TRENDS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
TOWARDS TO A NEW SYSTEM’S DYNAMIC
Minelle
Enéas da Silva
Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil
E-mail:
minele.adm@gmail.com
Paola
Schmitt Figueiró
Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil
E-mail:
paolaadm@gmail.com
Marcio
Luis Miron Jappe
Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil
E-mail:
marcio.jappe@gmail.com
Luis
Felipe Nascimento
Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil
E-mail:
nascimentolf@gmail.com
Submission:
06/08/2013
Revision:
06/09/2013
Accept:
16/09/2013
Abstract
The paper aims to study alternative forms of production and consumption
and their convergence as a way to create a new system’s dynamic. Firstly there
is a theoretical discussion of the themes, then empirical evidence is discussed
to make the case, and finally findings are discussed. The alternative forms of
production and consumption, such as social business and collaborative
consumption, are proven to be economically viable, and may satisfy also social
and environmental concerns, in alignment with sustainable development concepts.
This suggests they represent an opportunity to leverage a significant
transformation in the whole system. The analysis performed can serve to the
elaboration of public policies for development, by fomenting these alternative
forms; and to incentivize entrepreneurs to create similar enterprises to create
positive impact and simultaneously generate profits. The empirical evidence
collected is restricted. For further and more conclusive findings the range of
the examples researched must be increased.
Keywords: Business Models; Social
Business; Collaborative Consumption; Capitalism Crisis.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The
capitalism, just as it has happened before, is going through a crisis, due to
its incapacity of selling the production and generating profits, indicating it
cannot be sustained over time (ONARAN, 2010; VANDEPITTE, 2011). Is the idea of
capital accumulation being suffocated, giving space for a new vision? Foster
and Magdoff (2011) consider that “replacing
capitalism by a new economy, oriented towards sustainable human development,
ecological plenitude, and the nurturing of an authentic human community”. Would
this be the alternative?
Global
society lives in contradiction. On one hand the need to sustain the capitalism
practices is discussed, on the other an alternative form of dealing with the
available resources. In a critical perspective, Lélé
(1991) indicates there are inherent contradictions in the sustainability
debate, since it happens fully within capitalism ideas. According to the
author, the debates do not take into consideration the literal ecological and
social concept inherent to the theme’s ideal. This becomes clearer as the development
model of capitalism incorporates the sustainable development debate, creating
its own coping mechanisms, such as the carbon markets. How to legitimate the
debate?
Questioning
capitalism is an interesting tactic for the construction of a different social
dynamic, but would sustainability be the best option? Leveraging on that, and
being directly involved in a reflexive field, our discussion argument is built
as this: is a restructuring movement with rise of new practices and behaviors
possible, or it is necessary a full change in the system? Driven by this
question, the discussion will be carried on without extremisms, bringing to
light the approach the researchers believe to be the most adequate to deal with
current contradictions.
Overall,
most of the proposals presented to overcome the current crisis remain the same:
increasing consumption with more abundant credit will fuel growth. However, the
conditions changed. Part of the production has moved to developing countries,
there is more environmental consciousness, corporate social responsibility is
increasing, there are movements questioning consumerism, and the new generation
blossoms with new behavior patterns. New forms of consumption arose, trying to
satisfy needs without buying. Global
society is transitioning to a new dynamic.
Two
perspectives are possible. One observing how production happens, the other how
the production is “consumed”. According to Lipovetsky
(2007), there is a paradoxical happiness in a daily life in hyper-consumption,
as the homo consumericus
does not take into consideration the consequences of his unsustainable
practices. There are new concerns to change the individual consumption focus
towards a broader and more conscious vision (MICHAELIS, 2000). For Jackson
(2005, p.03) “changing our own behaviour is
difficult; certainly more than we wish”. This will lead to a different dynamic,
more collective than historically observed.
The
increasing demand for more corporate responsibility on its impact on society
goes on this direction. Clarkson’s (1995) speaks about the need to look for a
more positive corporate social performance, involving the development of
relations where there is a more pro-active social behavior. Therefore, there
will be an adaption to a new dynamic or a renewal of the existing one. One
approach to this is to maximize the contextual role of the productive process.
Why not increasing the focus on a services-based economy instead of depleting
natural resources? Why not offering goods for those who really need them,
instead of allocating resources to market for the richer?
This
notion of change indicates that consumers are able, in the midst of a
conjunction of social interactions, to take a more collective approach, where
rather than consumers, they are citizens (JACKSON, 2007; SEYFANG, 2006;
SPAARGAREN, OOSTERVEER, 2010), Reclaiming citizenship is an interesting. The
rise of new forms of consumption is not constrained to individual actions of
buying goods to satisfy needs, but includes collaborative consumption, focusing
on: products as services; redistribution markets; and collaborative life-styles
(BOTSMAN; ROGERS, 2011).
