Creativity for sustainable development?

The modern world is often portrayed, both by the media and the academia, as being almost on the verge of a catastrophe. In this discourse, an unquenchable thirst for further economic development drives continuous exploitation of the environment which, if not controlled, can lead to an ecological calamity (Sachs 2008: 5). Installation of sustainable development, allowing the economic progress without compromising natural environment, is commonly recognised as a viable strategy to contain the situation. The global scale of the problems prompt some critics to claim that nation-states cannot manage the transition alone (Micheletti et al. 2012: 143; Spaargaren & Oosterveer 2010: 1890). Thus, besides the need for the cooperation among governments and institutions that transcends national borders, individuals also have to become active agents in the process. As the contemporary individualisation of responsibility assumes environmental deterioration is a result of individual shortcomings rather than institutional or systemic faults (Maniates 2002). Therefore, the environment is best protected precisely by individuals acting responsibly in their capacity as consumers. In other words, sustainable consumption is often cited as a way for individuals to contribute to the betterment of the natural environment and to the achievement of sustainable development.

This article links sustainable consumption and creativity in the investigation of the creative input of consumers in the Facebook community of a zero-waste brand – a brand that treats waste as a manageable resource. Arguably, creative input might be looked at as a form of advocacy and promotion of sustainable consumption and, by extension, sustainable development. Hence, it has a potential of becoming a political space for the exercise of citizenship. In this context, I ask: What roles does the creative input in the zero-waste brand Facebook community play for the consumers? The investigation focuses on two theoretical possibilities: (1) manifesting environmental citizenship; and (2) serving as means of self-expression. The community chosen for analysis is the Facebook fan page of Costo.

Costo is a Finnish zero-waste brand that presents itself as “a combination of proper experience in handicrafts and materials, a unique vision of style and striv[ing] for ecological and lasting solutions” (Costo 2014). More specifically, Costo produces handmade fashion accessories from leftover industrial materials. In any other circumstances, such textiles would be considered waste. Against the odds, the brand has been able to transform waste into desirable products. Indeed, Costo has managed to reconcile zero-waste philosophy with a unique and fashionable design – and, for this reason, seems to be an appropriate choice for analysis. Moreover, Costo was established and operates mainly in Finland – the country with one of the pioneer national programmes promoting sustainable consumption and production (Berg and Hukkinen 2010). In addition, Finnish citizens are second most likely in Europe to purchase certain products due to their environmental, ethical or political impact (Micheletti et al. 2012). Thus, a brand originating from Finland is a model case for the research on sustainable consumption.

This article is structured as follows: firstly, the zero-waste approach and the principle of sustainable design are discussed in the context of consumerist societies and in relation to sustainable consumption. Afterwards, the article reflects on the political significance of sustainable consumption vis-à-vis individualisation of responsibility on the one hand, and political consumerism on the other hand. Then the discussion turns to the creative input in the zero-waste brand community and potential roles it plays for consumers as a manifestation of environmental citizenship and a means of self-expression. Having presented the theoretical underpinnings, the article briefly describes the methods used in the research. Afterwards, the article moves on to presenting the Costo’s image emerging from the brand’s website. Next follows the analysis of the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook. The article concludes with the discussion of the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook as an impact-oriented pro-environmental behaviour, whose role is a combination of environmental citizenship and self-expression.

In the circumstances of modern consumerism, material consumption is a dominant lifestyle and an elementary mode of satisfying not only physical needs, but also emotional and social longings of an individual (Leonard 2010; Soper 2008). Possession of goods and successful attainment of material goals serve in the consumer societies as a foundation and manifestation of self-esteem (Kasser 2002). In the context where people want, need and – critically – can afford the goods that they purchase and use only to discard them a moment later, waste has come to be seen as “inescapable fact of life” (Young 1991: 20). The appreciation of convenience, which has to a large extent replaced lastingness as the most desirable feature of a product, combined with continuously changing fads and trends, has prompted many people to dispose of the old items and simply buy new ones in their place (Young 1991). It is precisely against this ‘throwaway’ lifestyle that zero-waste in general and sustainable design in particular stand firmly.

