Green Consumers is a term used to define a community of individuals who contribute to

creating a sustainable environment through eco-friendly purchase patterns, and regular disposal
habits. While the intentions behind this concept are quite straightforward and any individual
would want to have a positive impact upon his/her environment, the process isnt always as
smooth. There are numerous reasons why people perceive Green Consumerism differently,
including different backgrounds, varying education levels and general outlook of the world. This
report will explore the idea of green consumerism critically, identify reasons why certain
people dont regularly purchase environmentally friendly products and recommend different
strategies that can be utilized to get more people involved within the cause.
Per Julia Layton from How Stuff Works Science, Theres an inherent problem with "green
consumerism. It's an oxymoron. Consumerism, or buying stuff -- and establishing your identity
with the things you choose to buy -- is simply bad for the environment. That stuff we buy has to
be manufactured from other stuff we take from the Earth, one way or another11. Layton further
elaborates by stating how retailers adopt aggressive tactics to convince consumers to buy their
products, and lists examples of simple processes such as manufacturing or shipping, that each
product must undergo. She supports her claim of, green consumerism being an oxymoron and
comparing it to something like Marxist capitalism, by expressing a valid fact that even though
socially responsible products help preserve the environment, they are still going through a
process thats costing the environment its wellbeing, thus the main goal should be to focus upon
consuming less. Nevertheless, that is an unexpected aim for a corporation to achieve as its sole
purpose is to maximize profitability, hence it will lead to conflicts from a financial perspective.

1 Julia Layton "Is green consumerism a contradiction?" 10 December 2008.

HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/green-consumerism-contradiction.htm> 30 November 2016

She has also divided customers into light green consumers and dark green consumers. She
defines light green consumers as people who would be involved in a case as such, trading in a
trans-Atlantic flight to a European vacation for a less carbon-emitting bike ride to a local bed and
breakfast hence, proving that people as such, are part of a community which focuses upon the
positive actions that they take, while completely dismissing their contributions that are working
against the cause.2 Dark green consumers are those who agree that by purchasing organic cotton,
instead of polyester- the person is just being led into a false sense of security. They are the ones
who truly understand the reason behind their actions and are truly committed to the cause.
Although, this does raise the question of where to draw the line between light green and dark
consumers as its difficult to keep track of.
While the decision to become a socially conscious member of a society is admirable, to follow
through with their intentions is certainly a difficult choice to make, due to several reasons
explored by Olson;
1) Customers are required to pay a premium price for green products. A study conducted in
2011, considered the green gap across the United States and discovered that while 82 percent of
Americans seem to claim that they would opt for a green product, only approximately 15 percent
are fully acting upon it.3 The producers rationale for charging premium prices is that they
believe that green consumers would be willing to pay a higher price for their biodegradable
products. The associated costs of producing goods for a specific market segment are much higher
2
Julia Layton "Is green consumerism a contradiction?" 10 December 2008.
HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/green-consumerism-contradiction.htm> 30 November 2016

3
Williams, Freya. "Charge Less, Sell More: How to Price Green Products." GreenBiz. N.p., May-June 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/05/10/charge-less-sell-more-how-to-price-green-products>.

in comparison to mass- produced products since, it allows companies to benefit from economies
of scale, hence for a corporation to remain profitable, it becomes essential for green products to
be available at higher prices. Cost is the most important facet of any purchase decision,
especially within low- income and middle income families. Per a research conducted in 2012,
15% of Canadas population falls within the low-income bracket whereas the salary of an
average household income is $49,000. 4A study conducted in Australia by McCrindle Research in
2008 found that 65% of Australians favored mainstream over green products if the price
difference was more than 10%, and 51 percent stated that they purchase products based purely
upon their needs, and that the environmentally friendly aspect doesnt sway their decision either
way. In occasional cases, eco-friendly alternatives are offered at lower prices than their
counterparts to attract consumers and build brand loyalty. For instance, bleached and dyed toilet
paper is more expensive than those that arent. If this trend becomes common, it could possibly
be a reason for people to use the eco-friendly products.
Additionally, per a survey sponsored by RetailMeNot, that involved more than 1,000 adults, the
consensus was that the higher prices are the biggest turn off for environmentally friendly
products.
2) Expend effort required by some behavioral changes 5

4
Murphy, Brian B., Xuelin Zhang, and Claude Dionne. Low Income in Canada a Multi-line and Multi-index Perspective. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Income Statistics
Division, 2012. Low Income in Canada. Stats Canada, June-July 2012. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2016

