Planet vs price — can South African brands afford sustainability?

It can be useful to look at any subject matter from the point of view of a singularity. It’s an approach that hypothesises a singular state, fact or quality that will result in acute change in human society and our commercial enterprises — to wit, our brands. 

In terms of sustainability, what’s the singularity? It is “When we trigger uncontrollable ecological collapse”. Scary.

With the world reeling from the deleterious effects of sustained environmental degradation, coupled with the economic fallouts of President Vladimir Putin of Russia’s war on Ukraine — a significant bread basket — as well as a desperate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, sanctions on inter alia Russian oil and gas and the possibility of World War 3, it’s not hard to see how the focus might shift from practices supporting long-term sustainability to concerns of short-term survival.

We see this repeatedly. When confronted with discounted oil and gas supplies from Russia, India is ready to engage. This, despite it being a no-brainer that the more strategic sentiment is to sever any reliance on Russian supply in favour of long-term self-reliance and sustainable, renewable energy, and that savings now are unlikely to offset costs later. It’s a conundrum that countries, companies and consumers all face — seemingly being between a rock and a hard place. 

No time like the present

Kantar’s Sustainability study found that South African consumers attach the most importance to pressing issues that affect their immediate wellbeing. Looking to the future is a luxury most cannot afford. Serious sustainability issues are treated as lesser concerns than making ends meet.

This is not only true of South Africa — globally we see a continuum of countries in which social issues are more immediate than environmental concerns Likewise, for brands on the journey to long-term sustainability, the cost of the transition remains an important barrier. If balancing short-term and mid- to long-term priorities has proven to be challenging, it’s even more so as present-day economics manifest themselves.           

So, what’s the move? Sacrifice tomorrow for today? History will not be kind to those who make this choice. Oftentimes the right thing to do is the hard thing to do. In this case, though, the right thing may not be as hard as we think.                                             

Consumers are aware of and willing to engage with sustainability. Of the consumers surveyed for VML’s global “Sustainability, Ethics and the Modern Shopper” study, 60% said they actively choose companies that are environmentally responsible, 71% said they wished brands and retailers would offer better environmental practices and 67% said they would like more transparency about climate impact and are in favour of carbon labels.

In South Africa moves towards sustainable living is beginning to emerge. Local consumers are taking action with regard to reducing food waste, using less water, buying locally produced goods and bringing their own bags when shopping. Even so, they admit to struggling to act on their ideals and intentions. 

Cash flow vs conscience

WPP's Brand Asset Valuator® (BAV) study - the world’s largest study of brands – revealed that the 100 brands that receive the strongest rating on the attribute “committed to the environment” lag the most on the perception of “good value”. Even among higher income households, the top 100 “committed to the environment” brands are seen as less “good value”. This suggests that consumers tend to prioritise value over the environment when choosing a brand.

Given current economic circumstances, high prices will prevent sustainable shopping from achieving mass market traction and therefore fail to unlock sustainable shopping’s full potential. In truth, lower prices are key to unlocking sustainable purchases sustainably.

Shifting the narrative

Not only does price matter, the language used for sustainability matters. A shifting narrative is emerging. Brand messages are moving away from doing less badly or compensating for negative effects towards having a positive impact and being a “force for good”. However, getting the words right is only the first step.

There is a significant gap between what brands say and what they do. Though consumers care about sustainability and the environment when they shop, few brands know how to meet their needs with tangible action.

Brands must move away from pledges and towards actions. Similarly, commitments by companies to decarbonise supply chains and operations look good on paper, but they need to be followed by action. Governments need to start playing a greater role to facilitate the transition, not only with targets and policies but also with incentives.

Brands can play an important role in helping consumers shift their behaviour to sustainable living by making sustainable alternatives desirable and affordable and stainable actions easy to do, and by keeping sustainable brands top of mind.

Brands that are doing well in driving more sustainable choices realise that sustainability should not be a compromise. These brands not only provide a sustainability benefit but also solve a tension for consumers in a better, more meaningful way. 

When we trigger sustainable ecological regeneration, we can rewrite the sustainability singularity together. 

VML’s “Sustainability, Ethics and the Modern Shopper” study can be downloaded here.

Lyn Wilson is a senior TTL strategist at VML South Africa.