In general, zero-waste is an approach that treats waste as a manageable resource rather than a residue of production and consumption processes, which needs to be disposed of (Connett 2009). The zero-waste approach includes sustainable design (ecodesign), producer responsibility, as well as reduction, reuse and recycling of waste (Murray 2002: 3). Sustainable design aims to generate sustainable solutions that would answer certain environmental concerns, and at the same time respond to consumers’ needs and cravings (Karlsson & Luttropp 2006: 1291). In other words, sustainable design accommodates for the needs of today without compromising the possibilities of the generations to come. In the case of Costo, the zero-waste approach is practised through sustainable design of the products. More precisely, the brand creates fashion accessories from the recycled and leftover industrial materials. Hence, the design of the products is sustainable in two ways: (1) Costo reuses the materials which are already in commercial circulation, instead of exploiting new resources; and (2) through the utilisation of extra-durable textiles intended for furniture industry, Costo ensures the lastingness of its products. Thereby, the brand potentially reduces the volume of waste generated both at the producer’s and consumer’s end. Moreover, Costo attempts to assure the timelessness of their design that would withstand the ever-changing fashion trends. The brand does so in order to prevent the prevailing ‘throwawayism’ of commodities after only a short-lived pleasure. Hence, the principles of sustainable design enacted by Costo go against the grain of dominant consumerist lifestyle.

On a more general level, zero-waste and sustainable design fit squarely within the growing field of sustainable consumption. Sustainable consumption is informed by social and environmental concerns of the consumer, and aims at mitigating the negative impacts of consumerism through “the consumption of more efficiently produced goods” (Seyfang 2005: 294). Hence, sustainable consumption might be seen as a set of consumption practices intended for generating social change (Littler 2009). These practices are, fundamentally, pro-environmental behaviours, that is, behaviours with a positive effect on the environment (Berglund & Matti 2006: 552) that can be carried out both in the public sphere (activist and non-activist environmentalism) and in the private sphere of the household, e.g. through consumption (Stern 2000). Pro-environmental behaviours can be either a by-product of human activities (an impact-oriented pro-environmental behaviour), or motivated by “environmental intent as an independent cause of behaviour” (an intent-oriented pro-environmental behaviour) (Stern 2000:408).

On another note, the logics underpinning sustainable consumption appear somewhat paradoxical. As a matter of fact, sustainable consumption entails the contradictory process of production and consumption of more and more goods with a high-minded goal of counteracting consumerism (Littler 2009: 103; Maniates 2002: 47). This paradox is linked to the fact that sustainable consumption is a market-based solution to the problems caused by the market in the first place (Žižek 2009), and operates within a framework of consumer capitalism for which the pursuit of profit and economic growth is universally the primary objective (Littler 2009). Hence, the persistence of unsustainable consumerism and environmental degradation that sustainable consumption seeks to mitigate is, in fact, its condition of possibility.

The aforementioned paradox notwithstanding, if positioned against the dominant consumerist background, sustainable consumption seeks to both decrease the levels of consumption and limit the consumerist thirst for further possessions (Karlsson & Luttropp 2006: 1293) – and it does so in order to satisfy “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 1987). Hence, sustainable consumption positions an individual consumer as a protagonist of change (Seyfang 2006). Acts of sustainable consumption performed by individual consumers are in line with the contemporary individualisation of responsibility. This view assumes that environmental deterioration results from the individual shortcomings rather than institutional or systemic faults (Maniates 2002: 45). Thus, the individualisation of responsibility concludes that further environmental degradation is best countered by the very same individuals acting responsibly – mainly in their capacity as consumers.

