT methods of manufacturing. Using HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=DCJOIRA6AMQ mycelium as a material, the growing [ACCESSED 12/01/2019] process is like injection or blow moulding whereby the material takes the shape of its container (Bloomberg 2015). Unfortunately, this means that if current manufacturers were to adopt myceliumbased materials, there would be a drain of invested-in machinery and a small set up cost involved as the machines would be vastly different. Figure 4 shows an expensive Styrofoam machine, comparing this to the extremely low-tech plastic FIGURE 3 A STYROFOAM MACHINE. AVAILABLE AT: moulds in figure 3 shows the potential HTTPS://FANG-YUAN.EN.MADE-INredundancy of the Styrofoam machines. CHINA.COM/PRODUCT/YXONTBCHHGKS/CHINA-ICFMACHINE-STYROFOAM-MACHINE.HTML [ACCESSED
Mycelium does not require heat (which is 12/01/2019] highly beneficial in terms of time and energy consumption) and therefore uses much lower tech machinery, which is also a great benefit in terms of set up costs for less developed countries or smaller businesses. This also means that this lower investment technology will pay for itself much more quickly than traditional machines, giving a higher return on investment. This is of added incentive for traditional manufacturers to switch production. Making old and unsustainable processes and manufacturing techniques obsolete can be a good point to use for the marketers when convincing the public to switch to these new alternatives. As (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011) have stated, “They believed that a more culturally-driven understanding of the public’s water practices, incorporating values and 6
meanings associated with water use, would provide a more contextualised understanding of acceptance beyond purely mental states and cognitive processes.” (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011). A contextualised understanding would drive greater acceptance to an alternative recycled water supply, this contextualisation technique can be translated and used with mycelium products as they are also an alternative to many products. It would also make people push past their cognitive preconceptions of mushrooms and fungi, which would make people think on a collective level, rather than individual. (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011)
2.6 Changing Perceptions “The objective is to up-grade and use raw materials from traditionally industrial sectors of wood (wood powder and fibres), textile and pulp and paper (lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose fibres) industries as well as new biopolymers. - The new products will be based on processing technologies like plastics and plastic composites but use only bio-based raw materials which fulfil all criteria of recycling and CO2- neutrality. They contain less additives or only such which will no longer hazard the environment, health of workers and consumers, because of their environmentally friendly implications” (E. Inone-Kauffmann and N. Eisenreich 2005). Renewable resources are something that should take a much bigger foothold in the ‘sustainability’ world, not just literally, but in the public eye. The consumer needs to know the most important problems in order to grow empathy and understand the reasons they are supposed to be making these buying choices, not just being indifferent. "The ability to have a hands-on experience with the Mushroom Material, to grow it, to learn its properties and to experiment with its living characteristics, has not only created a much more dynamic prototyping experience, but a more inventive and in-tune approach to materialbased product design" (Maudie Manton 2015). This initiative by Ecovative makes growing your own products at home affordable and more accessible to the average person. Mushrooms are dried and packaged, meaning they can be internationally shipped anywhere in the world. People will still need to produce their own moulds, but this type of ‘grow-it-yourself’ approach to producing a product could mean that many people could make objects for very niche applications which would otherwise be too expensive to buy. This would also teach people to view mushrooms in a better light, as working with them would make people understand fungi better and become comfortable working and designing
7
with this product. This mycophilic attitude would then be spread by word of mouth by the maker showing friends and family their creations. “Rather than fighting nature and separating our buildings from it, we can use nature as a tool and as a way to connect architecture to the earth” (PaulTreml 2012). This viewpoint suggests us humans should go back to our roots, and that we need to think of ourselves as one with nature, rather than continuously separating ourselves from it. This will feed back into the empathetic point mentioned before, whilst discussing (E. Inone-Kauffmann and N. Eisenreich 2005) and make people understand ‘why’, rather than they ‘should’. This newfound closeness to nature would also open people’s minds to further possibilities of accepting new natural materials, making them more innovative consumers. “Most manufactured wood (MDF, Fibreboard) contains urea formaldehyde, a binding agent. The US Federal Government has classified it as a known human carcinogen .” (Bloomberg 2015). “In about 5 years we expect people to be building their home with mushroom materials .” (Bloomberg 2015). Mycelium is a natural adhesive, it holds the forest floor together, Ecovative Design uses ground up crop or wood waste, inoculates that with mycelium, and it acts as the adhesive. As the binding agent that holds MDF together is a carcinogen, and as MDF has such a wide range of uses, it is obvious that not only would switching to an i nert binder like mycelium be beneficial to the environment, but also to human health (Bloomberg 2015). Phasing out old and harmful products is an additional point to use when companies try to convince the public to adopt mycelium or alternative materials. The best application for this product is to replace synthetically derived polymers. The speaker backs up previous statements made, emphasizing on a cultural, holistic change in the way we think about consumerism, rather than simply making the products available and telling consumers that they should be using these materials. This is not only applicable to packaging or plastics, this is applicable to almost all manufacturing sectors. Fast fashion, for instance is a very wasteful and unsustainable practice (Joy, et al. 2012), but if the clothes and accessories were able to be disposed of 100% sustainably and manufactured with renewable materials, then the industry could function the same way it always has been without having to inflict a lot of cultural change in terms of just fashion. “At the same time the growing awareness of consumers must lead to shifts on the demand side, stimulating companies to develop new sustainable products with more sustainable production methods.” (A Crabbe, R Jacobs, V Van Hoof, A Bergmans, K Van Acker, 2012 p. 63)
2.6.1 Contamination This point on growing consumer awareness is an important one, and the stigma of mushrooms stemming from ‘fungi-phobia’ is further instigated by the phenomena known as 8
contamination. “Contamination is an intense and persisting feeling of having been polluted or infected or endangered as a result of contact, direct or indirect, with a person/place/object that is perceived to be soiled, impure, infectious or harmful.” (Rachman 2009). The general understanding that certain things like chemicals, decaying matter and certain foods (fungi) trigger this response. This trigger usually involves a disgust and / or fear of the entity in question and provokes the subject to avoid or flee the entity and proceed to cleanse themselves even if there was no direct physical contact. This paper goes on to discuss the causes of the fear of contamination, Rachman draws from previous studies and puts forth a theory that there are three pathways of fear acquisition; conditioning, vicarious acquisition (observation) and transition of fear inducing information. As discussed in (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) study of mycophobic and mycophilic EU countries, the fear of mushrooms is mainly derived from the lack of legislations and guidelines, which is further derived from societal knowledge and ignorance. This crossover suggests that Rachman’s theory is mainly true, the only exception being the vicarious acquisition pathway. The conditioning is part of the societal transfer of fear inducing information, a prime example is how (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) covers novels like Alice in Wonderland as having conditioned people to be wary of mushrooms.
