Page 161 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

144 L.A. Reisch and S. Bietz

gains simply through efficiency. These however will only be completely realised if
the technological advance is complemented by a change – cultural and social – in
use behaviour. A large number of important durable consumer goods such as cars or
washing machines contribute as much as 80% to the total environmental impact
caused by use. According to a British study (Ventour 2008), one-third of the food
bought by UK households ends up as waste, 61% of which could have been eaten if
it had been better managed. However, communicating the optimum ‘use regime’ to
the various target groups is not an easy undertaking, as can be seen in the ‘eco top
ten innovations’ (Grießhammer et al. 2007).
In the basic needs area of clothing the culturally conditioned behaviour of ‘fast-
changing fashion’ results in an amount of 11 kg of little-used clothing per person,
per year. It would hardly be a promising undertaking to launch a communication
campaign against a post-modern consumption society defined by fast paced changes
in fashion. Representatives of a consistency strategy are therefore proponents of the
‘pleasurable’ consumption of ‘intelligent’ materials and attractive designs, which
are materially unproblematic ‘from cradle to cradle’, in production, use and dis-
posal, e.g. compostable (Braungart and McDonough 2002).
The communication of sustainable consumption is especially problematic in the
basic needs areas of living and mobility not only because individual mobility and
homeownership are ‘leading cultural goods’, greatly exaggerated symbols that help
to determine an individual’s social standing, but also because the architectural infra-
structure (building code, transport infrastructure plans etc.) all too often turns out to
be a barrier that can only be overcome at considerable, and prohibitive, personal
expense. Finally, social and ecological goals are often contradictory. Consider for
example the ‘democratisation’ of long-distance travel and the discussion about dis-
count airlines. Public statements by experts that are not clearly structured, or even
contradictory, lead to a loss of credibility that makes the communication of more
sustainable consumption alternatives even more problematic.
In the basic needs area of food there has been considerable success with the
strategy of buying regional, seasonal and organic products. Common-pool benefits
(quality of the environment, regional development, regional value creation, etc.) and
individual benefits (health, taste etc.) often coincide and alliances of motive can thus
be plausibly communicated. The organic food branch is booming like no other, one
of the drivers in Germany being its sale by large-scale discounters. If this market is
to develop it is crucially important that communication campaigns reach infrequent
‘test’ buyers and induce them to habitualise their choice.
Things become more difficult when new technologies for sustainable consump-
tion show an ambivalent effect. In the area of green genetic technology, there are
also experts who argue that genetically modified seeds and foods have the poten-
tial to reduce world hunger. Another contested field is nanotechnologies. Similar
ambivalences can be found in the area of communication technology. While the
internet drastically sinks the costs of information, organisation and contracts (i.e.,
so-called ‘transaction costs’), increases transparency and makes it possible for the
poorer ‘world consumers’ to collectively articulate their opinion, at the same time