Individual sustainable consumption is in fact an ambiguous idea. On the one hand, it is a noble contribution to the mitigation of the adverse environmental effects of the rampant consumerism. Indeed, the global scale and already too far gone stage of the problems provoke the claims that nation-states cannot manage the transition alone (Micheletti et al. 2012: 143; Spaargaren & Oosterveer 2010: 1890). Thus, besides the need for the cooperation among governments and institutions that transcends national borders, also individuals have to become active agents in the process. On the other hand, however, individual sustainable consumption is substantially flawed in that it depoliticises the discourse surrounding the pressing environmental issues brought about by consumerism (Kenis & Lievens, 2014). Sustainable consumption, as an embodiment of individualised responsibility, requires individuals to think of themselves first as of consumers obliged to buy more sustainable products, and of citizens able to act together in order to change “the institutional arrangements that drive a pervasive consumerism” – in the second place (Maniates 2002: 51). Therefore, sustainable consumption is in fact an attempt to preserve the currently existing principles of market economics, except for minor adjustments (Kenis & Lievens 2014: 532). Also the strong emphasis put on the need for cooperation and general participation in the project of sustainable consumption, and simultaneous omission of the conflicts involved, renders sustainable consumption vulnerable to depoliticisation (Kenis & Lievens 2014). Consequently, some argue that individual sustainable consumption should not be recognised as a political or social action leading to a viable social change (Maniates 2002).

At the other end of the spectrum lies the political consumerism which holds that the roles of a citizen and consumer can be actually reconciled through sustainable consumption. Political consumerism understands sustainable consumption as a politically significant act in that not only does it aim at satisfying needs, but also serves to demonstrate particular ethical and political predilections of an individual (Spaargaren & Oosterveer 2010: 1892). Therefore, the proponents of political consumerism regard the market as yet another arena of politics, and purchasing decisions as a way to advocate and promote sustainable development (Micheletti et al. 2012). Political consumerism can be practised in four ways: boycotting, buycotting, discursive actions, and lifestyle choices (Micheletti et al. 2012: 142). Hence, consumers who make a lifestyle choice to buycott (deliberately choose to buy) the sustainably designed fashion accessories produced by Costo, due to their environmental value, might be looked at as potential political actors in sustainable development. At the same time, they can participate in the discursive actions around sustainable consumption and development through the creative input in the Costo community on Facebook. Hence, the consumers of Costo accessories can also be considered advocates of sustainable consumption and development.

I will now consider the extent to which the content posted by consumers in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook could be considered as acts of everyday creativity (Gauntlett 2011: 76). It could be argued that the content posted by this community on Facebook is creative in that it serves as a means of self-expression and a medium of conveying a message. Accordingly, the creative input includes not only the most original and artistic content, but also more ‘mundane’ contribution in the form of, for example, written comments or shared links. We might consider these contributions as a manifestation of environmental citizenship and as a means of self-expression. In broad terms, environmental citizenship indicates a particular relationship between an individual and the common good that is informed by the awareness of potential discrepancies between what is beneficial for an individual and what is good for a social collective (Dobson 2007: 280). Mindful of these divergences, an environmental citizen always decides in favour of the common good. Furthermore, an environmental citizen recognises that both environmental rights and responsibilities go beyond national borders, and span both public and private spheres of life (Dobson 2007). Crucially, an environmental citizen shares a view that “environmental responsibilities follow from environmental rights as a matter of natural justice” (Dobson 2007: 280). Thus, environmental citizenship implies the continuous commitment not only to environmental protection, but also to social justice. As a result, the major responsibility of an environmental citizen is to lead sustainable life so as to secure the well-being of others. Thence, environmental citizenship is a conscious and consistent attitude permeating all domains of life of an individual (Dobson 2007).

It might be argued that the link between environmental citizenship and sustainable consumption is of particular importance. Sustainable consumption is recognised as a dimension of environmental citizenship (Seyfang 2005: 292). Increasingly, environmentalists are encouraged to become sustainable consumers through purchasing environmentally friendly – or ethical – products. In this context, a purchase of a zero-waste fashion accessory rather than a regular one, can be considered a manifestation of, at least, one aspect of environmental citizenship: a more or less conscious decision to minimise own ‘ecological footprint’ in favour of the others’. Regarding social media, sustainable consumers may use them collectively to engage in new forms of environmental dialogue (Luck & Ginanti 2013). Therefore, creative input of the consumers in the Costo brand community on Facebook can be viewed as an unambiguous exercise of environmental citizenship insofar as it serves this purpose.

