How tech may soon pressure brands to fight climate change harder

Released today, the biggest ever climate change poll showed that 64% of people think the issue is a “global emergency”. The “Peoples’ Climate Survey”, commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme, received 1.4 million responses in 50 countries.

The poll did not investigate further on who we think hold the power to rescue us from the “global emergency”, however. If such question was asked, the answer could be oddly interesting.

The UN-level climate change initiatives Kyoto Protocol (1997–2012) and its sequel Paris Agreement (2016 — present) are no more than empty promises. Most of the carbon emission quotas and targets for countries are voluntary. Therefore, we probably should not feel too complacent, even US President Joe Biden has recommitted the United States to the Paris Agreement last week.

Why climate change cannot be solved from top down

When I studied international relations in 2019, I came to realise a root cause of carbon emission regime’s pessimistic future. The regime has been producer-centric, meaning we rely on businesses (many are public companies) to reduce production or cost efficiency (the most environmental friendly way to run a production line is often not the cheapest).We also rely on governments to set quotas, rules and regulations for businesses. But deep down, do we really see a reduction in GDP and growth targets coming? Not really. Why? Nation states and public companies are innately bounded to over-produce, because they have to compete with one another. I know, it’s realist, but true…

Game changer: consumer power

If we cannot rely on government intervention, naturally we fall back on the “invisible hand” of people (aka market). Hence, I argued adding “consumers” to the carbon emission regulatory formula in a dissertation.

I suggested levying an environmental tax (on top of GST, I know…) proportional to how dirty a product is, throughout its lifecycle from manufacturing, logistics to recycling and waste management, to deter consumption of dirty products. If no one consume a product, no one will produce it. Thus, the consumer behavior will also induce a domino effect on producers’ carbon performance.

But my formula was flawed. Why? Do I really think the government will effect a proposal that will lead GDP growth to a negative direction? No.

No one can stop technology to become enablers

And here I am in Oakville, Ontario in 2021, doing my third post-grad at Sheridan College, a cradle of innovation which has groomed many FWA-winning web developers, agency founders, Oscar-winning producers.

With the new skills learned from the web development programme, I have taken this climate change problem solving one step further.

For my Fall semester project, I created an e-commerce platform called “Consuper”. The inspiration of this name is from my belief that, any brand will agree consumers are holding superpower.

Looking across the marketplace today, however, e-commerce players or traditional retailers have not yet enabled customers to choose the most environmental friendly products and services. Maybe some of them would prefer this Pandora’s box to never be opened.

An app like “Consuper” will empower consumers with carbon cost ($) info of a product in its entire lifecycle (from manufacturing to recycling and waste management) for them to make informed buying decisions. If the app can help consumers choose wisely, notably some of the dirtiest consumer goods such as consumer electronics, it will be making a real impact on our environment.

Can we see light at the end of the tunnel?

Yes. Most carbon emission data are readily available under current global carbon emission regulatory regime. While they could be now proprietary information held on the producer side, an app like Consuper needs love from no more than a couple of brands to start.

For example, if Microsoft starts listing its products on Consuper, all its competitors will feel the heat sooner or later. Once such trend has started taking shape, consumers may already find a brand “guilty” if it does not proactively disclose its product carbon cost.

The long term strategic intent here, again, is not just about disclosure, but more so on pressuring and incentivising brands to compete on carbon performance.

Brand leadership

Consuper is only an example here to illustrate how technology may liberalise consumer power. Right now, shareholder activism, albeit often a long-shot, is already causing big headaches for some corporations. When people realise more tech-enabled avenues to pressure corporations to act in the best interests of stakeholders, challenges faced by brands will take many more shapes and forms.

Fortunately, tomorrow’s brands do not need a crystal ball to know consumer expectation on them in climate change. Brands leading the race tomorrow are likely those who can direct their business to embark on a carbon competitive track now.