How do you market sustainable practices? Richard talks with Fred Dorsimont about his work at Behaven, helping organizations understand how to persuade consumers to adopt sustainable practices. Fred talks about a study with the World Wildlife Fund about plant-based diets and the challenges of understanding the relationship between consumers and eating meat. The conversation also explores how other sustainability practices, like driving electric cars, have crossed into positive social space where other methods have not. Sustainability marketing is more than demonstrating your organization's sustainable practices; but also helps your customer do the same!
Brandon Wehn (00:08):
Welcome to the show. This is Brandon Wehn, and you are listening to the Understanding Consumer Neuroscience podcast, brought to you by the folks at CloudArmy. In this episode, Richard talks with Fred Dorsimont of Behaven about his work understanding how to market sustainable practices to consumers.
Richard Campbell (00:29):
Hi, this is Richard Campbell, and thanks for listening to Understanding Consumer Neuroscience. Today, my guest is Fred Dorsimont, who is the co-founder and managing director of Behaven, helping organizations understand and change people's behavior to ensure the success of their sustainable products and programs. Welcome, Fred.
Fred Dorsimont (00:44):
Thank you, and thanks for having me, Richard.
Richard Campbell (00:47):
I'm really excited to talk to you because you've done some amazing work here. While I don't want to focus solely on this, this study with the World Wildlife Federation in the UK around actually getting people to take plant-based diet seriously, to take sustainability seriously.
Fred Dorsimont (01:07):
That's right.
Richard Campbell (01:08):
We've talked about this over and over again on the show, this idea that what people say and what people do often don't line up.
Fred Dorsimont (01:14):
Amen to that. Yep.
Richard Campbell (01:16):
It's easy to say, "No, no, I'm all in it for sustainability," but actually doing it is much harder.
Fred Dorsimont (01:21):
Yeah. So that notion of intention behavior gap is something you've probably discussed in some of the previous episodes, and that was actually the starting point of the brief on this project. WWF has a big program called Eat4Change, which is all about educating people about what a sustainable diet is and how to encourage them to move towards adopting sustainable dietary behaviors. So they did a bit of research. That was a UK project by the way. They did some research and realized that one of their specific target audience, people between 25 and 34, on one side are willing to reduce meat consumption and eat more healthily but are also among the biggest meat eaters.
Richard Campbell (02:13):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (02:14):
So there is a massive intention behavior gap there at the end. The project was, they were interested in seeing how behavioral science could help them understand the reasons behind that gap, but also what could be the solutions that behavioral science can bring to the table, knowing that at the end all of these solutions were going to inform their communications for the foreseeable future. So it's a very, really exciting project, interesting topic, interesting challenge as well, and great organization.
Richard Campbell (02:46):
Because we've certainly seen sustainable behaviors become hip. The success of the Prius, to me, is one of my favorites because Toyota didn't intend that. Their original vehicle, it was a California compliance vehicle, and then all of a sudden it's sold like hot cakes. It became a kind of social value signaling to own this odd little hybrid vehicle. I think Tesla's done an amazing job on the electric car. Elon Musk not withstanding that basic idea of how do we turn sustainable practices into a social positive, because we know it's an intellectual positive, we know it's a science positive.
Fred Dorsimont (03:27):
It is.
Richard Campbell (03:28):
But that social positive I think is really, really challenging.
Fred Dorsimont (03:31):
It is. A Prius is a great example that sometimes we think that if you have a product that has some pro environmental benefits, that that's what you should talk about. That's how you should set that product. But actually, one of the main reasons why people bought the Prius is because it shows what value I have as a person. It shows what I care about to the outside world. So it's a great example.
(03:55):
Now, to your point about sustainable behavior is becoming, I guess, fashionable, I think it's work in progress. There is an increasing realization among brands that they can or they have a role to play in encouraging sustainable behaviors among their audiences. I think it comes from the fact that at the end of the day, if as a brand you want to reduce your environment footprint, you can do some of the work yourself in optimizing your production processes or how your employees or your team behaves. But at the end of the day, employees, clients represent the last mile of that process. If you have a great sustainable offering but no one buys it, then you fail.
