In an interesting representation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Francis Kinsman in his book Millennium, considers the division of society into three principal categories - ‘sustenance driven’, ‘outer directed’ and ‘inner directed’; an analysis first introduced by the Research Institute of Social Change over 20 years ago. People in the ‘sustenance driven’ group struggle to meet their basic needs. They are mostly poor, underprivileged and excluded from main stream societal decision making. Their immediate priority is to maintain, or better still, improve their quality of life. Over half the world’s population would be classed as ‘sustenance driven’. ‘Outer directed’ people have all their basic needs met and are motivated by their perceived, relative societal status. In a western style society this means they not only enjoy the materialistic benefits afforded by modern technology but they literally revel in them. In fact, in their eyes, status in society is directly measured in terms of the external signs of economic affluence. Basically they are self centred people who could quite afford not to be so. ‘Inner directed’ people are much more values driven, demonstrating a considered inner sense of purpose. They are generally sensitive to ethical concerns and tolerant of alternative cultures. Their purchasing patterns and lifestyles reflect their more compassionate nature. Since the 1970’s market researchers have polled the general public to measure the percentage distribution between these three main social classifications. The analysis is often further refined into a larger number of groupings namely: aimless, survivors, belongers, conspicuous consumers, experimentalists, social resisters and self-explorers. Date Country Source Sustenance Driven Outer Directed Inner Directed 1981 USA RISC 11% 68% 21% 1981 UK RISC 40% 30% 30% 1987 UK Applied Futures 29% 35% 36% 1998 UK Synergy Consulting 55% 20% 25% 2020 UK Kinsman forecast 15-25% 30-35% 40-50% Table 2. Various societal value profiles So what does all this have to do with sustainable development and eco-efficiency? In order to answer this question we now consider the premise that both the speed of adoption, and ultimate effectiveness, of eco-efficiency measures are directly affected by these social values. The ‘sustenance driven’ are essentially, though not exclusively, people whose lives are dominated by the basic needs of survival. They are unlikely to be engaged by the imperatives of sustainable development, and even if they were would probably consider it the role of the better off to adapt their lifestyles first. The population of very poor countries are likely to lie almost exclusively in the ‘sustenance driven’ category. For them the essential development of secure and healthy housing, stable, sufficient food supplies and modern water, sewage and communication infrastructures, will take top priority and are unlikely to be impacted significantly by eco-efficiency gains - partly because these items are often highly material intensive, partly because new, cleaner technologies are usually more expensive in the short run and partly because eco-efficiency measures are often (but by no means exclusively) applicable to more highly sophisticated consumer items. ‘Inner directed’ people are likely to be much more in tune with the concepts and goals of sustainable development. As such they will welcome, adopt and support moves towards eco-efficiency. This will be reflected not only through their purchasing decisions, but also through the ballot box and their changing lifestyles. ‘Outer directed’ people on the other hand will at best be indifferent to eco-efficiency measures and at worst actively vote against them, especially where they might be related to economic instruments designed to alter consumption patterns. In addition, where eco-efficiency provides a capacity to consume less the ‘outer directed’ are likely to exploit and absorb these gains for personal benefit - the so called rebound effect. In most cases this uptake of released capacity will be subconsciously exploited but nevertheless it is likely to be both significant and directly related to the values of this social group. The boxed detail, shown on the next page, offers a couple of examples of the environmental rebound effect. Curve (c) in figure 2 (section eco-efficiency) incorporates these considerations into the planetary impact model based on the following additional assumptions and approximations: eco-efficiency gains will have no effect in the 'sustenance driven' value group; nations where the average GDP per head is below $5,000 will be 100% 'sustenance driven'; eco-efficiency gains will have maximum effect in the 'inner directed' value group; there will be a 50% rebound effect in the 'outer directed' value group; nations where the average GDP per head is above $5,000 take the value group distribution reported for the USA in table 2; The effect is clear and significant. The inclusion of this particular social dimension profile has reduced the eco-efficiency gain by half, leaving us with an overall ecological impact of six planets. It may be argued that applying a dated USA profile to all developed nations is inappropriate given the very high percentage of 'outer directed'. However, taking the average UK profile from table 2 has a similar result because of the relatively higher proportion of 'sustenance driven'. All aspects of this modeling could be challenge. The purpose though is not to provide an exact representation of the future, but rater to illustrate in a quantitative fashion the significant effect the social dimension can play in achieving sustainable development through technological eco-efficiency. Next