In search of happiness

x Sponsored content on Research Live and in Impact magazine is editorially independent.
Find out more about advertising and sponsorship.

There have been seismic swings in Western society and social attitudes lately, against a decade-long backdrop of global economic crises. People are feeling anxious and unhappy, and big business is not immune from the effects.

At the same time, we see a shifting articulation of public priorities and values towards: society, not just self; wellbeing, not just money; experiences, not just things. The theme is a longing for simplicity and authenticity.

We see cynicism around much CSR, coupled with an implicit desire for a better form of purpose. People have begun to ask: What are you for? Why do I need you? Who really benefits? Why is our world better for your presence?

Firms might get away with business as usual for a while but, long term, they can’t be seen as just money-making machines. Brands need to help people and society grow, and they need to prove it – for the sake of their reputation and their future.

That’s why the Culturise Collaboration aims to quantify wider dimensions of what makes a good business – in terms not just of money, but also purpose, meaning, behaviour, and its measurable contribution to the sum total of human happiness.

Ultimately, you could say that brands only have two reasons for existing – to make money and, one way or another, make people happy. The first is dependent on the second and, however it is defined, happiness is the goal of every human being.

How do you measure happiness?

The 2017 Worldwide Happiness Report (WHR) measures people’s happiness between countries, explaining variations according to issues such as: GDP; healthy life expectancy; social support and infrastructure; and freedom to make life choices.

The average country figures can be explained reasonably well via the WHR model, taking into account factors such as a nation’s relative wealth and social freedoms (the UK is ranked number 19 for happiness; Norway is top).

But what explains the individual variations within a country, aside from inequalities in social and personal conditions? Research on individuals’ happiness and wellbeing in the relatively privileged West has typically been derived from two perspectives. First, the hedonic approach, which focuses on happiness as we might normally understand it, and largely defines wellbeing in terms of near-term pleasure attainment and pain avoidance. Second, the eudaimonic approach, which focuses on deeper meaning and self-realisation – a sense of inner purpose and fulfilment.

I believe the latter is ultimately far more important, but it also needs to be coupled with related measures such as locus of control, subjective quality of life across all its dimensions, and cultural affinity – with a dash of positive psychology thrown in. Only then do we begin to perceive the outline of a more complete and coherent model.

To build this and make it relevant for brands, we’re combining principles from many disciplines: evolutionary economics; normative ethics; psychology; and cultural theory. Evolutionary economics, for example, challenges economic orthodoxy – rebutting the received wisdom of the primacy of shareholder value and instead focusing on the organisational ecosystem. The theory is that a healthy corporate organism thrives through balance, and that financial success alone – if achieved at too high a short-term cost in a wider cultural sense – will prove ephemeral.

The discipline of normative ethics – especially Utilitarianism – plays directly into this. With normative ethics, the best action or behaviour ought to be the one that maximises utility (good effects) on the wider canvas. This is referred to as the sum total of human happiness.

In this context, the notion of human happiness as a measurable utility acquires a more specific meaning. It’s not just a smiley-happy-warm feeling or about the quality of life experience, it’s also about deeper human wellbeing – physical and emotional – coupled with lasting social and cultural goodness.

To evaluate that sum total figure, we need to look beyond consumer research. How does a firm’s products, services and broader behaviours affect: staff; customers; the supply chain; wider society; the world at large? If your customers are happy but your staff are miserable, how do we balance this? If your staff are happy but you’re exploiting the developing market supply chain and asset-stripping the planet, what is the equivalent measure? 

While few brands will change people’s worlds, those that seek a meaningful level on the dimensions of happiness will grow stronger roots. For example, a brand anchored in cultural affinity or personal fulfilment, will be stronger than one that offers fleeting pleasure. 

But brands also need to be authentic and be careful not to overreach. There are many examples of a cultural and emotional tin ear in this particular quest – think the Pepsi ‘protest’ ad or McDonalds’ ‘dead dad’. We all know what they’re trying to do, but people know fake authenticity when they see it. And that doesn’t make people happy. 

Andy Dexter is founder of the Culturise Collaboration and principal of Neon & Vine