Richard Campbell (04:42):
It doesn't matter anyway.
Fred Dorsimont (04:46):
Exactly. So brands are starting to realize that, of course, they have to promote these sustainable offering, but sometimes that comes with a change in behavior. A great example, if you are let's say a shampoo brand and all what you've been doing in terms of types of marketing is getting people to buy your new product, the red bottle, the blue bottle, the white bottle, whatever product you have in your range, very often the sort of marketing you would use is to create visibility for that product, making it accessible in store, and you communicate key benefit that goes with that product. You do it in an emotional way, so you create that connection. There you go, you've done your job, and people will choose that product.
(05:32):
Now, if you want people to move from buying a new bottle of shampoo every time to buying a refill, for instance, and so you want people to buy a bottle at the first time, but then you want people to keep that bottle. Next time they go to the store, they either take that bottle with them to refill the bottle in store or they just buy a refill pack that they can take home. Suddenly it's a different challenge. You want people to remember to keep the bottle. You want people to perhaps remember to take it with them to the store. You have to explain to people how do you get to use a refill to put the shampoo in the bottle and so on and so on. So it becomes a different challenge, and there's a number of behavioral barriers that comes in the way, which could be due to people remembering about it. It could be due to people knowing how to use it. It could be due to sometimes people are thinking that a sustainable alternative is perhaps a bit less effective as a product.
Richard Campbell (06:33):
Yeah. It's a question of how much lower is the carbon footprint of the refill bottle than the original bottle. I think you've got to convey that, how are you making a difference here.
Fred Dorsimont (06:42):
Absolutely, yes.
Richard Campbell (06:43):
Yeah.
Fred Dorsimont (06:45):
So more and brands are starting to understand how they can promote that, I guess, more sustainable practices, and then they start to understand a bit more how to do it well. So that's where it becomes interesting for organizations like us, because at the end of the day, if you want to have an impact, being able to work with brands and their big footprint and their ability to influence lots of people is quite important.
Richard Campbell (07:16):
And it feels like there's two different elements here. There's the messaging about your business having sustainable practices, which might be a requirement to buy for certain consumers. "Unless it's got sustainable practice, I don't want to buy there." I don't know if that's a decision maker or not. It's an interesting part. As opposed to, when we start thinking about these refills and things like this, where I'm helping you be a more sustainable consumer with something you have to do day to day.
Fred Dorsimont (07:45):
Yeah. So we've been thinking for quite a while about how do we talk to clients about these different challenges. At the end of the day, behavioral science is only a tool. To what end should it be used? So we sort of thought about, one way to think about it is thinking about two types of challenges, which we ended up calling product-based or participation-based challenges. So product-based would be, "Okay, as a business, I've created a new, more sustainable offering, whether it's a shampoo or anything else. So now I want to promote and market that more sustainable product to my customer." But if we put the product aside, another way for brands to think about how they could contribute to a more sustainable world could be that they encourage people to adopt sustainable behaviors that are related to the product category.
(08:49):
A great example is Hellmann's, which is a mayonnaise brand from a Unilever. The product itself hasn't changed, they haven't created a more sustainable recipe or ways to produce the mayonnaise, but what they've decided to do is to associate themselves to reducing food waste, which you could argue makes sense for a brand of mayonnaise. Mayonnaise is a way to bind different ingredients together.
Richard Campbell (09:15):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (09:16):
So they've developed a really interesting program where they help you identify what's left in your fridge. I mean, let's say you have a bit of pasta, a bit of bread, a bit of tomato and a bit of egg, for instance. And you can then tie this ingredient into an app and it'll give you some examples of recipe, which is a great way to contribute to sustainability,
Richard Campbell (09:41):
Sure, and not necessarily associated with the product there. You didn't even see mayonnaise in the list.
Fred Dorsimont (09:46):
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah.
Richard Campbell (09:47):
Yeah. It's powerful.
