Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for

Consumer Research and Public Policy

Andrea Prothero, Susan Dobscha, Jim Freund, William E.
Kilbourne, Michael G. Luchs, Lucie K. Ozanne, and John
Thøgersen

This essay explores sustainable consumption and considers possible roles for marketing and consumer
researchers and public policy makers in addressing the many sustainability challenges that pervade
the planet. Future research approaches to this interdisciplinary topic must be comprehensive and
systematic and would benefit from a variety of different perspectives. There are several opportunities
for further research; the authors explore three areas in detail. First, they consider the inconsistency
between the attitudes and behaviors of consumers with respect to sustainability. Second, they broaden
the agenda to explore the role of individual citizens in society. Third, they propose a macroinstitutional
approach to fostering sustainability. For each of these separate, but interrelated, opportunities, the
authors examine the area in detail and consider possible research avenues and public policy
initiatives.

Keywords: sustainability, sustainable consumption, consumer attitudes, consumer behaviors,

consumer–citizen, macroinstitutional forces

ver the past 40 years, research on environmentally and Despite all the work conducted in academia, by govern-

O socially responsible consumption, or sustainable con-

sumption, has made progress in describing the prob-
lems with current marketing and consumption practices and
with recommending and analyzing approaches to resolving
them. For example, prior research has investigated ethical
consumption, conservation behaviors, ecological and pro-
social marketing, and green marketing from individual and
organizational perspectives (for reviews, see Irwin 1999;
Kilbourne and Beckmann 1998), and a variety of public
policy approaches to resolving these problems (Martens and
Spaargaren 2005; Thøgersen 2005).
Andrea Prothero is Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Busi-
ness, University College Dublin (e-mail: andrea.prothero@ucd.ie).
Susan Dobscha is Associate Professor of Marketing, Bentley University
(e-mail: sdobscha@bentley.edu). Jim Freund is Lecturer in Branding
and Marketing, Lancaster University Management School (e-mail:
j.freund@lancaster.ac.uk). William E. Kilbourne is Professor of Mar-
keting, Clemson University (e-mail: kilbour@clemson.edu). Michael
G. Luchs is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of William and
Mary (e-mail: michael.luchs@mason.wm.edu). Lucie K. Ozanne is
Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Department of Management, College
of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury (e-mail: Lucie.
ozanne@canterbury.ac.nz). John Thøgersen is Professor of Marketing
and Statistics, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University (e-mail:
jbt@asb.dk). With the exception of the lead author, the order of
authorship is alphabetical.
ments, by nongovernment organizations, and by the busi-
ness community to understand and change unsustainable
practices, such practices persist and are being amplified by
the continued growth of the global economy (Assadourian
2010). Thus, the problems related to unsustainable con-
sumption are growing, and the approach to addressing them
must become more intentional, comprehensive, and system-
atic. This essay represents the collective perspective of a
diverse group of researchers on some of the topics most in
need of additional research. We concentrate on three areas
that we believe require marketing and consumer researchers’
and public policy makers’ attention from most urgently to
aid the transformation to sustainable modes of marketing
and consumption.
We begin with a micro focus on the inconsistency of con-
sumer attitudes and behaviors, followed by a consideration
of the individual’s role within society as a citizen. At the
same time, we recognize that a focus solely on individual,
micro-related research at the expense of more systematic,
structural, and institutional perspectives is insufficient to
address the sustainability challenge effectively. Therefore,
we suggest that a third avenue is to consider how institu-
tions, through public policy initiatives, can begin and sus-
tain change in the future. This macro perspective is critical
for making progress with regard to important challenges
inherent in the dominant worldview of Western (or North-
ern) society, or its dominant social paradigm (DSP), which
is characterized by a belief in unlimited abundance and
progress, devotion to material growth, faith in the power of

© 2011, American Marketing Association Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

ISSN: 0743-9156 (print), 1547-7207 (electronic) 31 Vol. 30 (1) Spring 2011, 31–38
32 Sustainable Consumption
technology, commitment to a laissez-faire economy, mini-
mal government intervention, and unlimited private prop-
erty rights (Milbrath 1989; Pirages and Ehrlich 1974). It is
likely that a sustainable transformation of consumption and
lifestyles depends on or will be integrated with fundamental
changes of the dominant worldview toward a new environ-
mental paradigm (NEP; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978),
which incorporates elements such as the idea that Earth is
analogous to a spaceship (i.e., it is fragile and limited, and
people should take care not to damage or overload it). As
such, the importance of preserving the balance of nature
and recognizing the inevitability of limits to growth
becomes paramount. We proceed with discussions on each
of the three opportunities, including a focus on high-priority
research topics for marketing and consumer research with
regard to each, as well as implications for public policy.
Opportunity 1: Sustainable Attitudes and
Unsustainable Behavior
There is an ever-present and widely acknowledged gap
between articulated positive attitudes toward sustainability
and people’s actual (mostly unsustainable) consumption
behavior. For example, one study found that although 40%
of consumers say they are willing to buy “green” products,
only 4% actually do so (United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme 2005). While we encourage the continued study of
sustainable consumption in general, we believe that an
expanded agenda is needed along three dimensions: reduc-
ing consumption, consideration of the full consumption
cycle, and expanding the scope of consumption research. In
addition, across all these dimensions, researchers should
make a concerted effort to significantly extend understand-
ing of when and why consumers do not behave in accor-
dance with their articulated, prosustainability values (for a
review, see Thøgersen 2005). Consumer researchers have
identified several contributing factors, including con-
sumers’ “willful ignorance” of information about product
ethicality (Ehrich and Irwin 2005) and the potential for
negative inferences about the functional performance of
sustainable products (Luchs et al. 2010), but much more
research is needed.
This attitude–behavior gap is especially problematic in
the current context because of its direct effect on sustain-
ability—versus the mere switching of brands, for example—
and its indirect effect through producers of sustainable
product alternatives. Specifically, if left unaddressed, this
gap will continue to frustrate producers of sustainable prod-
uct alternatives who rely on traditional, attitudinal market
research methods, only to find that actual demand often
falls far short of their initial projections. In turn, this limits
the availability of sustainable product alternatives and thus
limits movement toward more sustainable consumption.
Although a parallel challenge is to increase the awareness
and perceived importance of sustainability among all con-
sumers, a greater focus on consumers who already share an
understanding of and concern for sustainability is more
likely to lead to much-needed change in the short term and
open the doors for others to follow (Schultz 2002).
A Focus on Reducing Consumption
While prior research has attempted to identify and charac-
terize the “green consumer,” less attention has been paid to
understanding the behaviors of people who focus on reduc-
ing their overall consumption. Etzioni (1998) describes
three variations of the “voluntary simplicity” movement,
from moderate levels of “downshifting” to “holistic simpli-
fication.” While some choose reduced consumption because
of a desire to “buy time” (Grigsby 2004) and to improve
their quality of life, others do so because of values such as
concerns about the environmental and social consequences
of consumption (Shaw and Newholm 2002). At the
extreme, some consumers actively reject consumption, a
phenomenon referred to as “anticonsumption” (Zavestoski
2002). However, as Connolly et al. (2006) argue, much of
this research has fallen into a pattern similar to that of
research on green marketing, with an emphasis on identify-
ing and managing new consumer segments. Returning to
our central thesis, a largely unaddressed question is, given
strong explicit support for the ideals of sustainability, why
don’t more consumers engage in reduced consumption
behaviors (Røpke 1999)? Further research should address
the attitude–behavior gap within the context of reduced
consumption, with an emphasis on understanding why this
gap persists for those who articulate support for the ideals
of sustainability. In turn, this knowledge could guide subse-
quent research on the most effective public policies to
encourage reduced consumption.
Consideration of the Full Consumption Cycle
While reducing consumption is a critical and under-
researched topic, equally important is the study of the
nature of human consumption. Although more research is
needed to better understand consumers’ initial product
choices, further research should address the full consump-
tion cycle—not just initial choice. Consumers’ postchoice
behaviors, including product usage, product life extension,
and disposal, all have a significant impact on the sustain-
ability of consumption (Pieters 1991). For example, how
and how often consumers use products can determine the
consumption of related goods (e.g., fuel, accessories). How
consumers maintain products has an impact on product life
and, therefore, product replacement. Decisions about when
and how to dispose of a product, when disposal can lead to
alternate usage or another person’s use, also directly influ-
ence the sustainability of consumption (Mannetti, Pierro,
and Livi 2004; Ölander and Thøgersen 2006). However,
with the exception of recycling, these postchoice behaviors
have received relatively little research attention despite
repeated calls from the consumer behavior field (e.g., Wells
1993). Furthermore, the factors underlying the attitude–
behavior gap are likely to be different during different
stages of the consumption cycle. Both public policy and
consumer research should focus on more effective
approaches to promote sustainable behaviors such as prod-
uct reuse, product sharing, and overall consumption reduc-
tion throughout the consumption life cycle.

Expanding the Scope of Consumption Research
Researchers must also strive to expand the scope of their
research. The majority of consumer behavior researchers
have focused on the consumption of packaged goods and
other relatively low-involvement products. We believe that
a concerted push is needed for additional research on the
consumption of major purchases, such as automobiles,
appliances, and housing—all of which have significant
implications for sustainability (Marell, Gärling, and Laitila
2009). For example, the purchase of a home has significant
implications both directly (e.g., energy use) and indirectly
(e.g., commuting distance). It is likely that extending
research into significantly different contexts will lead to
new knowledge of consumption behaviors and the factors
that influence them, and identify differences in the degree
and nature of the sustainability attitude–behavior gap across
consumption contexts. This expanded agenda for consumer
behavior researchers is especially important given that pub-
lic policies will need to continue to address a broad range of
contexts and, therefore, will depend on more fully under-
standing differences in consumer behaviors across these
contexts.