2.6.2 Mycophobia and Mycophilia “People are afraid of mushrooms and it comes out of our cultural bias, people who came here (USA) were afraid of mushrooms perhaps because where they grew up in their culture, mushrooms were poisonous and to be afraid of.” (David Rust, President, north American Mycological Association, Oakland, CA) (Madison McClintock 2014) An example of this very bias is shown in the work of Peintner, et al. (2013), “For example, there is a long history of collecting and eating wild mushrooms in countries and regions such as Southeast Asia, the Venezuelan Amazon, in Slavic countries and in Italy. The population of these countries are especially fond of mushrooms and have therefore been labelled as mycophilic. On the other hand, mushrooms are rarely picked and consumed in the United Kingdom. Fiction, including Lewis Carroll's ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (1865), H.G. Walls's ‘The Purple Pileus’ (1895) and Brian Lumley's ‘Fruiting Bodies’ (1988) have further promoted mycophobia.” (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013).
9
From this study, it is found that if a country has a history of its people actively picking and looking for mushrooms, then these traditions will carry on into the present day. 11 of the 46 EU countries do not have mushroom legislation and guidelines which, according to (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013), means that these countries are mycophobic. This could perhaps be from a lack of understanding or cultural bias on part of the general populace that has influenced and crept into local municipalities/government. If this is the case, the mycelium leather sellers should take this as a sign that informing and reassuring people should be a top priority when creating marketing strategies. A loose example of this is the graph in Figure 5 posted by a vegan foods Instagram account. It clearly explains the damaging effects of dairy while giving many options and describing the benefits of milk alternatives. As Phil Ross stated in the Youtube video ‘Mycoworks’ (Mazda 2016) , “How do you convince the world that it (mycelium) belongs with us? The proof is in the pudding.” This phrase suggests that Ross is assuming that the FIGURE 5. VEGAN_FOODS_UK, 2018 OAT AND world would automatically be against this new SOYA MILK ARE THE LEAST DAMAGING material, but this may not strictly be the case, as MILKS TO THE PLANET! [INSTAGRAM] there is now a strong worldwide green agenda. 09/01/19 AVAILABLE AT: Further investigations of public views on fungal HTTPS://WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM/P/BSBOUBVGF materials would need to be made to understand if NV/ [ACCESSED 23/01/19] mycelium would be adopted. Like the graph posted to Instagram, showing the benefits could be very effective in swaying public opinion, as in the past two decades, there has been a growing concern on environmental issues (M Sivaoorthy, R.Nalini, C.Satheesh Kumar 2013). The issue of opinion impacting policy is a long argued one among academics and social scientists. In a healthy democracy, public opinion will guide and shift government policy (Burstein 2006). To reiterate, true democratic governance needs to have to continuously shift with public opinion as stated by (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013). “Most of the rest of the world appreciates fungi, if not fully envelopes them in their culture, only in the West do we have this deep-seeded fear of fungi that’s unprecedented and unfounded.” (Peter McCoy, Co-Founder, Radical Mycology Olympia, WA) (Madison McClintock 2014). Rust and McCoy’s take on the cultural bias of mushrooms in Western society is concerning, as we are a large consumer of inefficient and unsustainable goods compared to the rest of the world (Connolly and Prothero 2003). As such, Western culture should be wholly welcoming of many more products that offer an alternative material source. An alternative water source acceptance study carried out by (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011) that concludes; “Acceptance is strongly driven by environmental concerns and social responsibility to reduce household demand.” (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011)
10
This conclusion indicates that environmental concerns and social responsibility are high up on people’s list of concerns, which directly translates to the adoption of the mycelium leather. This could mean that given enough exposure, these societal-wide mental factors would aid in the general acceptance of mycelium leather. Although this study was also carried out in Australia, which was not included in Pientner’s study, no mycophobic or mycophilic information can be drawn up for Australia, so there is no way to tell if the potential phobia would affect this hierarchy. The fact that these new fungal materials have only begun being investigated in the past 10 years or so means that they are still not sustainable to mass produce in a business sense. “The development of such materials needs usually difficult and complicated methods of processing of their biosources, for their extraction, development and functionalization, that can be costly, time-consuming and with low production yield. These materials, although they could resolve various environmental problems, are still expensive and have very limited uses.” (Haneef, et al. 2017). Another factor would be that there is still not enough demand for these products and materials, like all other businesses an economy of scale requires time and demand to gain traction. This is where the phobia of mushrooms comes in. How do you expect someone to buy a mycelium leather bag when they still hold this strong distaste for anything fungal? “The technologies we have access to are powerful, and the more of us working to mitigate high-environmental impact industries like the commercial meat industry and the coproduction of leather, the faster we’ll be able to change culture and industry, together.” – Sophia Wang (I, Wojciechowska 2017) Wang’s take on the industry signifies that the more companies begin to create alternatives to leather, the more people will soon accept it into their lives. She implies that a simple collected entry into the market will suffice, but these technologies may not be so widely accepted as she infers. Educating the consumer is a great marketing challenge that requires a tactful approach, and as with mass social engineering, this is a timely, expensive and difficult task to achieve. This is a point that is widely missed by academics and important figures within this industry.
FIGURE 6 RED COUNTRIES ARE MYCOPHOBIC AND GREEN COUNTRIES ARE MYCOPHILIC. (URSULA PEINTNER, ET AL. 2013)
“The most common objection to the claim that public opinion influences public policy is that policy is really determined by interest organizations, political parties and elites, particularly economic elites.” (Paul Burstein 2003). The big picture of this argument is that if the marketers decided to be ambitious, they could try and alter the opinion of the elites just enough that legislation begins to change, this may influence the general public and convert many to mycophiles, thus pushing a more widespread adoption of mycelium products. Although far-fetched, hypothetically it would do wonders for the growing industry and help to drastically reduce the environmental effects of natural leather. This would mean having the luxury brands
11
start to introduce this alternative and with a limited mycelium production number, would make the luxury products more exclusive and valuable. Relating this back to the potential of consumers that would accept the mycelium-leather, there would naturally be a greater adoption in mycophilic countries than in for example the UK, according to the map provided by (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013). Although people will not be eating or picking the leather substitutes, there will still be an underlying harmful perception of fungi that has been rooted into them by the culture that they grew up in, for example toxicity. If the companies that were to sell these mushroom based leather substitutes were to know and implement marketing strategies toward this, it would be in their best interest to try and focus their educational/marketing efforts in the predominantly mycophobic countries to try and increase awareness and convert people to mycophilics. This isn’t to say that they shouldn’t try and focus on the mycophilic countries with their marketing, these products would capture the imagination of many of the consumers and would likely sell well. Word of mouth would also increase during these marketing campaigns, resulting in some mycophobic individuals being converted to mycophilics. Friends or family would show others their new, innovative purchase and the product will speak for itself. The accelerating move towards the green agendas also support this argument as a driver for mycelium.