This
paper aims to identify how different forms of production and consumption can
drive the system into a new dynamic. This perspective is justified by
considering transformation as the most suitable option to build a new system’s
dynamic, taking into consideration aspects such as the collective, sharing and
collaboration. These should converge in such a way that it is possible to
attain the transformation objectives. For better understanding, this paper has
five sections after the introduction. Firstly, a vision of the current
capitalism crisis is conveyed. Then new forms of production and consumption are
discussed, followed by examples where a new dynamic is being nurtured and
tested. Finally, a brief discussion on the overall findings and academic
contribution finishes this paper.
2.
THE
CAPITALISM CRISIS: EVIDENCES OR RECONSTRUCTIONS?
All
along its existence, capitalism has presented variations (crises) which are
part of a production system, and that many times make it stronger. However,
since 2007, the economy is facing an acute systemic crisis, compared to the
Great Depression (ONARAN, 2010). According to this author, despite of being
initiated in the USA, the impact of the crisis spread through several other
countries, especially in Europe. This emphasizes the influence capitalism has
on society, and shows the economic growth rates of the central countries are
flattening (FOSTER; MAGDOFF, 2011).
According
to Vandepitte (2011), the global market (consumer
goods, services and finances) has been subordinated, manipulated and structured
in favor of the leading capitalist countries. However, as indicated by Foster
and Magdoff (2011), the advanced capitalist economies
are captured in stagnation, which results from the processes of industrial
maturity and monopolist accumulation. Onaran (2010)
shows that the difference between the current and all other economy crises is
that this has a global impact and was originated in the central capitalist
countries. Therefore, this crisis has a stronger global impact, changing the
way it must be looked into.
Although
there is great understanding about the conditions of the crisis, DeCock, Baker and Volkmann (2011) indicate that both the
financial sector and the big companies make a big effort to deny there is a
capitalism crisis. But every time capitalists start talking about capitalism,
it is in trouble (EAGLETON, 2011). This decadence is not totally unexpected,
since according to Mandel (2001) revolutions on production means happen
“periodically”, meaning there is no production system that up until now was
able to survive indefinitely. This fact was noted when Eagleton (1997) mentions
capitalism overestimated its production, paving the way to its own denial.
On
his critique to capitalism, Marx indicates that its consolidation happened
through a revolution, in this case the industrial revolution. However, he
argues that by the increase of individual consciousness, the emergence of a new
vision is possible. According to Eagleton (2011), Marx thought that the
emancipation of the individuals could happen in the context of the society. And
these consciousness and emancipation could serve as the stepping-stones for a revolution
to be started.
As an
alternative to the crisis, and aligned with the perspective of change and
restructuring of the system, the discussions about sustainable development
emerge. The basic idea relates to the change in behavior of different players
in society so that there is harmony among social, environmental and economic
aspects (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987).
According to Foladori (2005), it is possible to
direct the individualistic characteristics that capitalism emulates towards a
more collective vision. However, there is a lot of debate around the
possibility of adequacy between ideas such as collective orientation and
harmony with the capitalist thinking.
According
to Prothero and Fitchett (2000, p.48), “any
definition that uses contemporary understanding of the human nature and needs
to define a green society cannot be considered different of the capitalist
production system, since these terms emerged as part of the cultural conditions
of capitalism itself”. However, for the researchers discussing sustainability
as essential for a change in social values, this is an insult. The idea of
sustainability is not to bring a new profile to the capitalist decline (Smith,
2007), but to search for the emergence of a new vision.
This
new vision might be compelling, but there is still significant action that goes
against its principles. This is the case for the carbon markets. As presented
by Böhm, Misoczky and Moog
(2012), many still see the carbon markets as a viable tool to deal with climate
change, not by changing the basic perspective, but by considering it a way of
reinventing and ‘greening’ the capitalism. According to these authors, there
are evidences showing that the recent ‘green’ practices financed by the carbon
markets are unsustainable and can be considered a capitalist pathology. Again
new ways of spreading capitalism are established (SMITH, 2007).
Contrary
to what Onaran (2010) indicates about sustainability
(the need for zero or slow growth in developed countries), what is going on is
the need for restructuring in production system and in consumption relations,
so that a better articulation in society happens. This idea is presented by
Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien (2005) as they indicate different approaches for
sustainability, taking into consideration a transition where the status quo
should be fought, where a more significant transformation should happen, using
new lenses and new consciousness.
In
this sense, a vision of a societal long transition towards a new perspective is
considered (ONARAN, 2010), with the argument that the increase in consciousness
is the ignition point for the whole change. This is aligned to what Marx (1980)
indicated about the need of individuals to evolver through their social
relations, stimulating an alternative thinking. As he suggested, the global
population should not simply leave behind everything it has experienced, but
focus on a new way of seeing the world. From this perspective, it is understood
that the increase in consciousness and the alignment to a more collective view
emulate the articulation of a new dynamic, about which more aspects will be
discussed along the article.
3.