Research Opportunities for Sustainable
Consumption and Public Policy
The aforementioned discussion suggests a variety of avenues
for further research on sustainable consumer behavior, with
an emphasis on understanding the gap between attitudes
and behaviors across the spectrum of consumption (and
reduced-consumption) behaviors and contexts. However, as
we discussed previously, it is critical to understand con-
sumption within its macro context and to move beyond
understanding behaviors to influencing them through pro-
active public policy. This is especially important given that
many of the barriers to sustainable consumption behavior
are rooted in public policy or a lack thereof. For example,
changes in the availability and quality of public transporta-
tion, the availability and affordability of sustainable prod-
ucts and housing, the development of appropriate product
labeling schemes, and so on all depend on public policy
actions (Thøgersen 2005). Without the enactment of effec-
tive policies, consumers are severely limited in the degree to
which they can act on their prosustainability attitudes (Jack-
son 2009).
Opportunity 2: Empowering the
Consumer–Citizen
A tension also exists between two roles that people in afflu-
ent, democratic societies occupy: the consumer and the citi-
zen (Lang and Gabriel 1995; Trentmann 2007; Wilhelms-
son 1998). Indeed, empowering the consumer–citizen is
likely a core element in efforts to bridge the gap between
sustainable attitudes and unsustainable behavior (Thøgersen
2005). Moreover, arguably, the citizen, rather than the con-
sumer, must be mobilized to deal with the macro challenges
that we discuss subsequently in the essay.
Because marketers stress understanding and facilitating
exchanges in a market, people’s capacity as consumers is
paramount, and Bagozzi (1975) assumes self-interest moti-
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 33
vates such behavior. However, the need for a transforma-
tion to sustainable consumption highlights the relevance of
a broader palette of motivations and concerns. In practice,
many companies are adopting a more expansive vision of
people as not only consumers but also concerned citizens.
For example, the European public’s reaction to Unilever’s
use of genetically modified plants made the firm realize that
“the company’s existing framing of its consumers as pur-
chasers was not able to cope with the issues raised by pub-
lic concerns” (Doubleday 2004, p. 125).
Responding to this challenge, a current stream of con-
sumer research assumes a broader view of people as more
than self-interested consumers. For example, studies of
boycotting (Herrmann 1993), ethical consuming (Shaw and
Newholm 2002), voluntary simplification (Craig-Lees and
Hill 2002), consumer resistance (Fournier 1998), and con-
sumer rebellion (Dobscha 1998) examine the “civic elements
of consumption” (Trentmann 2007, p. 149). This consumer–
citizen is motivated by altruistic interests and affirms values
such as constraint, moderation, and an interest in commu-
nity (McGregor 1999). The concept of consumer–citizen is
still emerging, but a plethora of research questions arise for
transformative consumer researchers and public policy
makers interested in sustainable consumption.
Consumer Rights—and Duties
The consumer–citizen concept implies a balance of duties
and rights (Hansen and Schrader 1997). However, con-
sumer researchers and policy makers (Hilton 2005) rarely
consider the duties of consumers. Gabriel and Lang (2006,
p. 174) argue that, because they have the right to choose,
citizens also have a duty “to confront the implications of
one’s choices.” Thus, to choose as a citizen may lead to dif-
ferent social, environmental, and ethical evaluations of
alternatives than to choose as an individual serving one’s
own immediate interest. Thus, to the extent that freedom of
will and alternative choices exist, consumers have some
responsibility for the impact of their choices (Hansen and
Schrader 1997).
Individual consumer–citizens participating in the market-
place have duties to their community and environment, but
they also have duties to their family and themselves (e.g.,
Gebauer et al. 2008), and some of these duties may conflict.
To understand what drives and impedes consumer–citizen
behavior with regard to sustainable consumption, more
research is needed on people’s perceptions of their civic
duties, how they balance these duties with self-interests, and
also the doubts, ambiguities, and conflicts that consumer–
citizens perceive (see also Connolly and Prothero 2008).
For example, many people feel an obligation to act in a pro-
environmental way (Kaiser 2006), as evidenced by their
source-separating household waste according to municipal
waste authority guidelines (Thøgersen 1996), conserving
energy in their home (Abrahamse and Steg 2009), or buying
eco-labeled products (Grankvist and Biel 2001). However,
to promote or facilitate such feelings of obligation more
effectively, marketers need more knowledge about possible
contingencies for developing them. Sometimes other obli-
gations make people act contrary to their sustainable atti-
tudes, such as parents who are concerned about their chil-
34 Sustainable Consumption
dren’s safety driving them to school instead of letting them
walk (McDonald and Aalborg 2009) or shoppers concerned
about their family’s happiness and well-being buying
unsustainably produced food or airplane travel for vacations
(Grønhøj and Ölander 2007). How widespread are these
duty conflicts, how seriously do they impede sustainable
consumption, and what role can public policy play in
addressing the conflicts?
