Consumerism In Philipp Pattberg & Fariborz Zeli (Eds) Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Politics and Governance (Edward Elgar, 2016)

Consumerism 9

2 Consumerism Definitions Consumerism broadly concerns consumption. Specifically, it refers to the excessive overconsumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet (Dauvergne 2008; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006). It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm and a major tenet of the global economy (Conca 2001). Nations compete for prosperity on the assumption that continually rising material acquisition and accumulation will produce Health and wellbeing. States and the Private sector promote consumerism through policies aimed at increasing the turnover of goods. These include planned product obsolescence, fast food and fashion, and multimillion-­ dollar advertising campaigns to create consumer desires (Dauvergne and Lister 2013). Going beyond meeting basic needs (Food, Water, shelter, Health and Security), Individuals are encouraged to consume to satisfy psychological motivations of identity, status and happiness. As a cultural phenomenon, consumerism underlies a growing consumer society where human values are commoditized, and individuals engage as economic actors in the marketplace more than as citizens in the political realm. Commentators equate it to a deadly virus: ‘a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more’ (De Graaf et al. 2001, p. 2). A product of Western capitalism and traditionally associated with affluent lifestyles in the ‘North,’ consumerism is spreading and expanding around the globe (Pretty 2013) (see also Green economy; Liberal environmentalism and governance norms). Proponents trumpet the rise of living standards. Critics warn of the increasing (not diminishing) gap between rich and poor, and the dire consequences of consuming beyond the earth’s ecological carrying capacity (see also Deep ecology; Environment and nature). Calls for the wealthy to consume less so that the poor can meet their basic needs have gone unheeded. The debate and rapidly increasing scale of the problem places consumerism among one the biggest global governance challenges of the twenty-­first century. Key findings Warnings about excessive consumption and unequal patterns of consumerism are not new. In 1899, economist Thorstein Veblen wrote about the rise of conspicuous consumption among the upper ‘leisure’ class as a vehicle to social power. As consumerism spread to the middle classes following World War II, engagement in the topic intensified (Stearns 2006). In the early 1970s, Meadows warned of the limits to growth, and Commoner, Ehrlich and Holdren drew attention to the importance of addressing affluence (individual consumption levels) alongside growing population and technological pollution as drivers of damaging environmental impacts. In the 1980s and 1990s, ecological economics scholars Daly, Brown and Costanza stressed the need for steady state growth and for population and consumption to stabilize below the earth’s carrying capacity (see also Deep ecology; Environment and nature; Liberal ­environmentalism and ­governance norms; Neo-­Gramscianism). The first coordinated, formal international response to consumption did not emerge until the Earth Summit in 1992, when concerns about resource consumption were raised in the context of growing inequalities between the North and South (see also

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 9

08/09/2015 11:01

10  Consumerism Sustainable development; Inclusive development; Mega-­conferences). Chapter 4 of Agenda 21, titled ‘Changing consumption patterns,’ called for a change in lifestyles and a new understanding of wealth and prosperity that would lessen the consumptive pressures on the earth’s finite resources. From this, and the Sustainable development agenda following Rio, the concept of ‘sustainable consumption’ emerged (see Jackson 2004, pp. 1028–1032 for definition). With the aim of achieving a Green economy that would decouple economic growth from environmental impact, governments handed authority to businesses to self-­regulate efficiency-­based solutions through technical innovation. Policy measures also called on consumers to take more responsibility through ethical consumerism and recycling. Hopes were high that sustainable consumption would allow for consumptive demands to continue to rise and the economy to prosper in a win-­win arrangement that left ecosystems intact. Since Rio, there are many examples of efficiency improvements. Appliances are more energy efficient. Certain materials and packaging are lighter, and recycled content and recycling have increased. Aggregate levels of consumption of consumer goods, however, have continued to rise, with the per capita rate of consumptive growth notably exceeding that of population growth. The result is more not less stress on the planet as problems outpace the governance solutions. The literature on consumerism cuts across many disciplines and fields of study. Sociologists, historians, anthropologists and philosophers have critiqued its meaning and embeddedness in society (Trentmann 2004). Economists have examined consumer choice and utility levels (satisfaction) in order to estimate demand curves based on the theory of consumer sovereignty. The study of how consumption relates to the ­environment and the role of consumption patterns in shaping social and environmental problems has been an interdisciplinary endeavor including disciplines ranging from design, community planning, ecology, engineering, environmental studies, social psychology, geography, medicine, sociology, to political science—all taking different analytical approaches. Global governance research that draws on these fields is an emerging area of study that examines the deeper, systemic, structural and institutional drivers, power relations, and political-­economy dimensions and implications of consumerism. Consumerism is a global problem driving global environmental change as the costs of consumption (such the exploitation of people, the destruction of ecosystems, and pollution from wasteful extraction and harmful disposal) are externalized out of sight—­ distanced through lengthening global supply chains, and hidden behind discounted retail prices that fail to account for social and environmental costs. The distancing of production from consumption through economic globalization establishes a geographic disconnect that isolates the cause and effect of environmental and social harms (Princen 1997; Clapp 2002). Through distancing, multinational corporations cast ecological shadows of rising consumption as they deflect costs onto vulnerable ecosystems and populations creating global patterns of harm (Dauvergne 2008). With production and consumption remote from each other, and the impacts hidden by bargain prices that undervalue the full costs to people and the planet, consumers are cut off from any feedback (Conca 2001; Princen 2001). Signals that might otherwise moderate consumption are lost and shoppers continue to buy and accumulate, unaware of the resource overexploitation, Biological diversity destruction, species extinc-