A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
For Maharajh (2012), the crises facing the planet are a result
of production systems, consumption patterns, and environmental degradation. He
thinks a green economy should be built upon the capitalist crisis. This debate
resembles to the debate developed so far on bringing a transformative
perspective, in which the focus is not simply pointing out that there is a
crisis, but trying to figure out alternatives to it. On the same direction,
Berg and Hukkinen (2011) analyzed the studies about
the restructuring of the capitalist economy focused on making it more
environmental friendly. They emphasize the influence of both the United Nations
Environment Program
(UNEP) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
on the promotion of “green growth” and “green economy” concepts.
There
are different understandings about what is a green economy, and about what are
the steps towards sustainability. But, in a certain way, everyone discusses the
need of different forms of production and consumption. This suggests a
continuum can be created to change the status quo to a more sustainable
reality. According to Thorpe (2009), establishing Sustainability depends on
developing Clean Process and Clean Products, and then reach Closed Loop Systems
and a BioSociety, as shown in Figure 1.
Each
step has its own objectives. “Clean Process” is focused on pollution
prevention, rethinking manufacturing, toxic use reduction, aiming at safe
manufacturing and production systems. On “Clean Products”, the focus is on
product policy, life cycle thinking, product labeling, green procurement and ecotax, aiming at green products from cradle to grave. On
“Closed Loop Systems”, the focus is on extend producer responsibility,
industrial ecology and zero waste, aiming at material reuse and recycling, just
like nature does. Finally, on “BioSociety”, the focus
is on the natural step, ecological engineering, bio-based materials,
detoxifying our materials, dematerializing our economy, emerging technologies,
aiming at human societies and the world’s ecosystems that maintain stability
and diversity (THORPE, 2009).
FIGURE 1 - Steps to Sustainability
Source:
Clean Production Action (Thorpe, 2009)
The
tools, methodologies, and programs used in each step are related to forms of
production and consumption. The UN Cleaner Production Programs were developed
by United Nations
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and UNEP, to spread
cleaner production to developing countries. According to UNIDO (2002), “cleaner
Production is a strategy that protects the environment, the consumer and the
worker while improving the industrial efficiency, profitability and
competitiveness of enterprises”. In the 1990’s the focus of organizations such
as those was to reduce the impact of production on the environment. In the
2000’s, production started being associated to consumption, as the two sides of
same issue. Researchers and official documents started replacing “cleaner
production” with “sustainable production and consumption”.
The
authors of the “Natural Capitalism” (LOVINS; LOVINS; HAWKEN, 1999) show how to
simultaneously supply the consumption demand, and to reduce production.
According to the authors, the "next industrial revolution" depends on
the espousal of four strategies: the conservation of resources through more
effective manufacturing processes; the reuse of materials as found in natural
systems; a change in values from quantity to quality; and investing in natural
capital, restoring/sustaining natural resources. One of the ideas is to design
business models that deliver services instead of products, creating an economy
of services and flow (HAWKEN; LOVINS; LOVINS, 1999).
The
services industry can supply consumption demand in several ways that do not
demand the acquisition of new products, such as printing services in companies,
for example. Instead of buying printers, ink, and paper, companies buy a number
of printings, or rent the printers. Examples of renting services are abundant,
both in terms of offers (computers, cars, and other machinery) and in contract
forms (leasing, pay per use, pay per hour). This service economy can cause less
environmental impact than business as usual, since the incentive systems are
for durability of products to increase the time length of the revenue flow,
instead of their quickly disposal for new products to be manufactured and sold.
It can generate more jobs locally, since the “production” and deliver of the
service cannot be as detached from the client as it might happen with the
manufacturing of products to be sold.
Production
and consumption also converge when social problems are the focus. In the
2000’s, methodologies such as the Design Thinking spread around. The term was
crafted by David Kelley, founder of IDEO (LEAVY, 2012), an international
consulting firm that helps organizations to innovate and to overcome their
challenges (IDEO, 2012). The increasing usage of this methodology is due to its
focus on the human being, and by the fact it sees multidisciplinary,
collaboration, and translation of thoughts and processes as paths that lead to
innovative business solutions (VIANNA et al., 2012).
The
solutions can be applied both on the poorest regions of the planet, and on the
most developed nations. Challenges demand innovative alternatives, as a result
of the interaction of professionals from different areas, who believe in
collaboration as a way of generating creative solutions. How to feed and
educate the more than three billion people living on less than two dollars a
day? How to make sure megacities in developed countries are sustainable and
safe for their inhabitants? New forms of production are essential to supply the
consumption demands in a sustainable manner, or in other words, in a way that
is economically viable, socially fair, and friendly to the environment. More
than new forms of production, new business models are needed.
4.
A NEW
MODEL: BUSINESS IN (REAL) SERVICE OF SOCIETY
As
previously stated, despite of general advancement in terms of global life
quality, as shown with the increase in global life expectancy over the decades
(WORLD BANK, 2012), part of the global population suffers from ‘solvable’
problems: 2.6 billion have no access to basic sanitation and survive on less
than two dollars a day, 1.6 billion have no access to electricity, and 0.9
billion have no access to drinking water (WHO, 2010; UNICEF, 2010; WORLD BANK,
2012; UNDP, 2008). The evidences show challenges are getting bigger and more
complex, raising questions about the role of governments, private sector, and
non-profits. New models are needed, combining the private sector’s efficiency
and the third sector’s purpose-orientation, without the blind focus on profit
maximization of companies and the lack of financial viability in the third
sector.