Fred Dorsimont (09:48):
Oh, I think it's a great example
Richard Campbell (09:51):
And a classic problem. Refrigerators ought to be able to do this, to be able to know what's in the fridge and make suggestions for what you could make with it. But it's interesting to see brands grabbing onto that. The whole food story I think is extra challenging because when you think about what the WWF was doing, they're not selling a product per se. The barrier to buying meat is very low in the quick food market there. The hamburger is the quickest. Although I guess with the advent of the modern vegetable patty, these Beyond Meat and the like is making it easier to buy a burger that is plant-based.
Fred Dorsimont (10:32):
Yeah. So also what's really interesting is, quite a lot of the work we did for WWF could be used beyond communications. So for instance, it could be used to rearrange the way products are made available in store. For instance, it could be used to improve the choice architecture in store.
Richard Campbell (10:53):
Interesting.
Fred Dorsimont (10:54):
But the scope for this project was solely communications because that's where they, as an entity, are able to contribute. But it's true, quite a lot of the work that's required if we want people to eat less meat and more plant-based proteins and alternatives require that we work at different levels.
Richard Campbell (11:15):
Yeah.
Fred Dorsimont (11:15):
So all of it is to educate people on the benefit of plant-based food or on the health risks associated to eating too much meat. That's one part of the challenge. Another one is that, what's really interesting as part of the project was also to better understand the social dimensions of it. And that's also where, for instance, implicit research, what I feel really helpful. For instance, the fact that there are quite strong associations between eating meat and masculinity.
Richard Campbell (11:48):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (11:49):
The idea that a real man eats meat.
Richard Campbell (11:51):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very classic western cultural element.
Fred Dorsimont (11:55):
Oh, absolutely. So that's also some elements that needs to evolve if we want people to see eating plant-based in a better diet. And then there's a more kind of physical dimension of it, which is product availability in store and so on.
Richard Campbell (12:09):
Yeah, actually making available, which I find interesting, the WWF actually doing research to say to retailers, here's a way to present this that would encourage more plant-based eating.
Fred Dorsimont (12:18):
Yep.
Richard Campbell (12:18):
So was implicit research able to show that there was an association with masculinity and meat? Is that something you actually tested for?
Fred Dorsimont (12:24):
Yeah. We used implicit research at two levels or at two stages during that project. So first, a simple way to talk about that project is to talk about it in terms of analyzing and then influencing or understanding, as I said, the barriers to adopting plant-based diets and then what our solutions to address these barriers. So when doing the analysis phase of that project, what we first did, and that's how we work on our projects in general, we first did a lit review. The topic of plant-based diet is high in our study, quite a lot in science. So there is a lot of work that's available. So that's where we started to give ourself a good big picture of the topic.
Richard Campbell (13:19):
Yeah, it's like a sense of the landscape. Here are the messages that are out there now about plant-based diets.
Fred Dorsimont (13:25):
Right. Yeah, yeah, and it goes beyond message. I like to talk about literary review as a way to open your chakras.
Richard Campbell (13:34):
Love it.
Fred Dorsimont (13:36):
It gives you a big picture of what's going on. It also shows you what you knew already or what you didn't know already.
Richard Campbell (13:44):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (13:45):
So that was the first step of the project. What we then did was to do some acquire research with some of the local audience to make sure that what we had identified in science was valued in the context that this project is taking place in. And then to conclude the analysis phase, we used implicit research. We used it with two objectives: One was, we wanted to use it to confirm or refute whether the barriers and enablers that we had identified were present at an unconscious level, but perhaps also to discover unconsciously expressed ones.
Richard Campbell (14:26):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (14:26):
And the link between eating meat and masculinity is an example of this. It hadn't come in the core research discussions, but it's something that was quite prevalent in implicit research.
Richard Campbell (14:39):
So your literature review and quality of research is really about building up the hypotheses around the barriers to plant-based diets, and then you validate those with implicit research.
Fred Dorsimont (14:49):
That's it. It's an extra layer of validation and quality. And as I said, it ended up completing some of the elements that we had.
Richard Campbell (14:58):
Right. But it must be challenging to find elements that don't show up in the literature review around that. I think the literature review certainly gives you a basis to start looking, but it's like, how do you find the surprises?