Sustainable consumption and participation in social media community of a zero-waste brand may simultaneously be a means of self-expression. In the modern reality, individuals no longer do inherit an identity; rather, they have to achieve it by themselves (Bauman 1997: 20). The acquisition of identity – i.e., “the project of self” – is, to a degree, carried out through the consumption of material goods (Giddens 1991: 198). Indeed, individuals, acting in their capacity as consumers, can produce desired selves through the images and styles associated with their possessions (Thompson & Hirschman 1995: 151). Having constructed a desired self in relation to products and brands, a consumer can proceed with communicating this identity through further consumption-related activities (Schembri et al. 2010), e.g. the creative input in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook. Thereby, the “individual choice becomes an enveloping framework of individual self-expression” (Giddens 1991: 197). The zero-waste brand community on Facebook might be an easily accessible arena of expressing a desired self to others. Therefore, an engagement with the brand can serve as a channel of individual-focused mass self-communication (Castells 2009). Mass self-communication can potentially reach the global audience (all Facebook users) with self-generated and self-concerned content (narratives of a consumer’s self which are constructed in relation to the Costo brand and products).

Netnography, ethnography of online communities, is best suited for the analysis of the creative input of consumers in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook. Netnography employs “computer-mediated communications as a source of data to arrive at the ethnographic understanding and representation of a cultural or communal phenomenon” (Kozinets 2010: 60). Data was collected through netnographic observation with a limited participation that included following the community in real time and on a regular basis over the period of three months (instead of downloading a bulk of searchable content at once), following the links posted in the community, and openly ‘liking’ the fan page and thereby becoming a member (Kozinets 2010: 96). Over the observation period, Costo added 32 posts that received 21 comments altogether. The sample was enlarged with 32 randomly selected posts (together with 45 comments they received) that had been added prior to the data collection period in order to provide an overview of the community. Furthermore, the dataset included 62 ‘standalone’ posts that were added to the community by consumers – all the ‘standalone’ posts available at the time of data collection. These ‘standalone’ posts received in total 51 comments, which were also examined. In addition, the complete photo album entitled “Around the World” and comprised of 198 photos uploaded between June 2010 and March 2014 enriched the dataset. The data was inspected through thematic analysis.

Relying on the netnographic observation as a sole method of data collection has one significant limitation that must be acknowledged. That is, it only allows for reaching the visible demonstrations of the roles that the creative input in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook might play for the consumers. Hence, it does not facilitate exploring the attitudes which are not explicitly shown. Dependence on observation as an exclusive method of data collection might therefore obscure the possibility that sustainable design of the products could be taken for granted by the consumers. In other words, sustainable design might be the criterion that had initially drawn them to Costo, but at a later stage became so obvious that not worth further discussion. Such a hypothetical attitude can be only verified through in-depth interviews with members of the Costo Facebook community. Hence, qualitative interviews will be a worthwhile step in advancing the research on the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook.

To appropriately address the creative input of consumers, it is essential to first understand Costo itself. In so doing, the relevant starting point is the official website of the brand, which is the primary channel of promoting a positive company image to the current and prospective consumers (Insch 2008: 141). The website of Costo is essentially an online store and a catalogue of products. Indeed, the primary menu consists of various categories of products offered by Costo, e.g., hats, T-shirts and ‘gadgets’. The ‘About Costo’ tab is placed in the secondary menu panel situated below, which appears less prominent with textual rather than graphic elements and less contrasting font. The adjoining tabs read “Contact” and “Shop Costo Gift Cards”. The two tabs are separated by the information about the “Free Denim Shopping Bag (worth 29€) on orders over 100€”, which is not a hyperlink. The location of the “About Costo” tab in the secondary menu might indicate precedence of the products over the brand and its story.

Unsurprisingly, the “About Costo” (Costo 2014) section introduces the brand: Costo is personified in a myth (“the archetypal story”) of making it from rags to riches. The story starts with outlining the adversity that Costo had to face in the beginning: “Costo was born poor, but managed to turn its constraints to contrivances” (Costo 2014). Equipped solely with handcrafting skills, and having only leftover industrial materials at its disposal, the brand has managed to turn these seeming limitations into assets. Thanks to the inherent innovativeness, steadfastness and persistence of Costo, the “highly sought-after accessories that combine quality workmanship and ecological production solutions with a unique style” were born. This story explicitly depicts the ‘brand personality’ – a collection of human qualities attributed to a brand (Aaker 1997: 347). Costo is presented as creative, innovative, skilful and persistent. Naturally, the brand inherits these traits after its creators who are the actual protagonists of the story. Remarkably, the environmental concerns and interests of the brand are not notably addressed in this ‘history’ sequence.