This
context gave birth to the idea of organizations solving social challenges in a
financially viable manner, through market mechanisms (offering products and
services respecting the laws of supply and demand), the “Social Business”. They
differentiate from traditional business, corporate social responsibility, specific
offerings to the base of the pyramid, and non-profits. They profitably market
products and services that contribute for the increase of quality of life of
the poorest, meaning there is no need of fundraising to sustain the
organization’s activities (ARTEMISIA, 2011). The idea sounds applicable to most
developing countries. Lets take Brazil as an example.
Firstly, there are social challenges in habitation, health and education, and
78% of the population is middle class or down in the economic pyramid (IBGE,
2011; CETELEM IPSOS, 2011). Secondly, Brazil is considered a highly
entrepreneurial country (GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR, 2011). And, finally,
it is one of the biggest economies in the world, with favorable conditions for
new enterprises, and financial resources readily available for the development
of these businesses.
One
important moment for the popularization of the term “social business” globally
was the Nobel Prize ceremony in 2006. About 30 years after founding Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, and successfully lending more
than six billion dollars in microcredit to more than seven million people (97%
of them women, with only 1% default rate), leveraging 58% out of extreme
poverty, Muhammad Yunus was laureate with the Nobel
Peace Prize that year. In his speech, he mentioned the positive impact of Grameen Bank and other Grameen
ventures, such as a joint venture with Danone to market low cost nutritious
yogurt for the poor in Bangladesh, and a low cost eye care clinic in India. He
presented to the world the concept of social business, as those where the
bottom-line is social, and the profit is the mean to sustain and increase the
positive impact. He arguments that any social problem in the world could be
tackled by a social business, and goes beyond, saying that social business will
be developed both by companies looking for more efficiency on their corporate
social responsibility initiatives, and by leaders in non-profits looking
towards focusing more in creating impact rather than merely fundraising.
The Grameen Group work in several examples of social
businesses, such as Grameen DANONE. Besides the
previously mentioned, it is noteworthy the fact that the whole development of
the organization happened in a close partnership with the local community, and
that there were several other innovations: the customization of the product and
of its distribution to local needs, such as more resistance to heat, and
distributing the product through networks of women whom are GrameenBank’s
clients; and production units which are 20 times smaller than the smallest
Danone’s traditional one. Other examples are the Grameen
Phone for the mobile phone market, and the Grameen
Shakti in the energy production and distribution (YUNUS, 2010).
The
empirical observation of these organizations shows some strategies that seem to
be working well. The first is to connect impoverished people to existing
markets, because simply accessing the same products and services as the richer
help them to improve their own situation, overcoming that lack of access that
makes the poor pay more for goods and services. Microcredit banks and fair
trade organizations are good examples. Another strategy is to leverage on the
existing networks in the local communities, supporting the formation of multi-sector
partnerships. Instead of pushing top-down, bottom-up solutions are
‘pulled-out’, customized to local needs, generating more local buy-in and
engagement, and cheaper.
One
indication these business models are expanding is the fact that besides Yunus and his definition, there several other individuals
and organizations studying and giving them names, such as “business with the
bottom of the pyramid”, “business with the base of the pyramid 2.0”, “shared
value enterprises”, and “inclusive business”. Also, other organizations are
using the term “social business” in a slightly different fashion from Yunus, such as Artemisia and Ashoka
(ARTEMISIA, 2011). These possibilities suggest that a significant change in the
system can be generated, since these new forms of production articulated in
different business models are dynamic, and create new social relations and
stimulate news forms of consumption. Some of them will be articulated in the
following sections.
5.
THE
COLLABORATION AND INNOVATIVE FORMS OF CONSUMPTION
There
are some aspects among all presented so far that indicate that not only change
in production will drive change in consumption, but also that change in
consumption will drive change in production as well. However, according to Michaelis (2000), there are forces that interfere in an
active behavior: intrinsic human tendency towards an escalation of desire -
consumerism; growth of consumption may be related to specific technological and
institutional developments; use of material consumption to meet social needs;
the competitive market system; and expectation that the material quality of
life should improve continually. If these aspects are satisfied without
worrying about their impacts, the potential for change and the formation of a
new social vision is reduced.
But,
on the other hand, change still has its possibilities, since several aspects
influence the transformational process. Let’s take the example of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Statistics indicate that the number of
internet users increase in 112 million people in 2011 alone, meaning 15% more
increase compared to 2010. Also, there are the increasing usage of mobile
technologies, as shown in the 117% increase in smart phones sales in Latin
America in 2011 compared to 2010 (ABRADI, 2012). As a result, the individual
need of belonging to a social group is more and more being centralized in
virtual platforms of communication (MONT, 2004), allowing exchange and sharing,
as much production and creation of collective innovations (KOZINETS;
HEMETSBERGER; SCHAU, 2008).