2.7 Marketing Obstacles A closer look into the acceptance of new products or materials shows that there is a term ‘New Product Adoption’, (NPA) which is used by marketers to determine whether a specific target market will be willing to adopt a new innovative product (Wang, Dou, Zhou 2006). The NPA model is a loose matrix that is very helpful for companies to accurately identify specific target markets and adjust their approach accordingly. This will be key in approaching many potentially stubborn consumers on adopting such a liberal and different product. Younger, higher income and better educated consumers tend to be the demographics that are more willing to accept new innovations. Another term for how receptive consumers are to new products is ‘Consumer Innovativeness’. Early adopters of new products tend to use manufacturer-of-origin as the source of information, whereas the majority of consumers tend to use the brand-of-origin as the source (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008). This means that to gain an edge when it comes to pivoting themselves towards less innovative consumers, the manufacturing of these leather alternatives should be at best in the country or at worst in a neighbouring country or similar union group like the EU. The branding of the company that uses these leather alternatives should also preferably be from the same country or in close vicinity when it comes to the market they are trying to penetrate. This all means the company and manufacturer garnering as much of the consumer base as they can. Consumers evaluate if their purchase could contribute to solving the problem, if this evaluation is positive, it will increase the likelihood of purchasing responsibly. When consumers believe that their purchase decision may make a difference, they are more likely to
12
buy responsibly (Valor 2008). A cycle that would become apparent from this is illustrated in figure 7.
FIGURE 7 HIDE DISRUPTION CYCLE, AUTHORS OWN
From this, the new marketers for mycelium products should also make the case that citizens in the market place use their purchases as votes to elect the society they want to live in (Johannes Brinkmann 2004) and to show them that they are helping by not ‘voting’ for practices that involve natural animal leather. Someone who has investigated the perception of fungi on the public is Ninela Ivanova (2015). In her thesis, she carried out various experiments to do with fungal perception on members of the public. One of her results that contradicts a point that (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) depicts is that out of the subjects involved in perceiving fungus in jars, the affinity and neutral responses were high and aversion was very low. This is contradicting in comparison to Peintner (2013) as she concludes that the UK is a mycophobic country. A reason for this clash in conclusions may be because the participants had a barrier between them and the fungus, in this case a jar, in Ivanova’s study. A reason for the affinity was due to satisfying curiosity in a safe and distanced way (Ivanova 2015). Contrary to the phenomena of ‘contamination’ as described by (Rachman 2009) in which people do not need to just come into direct contact with a stimuli to feel a sense of contamination, but just need to see it. This may be because the participants had a sense of curiosity that overpowered their fears. The second section of Ivanonva’s thesis involved participants designing their own t-shirts with fungal growth printed on them and analysing public reactions to the designs. If mycelium leather was to be made into a t-shirt, but looked like a normal t-shirt, what would 13
the results be? Out of the five participants in this section of study, all reported either being satisfied or very satisfied with their t-shirts. Participants received much interest by members of the public on their tops, such as “Wow! What is it? Is it what it looks like?” and “Cool Top” (Ivanova 2015). These results show that the fungus designs are intriguing to people and attract them to comment on the participants’ t-shirts. This is a good sign for the adoption of mycelium-grown fabrics as the curiosity towards the visuals are already positive. When the development of the mycelium leather gets to the point of advancement that it is indistinguishable from traditional fabrics, it will have to perform as well, if not better than traditional fabrics to keep its selling points winning customers.
2.7.1 Mycelium Leather Mycelium or bacterially grown leather is an interesting and very promising new technology. The environmental and subsequently ethical positive implications of this new technology becoming mainstream would be a huge benefit not only to consumers, but to natural leather producers too if they were to switch production. Mycelium leather grows at an exponential rate over two weeks, whereas cow hide takes two years to grow (Luke Groskin 2016). The environmental implications of this are great, as mycelium leather is cruelty free, uses fewer tanning chemicals, is fully biodegradable, produces far less waste and uses far less space than cattle farming. All these factors can be used when marketing this leather alternative to consumers.
14
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Aims of Focus Group The aim of this research will be to identify the cultural bias of fungi in the UK according to (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) and to understand if this is an obstacle that could impede large scale adoption of mycelium products. It will also be used to identify the specific traits and reasons for being a mycophobic or mycophilic individual. Another aim of this research is to determine whether people think that a mycelium leather product would sell well and to potentially discover other aspects of the concept that may not have been previously apparent in the literature or the author’s mind. The following chapter provides aims, objectives and justifications for the method chosen for further research. A semi-structured focus group of five people was carried out with a stakeholder that doubles as two, design students and every-day consumers. Designers can think of alternate ways of using this material even with its flaws, which would uphold further conversation and insights.
3.2 Justification As the gaps in the literature highlighted that consumers had not yet been probed to understand whether they would accept this new material, an overarching theme is the consideration that consumers are naturally mycophobic. A focus group was chosen as it is a good way to gather a great deal of qualitative data, the participants can bounce ideas and thoughts off each other, further advancing the conversation, group dynamics come into play whereby the participants weed out the most extreme points of view and it is easy to identify a shared opinion (Robson and McCartan 2016). Participants being physically present provide opportunities to test different stimuli which would not be possible with an online survey. Disadvantages of this method are that the opinions shared do not strictly reflect society, which is a big drawback as this is something that would very much aid in the identification of societal views in this context. Clashes of personality may occur, which could derail the focus group and be a difficult situation for the moderator to extinguish. Individual points of view could be suppressed when the overriding consensus is influencing the group in a specific direction.
15
A survey was not used in the primary research because there were not enough significant questions that would have generated any meaningful findings. It was also ruled out because the participants would have benefited greatly from being in physical contact with the mycelium sample. Not having this sample at hand may not have triggered responses like contamination aforementioned by (Rachman 2009) and allowed the participant to fully understand and feel the material, thus preventing a further exploration and analysis on their part. This would have made the participant rely almost solely on their own mental conceptions and this would have swayed the results.
