“Often, in our research, people don’t even claim sustainability is a key driver in purchase decisions.”

The issue isn’t necessarily that people don’t care about sustainability. It is that they do not think this one moment–buying a new pair of jeans or a drink at the bar–is going to change the world. Mindlab studies consistently show consumers view their individual actions as having very little impact on climate change, while companies can make a big difference. We’ve carried out a raft of studies delving into sustainable behaviours and what they have all shown is that most people believe that it is the responsibility of the government, brands and corporates to lead the way and make sizeable changes that matter. People tend to place responsibility on governments and large corporations to act in the best interests of our collective futures. Placing blame at consumers’ feet only compounds frustration.

“[C]onsumers view their individual actions as having very little impact on climate change, while companies can make a big difference.”

Although consumers expect ethical behaviour from businesses, they remain deeply cynical. Aware that by nature businesses are focused on profit and sales, consumers suspect eco claims are exaggerated or financially-driven with sustainability being a convenient cover benefit. Greenwashing has eroded trust. 

Loss aversion

Another reason sustainability claims often don’t resonate well is the perception of loss. When businesses promote products or packaging as being more sustainable, our research shows that there’s still an outdated belief that this will entail a sacrifice–be it higher prices, reduced aesthetic appeal or practicality. 

According to loss aversion theory, people feel a loss much more than they feel a gain, making these perceived sacrifices a significant barrier to embracing sustainable choices.

“[P]eople feel a loss much more than they feel a gain.”

What to say 

All-in-all, it is incredibly challenging to frame a change in a product as sustainability-driven, seeming at once a loss, and potentially a corporate cover-up. 

The solution is going to be different in every industry and for every brand, so the right approach to talking about sustainability varies. However, our research finds that success for large businesses which haven’t always had sustainability at their core relies on: 

Taking accountability, ownership, responsibility is instead a big part of countering scepticism. It’s much more believable to run on a sustainability message if a business explains the problem and how it’s being addressed. A whisky company, for instance, might explain how much water is being used in the process every year and how the impact of that is being reduced. “And make it real,” says Juli, “Put it into context. Take a baseline–compare it to how much water is in Niagara Falls. That specific openness and honesty goes a really, really long way,” says Juli.

There’s also value to be had in making changes behind the scenes that have an environmental positive impact without necessarily shouting about it and risking greenwashing. “A valid choice is not to talk about changes. Take action in the background. If people are interested, they can dig into it,” says Juli. “Not everything can be sold on the environment.”

3. Pairing benefits

Sometimes, it’s evident a change has been made and then an explanation is required. Where that is the case, think about how a positive feeling can be made to outweigh the idea of giving up something that is valued. It is about reducing or replacing the negative change by finding an additional benefit for the consumer.

Look at electric vehicles, for example. Tesla made the product into a status symbol and people got excited about the sustainability angle as a secondary consideration, potentially changing the trajectory for high end electric vehicles. But not every initiative needs to change the entire category. Another example Juli emphasises is from a beer brand: “When I was in Germany in the 90s, a brewery ran an ongoing campaign where for every crate of beer sold, an area of rainforest would be protected. It was embraced because people found the humour in it–‘drinking for the rainforest’: it created this extra layer of excitement on the environmental initiative.”

“[M]ake it real. Put it into context.”

“Packaging connotations are deeply engrained,” says Juli. “As a society, we’ve been indoctrinated to believe that weight is a signifier of expense, so how does that work for a premium product? Matte cardboard packaging tends to indicate an organic or healthy product so it works well for an organic skincare range but isn’t ideal for Nurofen where the glossy box conveys confidence in the medication’s impact. The biggest businesses are in a position to change the landscape, because they are setting the category cues. Rather than just leaning into existing semiotics and category codes, they can develop innovative and environmentally friendly approaches that change these perceptions for the future.”

5. Focusing on collective change

Consumers are more receptive to changes when they feel part of a larger movement. We partnered with Hearst magazines on a series of semi-implicit association tests with over 2,000 people, finding they place a high value on policies with large scale impact and support the sentiment of everyone playing their part with recycling, shopping locally and repairing rather than replacing. But that has to be done authentically: executed without PR and profit focus, it can go a long way to repair trust.

One example of this is Diageo’s DRINKiQ programme which aims to
raise the ‘collective drink IQ’ by increasing public awareness of the effects of alcohol and supporting responsible drinking.

“Mindlab have been a great sustainability research partner to us this year, we’ve been on a rich and insightful learning journey together. The fact that we’ve just embarked on a second-round study is testament to how valuable this work has been. Thank you Mindlab!”

Bianca Woolley, Global Marketing Sustainability Lead, Innovation, Diageo