Spillover Between Consumer and Citizen
Behavior
Research on the possible generalization of environmentally
responsible behaviors, especially spillover between behaviors
in different domains (e.g., private vs. public), is scarce and
inconclusive (Thøgersen and Crompton 2009). A particularly
important issue in understanding this connection involves
the relationship among consumer, consumer–citizen, and
pure citizen behavior. When are they competing, comple-
mentary, or mutually reinforcing? On the one hand, recent
experimental research suggests that green purchases may be
perceived as a license to act in an antisocial way afterward
(Mazar and Zhong 2010). On the other hand, research usu-
ally finds positive correlations among prosocial behaviors
(e.g., Stern et al. 1999), and according to political science
research, consumer–citizen actions, such as boycotts, do not
diminish a more general sense of public engagement (e.g.,
Micheletti 2003). Spillover between proenvironmental
behaviors in the private and public domains is potentially
important for the mobilization of consumer–citizens for a
sustainable society, but the evidence on this matter is incon-
clusive, and more research is urgently needed (Thøgersen
and Crompton 2009). Research producing conclusive evi-
dence on whether green consumer behavior increases,
decreases, or is inconsequential for environmental citizen
behavior would be useful. Researchers should also test the
ecological validity (i.e., outside the laboratory) of the find-
ing that green purchases increase the likelihood of antisocial
behavior afterward, and they should look for approaches to
reconcile the discrepant evidence in this area.
The Marketization of Politics and the
Citizen–Consumer
Marketers and consumer researchers are not alone in fram-
ing people as consumers. Increasingly, Western govern-
ments, the media, and even environmental nongovernmen-
tal organizations address people as consumers rather than
citizens (Crompton 2008; Slocum 2004; Trentmann 2007).
This “marketization” of politics (Doubleday 2004) has led
to the construction of the citizen–consumer in sociology
and political science (e.g., Martens and Spaargaren 2005;
Soper 2007). One of the implications is an emphasis in gov-
ernmental services on offering affluent citizen–consumers
choices while deemphasizing the welfare state principle of
treating all people the same (Soper 2007; Trentmann 2007).
Another implication is an increasing use of market-based
instruments in environmental policy (Tews, Busch, and Jor-
gens 2003), again emphasizing a person’s freedom to
choose. The freedom to choose is appealing. However, a
potential detriment in the political sphere is a dilution of
governments’ responsibility for solving social problems and
a diversion of responsibility from governments to the indi-
vidual citizen (“blaming the victim”; see, e.g., Roberts and
Bacon 1997; Thøgersen 2005) or organizations. Similarly, a
risk exists that, by framing sustainable consumption behav-
iors as a private optimization problem rather than a civic
duty, market-based instruments “crowd out” feelings of
personal obligation (Frey and Oberholzer-Gee 1997). Con-
sumer researchers could examine how the increasing mar-
ketization of politics influences people’s inclination to
assume responsibility for detrimental environmental
impacts of their consumer behavior.
Research Opportunities for Sustainable
Consumption and Public Policy
The view of people as atomized consumers is ecologically
unsustainable and socially divisive. A transformation to
sustainable consumption depends, among other things, on
wider segments of society realizing that preservation of the
environment and equitable social practices, even at the
expense of their own personal consumption, are in their
own long-term interest (Wilhelmsson 1998). Thus, although
these actions may not be sufficient to generate sustainable
action, it is nonetheless necessary that governments increase
the public’s environmental and social awareness through a
variety of ways and means, including environmental educa-
tion in the school system, educational programming on tele-
vision, and campaigns using social media.
Despite the attitude–behavior gap, environmental educa-
tion underpins environmental citizen participation (Menegat
2002). We suggest that active participation in the market-
place is one of the key duties of the consumer–citizen
(Parker 1989). For example, through participatory con-
sumer citizenship (McGregor 2001), consumers could
debate, deliberate, and reflect on consumer choices that
may be deemed too environmentally or socially harmful
and thus should be regulated. Consumer researchers may
explore such questions as the following: How do people
value and make trade-offs among social, ecological, and
generational consumption consequences? How do people
reflect on why, what, and how much they are consuming
during different stages of consumption? How do people
rationalize consuming more than they need? How do people
engage others in discussions and deliberations of the envi-
ronmental and social consequences of consumption?
Policy makers have a critical role in socializing con-
sumers in the skills of such a participatory democracy—the
skills to question, discuss, debate, and reflect on their con-
sumption behavior. In the long run, this is a task for the
education system. However, in the short run, a range of
information activities targeting adults could be integrated with
activities designed to increase awareness and knowledge.
Equally important, policy makers need to give consumer–-
citizens additional mechanisms to take action and thus
establish greater participation in the formulation of environ-
mental policy (Menegat 2002).
Trentmann (2007, p. 149) argues that consumption func-
tions, and for a long time has functioned, as “an alternative
sphere of political action and inclusion for groups excluded
from the formal body politic.” With the emergence of the
consumer–citizen, in both descriptive and normative senses,

several new policy questions are raised and new policy ini-
tiatives are necessary. Notably, the consumer–citizen notion
puts on the agenda the need for policy makers to develop
and promote consumer education that includes not only the
rights but also the responsibilities of the consumer–citizen
(Hansen and Schrader 1997; McGregor 1999). Govern-
ments need to facilitate the development of civic duty with
regard to sustainable consumption and to be wary of the
limitations and pitfalls of emphasizing self-interest in envi-
ronmental and social campaigns. They also need to con-
sciously expand their notion of the person beyond that of
consumer to recognize, accommodate, and respond to citi-
zen sustainability concerns larger than monetary cost alone
(Slocum 2004; Thøgersen and Crompton 2009).
