Consumption and Our Relationship to the Environment

Running head: Our World and Its Planned Obsolescence 1

Consumption and Our Relationship to the Environment

Humber College

Dean Glover

SOCI 3000 – 0LF

Saturday November 22, 2014

Chris DaCosta: 822.405.841


Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 4

Discussion 5

Conclusion 10

Appendix 11

References 12



Executive Summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate consumer behaviour and the factors that are effecting our

relationship to the environment.

Problem/Objective

How do demands on goods affect requirements placed upon the environment?

Results

The incremental nature of globalization and population is resulting in an increasingly

consumerist culture that is fast approaching unsustainable consumption levels – if it has not

already – that our Earth cannot support (Schaefer, 2005). It is becoming significantly difficult to

stabilize consumption patterns because of these two factors.

According to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature 2002, the average person’s ecological footprint

(or their demand on the Earth’s ecosystems) “worldwide is about 2.28 hectares, with the average

U.S. American needing 9.7 hectares […] and the average UK citizen 5.35 hectares” (Schaefer,

2005).

Conclusion

Actions must be taken by government officials and/or individuals to limit societal consumption

levels. Taking an active role as a consumer, by being aware of our consumption patterns and

dispositions can help control our ecological footprint and reduce the requirements placed upon

our environment.



Introduction

This report examines issues of sustainability, consumer behaviour, and our relationship to our

environment in order to answer our research question: how do demands on goods affect

requirements placed upon the environment?

To be able to formulate an answer, we will first be discussing consumerism and commodification

from a sociological perspective according to relevant theorists. In the second part of our report

we will be addressing consumer behaviour and issues pertaining to self-identity, psychographics,

consumer involvement, and purchasing and disposing habits. Lastly, we will be evaluating the

impact consumption has on our environment, specifically referencing mobile phone consumption

behaviour and the need for proper sustainable and disposable practices.

In addition to the discussion of each of these topics, we have considered three other questions we

will be answering within our report to help develop a conclusion: (1) What is sustainability? (2)

“Who […] needs to change consumption patterns to achieve greater sustainability?” (Schaefer,

2005), and (3) Can consumption be sustainable?

Before exploring questions (2) and (3), it is important to develop an understanding of the

implications surrounding sustainability. Sustainability has multiple interpretations and meanings,

which has created large debates and conflicting definitions of the term (Schaefer, 2005). The

most basic and ambiguous definition of sustainability “stresses the necessity of meeting the

needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

needs” (Schaefer, 2005). What is most important about this definition is that it fails to define

needs appropriately, and more specifically, whose needs are of greater importance.

For the purpose of this report, we will define sustainability in terms of an environmental,

ecological, sociological, and economical equilibrium that ensures our actions do not disrupt the

physiological needs of relevant stakeholders.



Discussion

Consumerism and Commodification

As our economy expands globally, it is becoming increasingly difficult for individuals to create

an identity (cultural and/or social) other than what has been established by society through the

consumption of goods. Galbraith argues that our needs/wants do not originate from the

individual, but are a process of systematic manipulation. He goes deeper into the topic by

suggesting that our wants are created through emulation and thus our wants are based on trying

to keep up with the Jones’s. With societies growing faster, our wants are created in higher levels

and therefore will need to be satisfied through higher levels of production. He suggests that

advertising does not work to satisfy wants, but instead creates them where they previously did

not exist:

“The fact that wants are synthesized by advertising, catalyzed by salesmanship, and

shaped by the discrete manipulations of the persuaders shows that they are not very urgent”

(Schor & Holt, 2000, p.23).

Galbraith creates an image that we as consumers can no longer rationalize our needs/wants,

rather, we have become destructive in the sense that our needs/wants are no longer created from

spontaneity, but from the process of productions itself. And through production, premiums are

set on the standard of living, and if we don’t buy into it then we will never see value in our life

choices.

This concept may seem rather dull, but as Adorno & Horkheimer would agree in their theory of

the Culture Industry, we live in a commoditized cultural society where our understandability of

freedom is the ability as consumers to purchase the things we want and to work where we want.

Where the standardization of the cultural society keeps us within limitations in order to prevent

any true ideology that resistance may be possible. The end goal of the culture industry is to

create false identities through the products of society, rendering us as nothing more than the

objects we possess.

