The 5rs, and why altruism is no match for marketing.

The 5 r’s (reuse, reduce, recycle, repurpose, and refuse) (or most variants of r’s) requires amazing altruistic behaviour of the individual. Which is the same individual that has been doing the heavy lifting of previous issues. Who might cycle instead of drive. Train instead of fly. Eats plant protein instead of meat protein. These people are in a concerned minority of well meaning individuals who are doing the best they can for the environment and society. They should be celebrated and we should aspire to follow their lead. 

In contrast, we have consumer behaviour. Synthesised by industry over decades, even centuries. Using powerful psychological traits to trigger our selfish interests. It promotes and celebrates individual gain that satisfies short term wants. Consumers are lured by advertising that says “You deserve it”. 

The majority of people fall in to this consumer category. They buy a product because it is cheap, not because it is circular. People who are buying chicken not because it is organic but because it is on special offer. People who buy cars based on what their peers have, not on limitations of funds or efficiency of impact. Consumer desire is a powerful, well established, incredibly popular emotional driver. It is a gigantic problem.

The psychology of these two behaviour groups has different sources. They operate on opposite problem spaces – individual desire, or the global social concern. They operate on different time spans – want it now, or plan for a better future. The reward from both activities is different – benefit of personal satisfaction, or presenting future generations with opportunities.

Don’t get me wrong, we need to do everything we can. Action like the 5rs is great. I am a big fan. Its no match for mass consumption and convenient disposal. It won’t solve the crisis we are in. For that we need new approaches. 

Bonding the impact makers

We need to push for a solution that is part of the consumer experience. Something that bonds the consumer and provider together in equal responsibility. These parties are joint benefices of the consumer transaction – the consumer who benefits as their needs are met, the provider benefits from financial reward. For too long these two groups have walked away from the debt of consumerism without obligation to correct it. That debt, be it in the form of waste plastic, or carbon gas, even lingering data assets, has unfairly impacted groups outside of the consumer / provider relationship.

What we have tended to do is separate the consumer / provider at the end. Then blame the business and request increased laws to punish companies independent of the consumer. This fixes part of the problem in terms of inspiring improved materials or manufacturing. But it overlooks the partnership as an entity. This is where bonding and responsibility needs to happen. Without doing this we are failing to attach the act of consumption as a consumer, to the impact of consumption. 

Act attached to impact

Which is where we are at with the 5rs. Consumerism is an experience of consumption. We need to deal with it in that way. It is currently experienced by a consumer as a purely selfish indulgence that they are free to walk away from. This is not fair. As consumers we should take responsibility at the end. This should be delivered as an experience by the company that created the product. That experience should be bonding. Binding the parties together to neutralise the negative consequences of consumption. 

Attaching the consumer and provider together makes the loop of impact and blame far tighter. Instead of waste falling outside of the consumer relationship in the current model and then having to be corrected by society. Waste stays attached to the consumer / provide relationship. Resolving that issue becomes a direct cost, financially as well as emotionally for the consumer.