Fred Dorsimont (15:11):
I think it could also be element that are very specific to that context. It could be elements that has been seen elsewhere. Now, to what extent they do translate exactly the same way in that context remains to be seen. So for instance, things like what's the perception of terms like meat-free or plant-based or vegan or vegetarian, there might be papers about it in different context, but we also wanted to see how does that work in this specific context.
Richard Campbell (15:44):
Yeah, and how that particular demographic that you're studying responds to those words.
Fred Dorsimont (15:48):
Absolutely.
Richard Campbell (15:48):
Yeah.
Fred Dorsimont (15:49):
So that was, I guess, the first part of it. The second part is, once we worked on identifying solutions, there's a number of other tasks that we did, was we work to get to a short list of possible behavior change interventions that would be relevant for the project. That was based on using some of our specific tools for plant-based behaviors. That was based also on some co-creation workshop with the client. But we ended up having a short list of interventions that we also wanted to test implicitly to see how they were going to work.
Richard Campbell (16:30):
Mm-hmm.
Fred Dorsimont (16:32):
So we basically also create a number of stimuli that could be both about the content of the message or the channel to deliver that message. So as I've just mentioned, should we talk about plant-based or meat-free or vegan or vegetarian? Should the message be delivered by a chef or an influencer or a doctor and so on and so on?
Richard Campbell (16:55):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (16:56):
We ended up going through that second phase of implicit testing, with the result that then at the end, we had a list of what we thought was quite solid recommendations that could then feed into WWF communications.
Richard Campbell (17:14):
And I appreciate that, what the message is and how the message delivered, both valuable parts of it. It's unfortunate to craft a great message, deliver it the wrong way.
Fred Dorsimont (17:24):
Yeah. One of the, perhaps, I guess in retrospect, quite obviously interesting nonetheless, is when you talk about plant-based food, people tend to think about something that's a bit unusual, exotic, like a quinoa salad. But when you think about it, there's common daily food like beans on toast, which is also plant-based actually.
Richard Campbell (17:45):
Totally plant-based, yeah. I mean, especially this was a UK market where-
Fred Dorsimont (17:50):
Absolutely.
Richard Campbell (17:51):
Here in Canada, beans on toast is not as common, but beans on toast in the UK is a huge thing, and that's a completely plant-based thing. I just don't know that most people perceive a can of beans as being plant-based.
Fred Dorsimont (18:05):
No, that's really interesting. So one of the recommendations was that they should promote familiar food like beans on toast as a kind of low-hanging fruit if they want to encourage plant-based diet.
Richard Campbell (18:14):
Sure. It's like, "Hey, you're more plant-based than you know."
Fred Dorsimont (18:17):
Exactly. Yeah, that's it.
Richard Campbell (18:18):
Because you like this.
Fred Dorsimont (18:19):
Already doing it. Absolutely.
Richard Campbell (18:21):
Yeah. You're already doing it, just do a little more. So much, the better. Interesting. And an interesting effect it's got to have on the person that just realized, "Oh, I already know this. I just didn't know that I associate it with these words." It's pretty powerful. Of course, obviously the classic meat type dishes, I've already mentioned the burger or the steak or those sorts of things that are strictly meat. And I think those are often things that folks have very positive association with. To change their mind on that seems almost impossible.
Fred Dorsimont (18:54):
I mean, hence the whole debate and actually also the fight between the meat industry and the plant-based alternative industry about the ability to use terms like burgers. For instance, when you're talking about plant-based, alternative has been a big fight, for instance. I don't know about the US, but in Europe it's been a big fight between-
Richard Campbell (19:16):
Yeah, no, it's certainly been in the news, like is it a burger if it's a plant-based patty?
Fred Dorsimont (19:21):
That's it. Yeah, absolutely.
Richard Campbell (19:23):
Yeah. And that's an industry defending itself as much as anything else.
Fred Dorsimont (19:27):
Oh yeah, of course. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah.
Richard Campbell (19:28):
Yeah, without a doubt. So really, it looks like the implicit research helped you prioritize these things. It's a great discovery to say, "Hey, a product you already know is something that is plant-based, do more of this." But also, what are the words that will change minds and what are the approaches that will ultimately make a difference for folks? You don't have to eat new things. It is people you can relate to that may be more associated with what you're used to eating and can also feed into the new things you can be eating.
