“Vulnerability” — stigmatising or mobilizing?
I was taken aback this week to learn that a core part of regulatory policy lingo could be, in itself, contributing to a culture that disempowers and stigmatises people. For me, this was a blast from the past — an important reminder of the shift in 2012 from “vulnerable customers” to “consumers in vulnerable circumstances”.
This shift captured three foundational facts. First, the shift locked in the acknowledgement that the structure of market design and firm actions themselves negatively impact people’s circumstances. Second, that shift incorporated the understanding that the concept of vulnerability did not focus only on an individual but a person within a societal context. This linked the regulatory debates to the Equalities Act and, later, the social model of disability where acknowledging inequitable structures was key. Finally, the shift successfully challenged (in energy at least) the box ticking characteristics led regulation and moved us to a debate that incorporated transient vulnerability — the fact that people’s circumstances change.
The challenge that even with these changes the language of the debate was stigmatizing was a worry for me as I looked at my year ahead — working with energy firms on embedding the Vulnerability Principle, attending the UK Finance Vulnerability Academy and holding regulators accountable for their Vulnerability Strategies. As you can see below, regulation across the sectors incorporates a concept of vulnerability (1–5 with the regulator and their market). While they differ in approach and focus, each challenge firms to ensure that all their customers are supported.
1 . Ofgem (Energy)
When a consumer’s personal circumstances and characteristics combine with aspects of the market to create situations where they are: significantly less able than a typical consumer to protect or represent his or her interests in the market, significantly more likely than a typical consumer to suffer detriment, or that detriment is likely to be more substantial.
2. Lending standards board (Financial Services)
A customer is vulnerable… if it would not be reasonable to expect that customer to have protected themselves, at the time of becoming a victim…to the extent of the impact they suffered.
3. Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services)
Someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to detriment, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.
4. Ofwat (Water)
A customer who due to personal characteristics, their overall life situation or due to broader market and economic factors, is not having reasonable opportunity to access and receive an inclusive service which may have a detrimental impact on their health, wellbeing or finances.
5. Ofcom (Telecoms)
Vulnerability is about people’s circumstances, which can change over time… They may become isolated if they are unable to keep in touch with family and friends. They may not be able to participate as fully in society as they would wish.
One of the core contributions of the debate around consumers in vulnerable circumstances is that it is a shared focus across sectors with “vulnerability” an important mobilizing narrative for essential services that are inclusive by design. It creates a community focused on making sure everyone, not only an idealised concept of a consumer, can interact with the companies that provide necessary services.
Reflecting on the challenge around using the language around vulnerability has, though, reminded me of an important distinction — between regulatory policy discussions and public facing engagement. Throughout this blog I’ve focused on regulators, regulatory policies and the firms that they regulate. That is because the terminology around vulnerability belongs firmly in the policy making sphere. Much like the terminology around fuel poverty, “vulnerable” is not a label people identify with or that captures the complex interactions of circumstances required. Instead, research shows that public facing communication needs to focus on engaging interactions which draw out support needs — ideally by articulating services available to customers.
This support focus can be challenging if, like me, you are regularly approached for an answer about how a particular change will impact ALL consumers in vulnerable circumstances.
To equip you for that scenario I’m sharing this tool which helps me structure my responses to big questions. Based on research and the experiences of advice services, this tool supports thought experiments and questions about the impact on people who may need advice or support. The categories are research led, based on the way people articulate how they feel about engaging in markets. With a policy lense, there is then a list of the groups that most frequently are associated with the experiences described to researchers a. Importantly, it incorporates the impact and exacerbation of challenging circumstances if someone is socially isolated — an important consideration while we maintain our distance from each other due to COVID19.
I revisit it regularly and would love to hear any feedback you have either in the comments or over on twitter!
On Twitter I’m following
@AimeeAmbrose
@drrosechard
Podcasts I’m listening to
References
