“The greatest transparency is probably the most effective”
In this exclusive interview, Karin Perrot, Senior Expert Director at Kantar, explores the importance of sustainability in the companies strategies business. She discusses Kantar’s role in guiding brands towards more responsible practices, aligning with global goals and addressing consumer expectations
Can you tell us what the Kantar Sustainable Transformation Practice is, and how it relates to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, in the context of the study you carried out earlier?
The Kantar Sustainable Transformation Practice is a specialised area of expertise at Kantar, which was created a few years ago because we became aware of the fact that we too, as a research institute, have a role to play in transforming companies for a more sustainable world. That’s why we’ve mobilised our forces around this objective. And how can we take action? Well, by giving our customers the keys to acting responsibly themselves.
What’s the link with the 17 UN goals? Quite simply, to use a framework accepted by everyone. We thought there was no better way to organise our thinking and then the recommendations we would make to our customers. So we brought in around 30,000 interviews. And we asked people about their main concerns, based on the UN objectives.
I’m going to digress for a moment to explain why this is important, because in fact the UN’s objectives are not just environmental objectives, but also social objectives, such as eradicating poverty. It’s not just about making recyclable packaging when you’re a company, it’s also about making sure that the world is visible and that there are objectives of inclusion and diversity. So it’s all part of that. So we needed a very broad framework, and we found that this was the most appropriate. So what we did was, first of all, ask people, consumers, but ultimately citisens, what concerns them most. And we suggested topics related to the 17 objectives. There aren’t just 17, there are several, because some of them are twofold.
There’s a very long list of things. And then, what we did was to ask the same interviewed people that the sector was most likely to act on this or that objective.
This gave us the means to make precise recommendations to our customers.
This is where we can best help our customers, the brands, to take action, not only by telling them what matters most to people, but where they will be most legitimate to act. In the same way, not all sectors will be legitimate in tackling global poverty. Some are legitimate. This is what enables us to make recommendations to our customers based on the hotel sector. That’s really been your base, your foundation.
Yes, that’s why we looked at a large number of sectors and a large number of countries, because from one country to another, people don’t perceive risks in the same way, and even less so from one sector to another. The way we can act is to help brands optimise their investments. Of course, we know that investments are not unlimited. And so, from a reasonable point of view, it’s better for us to advise our clients to act where their investments are often most profitable, most heard by their consumers, and this study enables us to do just that.
Which sectors do consumers see as being the most committed to sustainable practices, and why?According to consumers, we actually classify the sectors, not only do we ask people in which sector, which sectors from the point of view of their commitment to a negative society.
And we do this along four dimensions. A strategic dimension, i.e. whether, according to people, brands in this sector take their responsibility or not at all. An innovation dimension, i.e. whether brands in this sector are proposing new, innovative solutions to address the issue of sustainability, or whether, on the contrary.
The activation axis And finally, a notion of impact. And here, it’s a question of whether brands tend to offer real transparency on their performance in terms of sustainability, or whether they tend to hide the reality of what they’re doing. So we have these four notions. From there, we classify the sectors according to people’s perceptions.
For example, the sector that does best on this subject is the fresh fruit and vegetable sector, i.e. it’s the maximum, and the one that does worst is the cigarette and rolled tobacco sector. So between a plus 100 and a minus 100, there are all sorts of nuances, in fact, with a federal average still against 50. So effectively, when you’re in the top 10, you’re rather in a sector that has a certain legitimacy to the idea of transformation, to be a driving force in transformation.
And when you’re in the bottom 10, the displacement, you have to be confident that there are a certain number of issues related to the sector that need to be better resolved. if we don’t want to be tainted and, in the long term, probably hindered in its development, there are certain issues on which it would be a good idea to act as a priority. Because we know that people hold brands responsible for global warming, for the fact that nothing is getting better, I’d like to say that brands are responsible for the state of affairs we’re in. Not just man in general, but brands too.
How are companies coming up with solutions to counter this?
Well, what’s happening is, we’re doing this greenwashing petition thing, and it turns out that, in this sector, there are a little over half the people, 72%, who have seen or heard false or misleading information about the sustainable actions carried out by seafarers. That’s quite a lot of blackmail, and it’s 51%. The 52 is cross-sector, cross-country. If brands can identify the right way to invest and act in the sector, then to engage consumers properly, they still need to make their actions known.
But at the same time, the actions need to be well sounded out, and the message needs to be well heard.
If there’s this constant noise of greenwashing, it’s hard to be heard. So what we do is ask ourselves where these perceptions of greenwashing come from and how we can overcome them. And in this, basically, it’s a matter of acting transparently. It’s true that we can’t give any advice other than to be aligned, to do things for the right reasons and to make this known without any hidden intention.