Fred Dorsimont (20:00):
Yeah. I don't have the resource yet, but we are currently working on another piece of [inaudible 00:20:07] project that involves some implicit research, and it's about people's relationship with a product once it's been consumed. So if I buy a bottle of Coke, for instance, or a chocolate bar, what relationship do I have with the packaging once I've eaten the food or the drink that's in it?
Richard Campbell (20:33):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (20:34):
So that should be quite interesting and that might teach us a few things as well.
Richard Campbell (20:38):
And this is implicit testing you're doing with CloudArmy?
Fred Dorsimont (20:40):
Yes. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (20:43):
Okay. Those are the tools that help you, but you obviously are developing your own tests from that. Yeah, it is interesting to look at. The long tail on this, to actually know you've changed minds, that's going to take a while. The WWF presents this research, now we talk to retailers about presenting plant-based products in a different way that may help people to choose the right thing or make it easier to find the right things to choose, but it's going to take a while to know that you made a difference.
Fred Dorsimont (21:14):
Yeah, it's very interesting. So I mean, one way to categorize the type of projects we work on is, some project are just like the WWF example where essentially our work is leading to communications guidelines and they are going to be used across a longer period of time in different ways, in different context. So indeed, it's going to be quite challenging to link the impact that's generated to whether it's coming from that specific intervention or these interventions or some others.
Richard Campbell (21:50):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (21:51):
But then we also have other types of projects where, I would say perhaps it's a bit more self-contained or we are in charge of the project from start to end. Let's say, for instance, we've worked on a campaign for the Brussels-Capital Region that was about waste disposal and reducing littering in public parks. So something that they've experienced, like many other cities across the world, which is during the lockdown, when and where we were able to get out, lots of people ended up going to parks because pubs, cafes and restaurants were closed. So the volume of waste increased with the volume of people visiting these parks.
Richard Campbell (22:37):
Sure.
Fred Dorsimont (22:39):
So we were asked to develop a campaign strategy to encourage people to properly dispose of their waste when in parks. And what's really interesting is, doing a bit of research, we noticed that well, first, at least in Brussels that's how it works, it could be the case elsewhere as well, the majority of people go and visit the same park over and over again. So there is some form of attachment to the place. It becomes familiar.
Richard Campbell (23:13):
Yeah, it's their park.
Fred Dorsimont (23:14):
It's their park. Another interesting insight was the fact that there is a link between how comfortable or how integrated I feed within a community and how respectful I'm going to be towards that community, that covers as well behaving properly in terms of littering.
Richard Campbell (23:38):
And then this is that classic crisis of the commons' problem space.
Fred Dorsimont (23:42):
Absolutely. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (23:43):
If the park is already dirty, you have a lower barrier to making it dirtier.
Fred Dorsimont (23:47):
Absolutely. Which is actually quite an interesting, I guess, social barrier in that case.
Richard Campbell (23:53):
Yeah. And then it's also like, do we have places to put waste? Are we making it convenient to do the right thing? I feel like the littering initiative, which is not that old, it was really the 1950s, 1960s that you really had the original messaging around don't litter, put things where they should be and so forth, that evolved into the recycling movement. That was a win that pretty much became a social norm. It's just that the pandemic seemed to put weird pressure on it. Part of that would be, parks did not respond well to processing a lot more garbage when that was the only place people could go. And if you have an overflowing garbage can, that is a crisis of commons problem, and now places are messier, and so it becomes acceptable to continue to be messier.
Fred Dorsimont (24:36):
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I guess the problem is growing because the volume of waste and plastic waste is growing. So I guess they have to become better at handling that challenge.
Richard Campbell (24:49):
Yeah, that's got to be part of it too. But I also see three distinct pieces here that ties to the food as well. There's the individual social effect, like choosing food is very much for you, what you want to eat, health effects, and your social conscience. Then there's the social contract in your peer group, what you eat together. One person littering in a group, looked down upon by the other people in the group, and then the larger social contract of the, "Hey, we're trying to protect the world, so reducing your carbon footprint protects the world." Keeping your garbage put away and tidy is that larger contract as well. I wonder which messages are more powerful. I tend to want to lead towards the middle social contract, the social contract of peers might be the most powerful force, but I wonder if implicit testing shows this for each of these sustainable activities.