3.3 Research Approach The material in question during this focus group is mycelium leather, this is because it gives the subject a single type of the material to focus on and lessens confusion as to what material is being talked about. As stated by (Andreas Forgacs 2013) when discussing bio-fabricated materials, it is more likely that consumers would be more FIGURE 8 THE FRAME MADE TO HIDE THE THICKNESS OF willing to wear novel materials than eat MYCELIUM. AUTHORS OWN them. This also puts a specific type of consumer product in mind, in this case leather bags, boots, jackets, wallets etc. to better focus the discussion on one topic. There is also a good mix of leather goods that are targeted at both genders, so there will be no bias. Packaging material or any other solid mycelium composite material were not chosen as stimuli because different samples for comparison were too dissimilar to one another and difficult to acquire.
3.4 Data Collection The information gathered was analysed in a thematic context, as all data collected was qualitative. The purpose of the focus group was to capture responses and interactions of mycelium, designers’ thoughts on how mycelium could be used and to discuss future consumer perception. All participants were shown a video near the end demonstrating the different mycelium leather samples that exist today and highlighting the other possibilities of the material that were not physically shown to them in the focus group. This is to allow them to better understand the possibilities of mycelium and to trigger the participants to think in a design orientated way. The ideas generated by this can give insight into how else the product could be utilised and to determine whether the participants have become comfortable with the concept of working with mushrooms. Some may even go on to work with them in their future careers.
16
4.0 Findings and Analysis
The research findings from the focus group gave light to many consumer views and design considerations for the future use of mycelium. Three key themes were discussed as they recognised and rectified where gaps in the reviewed literature were highlighted. Participants will be recognised henceforth as P-(#).
4.1 Theme 1: Perception
Question 1. In your opinion, which is the real leather, the faux and the mycelium leather?
1 (Real) 2 (Faux) 3 (Mycelium)
Participant 1 Faux Mycelium Real
Participant 2 Real Faux Mycelium
Participant 3 Real Faux Mycelium
Participant 4 Faux Real Mycelium
Participant 5 Faux Mycelium Real
Participants answers were surprisingly mixed, three of the five participants spotted the mycelium and two wrongly identified it as real leather. This shows that the mycelium does not look like a fake leather in any way, it is seen as a bio material by all the participants. (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011) state that environmental concerns strongly influence buying, and as P-2 acknowledges this in the focus group, it would be a benefit to the adoption of mycelium leather. This could be a big selling point as consumers who would like a genuine material derived from nature, and is not made of plastics have the option of mycelium. Three participants said that the real leather was fake, as they did not realise the difference, this also shows that presented with different options, the consumer can make the wrong judgements on a material and this may be a reason someone buys mycelium leather thinking it was real. A notable point is that none of the participants answered that the real was mycelium. This result may be the fact that the natural leather was the smoothest out of the three, had the material been rougher or furrier, this may have convinced the participant that it was mushroom leather. In context, the image of a fungus being flattened down to the same texture of real leather may not be accepted in the minds of consumers, which could become an obstacle down the line for marketing.
17
Question 2. What were your first thoughts when you saw and held the mycelium leather in your hands for the first time? Almost all the participants noted that the appearance was very similar to real leather, and that it felt soft and fragile. P-4 and P-5 both stated that the mycelium felt ‘squishy’. A comparison to actual mushrooms may have been made in the participants minds, P-4 stated “It’s like just a little bit gross when you think about it.” Their statement coincides with Pientner et al’s (2013) study that asserts that most people in the UK are mycophobic. There were no real negative comments from the participants and it was noted that no displays of contamination were apparent when participants first saw the mycelium. P-5 stated that “I don’t have any hesitancy about touching it but when it is like the full sheet where it is weird and lumpy.” Conclusively, this shows that the more familiar a material as abstract as mycelium can look, the more accepting consumers are toward it. A positive comment made by P-3 was “it’s got a nice - like it catches the light differently depending on how you hold it.” This unique characteristic of the mycelium was picked up by one person, showing that a subtle but unique quality can spark interest in a consumer.
Question 3. Did you have any hesitancies about touching the mycelium sample? why? P-4 stated that the mycelium is “a little bit gross when you think about it”, this answer more accurately coinciding with Pientner, et al’s (2013) conclusion that the UK is a mycophobic country. They did state that society has become desensitized to leather. They acknowledge that the world has become desensitized to the grim realities of natural leather but still concedes that the thought of ‘mushroom-grown’ leather is ‘gross’. P-5 added “at least it’s not skin” both P-3 and 4 agreed to this. This could indicate that people buy leather solely for its physical properties and may be unsure of faux leather’s ability to hold up against natural leather. What can be done to convince people to think otherwise? P-5 admitted that they were always curious about the material after seeing a mycelium bag on social media. P-5 also answered ‘no’ on their question sheet. This shows that already, this technology is being showcased to the world and people have become curious about the material, the blocking factor in this case being availability. The whole leather sample was shown to the audience to get other’s reactions in context of what P-5 said. P-5’s initial reaction was ‘woah’ and “that’s quite cool”. These reactions are similar to the reactions recorded in the study by (Ivanova 2015) where people commented on participants’ mould designed t-shirts. These reactions indicate that people are cautiously curious about fungi. This satisfied their curiosity of seeing the whole material in the flesh and prompted participants to compare it to wild mushrooms. 18
Question 7. Good or bad, where do you think your original standpoint on mushrooms came from? Some participants’ did not answer the question fully, but two participants talked about mushrooms in a culinary sense. This indicates that people will automatically think of mushrooms as food, rather than being used for anything else. The culinary comments stated that their original standpoints on mushrooms were as such, culinary, two participants stating they like the taste of them and two others disliking their texture. These responses could have been more on topic and less focused on culinary topics if the word ‘mushroom’ had been replaced by the word ‘fungus’. This error also points out that the marketing teams for these future materials need to be very careful with their copy, as people will be led down different trains of thought although on the same topic. As people dislike mushrooms anyway, they may have this image impressed in their minds, not what the marketers want.
Question 10. How does this video clip change your perceptions of mycelium leather? The participants seemed reassured on the durability and textile aspects once given more context on the advances of mycelium leather, although did not mention any change in their stance to the fact it was fungal. A negative aspect that was widely agreed upon by participants was that it was not as smooth or aesthetic as expected. P-4 stated that “it doesn’t look as refined as real leather.” This backs up the point in the first question when none of the participants thought that the real leather was mycelium. This can conclude that mycelium looks natural and imperfect enough to be a truly natural material, more likely drawing in environmentally conscious consumers (Valor 2008). Participants began to theorise ways for mycelium leather to be used, mainly as insulation for jackets and as pouches for laptop cases. As the participants were all designers, the sponginess of the given sample and a FIGURE 9 FRAMES FROM VIDEO CLIP SHOWN TO PARTICIPANTS (LUKE GROSKIN 2016) similar sample shown on the video possibly inspired AVAILABLE AT them with ideas how to use that specific form of leather. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=J Knowing this, the participants may have lost trust in the BXGFOK5_RS [DATE ACCESSED 04/02/19] permeability of the material and thought of other ways that it could be used. Disregarding these possibilities showed that they knew mycelium leather was not refined enough for aesthetic uses. The ways theorised were valid and showed that the participants were already thinking of ways to design with this material. By the end of 19
the focus group they were comfortable enough to at least mentally experiment with potential designs for the material.
