[IxDA Discuss] sustainable design

[Patrick G]

This is really fascinating and is causing me to interpret the 
sustainability/information nexus/synergy in a different, possibly more 
accurate way:

> You're absolutely right. I have found, however, in my modest market
> research, that most people (over 90%) DO care about social or
> environmental issues when they buy products and services but that
> their particular mix/goals/agenda is pretty personal (it would be
> necessary to allow them to customize scores (buy to THEIR agenda),
> rather than accept a baseline score. Also, they have little
> confidence in making these judgments without reliable, transparent
> information available at the point of purchase. A very high-level
> pass of what I've found includes:
>
> 	64% would pay 5% more
> 	23% would pay 45% more
> 	In some cases, 44% of consumers would pay 75% more if they trusted
> that the ratings met their agenda!

My initial formulation was that, at least in the West, we have the 
ability to democratically elect representatives we know will enact 
legislation and initiatives that support decreased/renewable energy 
consumption, low-impact manufacturing processes, etc. The fact that we 
as an electorate choose to do otherwise (or to look the other way when 
officials fail to meet their campaign promises), was, in my mind, a 
function of apathy. For a long time, the solution to this dilemma 
seemed to be to demonstrate the incompatability of various positions 
(i.e. - opposing fossil fuel consumption, but feeling one requires the 
'safety and security' of a massive SUV).

But I'm noticing the flaws with this position: First, choosing an 
elected representative is perhaps not granular enough when it comes to 
these types of issues - it does not allow for the precise expression of 
the individual's desires and opinions in a way that your system would. 
My Congressperson acts at levels of abstraction (legislation, 
regulatory enforcement, treaties, etc.) that are intended to bring 
about certain effects without any guarantee or proof of their success, 
which is gauged, if at all, months or years after the fact by inexact 
studies and analysis of data and trends.

So I can see how the level of granularity/specificity does, in fact, 
provide us with the capacity to be more responsible consumers. It 
embeds mildly coercive effects within a system that is still grounded 
in unbounded choice. No limitation is imposed on the market other than 
those self-imposed by consumers who are exposed to the true 'costs' of 
their purchases in the form of externalities that were once invisible.

And clearly, there is major incentive in an identified market that will 
pay a 50% premium to a manufacturer who can transparently demonstrate 
that their product consumes less energy, creates fewer harmful 
byproducts, and benefits the social conditions of those who produce it. 
A couple of questions, though:

Are you aware of any industry-specific projections as to whether the 
premium that consumers are willing to pay would cover the increase in 
cost of production that manufacturers would face to create more 
sustainable products - not to mention the initial outlay and ongoing 
maintenance for the technical infrastructure?

Also, could you give a little background on the demographic(s) that 
participated in your market research (modest as it may be)?