Latent values of responsibility and social norms for sustainability

Sustainable trajectories are greatly enabled by context-specific policies and social initiatives that foster social norms and facilitate sustainable behaviors. An important step toward this goal would be to unleash latent capabilities and relational values of responsibility (including virtues and principles; 5.4.1.1). Such values may often be strongly held in relevant populations, but not manifest in large-scale action due to a lack of enabling conditions, including infrastructure and institutional arrangements. Because communities, the values they hold, and barriers to enacting values are all diverse and multifaceted, social norm-shifts and widespread action are most likely to stem from locally tailored programs, policies and investments.

Evidence

There is strong evidence that many populations already express values consistent with

sustainability, such as pro-environmental values (e.g., Dunlap et al. ,2008) and relational values (Klain et al., 2017). These values manifest differently in different places (Chan et al., 2016). For example, Haidt & Graham (2007) document a striking difference in moral foundations between progressive and conservative voters in the USA, and the World Values Survey reveals two major axes of difference (traditional vs. secular-relational values and survival vs. self-expression values) (World Values Survey, 2016). In both of these frameworks, values on either end of these spectra could support sustainability.

Ample evidence supports that the expression of such values is currently impeded by insufficient infrastructure and social structures (Shove, 2010). This ‘social practice’ strand of research demonstrates the need for explanations of collective action (e.g., re: greenhouse gas emissions) to go beyond the aggregate of individual people operating independently. This research suggests that the focus on individual attitudes, behaviors, and personal choice needs to be expanded to include systemic considerations, such as the role that governments play in “structuring options and possibilities” (Shove, 2010). As one important possibility, sometimes norms can be promoted in new contexts by foregrounding existing widely held norms and values, and their applicability to the issue at hand via a process called ‘normative reframing’ (Raymond et al., 2014). Thus, notions of justice or fairness can be applied in new environmental contexts, either through normative reframing or even the creation of new norms in ‘normative innovation’

(Raymond et al., 2014).

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

Extensive work on barriers to pro-environmental behavior, which originates from an individual-focused paradigm, also often discusses two main realms of barriers: personal and collective. This work provides evidence that individual-level factors (e.g., disposition) play a role in behavior, and it also confirms the importance of factors external to the individual (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Darnton & Horne, 2013). In short, though individual motivation is important, the problem is sometimes or often not that individuals lack motivation for action (e.g., on climate change), but rather that current infrastructure, habits, and norms are outdated and insufficient to express values already present. An example from the United States relates to personal transportation:

many people report wanting a lower carbon alternative to personal vehicle travel, but their communities are designed in such a way that make other options prohibitively inconvenient and/or unappealing (Biggar & Ardoin, 2017a, 2017b; Shove & Walker, 2010).

Related to the point above, but stemming from a parallel literature, extensive behavioral economics and psychological research suggests that human decisions are heavily impacted by context and structures. There is strong evidence from a range of studies and a larger body of social sciences literature that replacement or evolution of infrastructure and social structures could nudge change in individual behaviour and also contribute to the formation of pro-sustainability habits and norms (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Pallak et al., 1980). A fundamental idea underlying this philosophy, which has been called “liberal paternalism” because it allows free choice (liberal) but guides people (paternalistic), is that people often want to act differently than they do, and would often appreciate a “nudge” to help them act in accordance with their deeper values. One specific example would be that people wanting to purchase sustainable seafood have benefited from a green-yellow-red signaling system, especially when those signals are displayed beside the products in stores and restaurants. Another specific example is that providing women in Zambia with vouchers for contraceptives can reduce their likelihood of giving birth, particularly if they receive vouchers when their husbands are not present (Byerly et al., 2018; Ashraf et al., 2014). A more general example would be that people wanting to donate more to charity generally give more with automatic payment plans.

Additional evidence suggests that despite the responsiveness of human behavior to existing contexts, moral belief and conviction already do transcend purely selfish action and/or more mechanical responses (e.g., of the type described by moral psychology or behavioral economics) (Damon and Colby, 2015). Learning can help people develop these responses based on morals and conviction, especially when that learning employs dialogue, reflection, reasoned

argumentation, and deliberation (all of which practices are increasingly recommended by

education scholars; see 5.4.1.8). A cornerstone of much moral philosophy is the idea that people can engage with complex situations and, through conscious deliberation and moral judgement, change behaviours and lifestyles. Acknowledging the aforementioned substantial impact of sometimes minor situational and contextual variables, it is helpful to also consider research into human moral choice, and how morality and moral decisions come about. Much research in this realm highlights the importance of intentional effort, deliberative discussion and thought

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

(including in education), not as an alternative to ‘nudge’ approaches but as a complement (John et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2010).

Fifth, the burgeoning science of norms offers important insight into how to change behavior. The science of norms considers the interplay of proximate contextual factors (e.g., what people around us are doing) and more deeply rooted social, collective understandings of “how things should be.” Norm-based interventions are some of the most prevalent and effective means of changing behavior (Miller and Prentice, 2016). As one example, household use of electricity decreases following messages about neighbors who use less electricity (the addition of a message conveying social approval/disapproval further strengthens the change—Schultz et al., 2007).

Norms interventions, particularly related to environmental issues, are less common in developing countries; an example from the health field is that decreases in female genital mutilation

followed interventions that attended to social norms along with other aspects of local context (Cislaghi & Heise, 2018). Research on the dynamics of norms (i.e., how norms change) focuses on the need to change expectations, both about what others will do and what others think people should do (Wegs et al., 2016). Legislation can affect these changes under specific conditions (e.g., when policies are not too far from aligning with existing social norms) (Bicchieri and Mercier, 2014). For most cases, however, interpersonal interaction is central to changing norms.

Discussion can encourage prosocial behavior by signalling and emphasizing desirable behaviors and norms (Balliet, 2010; Sally, 1995). Discussions also help people understand why others feel as they do and allow people to grapple with disagreement. In some situations, for instance those in which people need to be convinced, argumentation may be required (Bicchieri and Mercier, 2014). Work from a variety of fields confirms the importance of interpersonal interaction and discussion; one study, for instance, found time spent with neighbors to be strongly correlated to

"environmental lifestyle" and "willingness to sacrifice", emphasizing the importance of non-kin social relationships and interactions (Macias and Williams, 2014).

For IPLCs, values of all kinds (e.g., instrumental, intrinsic, relational) are deeply intertwined with cultural and environmental contexts, and value systems are often represented in and reinforced by language. The loss of language may be associated with value deterioration or change. Many (if not all) languages codify values related to the ability to coexist with

surrounding environments for hundreds or thousands of years (Maffi, 2001; Davis, 2009). These sustainability-related values may be particularly common in Indigenous and other long-standing local communities, with their strong traditional beliefs, laws, customs, culture, and affections towards nature (e.g., sacred trees, sacred animals, totems) (e.g., Turner, 2005; McGregor, 1996).

As such, the loss of languages is potentially a major problem for value diversity and authenticity.

In many regions, community values that support sustainable trajectories using indigenous knowledge are at risk of extinction, which results in the loss of biodiversity (Unasho et al., 2013). Loh and Harmon (2014) note that one in four of the world’s 7000 languages are at current threat of extinction, confirming a simultaneous decline in linguistic diversity and biodiversity – approximately 30% since 1970. Extinction statistics tell the story: 21% of all mammals, 13% of birds, 15% of reptiles, 30% of amphibians and 400 languages have gone extinct (Loh & Harmon,

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

2014). In this sense, the value of the knowledge-practice-belief complex of Indigenous Peoples relating to conservation of biodiversity are central to the sustainable management of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Possible points of action

A particular challenge faces people participating in global supply chains (e.g., through their purchasing of goods and services), because although there might be broad and strong agreement with the notion that we humans have a responsibility to account for our impacts on the

environment (Klain et al., 2017), there are a dearth of options for people to do so easily, enjoyably, and affordably (Chan et al., 2017a). That is, the primary option available to

consumers is the purchase of certified products (e.g., marine stewardship-council seafood, forest-stewardship council wood products, organic food), but these are inevitably costly, limited, and complex (few consumers can keep track of and come to trust more than a few of the plethora of competing labels). Because the costliness stems partly from inefficiencies in these niche supply chains, there is potential to enable widespread action in accordance with values of environmental responsibility via credible non-tradeable offsets that enable organizations and individuals to mitigate their impacts on nature (Chan et al., 2017b). A legitimate and trusted system of such offsets does not yet exist, but there are important developments and novel efforts (e.g., the Natural Capital Project’s Offset Portfolio Analyzer & Locator, Forest Trends’ Business &

Biodiversity Offsets Programme, CoSphere).

Offsets have a potentially important role to play because they could enable people and

organizations to enact values of environmental responsibility that are currently suppressed by disabling conditions, but which could potentially yield new social norms. However, to achieve that, it will be crucial that offsets avoid the problems and associated negative reputation that has plagued carbon offsetting, such that offsets convey the real and socially legitimate mitigation of diverse impacts on nature and its contributions to people (Chan et al., 2017b).