4.2 Theme 2 – Willingness to Buy
Question 5. Would you willingly buy a product made from mycelium leather that was:
(Than leather) Cheaper Same Price Higher Cost
Definitely P4
Probably P1, P3, P5 P2, P3, P4, P5
Possibly P2, P1, P3, P5
Probably Not
Definitely Not
P1, P2, P4
The results gathered were somewhat conflicting with Pientner, et al’s (2013) mycophobic standpoint on the UK, as the answers to the questions leaned more to the innovative standpoint, this is shown by the placement of the red arrow, showing the mean line. The higher price did not deter the participants as much as expected, with many ‘probably’ buying the mycelium product over its real leather counterpart, and two of the five participants answering ‘probably’ to a more expensive mycelium product. This may be because the participants at this point in the research were becoming more comfortable with the mycelium as they learned more about it. Despite this possible bias, it shows that young consumers are more innovative, this concurs with similar findings by (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008). From these findings, it is safe to conclude that the marketers of the mycelium products should target wealthy young people the most, as they will be the demographic most willing to buy.
Question 6. If you have never consciously bought an alternative to natural leather, would you willingly buy a product made from mycelium leather that was:
(Than leather) Cheaper Same Price Higher Cost
Definitely P1
Probably P1, P3, P4 P1, P2,
Possibly P2, P5 P3, P4 P1, P5
Probably Not
Definitely Not
P5 P2, P3, P4
20
These results show a greater spread compared to question 5, with answers leaning toward the wearier side. This shows that people who think more traditionally are more inclined to stick with their most comfortable and familiar options. This further confirms the points made on innovativeness made by (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008) whereby older and less educated consumers tend to be more risk averse when buying into new technologies. Although no specific price was given, this may allow the participant to think of an unaffordable price, making them answer with an equally extreme response. Nonetheless, the answers show a clear trend on price being a purchasing factor. If the manufacturers want their mycelium products to sell, they will have to amend faults and fix more attention on convincing people that this material is safe and not ‘icky’, as P-3 and P-4 stated in the focus group.
4.3 Theme 3 – Designers’ Interpretations
Question 8. What reason would you think would discourage people from buying mycelium products? All participants stated that durability was a primary concern after stating previously that it was flimsy. The specific sample given was their only frame of reference, so if they had access to other more sturdier samples, other deficiencies would have been acknowledged. A point made was permeability, the participants were curious about how it would react to water. To satisfy this, the sample was doused in water. The participants took a FIGURE 10 THE SAMPLE DOUSED IN WATER, keen interest in this and noted how the sample shrank and AUTHORS OWN changed colour when wet, again demonstrating that their curiosity outweighed any ‘contamination’ they might have felt. Previous comments also suggested that due to the thickness of the mycelium it would make good insulation and would be good for linings of jackets. The potential of mycelium as insulation is similar to that stated by Phil Ross in (Mazda 2016), showing that designers can easily see the vast possibilities of mycelium. There was also an instance of a participant asking about the other mycelium moulds when scrolling through the video, highlighting that the participant was open to discussion about the other uses of mycelium, again reiterating that curiosity and forward thinking was stronger than distaste.
Question 9. What reasons would you think would encourage people to buy mycelium products? 21
The most agreed upon point amongst the participants was the fact that it was much more sustainable than real leather. This is perhaps the most important aspect of mycelium leather, as stated in the study conducted by (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008) that environmental concerns and social responsibility are a big factor in consumer adoption. P-4 stated the fact it looks identical to suede leather as a reason showing that if normal mycelium leather appeared identical to real leather it would be very widely accepted. This is already the case with this sample, which shows this is easily achievable in the future development of mycelium.
5.0 Limitations and Further Research
Although showing a clear confirmation of various other academics’ findings and potential design insights into how mycelium could be developed in the future, the study was subject to a range of limitations that call for further research to be carried out. At the time of the study being conducted it is still too early to fully understand the implications and disruptive effects of mycelium on the world today. There was little literature appertaining to mycelium to contribute a valuable insight into this. The variety of mycelium samples available were also extremely limited and a greater variety would have aided in the accuracy of showcasing mycelium’s potential to participants. Furthermore, a separate video at the end of the focus group showing a clip explaining the problems of how meat production and therefore leather production are detrimental to planetary health could have influenced the participants’ willingness to buy alternatives, as concluded by (Mankad and Tapsuwan 2011). To better understand mycophobia on a societal level, a survey could have been carried out concentrating on this topic, although restricted in terms of qualitative data, it would have given a more expansive view of the mycophobic/philic landscape of the UK.
6.0 Conclusion
The current literature established a common theme in perception, that people automatically consider each other as mycophobes and that mushrooms are generally seen in a negative light. This pessimistic view is perhaps the biggest hurdle that mycelium must face. The growing trend of environmental awareness is perhaps the best chance mycelium has to gain consumers’ trust. This, and educating people on the advantages of mycelium over traditional leather as recognised in the literature is a powerful tool to contextualise consumers’ minds. 22
The primary research gave an insight into consumers’ and designers’ points of view on their basic impression of fungus and the concept of mycelium grown leather. Results backed up points on consumer innovativeness put forth by (Wang, Dou and Zhou 2008), especially on how younger people are more open to new innovations. Various participants exhibited mycophobic attitudes towards the material properties of mycelium and edible mushrooms that were in line with the conclusion of the UK being a mycophobic country (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) but stated they liked the taste of mushrooms. These attitudes toward the material show that progress still needs to be made either culturally or through marketing to convince people to accept this product. A portion of the participants clearly showed a curiosity towards mycelium and its environmental implications in terms of making less efficient materials redundant and being of low impact itself. There is a good catalyst for growth in the fact that people are curious about the material and support an environmentally valuable alternative, such as mycelium.