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 10

08/09/2015 11:01

Consumerism 11 tions, Poverty and cultural losses triggered by their Food, apparel, housing, mobility and communication lifestyle choices (see also Constructivism and sociological ­institutionalism; Governmentality). The problem of consumerism is deeply embedded across vast scales—from the level of the individual to the macro political-­economy. At the level of the individual, some see an entrenched pathology of consumption as a consequence of human nature. They argue that the desire to consume more and more while disassociating from any negative consequences is a human condition (Rees 2004). Forms of competitive consumption from this lens are a natural behavior that reflects a deep-­seated human need to keep up with and be accepted by our desired social group (Schor 1998). Otherwise, overconsumption is interpreted as a socially constructed lifestyle choice (Schor 2004; Spaargaren and Van Vliet 2000). Consuming, for example, can be an act of novelty-­seeking in which goods are purchased to explore aspirations and dreams of a ‘good life’—a constantly shifting and highly susceptible concept (Jackson 2009, p. 9) or an ‘affluenza’ where lifestyle is shaped by constant anxious desire for material ­acquisition (De Graaf et al. 2001). At the macro-­scale, consumerism and mass consumption are deeply embedded in the global market economy where Trade and investment policies promote economic expansion (Conca 2001; Fuchs and Lorek 2001) and processes of commoditization convert more and more daily activities and human values into the commercial realm for purchase and exchange (Manno 2002, 2012). The governance of consumption globally is a complex challenge that has yet to be fully addressed (Dauvergne 2010, p. 2). Attention has focused on narrower dimensions of the problem in terms of the individualization of responsibility and the achievement of technological efficiencies. Proponents and critics have been equally vocal about each approach. Proponents of the need to individualize responsibility point to the role that individuals play in contributing to environmental impacts through their lifestyle and consumptive choices. They therefore advocate measures to encourage a simplifying of lifestyles. This has been taken up as a ‘voluntary simplicity movement’ where individuals are encouraged to sacrifice (Maniates and Meyer 2010) and ‘downshift’—opting out of excessive consumerism and adopting lifestyles that are in closer correspondence with their values (Schor 1998). Proponents also call on individuals to use their consumption as a form of political expression through boycotting and ethical consumerism (i.e., conscious consumption and moral purchasing) (Micheletti 2010; Micheletti et al. 2004) to punish poor corporate behavior and to drive positive changes in the market towards more sustainable products and business practices. Critics push back on over-­individualizing the problem of consumption arguing that focusing on individual responsibility shifts attention from the more significant underlying structural drivers of the consumerism problem and that with this approach, larger social forces and institutional dynamics are ignored (Fuchs and Lorek 2005; Dauvergne 2010; VanDeveer 2011). As Maniates (2001, p. 33) explains, ‘the knotty issues of consumption, consumerism, power, and responsibility [cannot] be resolved neatly and cleanly through enlightened, uncoordinated consumer choice.’ ‘When responsibility for environmental problems is individualized,’ he asserts, ‘there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 11