The greatest transparency is probably the most effective. After that, it’s true that when it comes to messages, you still have to make sure that your message can be heard by consumers. And here, of course, all we can do is advise our customers and brands to check whether or not their message will be heard. As it happens, we have segmented people into four groups, depending on whether or not they act in favor of sustainability, whether or not they are committed to it, and whether or not they believe in it. So a value axis and an action axis.
This gives us four groups of people who are more or less committed. The most committed are those we call active. These are people who fundamentally believe they have a role to play and really want to do something good about it. And at the same time, they do. I’m convinced and I act, as opposed to I’m not convinced at all and I do nothing. We’re seeing more and more people active in each country over the years. The other two groups are the believers, who are convinced but don’t really act, and the fourth group, who do act more or less on a daily basis but aren’t really convinced of the validity of their actions. Ideally, we’d like to convince everyone, but in any case, what we often find is that the non-believers, the “definers” as we call them, are hard to engage, hard to commit to a message. But some do, and the more you put forward arguments that work on an individual level, the more likely you are to convince them to be good for the planet and good for my health, even if I have no particular intention of doing something good for the planet, if it’s for my health, I can be convinced.
It’s already a first step, in fact, to find individual reasons. And we’ve also noticed that when we encompass, when we propose collective actions, there’s more potential to get people moving, even if they’re not particularly committed to personal action. And finally, when the most committed have doubts, even if the majority are fairly convinced, you have to be careful, because it can backfire. There are a few people who tend to prove that a brand’s message is a little murky. Even if it’s a minority, it can backfire on the brand in question if you can’t convince the people who are engaged. I’d like to give you some recommendations on how to avoid being perceived as Green Washing.
Could you tell us a little more about the Green Gap?
We call it the Value Action Gap. It’s the gap between values and actions. In other words, between what I think and what I actually know. You could also call it the Green Gap. I know that my actions can have an impact, but on a day-to-day basis, I don’t always act that way. So that’s how we measure it, in our fundamental study, that’s what we say about all these perimeters.
In France, 86% of people are aware of the social and environmental impact of brands. Only 24% change their behavior to reflect this. So the difference between 86% knowing there’s an impact, but only 24% taking action, is 62%. So that’s what we call the green gap, the difference between values and actions.
What would you recommend to brands to reduce this gap?
Well, the first thing is that these figures shouldn’t be seen as people think one thing, but they’re completely unaware. You shouldn’t say to yourself, Well, people do anything anyway, so let’s carry on doing anything. Because in fact, if there’s a gap between the two, it’s because there are real reasons why people don’t manage to act as well as they think they should. And it’s also often said, ah yes, but that’s because brands and virtuous products are too expensive anyway. It’s true that more virtuous alternatives are often more expensive, but that’s by no means the only reason. There are other reasons too, such as the fact that people tell us it’s difficult to know which is the right alternative, and in fact it’s not always very easy. Let’s take the example of France, where we have a huge number of labels, each more virtuous than the last. How can a consumer know which label is better than the other? What does HQ mean? What does organic mean? So, at some point, we can’t blame them for taking the cheapest alternative in what they may have thought was rather virtuous. So there’s a real need for clarity in the offers. There’s also the issue of real proof. Just because something is labelled on a package doesn’t mean it’s true. From the consumer’s point of view, there are all kinds of messages, but I can’t find any. I don’t know where to find them, it’s not in my store. In my store, where I go, I don’t have that much choice. So there are a lot of things beyond price, which is certainly important. It’s true that not everyone in society is in a position to make only virtuous choices, that’s for sure. But there are other ways of helping consumers make better choices.
Could you share with us some figures from your study on consumer expectations in terms of sustainability, and how these insights can guide brands to adopt a better strategy in relation to consumers?
86% I expect with the fact that it is urgent to act in favor of the climate. 60% of people believe that companies have a responsibility for the climate and the environment. 74% have a responsibility to create a fairer society and 64% to solve climate and environmental problems. So, it’s really important, in relation to what we said at the beginning, to say that there really is the subject of climate, but there is also the subject, social subjects in fact, in which people expect a lot from brands. What’s also very important is that we’ve also proved that brands are well regarded by consumers in terms of their CSR function, the faster they progress. Not just in terms of their acceptance by consumers, but really in their market, the value of their actions increases. And also, another argument to push brands to have virtuous actions, because it’s not just to please consumers, it’s also to make their companies do better on the markets.
How does the SIAL Summit encourage discussion and exchange within the industry?
I’m delighted that the SIAL Summit can bring together professionals from different food sectors, and professionals like me, for example, from research, or people who work in innovation, and that all these points of view can actually meet and discuss. I think it’s a virtuous circle, and I’m sure there will be some good ideas exchanged. And as there will be a huge number of exhibitors and visitors at SIAL this year, it’s going to be a good platform for meetings. A good place to meet and exchange ideas.
For more news, click here
Learn more about SIAL Summits Book your spot for SIAL Summits