According to Adorno and Horkheimer, standardization is the process in which the culture

industry systematically formulates, classifies and organizes demographics so that everyone can



be targeted and satisfied in the same way. This standardization has created the appearance of

pseudo-individuality, or the appearance of novelty. It is the way that the culture industry

assembles products and makes claims to originality but when examined more critically, they

exhibit little more than superficial differences. For instance, a movie or novel book will usually

have a main character that progresses throughout the story and may eventually meet someone

and fall in love. The plot could remain the same, but characters can be plucked out and changed

around to create an entirely ‘new’ movie to accommodate commercial form. Although characters

and parts within the production of the film may be substituted, the overall representation of the

final product is nonetheless the same.

On the other hand, Twitchell defends commercialism and states,

“Commercialism is more a mirror than a lamp. In demonizing it, in seeing ourselves as

helpless and innocent victims of its over-powering force, in making it a scapegoat […], we

reveal far more about our own eagerness to be passive in the face of complexity than about the

thing itself” (Schor & Holt, 2000, p.282).

What Twitchell argues is that consumers are too quick to understandably criticize

commercialism, and rather than be accepting of the realities of it and of their own resulting

behaviours, many individuals choose to be passive instead of active consumers. He suggests

some individuals lack the ability to practice rationalized purchasing behaviours and that we have

become a society of conspicuous consumers who emulate standardized goals and objectives

established through our materialistic society.

Twitchell claims that “[w]e live through things. We create ourselves through things. And we

change ourselves by changing our things” (Schor & Holt, 2000, p.282). He suggests there is

forms of activity within the passivity of consumption in that we consume more than just the

material component of a product, we also consume meanings, symbols, and images together to

create a lifestyle. We are engaged and create value through our actions.



Despite his defense on consumption, Twitchell expresses some concerns over consumerism:

It is wasteful

It is devoid of other worldly concerns

It lives for today and celebrates the body

It overindulges

These perspectives have led to the widely voiced concerns of sustainability.

Consumer Behaviour

The incremental nature of globalization and population is resulting in an increasingly

consumerist culture that is fast approaching unsustainable consumption levels – if it has not

already – that our Earth cannot support (Schaefer, 2005). It is becoming significantly difficult to

stabilize consumption patterns because of these two factors.

According to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature 2002, the average person’s ecological footprint

(or their demand on the Earth’s ecosystems) “worldwide is about 2.28 hectares, with the average

U.S. American needing 9.7 hectares […] and the average UK citizen 5.35 hectares” (Schaefer,

2005). What this is suggesting is if the entire world were to turn into a consumerist society,

achieving European or even North American levels of consumption, “we would need several

planets Earth” (Schaefer, 2005) to achieve stabilization.

So, in reference to our previous question, “Who […] needs to change consumption patterns to

achieve greater sustainability?” (Schaefer, 2005), actions must be taken by government officials

and/or individuals to limit societal consumption levels. However, sustainability – as we had

defined earlier – is more than just an environmental and ecological stabilization; it is also an

economic equilibrium. And in order to maintain economic stability, production must go on to

satisfy the (sociological) wants and needs of individuals. This supports Galbraith’s argument in

that, as societies grow, wants and needs are created in higher levels and therefore need to be

satisfied through higher levels of production. But if policies are enforced that aim to reduce the

amount individuals are consuming, it may create conflict with their interests and goals. And



although every individual experiences different levels of consumption, they also exhibit different

levels of needs/wants that are not purely physiological. For instance, Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs (refer to appendix 1-1) is a formulated hierarchy of biogenic and psychogenic needs that

individuals try to attain (Solomon, White, & Dahl, 2014). In this hierarchy there are

physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs, ego needs, and self-actualization needs.

Based on this hierarchy, it is easier to understand how the consumption of products and services

– given our understanding of the relevant theorists’ arguments - contribute to our self-identity;

and if policies are established that limit our ability to control the level at which we achieve these

goals, we are essentially denied our freedom and stripped of our identity.

That said, it is important – as Twitchell claims – to be an active, or involved consumers by

considering alternatives while we can and to avoid making decisions out of habit or misinformed

(passive) decisions (Solomon, White, & Dahl, 2014). By taking the appropriate actions now, we

can mitigate the effects of our ecological footprint.