7.0 References
Mycelium - The future is fungi2017. . Available at: https://thegreentemple.net/articles/mycelium-the-future-is-fungi. Living concrete that repairs itself2015a. . Available at: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a15576/concrete-heal-thyself/. MYCELIUM-BASED MATERIALS FOR PRODUCT DESIGN2015b. . Available at: https://www.designacademy.nl/research/places-and-traces/mycelium-based-materials-forproduct-design. Biotech innovator reveals commercial ready 100 percent biodegradable plastic2012a. . Pigment & Resin Technology, 41 (6) Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/prt.2012.12941faa.006. NatureWorks and BioAmber form joint venture to commercialize new bio-based polymers2012b. . Pigment & Resin Technology, 41 (4) Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/prt.2012.12941daa.006. Amy Frearson, 2017. Mushroom mycelium used to create suede-like furniture by Sebastian Cox and Ninela Ivanova. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/09/20/mushroommycelium-timber-suede-like-furniture-sebastian-cox-ninela-ivanova-london-designfestival/[Accessed 10/01/]. Andreas Forgacs, 2013. Leather and meat without killing animals. Youtube. Bloomberg, 2015. Ecovative Design: Manufactured Wood Made Without Trees. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCjoiRa6aMQ.
23
Burstein, P., 2006. Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy Are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications. Social Forces, 84 (4), 2273-2289. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3844500. Cheung, W.M., Marsh, R., Griffin, P.W., Newnes, L.B., Mileham, A.R., and Lanham, J.D., 2015. Towards cleaner production: a roadmap for predicting product end-of-life costs at early design concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 431-441. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614010750. Christopher Barnatt, 2013. 3D Printing the next industrial revolution. N/A: ExplainingTheFuture. Connolly, J. and Prothero, A., 2003. Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consumption Markets & Culture, 6 (4), 275-291. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1025386032000168311. E. Inone-Kauffmann and N. Eisenreich, 2005. BIOCOMP - COMPOSITES FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES - A EUROPEAN PROJECT . Eben Bayer, 2010. Are Mushrooms the New Plastic?. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/eben_bayer_are_mushrooms_the_new_plastic#t-525863. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2011. Bioplastics can be more colorful, thanks to new masterbatch choices from Clariant. Pigment and Resin Technology, 40 (2). Goworek, H., 2011. Social and environmental sustainability in the clothing industry: a case study of a fair trade retailer. Social Responsibility Journal, 7 (1), 74-86. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17471111111114558. H. Nägele, J. Pfitzer, C. Lehnberger, H. Landeck, K. Birkner, U. Viebahn, W. Scheel, R. Schmidt, M. Hagelüken, and J. Müller, 2005. Renewable resources for use in printed circuit boards. Circuit World, 31 (2), 26-29. Haneef, M., Ceseracciu, L., Canale, C., Bayer, I.S., Heredia-Guerrero, J.A., and Athanassiou, A., 2017. Advanced materials from fungal mycelium: fabrication and tuning of physical properties. England: Nature Publishing Group. Ivanova, N., 2015. The t-probe: a fashion-led approach to advance understanding of novel and challenging material concepts and sensory experiences. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Janine Benyus, 2015. Biomimicry. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf4oW8OtaPY. Janine M. Benyus, 1998. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Library of Congress: Harper PErennial. Jinlian Hu and Yong Zhu, Spider Silk: A Smart Biopolymer with Water Switchable Shape Memory Effects -Unravelling the Mystery of Supercontraction. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 17 (2), 1-9. Johannes Brinkmann, 2004. Looking at Consumer Behavior in a Moral Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 51 (2), 129-141. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25379179.
24
John W. Huppertz, Sidney J. Arenson, and Richard H. Evans, 1978. An Application of Equity Theory to Buyer-Seller Exchange Situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (2), 250260. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151255. Joy, A., Sherry, J.F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., and Chan, R., 2012. Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands. Fashion Theory, 16 (3), 273-295. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/175174112X13340749707123. Khalili, N.R., Duecker, S., Ashton, W., and Chavez, F., 2015. From cleaner production to sustainable development: the role of academia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 30-43. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614001322. Luke Groskin, 2016. The fungi in your future. SciFri. M Sivaoorthy, R.Nalini, C.Satheesh Kumar, 2013. Environmental Awareness and Practices among College Students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2 (8). Madison McClintock, 2014. Fungiphilia Rising. NestBox Collective. Mankad, A. and Tapsuwan, S., 2011. Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (3), 380-391. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479710003695. Marcus Friars, 2013. Mycelium Chair by Eric Klarenbeek is 3D-printed with living fungus. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2013/10/20/mycelium-chair-by-eric-klarenbeek-is-3dprinted-with-living-fungus/ [Accessed 29/01/19]. Maudie Manton, 2015. Mushroom-based modelling kit allows users to grow their own designs. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/03/25/mushroom-materials-ecovativemodelling-kit-mycelium-designs-of-the-year-2015/ [Accessed 20/01/]. Mazda, 2016. Mycoworks. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQznqpy3Ss. Michael Pawlin, 2011. Biomimicry in Architecture. London: RIBA Publishing. Motherboard, 2015. Fungus:  The plastics of the future. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnMXH5TqqG8. PATRICK DE PELSMACKER, LIESBETH DRIESEN, and GLENN RAYP, 2005. Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2), 363-385. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23860612. Paul Burstein, 2003. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 29-40. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3219881. PaulTreml, 2012. METABOLIC MATERIALS AND SELF-REPAIRING ARCHITECTURE. Available at: https://arch5541.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/metabolic-materials-and-selfrepairing-architecture/ [Accessed 19.01.]. Rachel Armstrong, 2009. Architecture that repairs itself. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_itself?referrer=pla ylist-sustainability_by_design&language=en#t-75569. 25
Rachman, S., 2009. Fear of contamination. Reprint. ed. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. Robson, C. and McCartan, K., 2016. Real world research. Fourth Edition ed. Chichester: Wiley. TED, 2013. Leather and meat without killing animals. Youtube. Un, C.A. and Asakawa, K., 2015. Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (1), 138-153. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jpim.12229. Ursula Peintner, Stefanie Schwarz, Armin Meťić, Pierre-Arthur Moreau, Gabriel Moreno, and Philippe Saviuc, 2013. Mycophilic or mycophobic? Legislation and guidelines on wild mushroom commerce reveal different consumption behaviour in European countries. San Francisco: Public Library of Science. Valor, C., 2008. Can Consumers Buy Responsibly? Analysis and Solutions for Market Failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31 (3), 315-326. Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/article/kapjcopol/v_3a31_3ay_3a2008_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a315326.htm. van den Berg, Peter T and Pitariu, H., 2005. The relationships between personality and wellbeing during societal change. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (1), 229-234. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905000140. Wang, G., Dou, W., and Zhou, N., 2008. Consumption attitudes and adoption of new consumer products: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing, 42 (1/2), 238254. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090560810840998. Willis, K. J. (ed. ), 2018. State of the Worlds Fungi. Royal Botanic Gardens KEW, Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/09/25/state-of-the-worlds-fungi-report-mushrooms-eatplastic-kew-gardens/. Zadpoor, A.A., 2013. The evolution of biomaterials research. Materials Today, 16 (11), 408409. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702113003544.
