Whose responsibility is it to drive climate action? A debate almost as divisive as the chicken and the egg, still it remains unanswered: is it up to the consumer or the company to put an end to climate change?
The short answer is both (in the developed world). The longer one? Find below.
Let’s break it down and start with the point-of-view of the individuals. We have a voice, and we can help in a plethora of direct and indirect ways; by raising awareness on social media, swapping the products we use, making lifestyle changes, educating others, starting businesses, campaigning for bigger change and even becoming international sensations if you want to go the extra mile (Greta Thunberg). A hopeful image, isn’t it? It would be, if we weren’t in the real world, where only a fraction of the population can, indeed, do all the above freely, and on a whim. Most of the remainder is usually limited by one of three factors: time, willingness/passion and money. It’s all wonderful to have some hi-tech food waste device, but if nobody can afford to install it, then it’s going to process very little, and the problem will remain. Similarly, sometimes there are no available alternatives (yet – we remain optimistic that sunshine, rainbows and unicorns will prevail), for example in the case of smartphones, which contain parts that are not only assembled in different corners of the world, but that are made of very precious metals, like gold. And yet, I would estimate a high proportion of phone users not to be familiar with the environmental toll their devices have, and this leads us onto the next issue: the way we raise awareness on social media.
There are many, many accounts that promote beautiful infographics telling us to buy metal straws, wear reusable masks and carry reusable bags. I think everyone remotely aware of climate change knows about those. But the issue with the repetitive nature of this “education” is that we have become desensitised to it, because of how often we see it. Meaning, we are likely to skip those posts, as we believe they won’t tell us anything new, and thus become ignorant to the evolution of existing solutions. We lose interest as soon as the trend is over. More than anything else now we need original presentation of innovative ideas that will inspire the next generation of leaders and maintain that enthusiasm.
Now, let’s consider the position of the companies. The biggest brands have the potential to make the headlines with radical systematic changes for the better of the planet and the people (remember that sustainability does include the social aspect too) – such as when NASA introduced literal power naps to improve their employees’ performance and wellbeing – and at an age when sleeping on the job is a big no-go. Why don’t we see this more? Often, because a specific campaign has to come from a person, or group of people, and the bigger the organisation, the harder it becomes to get your idea across to the right people, at the right time, and for anything to actually come of it even if it were more than possible. However, is the reverse true; that in smaller companies it’ll be easier?
Yes and no; this is where our favourite limiting factors of time, drive and money return. Companies will only really strive to make grand amends if their customers are pushing it – and then if they can afford it (which most can’t, as it would require research into alternatives, implementation of new policies, delivery, installation, training, contracts etc). Hence, not looking a lot better.
Furthermore, very often the actual definition of “sustainable” is hazy within the eyes of the leaders who have the capacity to make those radical systemic changes we so long for and this boils down to again, the uneven representation of all the solutions out there in the media. Agriculture and the food industry would benefit from re-evaluating their land, water and fertiliser use, as well as emissions released during processing. Others, like the fashion industry, could consider mileage and the social impacts on their employees in production. Others still could simply swap some of their suppliers for more local ones, and already be making a change not only to the planet, but to their immediate community. What I’m trying to say, is that by targeting certain changes to specific companies, we could achieve more, and do so more efficiently, maximising the results, without overwhelmingly placing blame and discouraging organisations from even trying.
(Sometimes we also just need a larger body (like the UN or the government) to give some CEOs a kick up the rear to gently remind them to pay their taxes, but that’s a WHOLE other argument.)
Overall, we can see clearly that preventing damage to the planet is very much a joint effort, that is initially driven and motivated by individuals, but eventually inspires larger communities and companies to commit to solving the problem that impacts us all. When the (often self-educated) consumers hold organisations accountable, they listen and develop. When businesses create new alternatives for the individuals, they try them. It’s symbiotic, which is why we must look at the issue practically and respectfully, understanding that sometimes it is simply not possible for everyone to achieve everything, be that due to time, financing or certain necessary ways of life. However, if everyone contributed something, we would be able to build ourselves and our children the sustainable future we collectively deserve.