Taking
into consideration this vision, Friedman (2005) affirms that competition and
collaboration at global scale, among individuals and companies, are now
cheaper, easier, less conflictive, more productive, and reaching an ever
increasing number f people. Global society lives in
an era where “technology will literally transform the business world, life, and
society in all aspects” (FRIEDMAN, 2005, p.231). According to Friedman (2005),
in the 2000’s a global playing field was created and, articulated through the
web, made different forms of collaboration viable, meaning the sharing of
knowledge and work at global scale. According to Belk (2007), sharing here can
be understood as the act or process of distribution of what is ours for others
to use, and/or the act or process of receiving/taking something that belongs to
others for our own use. So, for Cheshire and Antin
(2008), it become significantly easier to share texts, songs, movies, software’s,
and several other products in digital format. Besides that, there are several
on-line communities flourishing, and a trend towards collective production and
innovation (KOZINETS et al., 2008).
This
way, the advancement and dissemination of the ICTs made possible new forms of
sharing, and the ascension of platforms for collective practices that allow
interaction, free access to information, knowledge exchange, creation and
collaboration. On an organizational environment, this practices indicate new
business models, new ways of conducting decision making processes, product
development, collective learning, and so on and forth. It can be said that
innovation in several leading companies are increasingly a result of horizontal
collaboration, among different departments and teams spread all over the globe
(FRIEDMAN, 2005). This author also points out that many companies started
seeing their employees as a great conglomerate of individual specialists that
can be horizontally united in collaborative teams, in accordance to the specific
requisites of each project (FRIEDMAN, 2005).
For
collaboration tools to be developed, it is necessary that individuals generate
collective action. Besides that, trust is an important facilitator of
collective practices (BOTSMAN; ROGERS, 2011), influenced by the level of
identification between the individuals (KRAMER, 1999). For a better
understanding of the possibilities of collective practices, Botsman
and Rogers (2011) mention three systems embed in the concept of sharing:
services of products system; redistribution markets; and collaborative life
styles.
The
‘services of products systems’ involve a form of consumption where there is a
payment for the usage of a product without the need to acquire it (BOTSMAN;
ROGERS, 2011). As examples, they mention the rent of fashion accessories,
tools, books, and car and bike sharing systems. The ‘redistribution markets’
are associated to exchanges and donations of different items, referring to the
ownership transfer. Finally, in the ‘collaborative life styles’, individuals
are inclined to sharing and exchanging intangible assets such as time, space,
skills, money, and other resources (BOTSMAN; ROGERS, 2011).
This
consumption system includes different movements associated with collaboration: crowdsourcing:
co-creation tools leveraged by on-line collective collaboration; crowd funding:
collective financing leveraging on networks of individuals and/or organizations
that invest in creative projects (collaborative engagement); crowd learning:
collaborative learning tools that enable the exchange between those who want to
teach something, and those who want to learn it; couch surfing: people share
spaces in their home to host people travelling; and co-working: collective
working spaces (ORDANINI; MICELI; PIZZETTI, 2011; BRABHAM, 2008; LAUTERBACH,
2009; SWEET; MOEN, 2004).
According
to Botsman and Rogers (2011), users of collaborative
systems are not only looking for accessing products and services at lower
costs. They are also motivated to engage in such initiatives because of the
people gathering, the experiences, and the fact they become more socially
conscious and sustainable. Collaborative systems can, in fact, be more friendly
to the environment by increasing usage efficiency, reducing waste,
incentivizing better products, and by absorbing the exceeding of production and
consumption (BOTSMAN; ROGERS, 2011).
However,
there are obstacles, such as the hesitation to use the infrastructure available
(FRIEDMAN, 2005). Belk (2007) adds as impediments the feelings of possession
and attachment, the materialism, and the perception that the resources are
scarce and that sharing can lead to loss, as there is not ownership of the
things. According to Mont (2004), the number and quality of possessions
accumulated is also perceived as a way of measuring success in life, as a sign
of power, social status, and feeling of happiness. Characteristics that are
peculiar to the each local culture, but that are being transposed to a new
system dynamic. A practical assessment of these possibilities of change is
performed in the following section.
6.
A NEW
DYNAMIC FOR THE SYSTEM: A PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT
Understanding
that new forms of production and consumption can arise for a systemic
transformation, it becomes clear that structural conditions should exist to
allow this change to happen. ICTs are key to that, since they facilitate social
relations to happen in more collective, shared, and collaborative manner. The
available infrastructure (the internet) “should foment the mass sharing of practices
and knowledge”, and that the economy will incentivize sharing as much sharing
will incentivize the economy (FRIEDMAN, 2005, p.218). This recursive thinking
contributes to the understanding that if an isolated action does not enable
objectives to be reached, it is necessary to follow different paths towards the
change that people aim for.
The
authors understand that it does not matter the origin of change, either be it
on the production or the consumption. What matters the most is the concern
about social and environmental impacts of both our actions and discussions.
Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien (2005) make it clear the ambiguous character of the
existing debates and documents, but still suggest that it is from this
transformation that a new social dynamic can arise.
This
notion explicit how the context is becoming more friendly to change towards a
more collective and collaborative approach. Let’s take the Brazilian scenario
as an example. A research run with 1700 young people between 18 to 24 years old,
the first generation born and raised on the Internet and social networks age,
point out that they are more conscious and collective oriented: 77% agree that
their well-being depends on their local society’s well-being, and 74% feel
obligated to do something positive for the collective in their daily routines
(BOX 1824, 2011).
The
diffusion of concepts and life styles that translate economic, social, and
environmental concerns into practice leveraging on the existing technology explicit
the possibilities of change. This process can result in a transformation in
production and consumption patterns, and therefore in a systemic change. The
collaborative consumption is neither a niche trend nor an eventual reaction to
recession, but new socioeconomic waves that will change companies translate
their value proposition into the customer needs satisfaction (BOTSMAN; ROGERS,
2011). Below some examples which translate these concepts into reality are
presented, proving this trend is something real and alive.
TABLE 1 -
Examples of collaborative practices – a different form of consumption
|
Company |
Description |
Country |
Engage (Crowdsourcing) |
Incubator for collective engagement projects. |
Brazil |
|
Zipcar (Car
sharing) |
Car sharing and car club service. |
USA |
|
Netflix |
On-line streaming of movies and series, based on a monthly
subscription fee. |
USA |
|
Freecycle.org |
Network™ of 9,303,531 members
globally, in 5,083 groups moderated by volunteers. It's a grassroots and
nonprofit movement of people sharing stuff for free, resulting in reuse and
keeping good stuff out of landfills. |
USA |
|
Catarse (Crowdfunding) |
Crowdfunding website for social and creative projects. |
Brazil |
|
The Hub – Summer and Winter schools (Crowdlearning) |
Coworking space that besides working infrastructure offers consultancy and
learning programs such as “the Hub School”. It aims at creating connections
and making change happens in a collaborative manner. |
England |
|
Nós Coworking |
Coworking space. |
Brazil |
|
CouchSurfing |
It’s a community of over 5 million members around
the world. The website connects travelers and locals who meet offline to
share cultures, hospitality and adventures. |
USA |
The
collaborative dynamic of the companies mentioned above explicit a new global
scenario, where solving social and satisfying social demands makes business
sense. Crowd funding, for example, solves the fundraising challenge of
innovative business and creative initiatives that otherwise would not call the
attention of traditional investors. Even more focused on overcoming specific
social challenges are the previously mentioned social business. Table 2 shows
some examples around the globe.
TABLE 2 - Examples of Social Business – a
different form of production
|
Organization |
Description |
Country |
www.bancoperola.org.br |
Microcredit bank that is focused on lending to group of young people
between the ages of 18 and 35. |
Brazil |
|
Offers low cost solar energy solutions in rural areas in India. |
India |
||
Hospitals with 20 to 25 beds, specialized in maternal care. |
India |
||
Hospital focused on treating preventable blindness with 300,000
surgeries a year, 2/3 of them free of charge. |
India |
||
www.cdilan.com.br |
Through the cooperation with hundreds of thousands of lan houses present in poor communities, using them as a
platform to providing financial and educational services. |
Brazil |
|
www.solidarium.com.br |
Fair trade company that connect local producers with big retailers for
commercialization |
Brazil |
It is
clear these different forms of production and consumption positively impact the
lives of many around the globe, and that these benefits could be extended to an
ever bigger number of people, creating waves of change into the system. An
interesting aspect is that this could happen as a result of pro-active actions,
and not only as a response to a crisis situation. In a consistent manner, it
could be said that the adoption of these different forms of production and
consumption recall the origins of capitalism, when corporations where formed to
solve social problems and to satisfy social needs, such as building a bridge or
opening up a road for a community to communicate with others. Should this be a
reflection of the past or could it be what global society wants for the future?
Will alternative forms of production and consumption be restricting to niches,
or will they reach global scale?
7.
FINAL
REMARKS
For
society as a whole to reach collectiveness level where there is a search to
satisfy the needs of those who produce and consume, it is increasingly clear
that it is crucial to rethink and restructure the practices and patterns that
are currently in place. The discussion presented in this paper suggests that
there are possibilities to change patterns, to adopt new forms of production
and consumption, and, therefore, to create the systemic change needed. A more
active approach is needed for the creation of this alternative reality.
The
forms of production presented are economically viable, have a less significant
environmental impact, and tackle social challenges and concerns. Their business
models differ from traditional ones, but function in a similar fashion in terms
of efficiency, and profit generation. Capitalism has inherent contradictions
and crises are part of its operating system. Some of these crises are long
lasting, some are short, but in all cases they are part of its development.
Contextual conditions of each period of time lead to different ways out of each
crisis, which sometimes means merely escaping rather than creating long lasting
real change. Currently, the context involves the increasing in environmental
consciousness, which reflects in the adoption of alternative forms of
production and consumption.
