Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
CSR · Corporate Social Responsibility · programme 05

Promote the local area

Support local artisans or producers during the event.

Why this programme

The programme puts the spotlight on the artisans and producers of your region, with their products, their stories and their know-how. The challenges help people discover the area, and the event itself is sourced locally.

Rootedness is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul.

Simone WeilphilosopherThe Need for Roots (L’Enracinement), part two “Uprootedness”, 1949

What your teams experience

  1. Where it comes from: match local products to their region and their producer.
  2. Know-how: a quiz on the trades and traditions of the area, prepared with the artisans.
  3. The map: place the company’s local partners on a live map.
  4. The basket: each team puts together an ideal local basket, unveiled at the close.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

Local roots experienced first-hand by the teams, and local partners in the spotlight.

1.05 billion tonnes

of food were wasted worldwide in 2022, 19% of the food available to consumers.

United Nations Environment ProgrammeFood Waste Index Report 2024, 2024

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005
  2. Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 15-23. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.002
  3. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482. 10.1086/586910
  4. Grant, A. M., et al. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance. OBHDP, 103(1), 53-67. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004
  5. Camilleri, A. R., Larrick, R. P., Hossain, S., & Patino-Echeverri, D. (2019). Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 53-58. 10.1038/s41558-018-0354-z
  6. Wynes, S., Zhao, J., & Donner, S. D. (2020). How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Climatic Change, 162(3), 1521-1534. 10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5
  7. Feldmann, C., & Hamm, U. (2015). Consumers' perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 152-164. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014
  8. Edwards-Jones, G., Milà i Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., et al. (2008). Testing the assertion that 'local food is best': the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(5), 265-274. 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.008
  9. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. 10.1126/science.aaq0216
  10. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
The foundations shared by all our programmes (19 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  2. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249440500054X
  3. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. 10.1080/13504620220145401
  4. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. 10.1111/spc3.12265
  5. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494406000909
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  7. Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
  8. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307145
  9. Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863-e873. www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278-3/fulltext
  10. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  11. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  12. République tunisienne (2018). Loi n° 2018-35 du 11 juin 2018, relative à la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Journal officiel de la République tunisienne, n° 2018-049 (texte légal). www.legislation.tn/fr/detailtexte/Loi-num-2018-35-du-11-06-2018-jort-2018-049__2018049000351
  13. République tunisienne (2025). Contribution déterminée au niveau national (CDN 3.0), soumise à la CCNUCC (rapport). unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/Document%20CDN3.0%20-version%20Finale.pdf
  14. Commission européenne (2011). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : une nouvelle stratégie de l'UE pour la période 2011-2014, COM(2011) 681 (rapport). www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  17. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. JPSP, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
  18. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. 10.1038/075450a0
  19. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Promote the local area” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo