CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND CONSUMPTION: CONNECTING THE DOTS
GOIZUETA BUSINESS SCHOOL AT EMORY UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GA, USA
Introduction
My interest in climate, culture, and consumption began with my first book, The Theory of Buyer Behavior (with John A. Howard), published in 1969. It took more than seven years of research and synthesis to answer the question of how consumers make brand choices for such daily necessities as toothpaste, detergents, and cereals. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom that consumers calculate utility of different brands (albeit in a subjective manner) and select the brand with the highest utility, my co-author and I believed that consumers actually do not make choices. Instead, they reduce choices by learning through experiences in the course of time and/or by early socialization of products and brands from their family, culture, and peer groups. In other words, consumers become loyal to a brand by habit. Furthermore, despite myriad choices (brands, packages, flavors, size, etc.), they actually consider only a handful of brands with specific size, flavor, and packaging. We called this the “evoked set.” Of course, it varies from consumer to consumer. However, a company cannot succeed in the marketplace no matter how good the product or offering unless it occupies a place in the consumer’s evoked set and becomes a preferred brand. The important role of culture in determining consumers’ preferences in daily necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing was even more obvious to me given that I came to the United States from India to do my graduate studies with very different culturally anchored prior preferences and habits. I had to learn (actually unlearn and relearn) about new brands in familiar product categories such as toothpaste and rice as well as new product categories such as canned soups and detergents. Indeed, my doctoral dissertation investigated how adult immigrants to the United States learn about new brands for known product categories as well as find out about altogether new product categories for which they had no prior culturally anchored experiences and preferences (Sheth 1966). The dissertation research was also an empirical testing of the Howard–Sheth Theory of Buyer Behavior (1969), which focused on how consumers become brand-loyal through three stages of learning—that is, from extensive problem solving to limited problem solving and finally to automatic response behavior.
Coca Cola and Climate
My interest in climate grew out of a research study we were doing for Coca Cola International. Coca Cola consumption varied enormously from country to country. It was as low as 64 bottles per year per capita in one country and as high as 400 bottles per year per capita in other countries. Given that this was an empirical observation, I wanted to discover the antecedents for this large difference in consumption across countries. I was amazed to discover that different managers had different explanations: some believed that bad water must, out of necessity, make consumers drink Coca Cola; others believed it had to do with the country’s per capita income; still others believed that preferences for existing substitutes across countries made the difference. None of these and other explanations proved right. A large-scale correlation analysis revealed that more than 95 percent of the variance can be explained by two factors: climate of the country and age of the population. Warmer countries with young populations consumed more Coca Cola and vice-versa. The highest per capita consumption was in Mexico (400 bottles) and the lowest per capita consumption was in Sweden (64 bottles). Furthermore, the country’s climate was twice as important as the age of its inhabitants. It was this study of cross-cultural consumption of Coca Cola that brought to my attention the importance of climate on consumption behavior. Having done more cognitive, clinical, and empirical research on other products such as appliances, automobiles, shoes, garments, pickles, and cheese, I have concluded that not only most consumption differences, but also cultural differences, are due to climate differences. In other words, climate is the ultimate root cause of who we are genetically, how we behave culturally, and how we consume three basic necessities: food, shelter, and clothing.
Climate and Adaptation
Jared Diamond is probably the best-known scholar of evolutionary biology and physiology. His books Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997) and Collapse (2005) have become classics in the field, with compelling and convincing evidence that human evolution and early migration, as well as the survival or collapse of societies, are directly a result of climate changes. My research on culture and consumption, while also anchored to climate, is significantly different from Diamond in at least three ways. First, my research is focused on consumption and cultural differences and not on the evolution and migration of humankind. Second, Jared’s work is more focused on prehistoric evolution leading up to the formation of agriculture-based societies and civilizations. My research is more contemporary and focused on the impact of globalization (as opposed to migration of people) on a given culture with respect to its food, shelter, and clothing consumption. Finally, I have attempted to develop a slightly different theory of resource dependency to explain why and how climate creates both consumption and cultural differences. Just as humans are genetically adaptive (and consequent genetic differences are due to climate differences), I have concluded that cultural differences—manifested in time, space, friendship, kinship, and social hierarchy—as well as consumption differences—manifested in what we eat, wear, and how we live—are also due to adaptations to climates.
Climate and Consumption
The best way to illustrate consumption differences in food, shelter, and clothing is to contrast Northern and Southern Europeans. In the North above the Alps, the source of protein, calories, and fat is animal because of the lack of vegetation. Therefore, the Northern European diet tends to be what we refer to as meat and potatoes. In contrast, the Mediterranean cultures have more lentils, vegetables, and fruits in their diet because they can grow them. The Northern European diet tends to be less spicy because Northern Europeans cannot grow spices locally, whereas tropical countries such as India have an enormous variety of spices. Furthermore, most spices—things such as cilantro, parsley, turmeric, and garlic—provide antioxidants and antibacterial medicinal benefits. In my research on cheese consumption, I was surprised to learn that the fat content of cheese (Swiss) in cold climates is very high (40 percent or more); it drops to low-fat content (2–3 percent) in the Mediterranean temperate climate (feta and mozzarella); and the concept of cheese is conspicuously absent in tropical climates.
For inhabitants of tropical climates, saturated fat comes from olive oil, coconut oil, and avocado, for example. This North-South axis also creates within-country consumption differences. For example, Northern Italy features a prevalence of creamy sauces for pasta; these become tomato sauces (marinara) in Southern Italy. Similarly, the Northern Indian diet has homemade cheese (paneer), which is totally absent in South India. Northern Italian food tends to be less spicy as compared to Sicilian or Southern Italian cuisines. The same is true in India. The theory of resource dependence suggests Northern Europe’s dependence on animals for clothing and, therefore, its preference for wool and leather. On the other hand, warmer-climate cultures have access to cotton and linen. Northern Europeans prefer multiple layers and tight-fitting clothes to create insulation, whereas in warmer climates a single-layer garment is more common. Furthermore, garments are loose and free flowing in tropical climates to allow air ventilation and accommodate perspiration. Given that vegetation is not possible in Northern Europe, the preference is for pastel colors in clothes. On the other hand, warmer climates prefer a colorful display of clothing, as exemplified by Indian Saris, native African garments, and colorful Pacific Island outfits. In fact, wool and leather become harmful and uncomfortable materials to wear in tropical climates. As an example, boots are replaced with shoes, shoes are replaced with sandals, and sandals are replaced by thongs as we migrate from arctic to temperate to tropical climates. Similarly, the shelter differences are also due to climatic adaptations. Northern Europeans have access to forests; therefore, most construction raw materials are wood and stone. In tropical climates, the preference is for clay and bricks. Wood material is indeed undesirable in tropical climates due to termites and other insects. The roof design in the North is typically “A”-shaped to allow for snow to roll off the roof, whereas it is usually a flat roof with a gentle slope for rainwater to drain in warmer climates. The outdoors and indoors are insulated in cold climates, where one often sees the presence of a foyer as transition space. In warmer climates, indoor and outdoor boundaries are often blurred and indistinguishable. This type of housing is best typified by Spanish and Italian villas. High ceilings are most prevalent in hot and humid climates to allow air to rise. Finally, color preferences are significantly different for homes in arctic, temperate, and tropical climates. This North-South climate axis is a very important antecedent to understanding consumption differences both within and between countries. A country with all three climatic zones (such as the United States) and two climatic zones (such as Italy, India, and Australia) often display significant within-country consumption differences. Climate can easily explain most of the differences between Northern and Southern California, as is true of Northern and Southern India or Italy. Food, shelter, and clothing differences across North-South climatic zones are obvious after the fact but there is less scientific or scholarly research or evidence.
Side-Effects of Globalization
In today’s global economy with its fusion of cultures and consumption, this climatic perspective often provides clues to collateral damage or unintended consequences when the gene pool anchored to one climate and consumption anchored to another climate come in conflict. Many emerging economies, located mostly in tropical climates, often adapt the consumption of more advanced economies (mostly from the arctic to temperate climates) and suffer from side-effects of consumption. I am told that the practice of podiatry is growing rapidly in India as the country modernizes. Now most clerical and professional people wear shoes and socks for ten to twelve hours, which creates diseases of the feet. Similarly, incidents of heart disease and heart attacks are on the rise as India is switching to a Northern European diet. A recent article titled “The Malaise of Affluence” suggests that the poor world is getting the rich world’s diseases (Economist, August 9, 2007). There seems to be an inherent incompatibility between the genetic makeup and diet of African Americans in the United States. Most were brought as slaves from Central Africa and fed the diets of Northern Europeans, which is incompatible with their gene pool. This may be an excellent area for research as America moves toward becoming a majority non-white population.
Climate and Culture
From the “aha” moment that comes in providing climatic explanations of consumption differences, let’s discuss climate explanations for cultural differences; these are less obvious and probably more exploratory. Although there are numerous top anthropologists and sociologists who have researched culture as a construct, I will rely on Edward Hall (1959) and Geert Hofstede (1980) because their perspectives and research have been heavily influential in management disciplines. Hall, for example, talked about five silent languages of culture: friendship, agreement, material possessions, time, and territoriality. Hofstede has suggested that all cultural differences are anchored to four dimensions: degree of individualism, gender equality, uncertainty avoidance, and material achievement. For example, Northern Europe features very high individualism, high equality, low uncertainty avoidance, and low focus on material achievement as compared to Southern Europe. Let me try to provide a climate explanation for these cultural differences. The Northern European climate is highly variable and dynamically uncertain compared to the Mediterranean or tropical climates. It is, therefore, important to avoid uncertainty, as it literally can impact survival. One avoids uncertainty by planning and taking preventive steps to the extent possible. Given the prevalence of predictable weather in temperate and tropical climates, this need to avoid uncertainty is largely unnecessary. Similarly, in colder climates, rugged individualism (the “cow-boy syndrome”) would be valued highly as survival in the face of and even conquest over nature’s hostile forces. In the United States, we associate this individualism with settlers in Alaska more than settlers in Hawaii, for example. Finally, in colder climates, population density tends to be low as compared to warmer climates. Equality prevails because each person in the family (both men and women) is equally valuable in extracting scarce resources from unforgiving nature. There is, thus, less of a need to divide the society into gender, class, or caste strata. Hall (1959) suggested that in some cultures, punctuality and time as a scarce resource is more prevalent than in other countries. Again, in Northern climate zones, the window of opportunity to plant and harvest is limited and unpredictable. Punctuality and time-consciousness are key to survival and prosperity. In highly stable temperate and tropical climates, planting and harvesting times are less of a survival issue. In sum, Northerners across the world (Germans, Japanese) are more time-conscious and time-sensitive than Southerners (Italians, Indians). Hall also suggested that cultures vary with respect to territoriality. As is true above, a North-South climate-based explanation is very plausible. Given that most of the Northern terrain is rugged, with very limited land for habitation, it is natural to assume that people will become territorial as a means to survive. On the other hand, when land is plentiful with significant potential for habitation, it is likely that people will be willing to share the plentiful resource with others. It is interesting to note that the expression “good fences make good neighbors” is a saying of Northern Europe and not Southern Europe. Similarly, Northerners prefer privacy as compared to Southerners. A third cultural dimension Hall emphasized is friendship. In some cultures, friendship and relationships transcend business and personal motives. In general, one observes a proclivity toward a business or economic basis for relationship (even among family members) to be more prevalent in Northern European countries. Temperate and tropical climates such as Greece, Italy, Spain, India, and parts of Latin America, instead, observe the friendship model. Indeed, while Guanxi and clan behavior manifested in doing favors to friends is widely prevalent in the Asian cultures, it is generally frowned upon in Northern Europe. Finally, I always have been intrigued with the fact that the Industrial Revolution took place in Germany and England even though the scientific foundations were developed or discovered in Greece and Italy. Why? My belief is that in the North of Europe, it was a necessity to use technology to extract resources from a hostile and difficult environment, as compared to the South. This pro-innovation culture of Northern Europe has been nurtured strongly and preserved by intellectual property rights and by creating economic and recognition values through inventions and patents. Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, and Albert Einstein are recognized and revered for their technology innovations as much as others in literature, music, and the arts. Just as the North-South climate axis often explains consumption differences within countries such as Italy, India, and the United States, so too does it explain within-country cultural differences. Lifestyles, values, and orientations often vary significantly within a country if it has a large North-South distance. In conclusion, I now am convinced that most consumption differences attributed to cultural and genetic differences are ultimately due to climatic differences. In this light, I believe it will be very beneficial to document climate as the determinant of genetic, cultural, and consumption differences. Finally, given that the ultimate antecedent for worldwide differences in consumption, cultures, and genetics is climate, it is very important to understand the impact of climate changes (whether man-made or evolutionary) on civilization and its artifacts.
References
Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton.
Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.
Sheth, J. N. (1966). A behavioral and quantitative investigation of brand loyalty. Pittsburgh.