Questioning
if new practices are enough or a more fundamental systemic change is needed is
necessary. The authors understand the experiences and cases presented in this
paper are still insipient, but are relevant and can be easily shared, and
replicable if customized to new realities, increasing their impact. Connecting
profits and positive social impact is a dream scenario for many, and as of it
was seen in the examples presented, it is more possible that previously
imagined. It is worth noting that the ICTs will play a fundamental role in any
change to happen in the coming years/decades, both in changing production, and
in changing consumption. The possibilities are immense.
The
realization that it is possible to innovate and to reach profitably goals in
consonance with social and environmental concerns is important. Collaboration
can be a catalyst for change, and methods such as the Design Thinking, amongst
others, can make a big difference in organizational performance. In this paper
the authors chose to have a theoretical discussion, and then support it with
some empirical evidence. Although it makes a more compelling case, it is also
one of the biggest limitations of the study, since the cases are neither
mutually exclusive nor collective exhaustive. However, trying to articulate the
dialogue within topics which usually are not connected is a great contribution
for the development of public policies towards more sustainable forms of
production and consumption, being as well a good incentive for new
entrepreneurs to start similar ventures, in a more collective, collaborative,
open-sourced manner.
REFERENCES
ABRADI.
Brazilian Association of Digital Agencies. (2012) Internet no Brasil cresceu 16% em um ano. Available: http://www.abradi.com.br/noticias/ibope-nielsen-online-internet-no-brasil-cresceu-16-em-um-ano/
Access: 22/11/ 2012.
Artemisia.
(2011) Entenda o conceito
[Understand the concept]. Available: http://www.artemisia.org.br/entenda_o_conceito.php
Access: 21/04/2012.
BELK, R. (2007) Why
Not Share Rather Than Own? Paper presented at the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science.
BERG, A.; HUKKINEN, J. I. (2011) Beyond effectiveness: The uses of
Finland’s national programme to promote sustainable
consumption and production, Journal
of Cleaner Production, v.19, n.16,
p.1788-1797.
BÖHM, S.;
MISOCZKY, M. C.; MOOG, S. (2012) Greening
Capitalism? A Marxist Critique of Carbon Markets, Organization Studies, v.
33, n.11.
BOTSMAN, R.; ROGERS, R. (2011) O que é meu é seu: como o consumo
colaborativo vai mudar o mundo. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
BOX 1824. (2011) Projeto
Sonho Brasileiro [Brazilian Dream Project]. Available: http://osonhobrasileiro.com.br/
Access: 04/01/ 2013.
BRABHAM,
D. C. (2008) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An Introduction and
Cases, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 14.
CETELEM IPSOS. (2011). O observador – Brasil 2011. Available:
http://www.cetelem.com.br/portal/elementos/pdf/pdf_observador2011_BR.zip
Access: 18/04/ 2012.
CHESHIRE, C.;
ANTIN, J. (2008) The Social Psychological Effects of Feedback on the Production
of Internet Information Pools, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, v. 13, p. 705–727.
CLARKSON, M. B.
E. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, Academy of Management Review, v. 20, n. 1, p. 92-117.
Decock, C.;
BAKER, M.; VOLKMANN, C. (2011) Financial phantasmagoria: corporate image-work in
times of crisis, Organization,
v. 18, n. 2, p. 153-172.
EAGLETON,
T. (1997) Marx. São Paulo:
Editora UNESP.
EAGLETON, T. (2011) In Praise of Marx.
Available: http://chronicle.com/article/In-Praise-of-Marx/127027/ Access:
25/05/2012.
FOLADORI,
G. (2005) Por uma sustentabilidad
alternativa. Uruguai: Colección Cabichui.
FOSTER, J. B.; MAGDOFF, F. (2011) The great financial
crisis – three years on. Monthly
Review. Available: http://monthlyreview.org/2010/10/01/the-great-financial-crisis-three-years-on
Access: 25/05/2012.
FRIEDMAN, T. (2005) O Mundo é Plano: Uma breve história do
século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2011) Global
Report. Available:
http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/2409/gem-2011-global-report Access:
28/05/2012.
HAWKEN, P.; LOVINS, A. B.; LOVINS, L. H. (1999) Natural Capitalism: Creating the
Next Industrial Revolution.
Little, Brown & Company.
HOPWOOD, B.;
MELLOR, M.; O’BRIEN, G. (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping Different
Approaches, Sustainable Development, v.13.
IDEO.
(2012) About IDEO. Available: http://www.ideo.com/about. Access:
18/01/ 2013.
IBGE.
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. (2011) Brazilian Population.
Available: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/ Access: 19/01/ 2013.
JACKSON,
T. (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Sustainable Development Research
Network. Center for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.
JACKSON, T.
(2007) Sustainable Consumption. In: Atkinson, G.; Dietz, S.; Neumayer, E. (Ed.). Handbook of Sustainable Development.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
KOZINETS, R. V.;
HEMETSBERGER, A.; SCHAU, H. J. (2008) The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds: Collective
Innovation in the Age of Networked Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing, v. 28, n.
