Just Being Nice?

By Jim Prevor, Editor-in-Chief, Produce Business

When consumers tell us things that are hard to believe, the role of the researcher is to ask simply this: I wonder why the consumer is telling us such a thing? So when Bryan explains the PMA research shows “the social responsibility of companies growing and selling produce is highly important to consumers when making produce purchase decisions,” we have to wonder what this could possibly mean.

The vast majority of items sold in the produce department are not branded; others have labels with names of obscure produce companies unfamiliar to consumers. In most cases, those names aren’t the actual grower anyway — just a packer or processor. Plus only a few names sell more than one category. A typical produce department can represent hundreds of vendors and tens of thousands of growers.

One would have to believe at least 55 percent of consumers are spending countless hours on the Internet researching produce vendors and their suppliers to think consumers have any information on this subject — much less enough for it to be a “highly important” factor in purchasing decisions.

Since nobody really believes this, we are left wondering what this statistic could mean.

This question is reinforced because, in response to PMA’s social responsibility list, no issue was ranked as No. 1 for more than 15 percent of consumers. This raises the likelihood that not only don’t consumers have the information needed to evaluate produce companies on social responsibility issues but there is also no consensus on what social responsibility actually means.

This is important because it is quite possible consumers mean different things by terms such as “social responsibility” than do “experts” in this field. Experts tend to be talking in macro — how a chain or a store impacts the world. Consumers often look at these things in micro — how a store or chain affects my community.

So to the experts, a chain that spends millions buying “carbon offsets” may score high on sustainability. Consumers might view a chain that doesn’t do that but spends the same money rebuilding a local park, helping local schools and hospitals, etc., as more “socially responsible.”

It is not surprising consumers would consider themselves more socially responsible than business. The term is so vague and so subjective it almost boils down to being “nice” — treating other people well, not littering, cleaning up after oneself, etc. With such a definition, we shouldn’t be surprised if consumers think they are nicer to their friends, relatives, and co-workers than companies are to their employees or suppliers.

In all likelihood, PMA’s finding about the high-value consumers place on social responsibility points to three ideas:

1) It gives us a sense that this is part of the zeitgeist, a German expression roughly translated as “the spirit of the age.” People do not live in isolation, and part of what they search for in selecting product and services and choosing shopping venues is the approbation of friends and relatives. So we can surmise that when social responsibility distinction can be communicated to consumers, a positive reputation for social responsibility will be an effective tool in attracting customers.

In another time, people might have been proud to tell their friends all the fresh produce items at tonight’s dinner party were grown in their own Victory Garden. Today they might identify that the store where they shop supports local farmers or the produce is grown in a way good for the environment.

2) The study also may point to the risk of being identified as not socially responsible. Because consumers have so little information, allegations and news reports can powerfully influence their actions. This is nothing new. The famous “grape boycott” was successful both because consumers wanted to avoid companies perceived as socially irresponsible and because they had no knowledge of the way grape farmers treated their labor nor of the intricacies of union politics.

There is also a waterfall effect. Retailers who don’t want to be seen as socially irresponsible may simply stop carrying brands or products identified negatively on these measurements. In any case, there is an enormous downside risk to being identified as socially irresponsible and, this, as much as any upside to being identified as socially responsible, might justify efforts by any industry member to perform well in this regard.

3) We can see the incipient importance of certifications. Combine a desire to be on the right side of these issues with consumer ignorance of the facts and a virtual impossibility of gaining the facts on their own, and one has a recipe for certifications to be effective at boosting sales, enhancing retail reputations and preserving shelf space at retail. Consumers may not be able to investigate a company’s environmental impact, but a “Rainforest Alliance” certification can reassure.

The consumer cannot be expected to know how much a grower in a third-world country pays its employees, but a “fair-trade” certification can allow consumers to feel good about their purchase. Retailers can be expected to want to benefit from the halo effect of these types of certifications as well — thus making a certification a powerful argument for a slot in the warehouse and shelf space in the store.

Bryan has it precisely correct when he says, “Social responsibility is all about connecting, less about selling.” It is ultimately about setting aside the usual commercial concerns such as product and price and allowing customers — both trade customers and consumers — to evaluate whether you, as a company, are the kind of organization they want to do business with.