Opportunity 3: Institutional and Other
Macro Approaches to Change
From a sustainability perspective, consumption patterns
should be studied as they exist within the larger societal and
global fabric. Recent history, especially since the first Earth
Day in 1970, makes it clear that a sustainable future cannot
be achieved by relying solely on initiating “bottom-up”
changes in individual consumer behavior (Begley 2010;
Thøgersen 2005). Thus, macroinstitutional approaches to
sustainability, both in research and policy, are vital. Initia-
tives in three broad areas—policy initiatives, education pro-
grams, and collaborative consumption—support the move-
ment away from the DSP to the NEP (Dunlap and Van
Liere 1978; Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997).
NEP Policy Initiatives Guide Consumers Toward
Sustainable Choices
Bold and provident decisions by governments are a funda-
mental prerequisite for transformation to a sustainable soci-
ety and sustainable consumption. Public policy will play an
important role in this transformation. Assadourian (2010)
reasons that the policies needed to enact large-scale change
are radical, politically charged, and threatening to “business
as usual.” Historically, governments’ policy initiatives
(typically prompted by activist groups) have led to many
positive changes in the name of human protection: banning
chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols and lead in children’s toys,
setting standards for safe drinking water, improving insula-
tion of houses, and improving standby electricity consump-
tion of appliances, to name a few. Successful policy initia-
tives, with sustainability at their core, are encouraging in
their power to incite positive change and can provide
knowledge and guidance on how sustainable consumption
can be further engendered in the future (Berg 2011; Scholl
et al. 2010).
One class of public policy initiatives focus on “getting
the prices right,” or using tax instruments to adjust for envi-
ronmental impacts and other externalities not reflected in
market prices (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development 2002). For example, in 2002, the Irish
government introduced a plastic bag levy. Plastic bag con-
sumption decreased by 90% after the levy’s introduction
(Convery, McDonnell, and Ferreira 2007), and this type of
policy has spread internationally. Similar levies are being
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 35
introduced, with varying degrees of success, worldwide.
Recently, Washington, D.C., introduced a small $.05 tax on
plastic bags, and plastic bag consumption dropped from an
average of 22.5 million units a month to 3 million (Gowan
2010). Cities such as San Francisco have banned plastic
bags outright (Goodyear 2007). However, the extent to
which these policies move citizens closer to the NEP
remains unexplained. For example, plastic bag usage in Ire-
land increased after the initial steep decline; thus, environ-
mental campaigners are calling for the levy to increase to
€.44 per bag. Mainstream retailers have launched a legal
challenge to the levy in the Irish courts. While this policy
initiated an initial change in behavior, it did not result in a
fundamental shift in values.
Promoting the NEP Through Educational
Initiatives
The DSP is reinforced by education that stresses, among
other things, a devotion to material and economic growth
and a general faith that science and technology can solve all
problems. Although this is immediately apparent in much
business education, it is fostered and nurtured in schools as
well, through curricula that valorize the Industrial Revolu-
tion and the Great Expansion, for example. Education that
promotes the NEP would stress a limit to growth, the
importance of preserving the stability of nature, and the
fragility of the biosphere. Thus, education initiatives taken
at the level of the school system, town, state, or country
(different from individual classroom activities) can help
change the attitudes and behavior of consumer–citizens by
promoting the NEP to become the prevailing paradigm in
society. For example, the Foundation for Environmental
Education (FEE) is a global education program that is
active in 43 countries, and more than 6 million school chil-
dren participate in its Eco-Schools program (FEE 2010).
This participatory program aims to introduce schoolchild-
ren to environmental issues through education and active
learning in the school and local community, thereby intro-
ducing children an early age to the broad foundations of the
NEP.
When the NEP Goes Viral: Collaborative
Consumption
The current DSP privileges the individual and implies that
environmental challenges should, and can, be predominantly
addressed by changing people’s consumption patterns (e.g.,
buying the greener offering). However, collective solutions
may be potentially more powerful. Collaborative consump-
tion is emerging as a worldwide consumption phenomenon
(Botsman and Rogers 2010). An interesting case in the car
market challenges the assumption of “one car per person”
model to “peer-to-peer” car sharing, whereby car owners
rent their idle cars to customers in need of temporary trans-
portation (The Economist 2010). Consumers are redefining
the nature of consumption at an amazing rate through prac-
tices such as car sharing (e.g., Zipcar), goods redistribution
(e.g., Freecycle), and social lending (e.g., Zopa). Con-
sumers seem to be embracing the new ethos at a faster rate
than traditional marketers are employing it or academics are
exploring it. Although it seems to be affecting only a small
36 Sustainable Consumption
proportion of consumption practices and to be driven by a
small group of entrepreneurs, it reflects a global readiness
to shift values away from excessive consumption to more
frugal (and thus more sustainable) solutions to everyday
problems. By shifting the paradigm away from individual
ownership to collectivity and sharing, less demand for con-
sumer goods may give way to a new economy that could
help take on problems such as pollution and excessive
energy usage.