5
Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

This argument can be demonstrated by an act of recycling that can be quite time consuming as
the entire process requires cleaning bottles and cans, making a separate pile for all newspapers
and separating the plastic materials as well. While recycling may still be considered a small
practice, that 65% of the surveyed individuals on RetailMeNot claim to be comfortable doing,
78% of the people were certainly not okay with carpooling and 69% were unwilling to use an
alternate method of transport such as biking. Habits are formed through repetitive actions which
is why when a person tries to accommodate other activities during their days, it can take a while
to become comfortable with it. Therefore, separating the recycling may appear redundant at the
time, which is why people might not do it as efficiently every time.
3) Using inefficient alternatives for a product
Using eco-friendly products that dont provide results that are as superior as the mainstream
alternative, indicates a lower consumer utility. An example of a case as such: Using baking soda
as another option for cleaning a bathroom, which will clean the bathroom but it wont produce a
pleasant odor. If the consumers utility is low, it implies that the individual is not making the best
choices with the amount of money that they have and can lead to the individual getting less value
and being unsatisfied.
4) Reducing good consumption: This sacrifice implies that the consumers choice to be
socially responsible will somehow cost the individual their comfort.. For example: By turning
the thermostat down of the heater in winter, to decrease the consumption of fossil fuels, it will
either increase their clothing costs to keep them warm or result in uneasiness. The utility of the
customer is compromised in all the different cases and in the last two cases, the costs outweigh
the benefits.

One of the biggest issues associated with green consumerism is green washing; deceptive actions
being taken by conglomerates to maintain an eco-friendly image to establish brand loyalty and
maximize profitability.
In a recent case in California against Fiji Water, the consumer filed a case not questioning the
eco-friendliness of the water bottle but the way that it was being manufactured and distributed in
markets and stated that it probably caused just as much harm to the environment, if not more in
comparison to the other bottles. The allegations against the company were that they used more
natural resources than its competitors which caused 46 million gallons of fossil fuel, producing
approximately 216,000,000 billion pounds of greenhouse gases per year.6
The greenwashing procedure can possibly cause a domino effect if corporations within all
different industries are constantly trying to maximize revenue, operating from a hidden agenda
and trying to manipulate their consumers.
Unilevers Axe is an example of a strategy that isnt considered greenwashing but can be
considered unethical. This brand uses the sex appeal of its products to increase revenue, Axe
launched its Shower pooling campaign to associate themselves with the cause of water
conservation. It uses shower pooling, sharing showers to gain attention from its audience and to
help make its consumers realize the importance of the cause. The campaigns slogan: Its not
just environmentally friendly its all kind of friendly.7
6
,7

Sobelsohn, Richard6 J. ""Greenwashing": Deceptive Business Claims of "Eco-Friendliness"" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 6 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/20/greenwashing-deceptive-business-claims-of-eco-friendliness/#332b5dc258b1>.

When some individual sees some of the well known brands engaging in activities as such, it
can really make a person question In what ways are the social and environmental complexities
translated to a simple, categorical this is the green(est) choice label?8
Another problem is that the line between operational activities of a company and green washing
are invisible, which is why its so difficult for eco-friendly consumers to decide, as theyre
skeptical of the businesss processes. Mostly, consumers are only able to tell in retrospect if the
corporations or government were really invested in the cause and managed to reach their goal of
reducing waste.
Benefits appear to be quite vague
The benefits of green consuming are less apparent than the costs. Even if we suppose that we
could easily obtain such benefits it is hard to even agree about what the benefits are.9
Attaining consensus upon what the most important causes are, how dedicated everyone needs to
be and to what extent everyone is willing to go to a reach a goal, depends upon every
individuals own preferences and priorities in life, which cant be easily altered. In this case, the
main issue is that when some individual tries to make a difference in the environment if the
action is only taken by that person, it wont have a significant impact but the resulting

8
Bostrm, M., and Klintman, M.. Consumption and Public Life : Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism. London, GB: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
ProQuest ebrary. Web. 29 November 2016.

9
Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

improvements will be shared by everyone around him/her. (Depending upon the kind of social
service)
In the Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson discusses how individuals dont contribute to a
certain cause because it advances it, but instead have other motives for doing so. He uses an
example to demonstrate the logic behind his findings: A person who switches over to riding a
bicycle instead of their automobile to help keep the air clean wont be able to make a significant
difference in the pollution by herself/himself, but the benefits will be used by everyone even
those who choose to drive their cars to work. Therefore, it may appear to the individual that
his/her efforts are pointless and make the person quite upset as the people who didnt even try to
make the air cleaner, still get to enjoy it.
Olson states, What will this [individuals] sacrifice obtain? The individual will at best have
succeeded in advancing the cause to a small (often imperceptible) degree. In any case, he will get
only a minute share of the gain from his action. The very fact that the objective or interest is
common to or shared by the group entails that the gain from any sacrifice an individual makes to
serve this common purpose is shared with everyone in the group. Since any gain goes to
everyone in the group, those who contribute nothing to the effort will get just as much as those
who contributed. It pays to let George do it, but George has little or no incentive to do
anything in the group interest either, so (in the absence of [other] factors)... there will be little, if
any, group action. (Olsen 1982 18)10

10
Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<https://www.academia.edu/952482/Its_Not_Easy_Being_Green_The_Limits_of_Green_Consumerism_in_Light_of_the_Logic>.