Fred Dorsimont (25:44):
Well, I don't know if we can generalize and I don't know if there's one type of solution that works in all context fair enough. But for that campaign I was talking about, we identify a number of insights, like the one I've just mentioned. We saw an opportunity to that link between the individual and its community as a way to build a campaign message. So we ended up using that as the key insight that led the creative process for a campaign. So we ended up with a piece of work where the message of the campaign was delivered by other members of the community, working about we, as in you're part of that community, so let's all take care of this place, of this park. So that, in that case, playing on the social dimension was quite important.
Richard Campbell (26:36):
Right. Well, and littering being a very visible act.
Fred Dorsimont (26:40):
Oh, yes.
Richard Campbell (26:44):
You do not want to have your neighbors see you litter.
Fred Dorsimont (26:47):
Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. So we ended up creating the perception that proper waste disposal is the norm, is exactly what we wanted that campaign to do.
Richard Campbell (26:59):
Mm-hmm.
Fred Dorsimont (27:00):
Now, what's really interesting? So that's I guess the social dimension that you were referring to. What's interesting is, littering is very dependent on the context.
Richard Campbell (27:09):
Yes.
Fred Dorsimont (27:11):
So the same person, depending on the context, could either litter or not. So it was also important that we didn't rely solely on communications to get the job done. So we also did a bit of work to make sure that the campaign architecture was going to make it easier or more motivating for people to do the right thing.
Richard Campbell (27:31):
Sure.
Fred Dorsimont (27:32):
So instead of the center of gravity of the campaign being reliant on mainstream media, like radio or TV or other types of paid advertising, we put a lot more emphasis on intervening in the parks themselves and around the parks, making sure that there were enough bins for people to litter properly, indicating the distance to the closest bins, making paper bags available in stores around the parks. So suddenly, regardless of messaging, being able to proper dispose of your waste was what was made easier to people.
Richard Campbell (28:17):
Convenient. I think there's tears to this. There's, the simplest thing is to throw it on the ground. The next simplest thing is to put it in the bin nearby, and then the more difficult thing would be to carry your waste with you for some extended period to dispose of it, either back at home and so forth. Here in British Columbia where we have a lot of wilderness, there's this whole "if you pack it in, pack it out" mentality, so it's like you carry your waste for the duration of your journey that might be days, for example, and I think that's a much higher bar to, "Oh, there's a bin. Just toss it out."
Fred Dorsimont (28:51):
Yeah, yeah. We had a nice acronym for it, which was made of three Cs: context, communication, community. And that's how the different elements of the campaign were organized. But yeah, it's about messaging, but it's also about making it more convenient for people to do the right thing.
Richard Campbell (29:08):
That social contract element is interesting because, again, if someone's seeing you litter and that person being able to either criticize you for littering or clean it up, and the contract on that, which I think is a far more acceptable practice than perhaps criticizing someone's food choice.
Fred Dorsimont (29:25):
Yeah.
Richard Campbell (29:25):
I think our current social contrast is like, my food is my food, that's very much my decision, as opposed to me throwing something on the ground.
Fred Dorsimont (29:33):
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Food is a key subject for people.
Richard Campbell (29:33):
Yeah. I think you took on the hardest one there, Fred. I think there are very few arguments around littering. There's plenty more around food.
Fred Dorsimont (29:47):
It's really interesting. The OECD published a piece of research, I think it was in November, December perhaps. So basically, part of the research was about sustainable behaviors, and so one section of the research was trying to understand what would it take for people to adopt sustainable behaviors. Part of the research shows that driving, eating meat or eating red meat, and eating in one's homes are the three types of behaviors that people are least willing to change. So cars and meats, two very masculine behaviors, are really among the hardest ones to change. And then they ask, "Okay, so what would make you change?" And the fact that seeing other people make the same effort, especially the well off, was the number one criteria even before financial incentives, for instance. So really, really interesting.