Macro Research Opportunities for Sustainable
Consumption and Public Policy
Questions emerge from these three arenas of opportunity
that pave the way for further research at the intersection of
marketing, consumer behavior, and public policy. For
example, the Irish government earmarks the levies for envi-
ronmental projects. Does this practice increase or decrease
public support? Previous research has cast doubt on the notion
that people automatically generalize proenvironmental
behaviors into other types of positive consumer or citizen
activities (Thøgersen and Crompton 2009). Research that
further explores this area is warranted, as is research that
considers whether there are complementary measures that
might help facilitate learning and understanding of its
broader meaning and implications and thereby adoption of
the NEP.
Research that focuses on Eco-Schools and similar pro-
grams could consider how such an education initiative affects
the way children (and their families and friends) think and
act from a consumption perspective. For example, does the
program help create and maintain a new ethos of consum-
ing less, differently, and responsibly (Prothero, McDonagh,
and Dobscha 2010)? If it does not, how might the program
be adapted in the future? If it does, how might this policy
initiative be expanded into other educational bodies? Such
research could determine the efficacy of institutions such as
the FEE in altering consumer behavior and expand knowl-
edge of how to attain wider acceptance of the NEP.
Can sharing become a global phenomenon that fosters a
shift in thinking from the DSP to the NEP? One avenue is
to expand Belk’s (2010) concept of sharing to include sus-
tainability motives. For example, are the consumers in these
sharing communities changing other consumption practices
and developing new values as a result of car sharing or
using Freecycle? How can researchers learn from the value
sets of these niche markets and translate them to the main-
stream marketplace to effect change on a wider scale? Simi-
larly, how might the actions of these collaborative con-
sumers help policy makers initiate actions that encourage
the ethos of consuming less, differently, and responsibly?
How then might the consumer research academy use the
knowledge garnered here to revisit existing notions of how
to teach consumer behavior, which currently favors the
DSP notions of unlimited material abundance and growth?
Conclusions
From a sustainability perspective, there is a need for public
policies and establishing marketing and business systems
that encourage organizations and people to produce and
consume within ecological limits and in a socially responsi-
ble manner. In this essay, we address three opportunities for
moving toward an era of sustainable consumption. However,
there are important areas not addressed here. Some will have
a significant impact on the development of a sustainable
society, and they are also equally valid areas for further
research. Two such areas could explore consumption on a
wider scale. The first should examine consumption practices
of governments, large organizations, and supply chains, and
the second should examine consumption in developing
countries because it is tied into the wider realm of geopolit-
ical fairness between developed and developing countries.
This essay’s focus is on suggesting concrete directions
for further research. We hope these will be developed
through collaboration among academics in many disci-
plines, thus ensuring that policy makers can learn from
these research findings and begin to implement policies that
will make progress toward a much-needed sustainable soci-
ety for future generations to enjoy. At this time, many new
and exciting sustainable initiatives are being developed. For
example, Bhutan has adopted a gross national happiness
target to replace gross domestic product as a primary mea-
sure of national progress, and the owners of the outdoor cloth-
ing company Patagonia have opted to keep their business
private in an attempt to set a stable growth policy, develop
more sustainable sourcing policies, and enhance conditions
for workers. As this essay indicates, citizen–consumers
have engaged in numerous encouraging initiatives, and we
are hopeful that our common ecological future has the
potential to be bright.
References
Abrahamse, Wokje and Linda Steg (2009), “How Do Socio-
Demographic and Psychological Factors Relate to Households’
Direct and Indirect Energy Use and Savings?” Journal of Eco-
nomic Psychology, 30 (5), 711–20.
Assadourian, Erik (2010), “Transforming Cultures: from Con-
sumerism to Sustainability,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30
(2), 186–91.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), “Marketing as Exchange,” Journal of
Marketing, 39 (October), 32–40.
Begley, Sharon (2010), “On the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day,
Let’s …. Go Shopping!” Newsweek, (April 21, 2010), (accessed
April 28, 2010), [available at http://www.newsweek.com/id/
236722/page/1].
Belk, Russell (2010), “Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research,
36 (5), 715–34.
Berg, Annukka (2011), “Not Roadmaps but Toolboxes: Analysing
Pioneering National Programmes for Sustainable Consumption
and Production,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 34 (1), (pub-
lished electronically April 29, 2010), [DOI 10.1007/s10603-
010-9129-2].
Botsman, Rachel and Roo Rogers (2010), What’s Mine Is Yours: The
Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York: HarperBusiness.
Connolly, John, Pierre McDonagh, Michael Polonsky, and Andrea
Prothero (2006), “Green Marketing and Green Consumers:
Exploring the Myths,” in Handbook on Environmental Technol-
ogy Management, Dora Marinova, David Annandale, and John
Phillimore, eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing,
251–68.

——— and Andrea Prothero (2008), “Green Consumption: Life-
Politics, Risk and Contradictions,” Journal of Consumer Cul-
ture, 8 (1), 117–45.
Convery, Frank, Simon McDonnell, and Susana Ferreira (2007),
“The Most Popular Tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish Plas-
tic Bags Levy,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 38
(1), 1–11.