08/09/2015 11:01

12  Consumerism distribution of power and influence in society’ (Maniates 2001, p. 38) (see also Regimes; International organizations; World society). Others argue that focusing too much on individual consumption doesn’t just deflect the underlying issues like growing throughput, it may also make the problems worse. Wapner and Willoughby (2005), for example, argue that even if people cut back and save, the savings will simply get redirected elsewhere by investors back into commercial, material production perhaps with worse consequences. ‘Individual action within the current world economy,’ Wapner and Willoughby (2005, p. 79) explain, ‘will not reduce overall throughput, but will simply change where the engines of consumption operate’ (see also Green economy). While there has been much debate about the role and implications of individualizing responsibility, much of the policy focus regarding the governing of consumption has been directed towards production-­side technology-­based efficiency solutions like the engineering redesign of greener processes and products (McDonough and Braungart 2002) and the eco-­certification and eco-­labeling of operations and products to facilitate market-­driven sustainable business management improvements (Boström and Klintman 2008). Proponents of efficiency solutions are champions of industrial ecology (Graedel and Allenby 1995) and ecological modernization (Christoff 1996; Mol 2001) theories and advocates of the neoliberal, post-­Rio sustainable development agenda, promoting how the economic benefits of greening the economy will enable sustainable consumption (see also Liberal environmentalism and governance norms). Critics of an efficiency-­focused governance approach argue that technology solutions are a ‘weak sustainability’ approach that aims for per unit incremental gains rather than more transformative reductions in overall throughput (Fuchs and Lorek 2005). Furthermore, an efficiency approach ignores the consumer side where a rebound effect (Jevons Paradox) often erases any net positive benefits of possibly reduced throughput (Jackson 2009). With the rebound effect, savings from efficiencies are redirected into additional purchases that might not have otherwise occurred, thus driving up overall consumption (e.g., fuel efficiency and energy savings prompt individuals to purchase a second car and additional appliances). A focus on technological solutions, critics conclude, constitutes a tinkering at the edges of the consumption problem, providing only a limited set of policy options (Cohen and Murphy 2001; Princen et al. 2002). Only fundamental structural changes and radical new ways of thinking about resource use, production and consumption, they argue, will transform global patterns of consumption. Calls are, therefore, for governance approaches that paint a broader conception of consumerism that breaks down the separation of production and consumption (Fuchs and Lorek 2001; Princen 1999, 2001) and for the adoption of a ‘logic of sufficiency’ to replace the logic of efficiency in order to minimize the absolute size of inputs and outputs (Princen 2005). Global governance scholars, in particular, have identified the need to approach the problem of consumerism through an expanded definitional scope that emphasizes how consumption is not just isolated to the downstream where individuals choose goods to purchase, but also ‘a stream of choices and decisions winding its way through the various stages of extraction, manufacturing and final use, embedded at every step in social relations of power and authority’ (Princen et al. 2002, p. 12). To begin to understand how this complex dynamic impacts on patterns of consumption and global environmental

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 12

08/09/2015 11:01

Consumerism 13 change, Princen, Maniates and Conca (2002) developed a framework for analyzing the ecological political economy of consumption that includes three main themes: the social embeddedness of consumption; commodity chains of material provisioning and resource use; and the recognition of production as consumption at every node in the chain. The framework contributes a helpful foundation for delineating the political-­economy and societal dimensions of the global governance problem of consumerism for future analysis (see also Neo-­Gramscianism). Outlook The problem of deepening and spreading consumerism and its growing global environmental and social impact is a complex governance challenge that is intertwined through social, economic and political systems from individual to international scales. The question of how to provide Health and prosperity to the world’s populations while staying within the earth’s ecological carrying capacity is fundamentally a multidisciplinary challenge that demands diverse research efforts and policy approaches to connect local with global processes (see also Earth system governance). Progress to govern the problem locally through greater consumer responsibility, production efficiencies, more recycling and reuse, and bigger markets for eco-­products are necessary. But efforts are also required to govern the problem globally. So far, global governance scholarship has been largely missing from the study of consumption, and yet it is integral to finding a pathway forward to transform the underlying factors driving and sustaining consumerism. International politics scholars have focused for the most part on interstate resource access and control issues and not on consumption and waste (VanDeveer 2011, p. 518). There is a great need and opportunity for research at the macro-­scale, exploring the barriers and opportunities to address consumerism globally. In particular, there is a need to better understand and address the international structures and institutions that are driving unsustainable production and consumption and to ask the big, difficult questions that challenge current modes of thinking and aim to transform not simply reform global consumption patterns (Princen et al. 2005, p. 318). This will mean directing attention to not just ‘acting locally and thinking globally’ but also ‘thinking globally and acting globally’ (Dauvergne 2010). Integral to this is recognizing that while governance approaches such as individualizing responsibility, promoting market-­based environmental and fair trade certifications, and facilitating green technology efficiency improvements may be necessary incremental aims, they are not sufficient to alter the underlying systemic forces that are driving consumerism and the rising global costs of consumption (Princen 2005; Dauvergne 2010; VanDeveer 2011). A global transformation in consumerism will mean breaking down assumptions and defining new concepts of growth that do not hinge on a production–consumption cycle that continually draws down the earth’s resources. It will involve exploring new social, economic and political paradigms that ‘break the link between materialism and social progress’ (Wapner and Willoughby 2005, p. 85) and revolve around alternate notions of prosperity driven by new concepts including: sufficiency (i.e., consuming within limits); sacrifice (i.e., living better by consuming less); attachment (i.e., retaining possessions longer); and plentitude (i.e., acknowledging multiple non-­commercial sources of wealth) (Princen 2005; Maniates and Meyer 2010; Pretty 2013; Schor 2010) (see also Green economy).