8.0 Bibliography
Bolt Threads ltd., 2018. Mylo. Available at: https://boltthreads.com/technology/mylo/ [Accessed 12/12/]. Dodds, W.B. and Monroe, K.B., 1985. "The Effect of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluations". Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1293433801. Ecovative, 2018. How to grow giant mycelium parts.Youtube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1BV9oJTuN8 [Accessed 05/12/].
26
eric klarenbeek, ericklarenbeek. Available at: http://www.ericklarenbeek.com/ [Accessed 24/01/]. Helen Alford, The Future is Fungal. Available at: https://bsasheffield.org/tag/mycelium/ [Accessed 08/12/]. Hitesh Bhasin, 2017. New product adoption. Available at: https://www.marketing91.com/new-product-adoption/ [Accessed 06/01/]. Isaacson, W., 2015. Steve Jobs. engl. ed. ed. London: Abacus. Mashable Deals, 2017. Lab grown leather. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=191sqc0XPqA [Accessed 02/12/]. MaterialDistrict, 2014. Muskin. Available at: https://materialdistrict.com/material/muskin/ [Accessed 08/12/]. nat-2, 2018. Nat-2 Fungi line. Available at: https://nat-2.eu/nat-2-fungi-line/ [Accessed 17/12/]. Simone Preuss, 2018. Sustainable textile innovations: mushroom leather. Available at: https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/sustainable-textile-innovations-mushroomleather/2018051429598 [Accessed 21/12/].
9.0 Figure List
Figure 1: A chair filled with mycelium and shelled using a 3D printer Eric Klarenbeek is 3D-printed with living fugus. 2013 A chair filled with mycelium and shelled using a 3D printer. Marcus Friars Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2013/10/20/mycelium-chair-by-eric-klarenbeek-is-3dprinted-with-living-fungus/ [Accessed 08/02/19] Figure 2: Ross stretching mycelium sample The fungi in your future. 2016 Ross stretching mycelium sample. Luke Groskin Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBXGFOk5_Rs [Accessed 29/01/19] Figure 3: A Styrofoam machine A Styrofoam machine. Available at: https://fang-yuan.en.made-inchina.com/product/YXonTBcHhGkS/China-Icf-Machine-Styrofoam-Machine.html [Accessed 12/01/2019] Figure 4: Mycelium growing in low-tech plastic moulds
27
(Bloomberg 2015) Ecovative Design, Manufactured wood made without trees. Mycelium growing in low-tech plastic moulds. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCjoiRa6aMQ [Accessed 12/01/2019] Figure 5: Oat and soya milk are the least damaging milks to the planet! vegan_foods_UK, 2018 OAT AND SOYA MILK ARE THE LEAST DAMAGING MILKS TO THE PLANET! [Instagram] 09/01/19 Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/BsbOuBVgFnV/ [Accessed 23/01/19] Figure 6: Red countries are mycophobic and green countries are mycophilic. Red countries are mycophobic and green countries are mycophilic. (Ursula Peintner, et al. 2013) Figure 7: Hide Disruption Cycle Hide disruption Cycle, Author’s own. Figure 8: The frame made to hide the thickness of mycelium. The frame made to hide the thickness of mycelium. Authors own Figure 9: Frames from video clip shown to participants. Frames from video clip shown to participants (Luke Groskin 2016) Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBXGFOk5_Rs [Accessed 04/02/19] Figure 10: The Sample doused in water. The sample doused in water, Author’s own.
28
10.0 Appendices 10.1 Appendix 1 – Ethical checklist and Consent forms
29
30
31
32
33
34
10.2 Appendix 2- Question Sheets
35
36
37
38
39
10.3 Appendix 3 – Transcript & Key Quotes Moderator - So this focus group is going to be semi structured so I’ll ask the questions and then we can talk about it and then after we will write down Notes of what we all thought. So this is about leather alternatives so you can have a look please don’t touch it yet please look as much as you want. So question one in your opinion which is the real leather or fake leather and the mycelium leather. Okay great thanks so this is the real one (4- oh no) this is the fake one and this is the mycelium. (All laugh) Moderator - did you not get that right? 1 - I got all of them wrong Moderator - oh really? Ok so pass that round see what you think 1 - which one is this? Moderator - this is the mycelium 4 - I thought the mycelium was real, how interesting-sorry 1 - can I smell it? Moderator - you can smell it 3 - is it safe to eat? Moderator - probably 4 - would it be useful if I said things like wow I can’t believe this is mycelium (laugh) what an accurate colour they’ve got going on here Moderator – okay 4- however I feel that it is quite flimsy 1 – it’s quite stretchy 5– it’s very squishy 4 – it is very squishy - spongy 5 – it feels like insulation 1 – that would be good for a leather jacket - if it is warm Moderator – okay thanks now that everyone has seen and felt it, what do you think 3 said it is shiny 40
3 – yeah it’s got a nice like it catches the light differently depending on how you hold it 4 – are we writing things down? Moderator – yes just quick notes, texture, smell, flimsiness, evenness, stuff like that. What do you think 2? 2 - yeah it felt fragile appearance of it does look accurate to me (moderator – to leather?) yeah to leather, the texture is also nice and soft. That’s my thoughts on that. Moderator – okay ‘Question 2’ Moderator - did you have any hesitancies about touching the mycelium sample, why? So like you obviously know that it is made from mushrooms so is it icky? 4 - I mean yeah a tiny bit to be honest it’s like just a little bit gross when you think about it then again we’ve become de-sensitised to real leather. 5 – I’ve always wanted to know what it was like because I’ve seen a leather bag on Instagram that was made from it. 4 – I think it’s the squishiness that makes me uncomfortable 5 – at least it’s not skin 3 – yeah 4 – yeah 5 – I don’t know how helpful this is presented like that I don’t have any hesitancy is about touching it but when it is in like the full sheet where it is like weird and lumpy ‘MODERATOR TAKES OUT WHOLE MYCELIUM SAMPLE’ 5 - woah 3– I don’t really know what to think of it you can’t tell how it’s been processed really 4 – it looks like at the top of a weird mushroom found in the woods 1 – yeah 4 – like the textures and the marbling looks a bit like a real life mushroom 5 – that’s quite cool 1 – this one seems a lot firmer Moderator – yeah this one is a bit uneven.