Craig-Lees, Margaret and Constance Hill (2002), “Understanding
Voluntary Simplifiers,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (2),
187–210.
Crompton, Tom (2008), Weathercocks and Signposts: The Envi-
ronment Movement at a Crossroads. Surrey, UK: WWF-UK.
Dobscha, Susan (1998), “The Lived Experience of Consumer
Rebellion Against Marketing,” Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 25, Joeseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson,
eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 91–97.
Doubleday, Robert (2004), “Institutionalising Non-Governmental
Organisation Dialogue at Unilever: Framing the Public as
Consumer–Citizens,” Science and Public Policy, 31 (2),
117–26.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), “The ‘New Envi-
ronmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and
Preliminary Results,” Journal of Environmental Education, 9
(1), 10–19.
The Economist (2010), “Wheels When You Need Them: Renting
Cars by the Hour Is Becoming Big Business,” (September 2),
(accessed December 1, 2010), [available at http://www.econo-
mist.com/node/16945232?story_id=16945232].
Ehrich, Kristine and Julie R. Irwin (2005), “Willful Ignorance in
the Request for Product Information,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 42 (February), 266–77.
Etzioni, Amitai (1998), “Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization,
Select Psychological Implications and Societal Consequences,”
Journal of Economic Psychology, 19 (October), 619–43.
FEE (2010), “About FEE,” (accessed November 25, 2010), [avail-
able at http://www.fee-international.org/en].
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumer Resistance: Societal Motiva-
tions, Consumer Manifestations, and Implications in the Mar-
keting Domain,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25,
Joeseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson, eds. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 88–90.
Frey, Bruno S. and F. Oberholzer-Gee (1997), “The Cost of Price
Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-
Out,” American Economic Review, 87 (4), 746–55.
Gabriel, Yiannis and Tim Lang (2006), The Unmanageable Con-
sumer, 2d ed. London: Sage Publications.
Gebauer, Jochen E., Michael Riketta, Philip Broemer, and Gre-
gory R. Maio (2008), “Pleasure and Pressure Based Prosocial
Motivation: Divergent Relations to Subjective Well-Being,”
Journal of Research in Personality, 42 (2), 399–420.
Goodyear, Charlie (2007), “San Francisco Supes Votes to End
Plastic Bags in Store,” The San Francisco Chronicle, (March
27), (accessed February 11, 2011), [available at http://articles.
sfgate.com/2007-03-27/bay-area/ 17237046_ 1_plastic-bags-
california-grocers-association-recycling-efforts].
Gowan, Annie (2010), “D.C. Bags Wasteful Shopping Habit with
Tax on Paper and Plastic,” The Washington Post, (January 2),
(accessed December 1, 2010), [available at http://www.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/
AR2010010101673.html].
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 37
Grankvist, Gunne and Anders Biel (2001), “The Importance of
Beliefs and Purchase Criteria in the Choice of Eco-Labeled
Food Products,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4),
405–410.
Grigsby, Mary (2004), Buying Time and Getting By: The Volun-
tary Simplicity Movement. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Grønhøj, Alice and Folke Ölander (2007), “A Gender Perspective
on Environmentally Related Family Consumption,” Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 6 (4), 218–35.
Hansen, Ursula and Ulf Schrader (1997), “A Modern Model of
Consumption for a Sustainable Society,” Journal of Consumer
Policy, 20 (4), 443–68.
Herrmann, Robert O. (1993), “The Tactics of Consumer Resis-
tance: Group Action and Marketplace Exit,” in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, Leigh McAllister and Michael L.
Rothschild, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 130–34.
Hilton, Matthew (2005), “The Duties of Citizens, the Rights of
Consumers,” Consumer Policy Review, 15 (1), 6–13.
Irwin, Julie (1999), “Introduction to the Special Issue on Ethical
Trade-Offs in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 8 (June), 211–13.
Jackson, Tim (2009), Prosperity Without Growth. London: The
Sustainable Development Commission.
Kaiser, Florian G. (2006), “A Moral Extension of the Theory of
Planned Behavior: Norms and Anticipated Feelings of Regret in
Conservationism,” Personality and Individual Differences, 41
(1), 71–81.
Kilbourne, William E. and Susan Beckmann (1998), “Review and
Critical Assessment of Research on Marketing and the Environ-
ment,” Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (July), 513–32.
———, Pierre McDonagh, and Andrea Prothero (1997), “Sustain-
able Consumption and the Quality of Life: A Macromarketing
Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,” Journal of
Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4–24.
Lang, Tim and Yiannis Gabriel (1995), “The Consumer as Citi-
zen,” Consumer Policy Review, 5 (3), 96–106.
Luchs, Michael G., Rebecca Walker Naylor, Julie R. Irwin, and
Rajagopal Raghunathan (2010), “The Sustainability Liability:
Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,”
Journal of Marketing, 74 (October), 18–31.
Mannetti, Lucia, Antonio Pierro, and Stefano Livi (2004), “Recy-
cling: Planned and Self-Expressive Behaviour,” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 227–36.
Marell, Agneta, Tommy Gärling, and Thomas Laitila (2009),
“Need vs. Opportunity Recognition in Household Car Replace-
ments,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33 (6),
639–43.