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 13

08/09/2015 11:01

14  Consumerism Transformative change will also involve new governance research to better understand and address the underlying drivers of the evolving unevenness of global social and environmental problems (consumptive shadows) associated with distancing across global supply chains. Fundamental to this is evaluation of the political-­economy implications of the shifting power dynamic among actors within global chains of production and particularly, the implications of the downshifting of power to multinational retail buyers (Conca 2001; Gereffi et al. 2005) (see also Private sector). With a business model imperative to increase mass consumption through global outsourcing and doing this increasingly under the guise of claims of environmental sustainability, analysis is required to understand the political legitimacy, authority and effectiveness of brand retailers as emerging private transnational regulators (Dauvergne and Lister 2010). As well, to examine the significant implications to people and the planet, as Civil society groups and governments are increasingly lured beyond international state-­based processes to partner with brand companies to harness their global market power for unprecedented governance speed and scale (Dauvergne and Lister 2012, 2013). As Donnella Meadows (1995) noted, ‘[use a different lens and you see different things, you ask different questions, you find different answers.’ In the case of the problem of intensifying consumerism, there is a growing menu of policy options and governance responses from state and non-­state private non-­governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate actors at the local, national and international levels (Jackson and Michaelis 2003; VanDeveer 2011, pp. 518, 522). The increasingly multi-­centric, fragmented and hybridized political arena is reflective of the global governance landscape, and the different interests and conceptions of the consumption problem (see also Institutional fragmentation). The fundamental future governance challenge of consumerism ultimately lies in advancing a transformative policy agenda that links the local to the global through coordination of the growing array of public and private governance approaches across scales. And most importantly, to do so with a lens that remains focused on altering deeper structures and improving conditions for people and the environment, globally. Jane Lister List of acronyms NGOs non-­governmental organizations References Boström, M. and M. Klintman (2008), Eco-­standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Christoff, P. (1996), Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities, Environmental Politics, 5(3), 476–500. Clapp, J. (2002), Distancing of waste: overconsumption in a global economy, in T. Princen, M. Maniates and K. Conca (eds), Confronting Consumption, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 155–176. Cohen, M. and J. Murphy (eds) (2001), Exploring Sustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd. Conca, K. (2001), Consumption and environment in a global economy, Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 53–71. Dauvergne, P. (2008), The Shadows of Consumption: Consequences for the Global Environment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dauvergne, P. (2010), The problem of consumption, Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 1–10. Dauvergne, P. and J. Lister (2010), The power of big box retail in global environmental governance: bringing commodity chains back into IR, Millennium Journal of International Relations, 39(1), 145–160.

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 14

08/09/2015 11:01

Consumerism 15 Dauvergne, P. and J. Lister (2012), Big brand sustainability: governance prospects and environmental limits, Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 36–45. Dauvergne, P. and J. Lister (2013), Eco-­Business: A Big-­Brand Takeover of Sustainability, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. De Graaf, J., D. Wann and T.H. Naylor (2001), Affluenza: The All-­Consuming Epidemic, San Francisco: Berrett-­Koehler Publishers Inc. Fuchs, D. and S. Lorek (2001), Sustainable consumption governance in a globalizing world, Global Environmental Politics, 2(1), 19–45. Fuchs, D. and S. Lorek (2005), Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures, Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(3), 261–288. Gereffi, G., J. Humphrey and T. Sturgeon (2005), The governance of global value chains, Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. Graedel, T. and B. Allenby (1995), Industrial Ecology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jackson, T. (2004), Negotiating sustainable consumption: a review of the consumption debate and its policy implications, Energy and Environment, 15(6), 1027–1051. Jackson, T. (2009), Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Plane, London: Earthscan. Jackson, T. and L. Michaelis (2003),  Policies for Sustainable Consumption, a report to the Sustainable Development Commission, forming part of the SDC submission to DEFRA’s Strategy on Sustainable Consumption and Production, London: Sustainable Development Commission. Maniates, M. (2001), Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?, Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52. Maniates, M. and J.M. Meyer (2010), The Environmental Politics of Sacrifice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manno, J. (2002), Commoditization: consumption efficiency and an economy of care and connection, in T. Princen, M. Maniates and K. Conca (eds), Confronting Consumption, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 67–100. Manno, J. (2012), Introduction to the special issue on commoditization: theory and exemplary cases, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 32, 3–6. McDonough, W. and M. Braungart (2002), Cradle-­ to-­ Cradle: Rethinking the Way We Make Things, New York: North Point Press. Meadows, D. (1995), Who Causes Environmental Problems?, The Sustainability Institute, www.sustainer.org/ dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn575ipated (accessed October 21, 2014). Micheletti, M. (2010), Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Micheletti, M., A. Follesdal and D. Stolle (2004), Politics, Products and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Mol, A.P.J. (2001), Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pretty, J. (2013), The consumption of a finite planet: well-­being, convergence, divergence, and the nascent green economy, Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(2), 475–499. Princen, T. (1997), The shading and distancing of commerce, Ecological Economics, 20, 235–253. Princen, T. (1999), Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues, Ecological Economics, 31, 347–363. Princen, T. (2001), Consumption and its externalities: where economy meets ecology, Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 1–30. Princen, T. (2005), The Logic of Sufficiency, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Princen, T., M. Maniates and K. Conca (eds) (2002), Confronting Consumption, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rees, W.E. (2004), Is humanity fatally successful?, Journal of Business Administration and Policy Analysis, 30–31, 67–100. Schor, J.B. (1998), The Overspent American: Upscaling Downshifting, and the New Consumer, New York: Basic Books. Schor, J.B. (2004), Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, New York: Scribner. Schor, J.B. (2010), Plentitude: The New Economics of True Wealth, New York: Penguin Press. Spaargaren, G. and B. van Vliet (2000), Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the ecological modernization of domestic consumption, Environmental Politics, 9(1), 50–76. Stearns, P.N. (2006), Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire, 2nd edn, New York: Routledge. Trentmann, F. (2004), Beyond consumerism: new historical perspectives on consumption, Journal of Contemporary History, 39(3), 373–401. VanDeveer, S.D. (2011), Consuming environments: options and choices for 21st-­century citizens, Review of Policy Research, 28(5), 517–524. Wapner, P. and J. Willoughby (2005), The irony of environmentalism: the ecological futility but political ­necessity of lifestyle change, Ethics & International Affairs, 19(3), 77–89.

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 15

08/09/2015 11:01

16  Earth system governance Further recommended literature Lorek, S. (2010), Towards Strong Sustainable Consumption Governance, Saarbrücken: LAP Publishing. O’Rourke, D. (2012), Shopping for Good, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Princen, T. (2010), Treading Softly: Paths to Ecological Order, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stolle, D. and M. Micheletti (2013), Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wapner, P. (1996), Toward a meaningful ecological politics, Tikkum, 11(3), 21–22.

3  Earth system governance Definitions The scientific findings about the earth system and its current transformation become more confident every day. And yet there remains a serious mismatch between the research and recommendations of earth system analysts and the actions of political decision-­ makers, who still operate within the parameters of a nation-­ state system ­ inherited from the twentieth century. Policymakers in the twentieth century  gained  much experience in managing confined ecosystems, such as river basins, forests or lakes. In the twenty-­first century, they are faced with one of the largest governance challenges humankind has ever had to deal with: protecting the entire earth system, including most of its subsystems, and building stable institutions that guarantee a safe transition process and a co-­evolution of natural and social systems at planetary scale. This is the challenge of ‘earth system’ governance. I define earth system governance here (drawing on Biermann 2007 and Biermann et al. 2009b) as the sum of the formal and informal rule systems and actor-­networks at all levels of human society that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating and adapting to environmental change and earth system transformation. The normative context of earth system governance is Sustainable development; that is, a development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Key findings The paradigmatic shift from traditional environmental policy to a novel earth system perspective, as reflected in the new paradigm of ‘earth system’ governance, resulted from a new understanding of both the complex interdependencies in the earth system and the rapidly growing planetary role of the human species. Scientific research brought quickly increasing evidence about past developments in planetary history, including the non-­ linearity of processes, potentials for rapid system turns and complex interrelationships between components of the system. The relative stability of the global climate during the Holocene—the last 10,000 years that brought about the development of human civilization—seemed almost a fortunate exception. The earth system appeared more and more as being marked by interconnectedness, fragility and anthropogenic change. This development has been aptly symbolized by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer’s call to declare the Holocene ended and the beginning of a new epoch in planetary history—the ‘Anthropocene’ (see also Anthropocene and planetary boundaries; Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Crutzen 2002).

M3770 - PATTBERG 9781782545781 PRINT.indd 16

08/09/2015 11:01