However, the references to ‘sustainability’, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable design’ are plentiful later in the copy, e.g. in the mission statement, which is an almost verbatim quote from the definition of sustainable development: “Costo’s aim is to create something new for the present without altering the sustainability of the future”. It is also stated that “for Costo style is also a criterion for quality and ecology”. As explained later in the same paragraph, this ‘style’ does not follow any fashion trends or fads. Thereby, Costo prevents the ‘throw-awayism’ ubiquitous in the consumerist societies. Another sustainable practice mentioned in the ‘About Costo’ section is the use of extra-durable textiles (elsewhere specified as the materials intended for furniture industry; Heiskanen 2013) that assures the lastingness of the products. In their own words: “Using these leftovers, Costo makes sure that its products do not add up excessively to the strain that the industry puts on natural resources”.

In sum, the image that emerges from the analysis of the Costo website is two-fold: on the one hand, Costo emphasises the sustainable design of the accessories; on the other hand, the unique aesthetical qualities of its handmade products are featured prominently. The two aspects of the brand are clearly reflected in the lead of the ‘About Costo’ section which reads:

Arguably, the discourses of sustainable design on the one hand and unique style on the other hand, are mirrored in two roles that the creative input in the Costo Facebook community might play for the consumers: manifestation of online environmental citizenship and means of self-expression, respectively.

The Facebook community of Costo was established on 14 June 2010, nearly five years after the brand had started (Fernández 2011). The community is relatively large, given the size of the company itself, comprised of over 14,000 users as of 6 November 2014. It is also continuously growing, with an increase of approximately 2,000 users since September 2014. However, the input of consumers in the community might seem slightly inadequate, usually limited to liking, sharing, and – rather occasional – commenting.

Most of the content posted by the brand is dedicated to newly released models, particular Costo products as well as originally arranged displays of accessories. Consumers respond to these posts mostly by liking them and sharing with others, while comments are only occasional. For example, a post about the new Kombai hats (the most popular Costo design) for children was liked 126 times, shared twice, but received only one brief, yet evidently enthusiastic comment: “YESSS!” In fact, the majority of consumers’ comments on the content posted by Costo compliment and approve of the products and designs: either in a more elaborate fashion, e.g. “Stylish, fun, comfortable, timeless…,” “I just love your concept guys! You rock! Good luck with everything - lots of love, and regards to your great parents!!!” or with short sighs of admiration, e.g. “wow”. In one exceptional case, a consumer responded to a photo of a hat posted by Costo not only with a positive comment (“Love these hats, and the rucksack -!”), but also with posting their own photo of a Costo backpack. Only one comment in the dataset had slightly more critical undertone: a consumer was unhappy with an addition of polyester in a cotton T-shirt.

On the other hand, only seldom and very briefly do consumers mention in their comments that the accessories are zero-waste. Even though Costo repeatedly refers to the sustainable design of the products throughout the Facebook fan page, consumers do not seem to consider it a feature of the accessories that would be worth elaboration. For example, in an entry in which Costo shared a blog post about their shoes, the information about the shoes being made of 100% recycled denim featured prominently. However, two comments posted by the consumers contained no reference whatsoever to the sustainable design of the product. Instead, they related to the qualities of the shoes as the consumer objects to desire and possess. Significantly, one of the commentators explicitly addressed the issue of expressing his individuality through the shoes which “turn heads” in the streets of Berlin. The alternative explanation for this lack of discussion on sustainable design of the accessories is that it is in fact taken for granted by the consumers. In other words, it might have been the criterion that had initially drawn them to the brand, but later on seemed so obvious that not worth further discussion.

Practicalities related to Costo customer service are one of the main themes of the creative input of consumers in the community. Both the comments on the content uploaded by the brand and the ‘standalone’ posts added to the community by consumers often ask where and when a given product can be bought. One of the posts related to customer service is worth particular attention. Its author asks a question as to where to fix a broken zipper of his “awesome Costo laptop bag”. The representative of Costo responds that the company itself can carry out the replacement. Not only is the high standard of customer service worth noticing, but so is the care about durability of a product – both on the part of the company and the consumer. Indeed, repairs in the consumerist societies have come to be considered too expensive and time-consuming for companies as well as for consumers (Young 1991). As a result, it is a common practice to simply replace broken items with new ones. Therefore, the repair service offered by Costo – apparently free of charge – is concurrently at odds with the dominant consumerist attitude and consistent with the brand’s philosophy of sustainable design. On the part of the consumer, however, the concern about the lastingness of the product might be driven by different reasons: environmental citizenship but also simple appreciation of the bag’s ‘awesomeness’, or a combination of both.

A portion of the ‘standalone’ posts added to the Costo Facebook community contain the private photos of consumers wearing Costo accessories. In most cases, the accessories are only peripheral elements in the pictures. One of such photos depicts a man outdoors posing sideways with a shotgun and wearing a Costo hat. In some of the photos, the portrayed person is an evident protagonist of the picture. For example, a party-like portrait shows two young male travellers in Kuala Lumpur, smoking and holding a bottle of liquor, looking straight at the camera. Thus, their faces become the crucial elements of the photo, while the Costo hats they are both wearing play only a secondary role. In contrast, a hat with a “pompon made of recycled yarn” is a focus of the picture taken in Curonian Spit in Lithuania. The portrayed woman is posing casually on the beach with her face turned away from the camera, hence practically invisible. The absence of recognisable facial features makes a sea-green Costo hat the most prominent object in the photo. Finally, one of the consumers posted a still from the television talent show in which she is wearing a Costo hat. While such content can be rather rightfully perceived as self-expression – or even self- promotion – it should be also acknowledged as a form of consumer-driven brand publicity. The consumer-driven promotion of Costo is, in turn, a display of the sustainable design ‘advocacy’, be it intentional or not.

Likewise, sharing of the links to the Costo-related content that the consumers created for and originally posted on their personal blogs might be understood as a combination of self-expression (promotion) and sustainability ‘advocacy’. This content includes primarily the photos of the outfits containing Costo accessories. For example, there is a photo of a mother and a son, both wearing very similar navy blue hats, that was originally posted on the fashion blog and then shared on the Costo fan page by the author. Other posts link to, e.g., a photoblog containing a photo shoot of a little boy with a denim hat on his head, and a blog post composed of the photos displaying a young female in a Costo hat riding her BMX bike. There is also a couple of links to travel-related articles that include photos of travellers wearing Costo hats in Berlin and Barcelona. All in all, sharing of the self-generated content in the Costo Facebook community appears to serve both as a means of self-expression, and as a more or less deliberate manifestation of environmental citizenship. On the one hand, not only does such input involve consumption of sustainably designed fashion accessories as a part of the ‘project’ of constructing and displaying the self, but it also employs the Facebook community of the zero-waste brand as a channel to ‘disseminate’ the self and own work to the wider audience. On the other hand, while popularising the sustainably design products of Costo, user-generated content constitutes a form of sustainability ‘advocacy’, which is in itself an important dimension of environmental citizenship.

The largest resource of creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook – however not ‘standalone’, but managed by the brand – is a photo album entitled “Around the World”. It is a collection of photos depicting various people wearing different Costo hats in multiple locations around the world. The album is a blend of the creative input of consumers and the professional work commissioned by the brand. Solely by the means of netnographic observation, it is in many cases impossible to determine if a photo was taken by a professional hired by Costo or by a consumer, since all the photos have been uploaded by the fan page moderators. The technical quality and the aesthetical value of the photos vary: from rather amateur photos of children and party-like ‘selfies’ to a more professional use of the long exposure in order to smoothen the waters of the stream. The people posing in the photos differ in terms of age, gender, and skin colour, ranging from Caucasian middle-class youth and representatives of ethnic minorities in Finland to indigenous peoples of Timor-Leste. The message that the “Around the World” gallery is perhaps trying to convey is that not only are the Costo hats fitted to all climate conditions (winter coldness, jungle humidity, hotness and dryness of the desert), but they also suit everyone, irrespective of their background. There are multiple characters in the story, not a linear plot, but both the message and the call-to-action for the consumer are clear: get your own hat, take a photo, and join a beautiful, colourful and diverse community. Such a message seems to support the idea of solidarity, global equality and social justice – the crucial dimension of environmental citizenship – both on the part of the brand and consumers who contribute their photos to the gallery.