Martens, Susan and Gert Spaargaren (2005), “The Politics of Sus-
tainable Consumption: The Case of the Netherlands,” Sustain-
ability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 1 (1), 1–14.
Mazar, Nina and Chen-Bo Zhong (2010), “Do Green Products
Make Us Better People?” Psychological Science, 21 (4),
494–98.
McDonald, Noreen C. and Annette E. Aalborg (2009), “Why Par-
ents Drive Children to School: Implications for Safe Routes to
School Programs,” Journal of the American Planning Associa-
tion, 75 (3), 331–42.
38 Sustainable Consumption
McGregor, Sue (1999), “Towards a Rationale for Integrating Con-
sumer and Citizenship Education,” Journal of Consumer Stud-
ies and Home Economics, 23 (4), 207–211.
——— (2001), “Participatory Consumerism,” Consumer Interests
Annual, 47, 1–6.
Menegat, Rualdo (2002), “Participatory Democracy and Sustain-
able Development: Integrated Urban Environmental Manage-
ment in Porto Alegre, Brazil,” Environment & Urbanization, 14
(2), 181–206.
Micheletti, Michele (2003), Political Virtue and Shopping: Indi-
viduals, Consumerism, and Collective Action. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Milbrath, Lester (1989), Envisioning a Sustainable Society.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002),
Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and
Policies in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
Ölander, Folke and John Thøgersen (2006), “The A-B-C of Recy-
cling,” European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7,
Karin M. Ekstrom and Helene Brembech, eds. Gothenburg,
Sweden: Association for Consumer Research, 297–302.
Parker, Walter C. (1989), “Participatory Citizenship,” Social Edu-
cation, 53 (October), 353–54.
Pieters, Rik G.M. (1991), “Changing Garbage Disposal Patterns of
Consumers: Motivation, Ability, and Performance,” Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (Fall), 59–76.
Pirages, Dennis. C. and Paul. R. Ehrlich (1974), Ark II: Social
Response to Environmental Imperatives. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman.
Prothero, Andrea, Pierre McDonagh, and Susan Dobscha (2010),
“Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity
Discourse,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147–59.
Roberts, James A. and Donald R. Bacon (1997), “Exploring the
Subtle Relationship Between Environmental Concern and Eco-
logical Conscious Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Business
Research, 40 (1), 79–89.
Røpke, Inge (1999), “The Dynamics of Willingness to Consume,”
Ecological Economics, 28 (3), 399–420.
Scholl, Gerd, Frieder Rubik, Harri Kalimo, Katja Biedenkopf, and
Ólöf Söebech (2010), “Policies to Promote Sustainable Con-
sumption: Innovative Approaches in Europe,” Natural
Resources Forum, 34 (1), 39–50.
Schultz, P. Wesley (2002), “Knowledge, Information, and House-
hold Recycling: Examining the Knowledge-Deficit Model of
Behavior Change,” in New Tools for Environmental Protection:
Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, Thomas
Dietz and Paul C. Stern, eds. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press, 67–82.
Shaw, Deirdre and Terry Newholm (2002), “Voluntary Simplicity
and the Ethics of Consumption,” Psychology & Marketing, 19
(2), 167–86.
Slocum, Rachel (2004), “Consumer Citizens and the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign,” Environment and Planning A,
36 (5), 763–82.
Soper, Kate (2007), “Re-thinking the ‘Good Life’: The Citizen-
ship Dimension of Consumer Disaffection with Consumerism,”
Journal of Consumer Culture, 7 (2), 205–229.
Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, Troy Abel, Gregory A. Guagnano,
and Linda Kalof (1999), “A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Sup-
port for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism,”
Human Ecology Review, 6 (2), 81–97.
Tews, Kerstin, Per-Olof Busch, and Helge Jorgens (2003), “The
Diffusion of New Environmental Policy Instruments,” Euro-
pean Journal of Political Research, 42 (4), 569–600.
Thøgersen, John (1996), “Recycling and Morality: A Critical
Review of the Literature,” Environment and Behavior, 28 (4),
536–58.
——— (2005), “How May Consumer Policy Empower Con-
sumers for Sustainable Lifestyles?” Journal of Consumer Pol-
icy, 28 (2), 143–78.
——— and Tom Crompton (2009), “Simple and Painless? The
Limitations of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Policy, 32 (2), 141–63.
Trentmann, Frank (2007), “Citizenship and Consumption,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Culture, 7 (2), 147–58.
United Nations Environment Programme (2005), Talk the Walk:
Advancing Sustainable Lifestyles Through Marketing and Com-
munications. New York: United Nations Global Compact and
Utopies.
Wells, William D. (1993), “Discovery-Oriented Consumer
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March),
489–503.
Wilhelmsson, Thomas (1998), “Consumer Law and the Environ-
ment: From Consumer to Citizen,” Journal of Consumer Policy,
21 (1), 45–70.
Zavestoski, Stephen (2002), “Guest Editorial: Anti-Consumption
Attitudes,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (2), 121–26.
Copyright of Journal of Public Policy & Marketing is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.