Sustainable and Disposable Practices

Consumer involvement can take many forms, but for the purposes of this section we will be

focusing on the product involvement aspect and how the mobile phone consumption behaviour is

generating the need for proper disposable and sustainable practices on behalf of the producers.

We live in a throwaway society where consumers are eager to move forward by keeping up with

technological demands imposed on us through production and manipulation of the system; where

planned obsolescence of products, in particular mobile phones, is the one-way street that is

leading us to economic growth at the expense of an unsustainable future. We chose to discuss

mobile phone consumption because of all other products, they have the shortest life cycle and

about 80% of North American consumers own one (Wilhelm, Yankov, & Magee, 2011). Mobile

phones have about an 18 month product lifetime after being purchased, where 90% of these

phones are still in working condition upon disposal or replacement, which account for 60% of

sales (Wilhelm, Yankov, & Magee, 2011). As mentioned, the reason for high disposal rates is



partly due to the marketing efforts of producers who encourage individuals to replace their

phones using a concept of planned obsolescence, where initiatives are taken to continuously

increase mobile phone specifications that target consumer demographics and psychographics that

take the form of pseudo-individuality. Apple Inc., for instance, creates at least one new IPhone

every several months, and although there are very little superficial differences, the company

successfully creates a demand through its advertising efforts that focus on the product’s

application to consumer lifestyles (Solomon, White, & Dahl, 2014). For example, the graphical

user interface allows individuals to customize their phone with a number of various applications

that suit their needs, allowing them to create a new self-concept each time new applications and

phones are introduced to the market.

As numbers increase for the disposition of mobile phones, it is becoming apparent that

companies interested in the well-being of relevant stakeholders, not just its shareholders, should

look toward creating more innovative strategies that encourage sustainable consumption

behaviours (Wilhelm, Yankov, & Magee, 2011). A couple alternatives could be listed, but many

lack practicality. Companies can create strategies that aim to produce made-to-order products

that limit the amount of wasteful production, which would promote sustainable consumption in

that products will be produced for a set amount of individuals rather than being mass produced.

A second alternative would be for companies to introduce disposal services in which mobile

phone returns are either (1) stripped of parts and recycled/re-used, or (2) permanently disposed

of through appropriate measures.

Although these steps will not eliminate the growing concerns surrounding sustainability, they are

surely a better direction for decreasing wasteful production and disposition habits that are

creating huge environmental impacts.



Conclusion

Can Consumption be Sustainable?

We’ve explored our definition of sustainability and established that it is a process of equilibrium,

where one factor cannot take precedence over another in order to remain stable overall.

However, as indicated in our research, consumption levels are rising to a level that is directly

effecting environmental-ecological imbalance and must be controlled. The ideal solution would

be to freeze or slow population growth and/or consumption behaviours, but both of which are

difficult to control, if not impossible. Consumption must continue to grow in order to maintain

economic stability, and so our proposed alternatives to innovative practices on behalf of

producers should be considered when planning for the future and prevention of waste buildup in

relation to mobile phone production.

As consumers, we have a role as well to contribute to a sustainable future by taking an active, or

involved behavioural position when choosing which products suit the well-being and values of

our lives and determining appropriate actions that limit the amount of our ecological footprint.

Our over-indulgence in consumption has created large demands on our environment and as a

result, we are quick to blame the culture industry for unsustainable consumption levels rather

than accept the very fact that our actions, as well, have consequences that contribute to our own

obsolescence.



Appendix

1-1.



References

1. Schaefer, A. (2005). Addressing Sustainability and Consumption. Journal of

Macromarketing,76-92.

2. Wilhelm, W., Yankov, A., & Magee, P. (2011). Mobile phone consumption behavior and

the need for sustainability innovations.Journal of Strategic Innovation and

Sustainability, 7(2), 20-40. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/911970900?accountid=11530

3. Solomon, M., White, K., & Dahl, D. J. (2014). Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having

and Being Sixth Edition. Pearson Education Canada.

4. Schor, J., & Holt, D. (2000). The consumer society reader. New York, NY: New Press.


http://search.proquest.com/docview/911970900?accountid=11530

Consumption and Our Relationship to the Environment

Documents

Transcript of Consumption and Our Relationship to the Environment