One quick question: Why is it so hard for people to consume less even when they care about the impact consumption can have on the environment?

Despite having genuine concerns about climate change and fair labor practices, many people struggle to align their good intentions with their everyday purchasing decisions. 

Professor of Marketing Tejvir Singh Sekhon’s teaching and research focuses on marketing strategy, branding, sustainable consumption, consumer well-being, and the tensions between environmental intentions and everyday consumption pressures. 

We reached out to him to understand why the path to balancing consumer needs with environmental worries is fraught with challenges.

WWU News: Why is it so hard for people to consume less even when they care about environmental issues and the impacts that consumption can have on the environment? 

Tejvir Singh Sekhon: When we survey consumers, they say they care a lot about climate change, the environment, and fair labor practices, but when we see actual behavior in the marketplace, there is a gap — their good intentions don’t translate into behavior. 

That’s when we scratch our heads and think, if we could just motivate people more, they would turn those intentions into behaviors, right?

It’s not that simple. Our market and social systems have made it really hard for consumers to actually act on those intentions. The system is designed to make buying and consuming easy, cheap, convenient, socially rewarding, and algorithmically attractive. Even our social norms are designed to encourage consumption.

As a consumer, I am balancing multiple goals. Yes, environmental concerns and labor practices matter to me, but I also care about price and convenience. And I care about identity, belonging, and being respected in my peer group. 

A lot of that respect comes from our financial status, which is mostly clearly communicated through consumption. If we shift our consumption to a green product like buying an electric car instead of a gas-powered car, that’s a signal of green consumption, and the motivation is really clear.

The issue with consuming less or not at all is that we lose the social signals that convey identity, belonging, and status. What my research with Professor of Marketing Cat Armstrong Soule has shown is that when people consume less, observers assume it’s out of financial necessity rather than out of environmental concerns. Nobody can see your savings account, but people can clearly see your consumption. 

So, not consuming, or consuming less, is more of a negative signal about one’s financial situation than a positive signal about one’s environmental concern. 

In general, a small sliver of people might be fine with sacrificing not just their convenience but also their social status for the good of the environment. But in order to scale reduced consumption to a societal level, we need to induce behavior change amongst a majority of folks who might not be as concerned about the environment. Our research revealed it is precisely this group who can be motivated to make more environmentally friendly choices or to consume less if it comes with a clear signal. One example of this is Patagonia’s Worn Wear initiative, where the company will repair your damaged Patagonia jacket and then affix a patch that clearly signals you are doing so for environmental reasons. Another example is REI’s #optoutside campaign, encouraging people not to shop there on Black Friday and instead to explore the outdoors. 

Our research shows that when brands separate the signal from the product — bringing visibility to the act of consuming less — people are more likely to adopt it.

But that raises the question: what’s in it for the brands? We assume the whole capitalist system is built on creating ever-increasing demand, but it’s actually about profitability.

Brands like Patagonia have shown that when they lead with an anti-consumption message, it builds trust and brand loyalty, allowing them to increase brand consumption — and profitability — while discouraging overall category-level consumption. 

Leading with an anti-consumption message is a win-win situation for the brand. The brand captures a larger share of the pie while also encouraging consumers to reduce the overall size of the pie. 

The key is to separate material consumption from symbolic meaning.

People seek identity and purpose, and in the absence of other meaning-making institutions like religion, workplace, and community, we look for meaning in consumption. So, if we can make the act of consuming less more meaningful, we can maybe reduce some of that material consumption.

I think that brands are really well-suited to do this because they have been creating cultural symbols that encourage consumption for a long time. If they can shift that to creating visible symbols that encourage us to consume less by making motivation and restraint more visible and socially rewarding, we can maybe make a little dent in overall consumption.

Learn more about the Marketing program in the College of Business and Economics and WWU’s MBA program, which is currently accepting applications for the next cohort.

Jennifer Nerad covers Western's College of Business and Economics and College of the Environment for the Office of University Communications. Have a great story idea? Reach out to her at neradj@wwu.edu.