This commitment to the ideals of solidarity and social justice is, arguably, of ‘post-humanitarian’ character (Chouliaraki, 2013). Post-humanitarianism prioritises “a self-oriented form of solidarity of short-term and low-intensity engagements with a cause, over an other-oriented solidarity of deeply felt, ideological commitments” (Chouliaraki, 2013, p. 55). The “Around the World” album displays the self-orientation of the consumers and the brand in that the bulk of the photos depict people who fit with the stereotype of a sustainable consumer: a privileged, middle-class Westerner, (usually) white and young, who has the financial means to pay for more sustainable, yet more expensive, products (Littler, 2009). These are also the people who can afford to travel ‘around the world’. Therefore, the gallery serves, in a way, to communicate messages about the Western consumers to their peers (Castells 2009).

Coming from the position of affluence, the consumers and representatives of Costo, who take and commission the photos, all too often seem to aestheticise the indigenous and local people into exotic models that make the hats look more attractive and appealing. Thereby, they implicitly draw a boundary between the community of Costo consumers and the exoticised locals. A good example is a photo taken somewhere on the Moroccan desert. It is a group portrait of a white female and male with a black local in between them. All three are smiling (in case of the woman, who has her face covered, small wrinkles around the eyes express the smile), the black man revealing a missing front teeth. All three are also wearing headscarves to protect their faces from wind and sand, a beige Costo Kombai hat playfully placed atop of the black man’s scarf. This photo presents the Costo hat as a starting point of a fun relationship in which Western consumers and exotic locals are equals (Littler, 2009). At the same time, it is a gesture of lending the hat performed by the Western travellers that include the local in the Costo community. This inclusion, however, might be temporary, conditional and, therefore, easily removed once the group parts ways and the Westerners take the hat back. Similarly post-humanitarian vision of solidarity and social justice is embedded in the photo of the “Chocolate Man”, taken in Nkhata Bay in Malawi. This picture had been first posted by a consumer as a ‘standalone’ post, and soon after uploaded by a moderator to the “Around the World” gallery. It depicts an elder black chocolate seller sitting in a chair, a dozen or so chocolate bars laid out neatly on a table next to him. A youthful, muted yellow Costo hat the man is wearing contrasts with his otherwise rather old-fashioned clothes: a pinstriped white short-sleeved shirt, grey pinstriped trousers and a Mickey-Mouse tie. Once again, his inclusion in the Costo community, in the absence of other features shared with a typical consumer of Costo, is founded solely upon the borrowed hat. Therefore, solidarity and social justice sustained by the Costo fashion accessories and practised by the brand’s consumers can be viewed as post-humanitarian in its, at least outwardly, rather low-intensity and short-term involvement (Chouliaraki 2013).

In general, a vast majority of content posted by the consumers to the Costo Facebook community is related to the accessories as detached from the environmental context. An excellent example is a photo of one of the consumer’s collection of Costo hats with a telling caption: “Enough? Never. ;).” In a playful manner, this post expresses a somewhat consumerist thirst for possessing more goods. Simultaneously, it epitomises quite a more serious contradiction of sustainably designed accessories: as accessories, they are rather nonessential, and as such contribute to the excessive consumption, which – from the pro-environmental point of view – should better be avoided altogether. In this way, Costo falls prey to the inherent paradox of sustainable consumption: “the production and consumption of more and more stuff in the pursuit of ‘being green’” (Littler 2009: 103). The cure for that might be submission to a more radical vision of sustainable consumption that entails reducing absolute levels of consumption, so that the negative environmental impact of consumerist societies can be meaningfully curtailed (Seyfang 2005: 299). Arguably, it is such an uncompromising curb of individual ecological footprint that should be viewed as an unambiguous manifestation of environmental citizenship (Seyfang 2005). With the lack of expressions of such a radical attitude, the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook cannot be viewed as an explicit manifestation of environmental citizenship.

The above analysis indicates that, in the absence of an ongoing strictly environmental dialogue and visible symptoms of a radical reduction in the consumption levels of the consumers, the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook cannot be unambiguously linked to the manifestation of environmental citizenship. Nor is there clear evidence of the creative input serving solely as a means of self-expression. Rather, it should be viewed as a combination of some aspects of environmental citizenship with self-expression. The positive environmental impact of the purchase of zero-waste accessories, compared to regular ones, should not be at any rate overlooked. Indeed, individual cases of private purchasing decisions have a small, but immediate and direct effect on the environment (Stern 2000: 410).

The binary spectrum of roles, with environmental citizenship on the one end and self-expression on the opposite end, appears simply too tight to fit the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook. It seems worthwhile to consider it in a less constrained framework of pro-environmental behaviour instead. Indeed, both sustainable consumption and the creative input in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook can be interpreted as impact-oriented pro-environmental behaviours. The latter might be, more specifically, regarded as a mundane form of ‘advocacy’ for sustainable development and consumption, whose role for consumers is a combination of environmental citizenship and self-expression. Even though it might be considered a mundane form of sustainability ‘advocacy’, the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook, nevertheless, does not fit squarely into the framework of political consumerism. Political consumerism implies that purchasing decisions, and – by extension – activities related to them, are made solely on the basis of environmental, ethical or political impact of the products (Micheletti et al. 2012: 144). This does not seem to be the case with the fashion accessories made by Costo, which are quite evidently bought and promoted also for their aesthetic qualities. On another note, the threshold for a political consumer is high at the same time as it is low: while it requires knowledge about and conscious engagement with sustainable development, apparently it is sufficient for this commitment to sustainability to guide one purchasing decision a year (Micheletti et al. 2012: 152).

While political consumerism might be considered somewhat ‘sanctimonious’, the creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook proves that sustainably designed fashion accessories produced by the brand appeal rather to ‘alternative hedonism’ (Soper 2008). Alternative hedonism refers to more sustainable consumption that is “driven in part by an altruistic concern for the global ecological and social consequences of consumerist lifestyles”, but also seeks to address more self-oriented – hence, hedonistic – interests of consumers (Soper 2008: 571-2). In case of Costo, the hedonistic aspect lays in the sensual pleasure of wearing an item that is practical and environmentally-friendly, while also beautifully and originally designed. By the same token, the creative input in the Costo community on Facebook might also be a practise of alternative hedonism: it serves consumers not only to promote a sustainable version of fashion accessories, but also to achieve a pleasure of self-expression. In this way, alternative hedonists get a chance to enjoy the sustainably designed fashion accessories in the present and attempt to safeguard these pleasures as a heritage for the generations to come (Soper 2008: 572).

The congruence of consumption of sustainably designed accessories and related creative input of consumers in the Costo community on Facebook with alternative hedonism, rather than political consumerism, points to a depoliticised character of the issue. Firstly, the creative input of consumers does not explicitly tackle the matters beyond private consumption. Hence, it is more of an individualised than political nature (Maniates 2002). Secondly, the belief that slightly altered consumption practices can be easily reconciled with environmental protection and social justice is post-political in contrast to the political discourse, which recognises the existence of conflict and division between the two (Kenis & Lievens 2014: 535). At the same time, individualised responsibility of consumer implied by sustainable consumption limits the space for explicitly political discussions about the potential restraints in the absolute levels of consumption (Maniates 2002: 47). Hence, the private act of willingly purchasing a sustainably designed hat instead of a regular one, that is undertaken by a relatively small portion of individual consumers, who might share their experiences in the Facebook brand community, is not a political matter. Instead, it can possibly be a form of rather effortless ‘cool activism’ that provides instant gratification of an environmentally good deed (Chouliaraki 2013: 70).

In sum, the presented findings might slightly dampen the optimism about the engagement with sustainably designed products as a harbinger of a revival of citizenship in general, and a birth of a new form of civic participation in a private sphere of consumption in particular (Micheletti et al. 2012; Seyfang 2005: 290). The article argues that the role of the creative input of consumers in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook is a combination of environmental citizenship and self-expression, rather than an explicitly environmental and civic activity. At the same time, the nature of the creative input of consumers in the zero-waste brand community on Facebook as inherently impact-oriented pro-environmental behaviour has to be acknowledged.