41
Question 4 - if you have ever bought an alternative to natural leather what was that material? So like Dr Martins for example 3 – so like more detail than just faux leather Moderator – yeah like do you know specifically what was it? 4– so do you want to know the brand so you can look it up from there? Because the boots I wear are not real leather but they’re a specific type of fake leather. 3– does fake suede count? Like it kind of looks the same is that and there is ingredients for this one (laugh) polyester 4 – it does look like suede doesn’t it, in fact it’s more convincing as suede than it is as leather. 1 – yeah I agree 5 - that’s what I thought it was Moderator – you thought it was suede? 5 - mhm 3 - icky 4 – yeah it is icky, like that squishy is icky Moderator – so would you willingly buy a product made from mycelium leather that was cheaper, the same price, or more expensive as that product, So say you’ve got like a handbag and an identical handbag but the difference was that one is made from real and one is made from mycelium leather, would you buy mycelium if it was cheaper, or more expensive? What are your thoughts on that 2? 2 – my thoughts very much, uh surrounded nah, actually I wouldn’t, I would buy it if it was – I would possibly buy it if it was cheaper, If it was the same price I would probably buy it, if it was more expensive I would probably not buy it Moderator – okay Four – I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t trust it at least not in this state, If they made it stronger but like I don’t know how actual products look, cus this is just a sample, I wouldn’t trust it– I managed to tear it very very quickly after you let me, after you showed it to me for the first time. 1 – how do you know for sure that something leather is going to be pretty, pretty study. 4 – the whole selling point of leather is that it’s going to last so long, that’s like the main selling point for the boots in millets that are leather compared to the fabric ones, like, leather is going to last me 42
3 – Edible savoury clothing, has anyone one that yet? 4 – I understand the benefits of it, but like I just like, I just don’t trust it, you know? Moderator – Because of how flimsy it feels? 3 – You can’t think of how they would have to process it to make it durable, like putting another product in. 5 - yeah, I was jut going to say is this treated so it doesn’t grow anymore? 4 -Yea, I imagine it going mouldy, like I imagine it degrading like mushrooms do. 3 – yeah because it’s so spongy It can soak up water, is the sound part of the consideration? Moderator- No 3 - What if you do, like, kinky products but its mushroom leather, not real leather? The texture across the hole thing is so different, some of it is stretchy and its really quite firm. 1 – this reminds me of like cigarette butts that have been used and it’s gone all brown and dirty, that’s what it feels like. 4 – yeah, I just can’t shake the feeling that it’ll start smelling and go a little bit soggy and weird on me. 5 – is it actually more expensive than normal leather? Moderator – Well, right now its super expensive. 1 – well how much was that sample? Moderator – 55 Euro 1 – Jesus Moderator – I think that’s like a raw piece, like its not been processed or anything because its thicker in some places as well. Moderator - What reasons would you think would discourage people from buying mycelium products? 5 – When it gets wet 1 – can we drop some water on it and see what happens? Moderator- Yeah 3 – it’s gone so dark, wow 4 – you can see it down the sides 43
Moderator – its shrinking What reasons would you think would encourage people to buy mycelium products? 3 – have they done testing to see if it’s safe to wear against skin? Moderator – its ok because its antibacterial, its completely inert, it wont keep growing or anything like that.
2 – it’s a sustainable alternative, it might also attract the whole originality of it, because it seems like a new product, people might be attracted to that as well. 5 – if it were cheaper, because faux leather you would buy over leather, half because its cheaper and half because it’s not leather. So if that was cheaper it would come under faux leather 4 – it might be more aesthetically convincing than faux leather as well, like I think it has the potential, if its treated right. Moderator – I’m now going to show you a little clip, I’ve taken out the audio because he’s talking about the benefits, and I want you guys to remain neutral as possible. So it will show you other samples that I couldn’t really get, but they’ve treated them differently, you will see. ‘Video Plays’ 4 – So that’s all mycelium? Moderator – Yes 4 – it looks pretty rustic, though, like it looks all dirty, not very clean. Moderator – So how does that change your perception of mycelium? 4 – I think it shows that it’s got a lot of versatility, and there are bits that show it has the potential to be pretty strong as well, just the way he was pulling it and everything. 5 – the treatment makes it look like it could be more durable, although the appearance is less attractive than I imagined it would be. But it seems like there’s a lot of potential and research and testing would make it more commercially attractive. 1 – Lots of different colours. 4 – it doesn’t look as refined as real leather 5 – but real leather has been sort of refined for hundreds of years.
44
3 – I feel like it would be the type of product that would be better suited to bags and things, not so much shoes and jackets but I would have a lot of different textures and appearances available, and they wouldn’t have to be super strong, they would just have to be for products where a hole doesn’t mean the end of the world. 5 – it could be good for the inside lining of jackets, could be quite warm. 1 – I can see this being a laptop bag or something, really thick. Moderator – Were essentially done, but any final thoughts? 4 – I think it’s very exciting, and has lots of potential, I can’t imagine it being a bad thing.
Theme Identified
Quote
Durability
P-4 I wouldn’t trust it at least not in this state P-5 the treatment makes it look like it could be more durable P-2 does look accurate to leather
Willingness to Buy
Perception
P-2 it’s a sustainable alternative, it might also attract the whole originality of it, because it seems like a new product, people might be attracted to that as well. P-5 half because its cheaper and half because it’s not leather. P-4 I think it’s very exciting, and has lots of potential P-4 yeah it is icky, like that squishy is icky P-4 it’s like just a little bit gross when you think about it P-4 I imagine it degrading like mushrooms do P-4 I just can’t shake the feeling that it’ll start smelling and go a little bit soggy and weird on me. P-5 presented like that I don’t have any hesitancy is about touching it but when it is in like the full sheet where it is like weird and lumpy P-4 in fact it’s more convincing as suede than it is as leather P-5 although the appearance is less attractive than I imagined it would be. P-4 it doesn’t look as refined as real leather
Remarks
Key Quote
Key Quote Key Quote
Key Quote
Key Quote
45
Designer’s Interpretation
P-1 that would be good for a leather jacket - if it is warm P-3 like it would be the type of product that would be better suited to bags and things, not so much shoes and jackets but I would have a lot of different textures and appearances available, and they wouldn’t have to be super strong, they would just have to be for products where a hole doesn’t mean the end of the world.
10.4 Appendix 4 – Images from Focus Group Video
46
47
48
49
10.5 Appendix 5 – Declaration
50