Richard Campbell (30:58):
Yeah. And again, cool electric cars and hybrid cars finally made a dent in the vehicle thing. The introductory of these transitory foods, like I live with a vegan, she doesn't eat plant-based burgers because she's not looking for a burger. She's in a different place now. That seems like a product made for someone who responds positively to meat, but then is dealing with this challenge of, can you be more plant-based? So these meat substitutes become a more important product for them.
Fred Dorsimont (31:30):
Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. It's just a nice first thing.
Richard Campbell (31:33):
It's an interesting balance to the two.
Fred Dorsimont (31:34):
Yeah, absolutely.
Richard Campbell (31:36):
Yeah. I don't want to change gears too much here because so far we just talked about sustainability from the perspective of people trying to do the right thing, but you've also dug into this idea of how we get folks to become sustainability actors, to not just do the right thing for themselves, but to encourage others.
Fred Dorsimont (31:55):
You mean members of the public or organizations?
Richard Campbell (31:55):
I think it's members of the public. Certainly, organizations do that. I guess the question is, are they doing it because it's good marketing practice, or just wearing your culture on your sleeve?
Fred Dorsimont (32:08):
Ooh, that's a really interesting one. I guess there's pretty a bit of everything now. I think that it's very likely that some organizations are... If you look at the car industry, moving from ICE cars to electric cars is something that some of them are doing more or less reluctantly.
Richard Campbell (32:30):
Sure.
Fred Dorsimont (32:31):
And they've seen there is a growing market for it, and therefore they are following the trend and going in that direction. And then you've got some organizations that have done a better job, I guess, at internalizing-
Richard Campbell (32:45):
But that's the practice they want their organization to be. Again, I always pointed the Californians who seemed to have driven, and no pun intended, the car industry towards fuel economies and so forth, and they were one of the first to come out with this no more ICE cars in California by 2050 or whatever the date may be. One would argue the car industry the whole time has been put under pressure by effectively the public, recognizing the public is represented by their government, to make these vehicles. I don't know that any of them have gone to it willingly.
Fred Dorsimont (33:17):
Well, I don't know what's triggered Toyota in the Prius in the first place, it would be interesting to know about that, what sort of initiated that process.
Richard Campbell (33:33):
Well, that story of the Prius is that California required you to make a certain number of zero emission cars or very low emission cars to be allowed to sell cars in California. And then that car happened to be a hit. It was almost an accident. What has been interesting in the car market especially, again, not to digress too far, was if you're going to sell cars In California, you had to make certain number of zero emission cars, and traditionally the car manufacturers made very bad zero emission cars. They made them to be compliant with the rules, but you were a fool to buy them.
Fred Dorsimont (34:08):
Yeah, that's it.
Richard Campbell (34:09):
To the point where the vendor themselves, the car manufacturer says, "Please don't buy this car. It's not a good car, but it's a compliance car." And again, I'm not saying that Toyota didn't deliberately made a bad car, but the Prius was a very difficult car to make. It was complicated. And it was interesting that their ability to visualize that complexity, that they put it on a screen, that sometimes you're running on the engine, sometimes you're running on the battery, sometimes the battery's being charged by breaking. I don't know how much that made the car a success, that you could see the magic that was going on inside of it.
Fred Dorsimont (34:47):
All right. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (34:49):
But this ability to turn a good sustainable practice into a social positive that people are excited about it so forth, especially when we talk about plant-based foods, we're not there yet. We've seen it happen with cars now, that electric cars are cool and that sustainable cars are better and are socially acceptable, and to say, how do we have that same result for food?
Fred Dorsimont (35:17):
Yeah, food and beyond, I think it's one of the biggest challenges that we face, which is, sustainability is far too often talked about in negative terms, in terms of what you have to give up, what you're going to lose. It's less of this, less of that.
Richard Campbell (35:33):
As opposed to what you gain.
