Industry Intelligence Inc., formerly ForestWeb, does surveys-for-hire in a number of industries, covering everything from food to paper to packaging. Their 2012 EcoFocus trend survey addressed what makes the 'eco-friendly shopper' tick and concluded what marketing people who have bankrolled the future of their employers on sustainability want to see; 86% of U.S. adult grocery shoppers are “consumers who care”and "sometimes, usually or always" shop based on sustainability.
That's good, right? I agree, all things being equal, except it highlights the schism of what smart people call a 'First World Problem' - namely that the 1% who can afford to shop at Whole Foods and read the labels regarding the sustainability of their packaging don't actually understand the poor people they claim to care about. A First World Problem is cheering that the current administration and its anti-science beliefs blocked a perfectly wonderful and harmless genetically modified salmon, for example - the elite can afford organic food that at least claims to have no pesticides or GMOs and is fortified with ethical and moral sanctimony. The places where the 99% can afford to shop are objects of scorn by the rich who can worry about sustainability. 51% of their survey takers even insist an environmentally friendly company is the most important consideration, whereas people who are not rich or otherwise part of a government union shop at places like Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club and Winn-Dixie. Those were all criticized by respondents as the least eco-friendly.
What was left out of the survey methodology? Some calibration, like 'How often do you actually shop at Wal-Mart?' The lack of eco-friendliness is simply perception by people who never go in a Wal-Mart, they just read about how it has no union and therefore it must be anti-environment. That thinking is due to what should be on the top of the list of Biggest Clichés of 2012 - "motivated reasoning", which is used by psychobabble pundits to explain everything they don't like about people they happen not to know, any more than EcoFocus survey takers know about Sam's Club.
In reality, Wal-Mart has spent a lot of money on sustainability. Linda Gilbert, the CEO of EcoFocus Worldwide which, ta-da, sells marketing consulting services - says companies like Wal-Mart and the others should be doing a better job of publicizing those efforts. “In every aisle in your store, you should be trying to find ways to share both the small steps and the big ones with shoppers,” she said in their statement about the survey. But why? Few people taking that survey shop there and the people who shop there already know about sustainability efforts. You think customers weren't annoyed when Wal-Mart just got rid of plastic bags and told everyone to buy reusable cloth ones they left at home time and again? The 86% of people who shop based on sustainability and for whom cost is no object had no way to know that.
These sorts of surveys tend to be rather self-serving. At least political polls accurately predicted that poor people were going to vote one way and the rich and the middle class were going to vote another, but these surveys about demographics don't tell us much outside confirmation bias.
I pity poor millennials, the most over-surveyed and analyzed group in history; they read about themselves and are convinced they want healthier food than their parents - as long as it is microwaveable and in a pouch.
Surveys about Generation Y also claim they simultaneously care more about global warming than anyone, except they care about it less - because they'd like to not live with their parents even though they care about greater income equality.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- "Of course they aren't. These are scientific terms Hank Campbell and you can't just interpret them..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Young adults ages 18 to 26 should be viewed as separate subpopulation in policy and research
- University of Tennessee study finds saving lonely species is important for the environment
- Post-operative radiation therapy improves overall survival for patients with resected NSCLC
- Active, biodegradable packaging for oily products
- Medicare costs analysis indicates need to decrease use of biopsies as diagnosis tool for lung cancer