4, p. 339-354.
KRAMER, R. M.
(1999) Trust and distrust in
organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual
Review Psychology, v. 50, p. 569-598.
LAUTERBACH,
D.; TRUONG, H.; SHAH, T.; ADAMIC, L. (2009) Surfing a web of trust:
Reputation and Reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com. Paper
presented at the annals of the
International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, IEEE.
LEAVY,
B. (2012) Collaborative innovation as the new imperative - design thinking, value
co-creation and the power of "pull", Strategy & Leadership,
v. 40, n. 2, p. 25-34.
LÉLÉ, S. M.
(1991) Sustainable Development: A Critical Review, World Development, v. 19,
n. 6, p. 607-621.
LIPOVETSKY, G. (2007) A felicidade paradoxal: ensaio sobre a sociedade
de hiperconsumo. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
LOVINS,
A. B.; LOVINS, L. H.; HAWKEN, P. (1999) A Road Map for Natural Capitalism, Harvard
Business Review, p. 145-158.
MAHARAJH, R.
(2012) Rio+20: Peoples’ Sustainability Treaties & the Manifesto.
Available: http://www.ramapo.edu/masters-sustainability/docs/after-rio-20/3/Maharajh-Capitalist-Constraints-110812.pdf
Access: 23/11/ 2012.
MANDEL,
E. (2001) O lugar do marxismo na
história. São Paulo:
Xamã.
MARX,
K. (1980) Existência e consciência. In: Ianni, O. (Org.). Sociologia. São
Paulo: Câmara Brasileira do Livro.
MICHAELIS, L.
(2000) Ethics of consumption. Ethics & Society. Available: http://spin.medic.ukm.my/Contents/ZZZT3133/ZZZT3133/CModule/Lesson13/1315344428_EthicsofConsumption.pdf
Access: 22/11/ 2011.
MONT, O. (2004) Institutionalisation
of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use, Ecological Economics, v. 50,
p.135-153.
OCDE.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006) OCDE.
Available: http://www.oecd.org/ Access: 25/04/2012.
ONARAN, Ö. (2010) The crisis of capitalism in Europe,
West and East. Monthly Review.
Available: http://monthlyreview.org/author/ozlemonaran Access: 21/05/2012.
ORDANINI,
A.; MICELI, L.; PIZZETTI, M.; PARASURAMAN, A. (2011). Crowd-funding: transforming
customers into investors through innovative service platforms, Journal of
Service Management, v. 22; n. 4, p. 443-470.
PROTHERO, A.; FITCHETT, J. A. (2000) Greening
Capitalism: opportunities for a green commodity. Journal of Macromarketing, v. 20,
n. 1, p. 46-55.
SEYFANG, G.
(2006) Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: examining local
organic food networks, Journal of Rural Studies, v. 22, n.
4, p. 383-395.
SMITH, N. (2007) Nature as accumulation strategy, Socialist Register, v.43.
SPAARGAREN, G.; OOSTERVEER, P. (2010)
Citizen-Consumers as Agents of Change in Globalizing Modernity: The Case of
Sustainable Consumption, Sustainability, v. 2 , n. 7, p. 1887-1908
SWEET,
S.; MOEN, P. (2004) Coworking as a career strategy:
Implications for the work and family lives of university employees, Innovative
Higher Education, v. 28, n. 4, p. 255-272.
THORPE, B. (2009) Clean
Production Strategies: What is Clean Production? Available: http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/Factsheet1_Clean_Production.pdf Access: 25/11/
2012.
UNICEF. United Nations Children’s Fund. (2010) UNICEF. Available: http://www.unicef.org/
Access: 27/11/2012.
UNDP.
Creating Value for All. United Nations Development Programme.
Available: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rwanda/docs/povred/RW_rp_Creating_Value_for_All_Doing_Business_with_the_Poor.pdf Acess: 14/04/2012.
UNIDO. United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
(2002) Manual on the Development of Cleaner Production Policies - Approaches
and Instruments. UNIDO CP Programme.
Available: http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/9750_0256406e.pdf
Access: 25/11/ 2012.
VANDEPITTE,
M. (2011) Crisis del capitalismo. Rebelión. Available: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=121086
Access: 23/05/2012.
VIANNA, M.; VIANNA, Y.; ADLER, I.
K.; LUCENA, B.; RUSSO, B. (2012) Design
Thinking: Inovação em Negócios. Rio de
Janeiro: MJV Press.
WORLD BANK.
(2012) World Development Report. Available: http://wdronline.worldbank.org/
Access: 28/04/2012.
WCED. World
Commission on Environment and Development. (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
WHO. World Health Organization. (2010) Relatório da Organização Mundial
da Saúde. Available: http://www.who.int/en/ Access: 28/04/ 2012.
YUNUS, M. (2010)
Building
Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism that Serves Humanities Most
Pressing Needs. New York: Public Affairs.