Fred Dorsimont (35:35):
As opposed to what you gain, which might not be material. It might be offered in other type. It could be in terms of more time, more well-being, and so on and so on. But yes, that's a big part of the solution. A lot of people refer to it as the positive narrative of the net-zero transition. I'm thinking more about narratives, its narrative in plural, as in there's more than just one narrative. It's very, again, what works for me doesn't work for transport, doesn't work for energy, and so on. So you lean more than one story to tell, but indeed it should be all of the solution is how do you portray the future and a sustainable future in a positive light. Absolutely. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (36:24):
Yeah. I mean, and maybe it's just the reality that cars are a special category. A, there were marketing constructed category anyway. It was the marketing industry that invented the idea that a car was a symbol of your success, of your practices, and so forth, that the color mattered, that style mattered for what was ultimately a utilitarian device for moving you around. I don't know how you get style into a burger. It's not the same thing. It's not, how many cars is an individual going to buy in their lives? A dozen? It's a pretty special thing, and it's something you take with you everywhere you go as opposed to any given meal, which presumably you'll have somewhat more of.
Fred Dorsimont (37:08):
I think what's going to be interesting for food and meat is also the whole social dimension a bit. How do you make it? I think that there's been a number of really interesting shows on Netflix, for instance, talking about the health benefit of eating less meat or more. But it could also be shows like how to cook a great plant-based meat, which makes it more accessible or understandable for people how to cook soy food, for instance.
Richard Campbell (37:42):
Right.
Fred Dorsimont (37:44):
So the reality is, we should probably play at different levels, not just one type of solution.
Richard Campbell (37:49):
Well, look at how popular media stopped portraying smoking. Once upon a time you didn't make a show without the cool person smoking, then that's just not a thing anymore.
Fred Dorsimont (38:00):
Yeah.
Richard Campbell (38:01):
You have to wonder, could that happen with food in popular media as well?
Fred Dorsimont (38:06):
Absolutely. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (38:07):
The movie Chef was about a pork sandwich, right?
Fred Dorsimont (38:12):
Yeah.
Richard Campbell (38:12):
Where's the equivalent movie for a plant-based food?
Fred Dorsimont (38:15):
Exactly. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. So changing the perception of meat or plant-based in culture is going to be quite an interesting part of the solution.
Richard Campbell (38:24):
Yeah, a broader piece of it. We always get into that sort of Marcia McClain, like, "Hey, are we a reflection of our media? Is a media reflection of us?" And I'm pretty sure his answer was yes.
Fred Dorsimont (38:35):
And then on a more sort of practical level, there's the notion of making accessible remains important. So for instance, coming back to the WWF research, one of the barriers to plant-based food adoption was, in a rural context, it can be difficult to find plant-based alternatives.
Richard Campbell (38:54):
Yes.
Fred Dorsimont (38:55):
If you live in the middle of New York, then it's super easy. I guess.
Richard Campbell (38:57):
You have all the choices in the world.
Fred Dorsimont (39:00):
That's it. But then in a rural context, it's a bit harder. So that type of barriers also have to be addressed. I read, for instance, I think it's this week or last week, that Cambridge University have now decided that they are going to offer only plant-based alternatives in their canteen.
Richard Campbell (39:22):
Interesting.
Fred Dorsimont (39:22):
That's a major change in choice architecture.
Richard Campbell (39:23):
Yeah. And that's a pretty far bar to say, "No, we're just not going to facilitate eating meat in the entire institution." I'm sure there'll be some pushback on that, but I welcome the experiment.
Fred Dorsimont (39:37):
That's it. Yeah.
Richard Campbell (39:37):
Then again, I'm not going to Cambridge. Not a concern for me. Fred. I've really enjoyed this conversation. It's powerful stuff. I appreciate the research you're doing. There's obviously lots more to do. Sustainability seems to be a journey. It doesn't seem to be any end point here, but it feels like some progress is being made.
Fred Dorsimont (39:55):
There is so, so, so much work to be done. Yeah. Whether it's in terms of getting people to understand that as a business they can or should play a role, then how they can play a role, and then within that, what's the contribution of behavioral science, that there is number of steps on the way. So yeah, I think we are going to be busy for the next few years, at the very least.
Richard Campbell (40:20):
Fred Dorsimont, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Fred Dorsimont (40:22):
Richard, thanks very much.
Richard Campbell (40:23):
And thanks for listening to Understanding Consumer Neuroscience.