This paragraph provides quite an interesting outlook on green consumerism and discusses the
paradox, faced by a socially responsible individual when making a conscious decision regarding
his/her choices in life. Unfortunately, if every individual operated based upon this outlook, the
greater good could never be achieved within any organization.
Olson believes that this logic stays relative even when altruistic and selfless behaviors are
considered. While the individual might be making a substantial sacrifice to contribute to the
greater good, it will make indiscernible difference to the overall contributions made by everyone
in the group. Per Olson, the concept of collective behavior can easily be described through
selective incentives. These incentives serve as stimuli to the individual, arent related to the
groups interests, and can either be positive or negative. An example of a positive stimuli could
be higher social standing due for being environmentally friendly or a negative one could be
being looked down upon for not making socially responsible choices.
There are several reasons why people choose to change their views upon taking actions to
preserve the environment. Demographic, sociological, psychological and economic reasons are
the most popular ones. Within the demographics category, variables such as age, education and a
persons background are examined to determine the reasons of their social consciousness. For
instance, it seems plausible for an educated person to be an eco-friendly person as he/she is
aware of his/her surroundings and therefore, wants to have a positive impact upon the
environment. Surprisingly, there is little evidence to support this claim and in a study conducted
by Vining and Ebreo in 1990 of recyclers vs. non-recyclers indicates that there isnt any
correlation any between a persons demographic traits and their environmental consciousness. 11
11
,11

Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

The concept of being socially responsible has evolved over the past years, and while it is surely a
positive social phenomenon; it has become a trendy thing to become a green consumer, or at
least pretend to be one. The movement is related to positive signs, and being a part of a group
that works towards an environmental goal is considered quite desirable socially. Although, if
appearing to be a socially responsible person is the individuals only motivation, he/she will
certainly not be able to keep up with green consuming and will soon start using mainstream
products, as they arent always very convenient.
Considering the psychological aspect, Wortman believes that cognitive dissonance plays a huge
role within green consumers. It is defined as a state induced when an individuals behaviour is
inconsistent with his or her attitudes12 (Wortman). This occurs when being invested in ecofriendliness is associated with good citizenship or concepts as such and the individual is
exposed to actions that are inconsistent with this idea. Therefore, proving that the changes in a
persons behavior may be ineffective, and becoming a socially responsible person requires a lot
of patience and time, for habits to be cemented into an individuals personality. For example: A
person might purchase ozone friendly aerosol products to preserve ozone but the person may not
realize that its also affected by emissions from automobiles and continue using his/her car. This
change is incompetent as, even though (s)he trying to create a better environment by not
engaging in one activity, (s)he is doing something else that is just as harmful, thus defeating the
main purpose.
. On the other hand, the sociotropic model (Kinder and Kiewit; Kiewit) understands that people
tend to distinguish a threat more generally as a national problem hence it extends beyond a
12

persons self-interest.13 This conclusion suggests that people view their contributions to be quite
trivial as its minor, in comparison to everyone elses overall actions.
A 2010 study in Psychological Science discovered that it is probable for human beings to feel
entitled to be treated better when they contribute towards a specific cause or when they become
environmentally friendly people- since our brains are incapable of immediately keeping track of
the benefits from making environmentally conscious decisions. For instance, individuals find it
extremely difficult to act upon long term issues such as climate change, since the benefits arent
evident right away. This concept can discourage people from becoming involved as the progress
of long term goals such as reducing usage of paper can be difficult to track and doesnt indicate
tangible effects instantly.
The main difference between eco-shopping today in comparison to decades ago, is that the
problems its trying to solve are much larger in comparison to the issues faced by previous
generations. Today, more people are living in poverty, without having the ability to provide food
for themselves or their families, than ever before in our history.
Another major problem is that, since were so much more aware of our surroundings and the
people around us, allowing us to understand how our consumption plays a role in our well-being
and the world. While its great to be informed, it leaves consumers more exposed to moral fault
since the difference between the right thing and the wrong to do are so evident.

13
Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

10

Most people who really are anxious over the impact of the consumer culture worldwide seem to
be stuck in the territory between cynicism and tokenism, trying to think more productively
about the kinds of strategies that can make a symbolic and material difference. We hope that the
passive activism of green (or greenish) consumption can connect with more overtly political
activities, from changing local health codes to allow edible landscaping or backyard chickens,
seeking further education on environmental issues, or backing green candidates in elections14
Per Olson, if a person is committed to educating themselves further to help save the
environment, it will require an abundance of time. He also identified three major parts within the
learning issue: 1) the paradox of ignorance 2) information difficulty advanced technological
problems that are difficult to understand 3) led by false belief that problem doesnt exist, or that
its other peoples responsibility to take care of.15
For a person to be an effective green consumer (s)he must be mindful of the environmental effect
of a product from its manufacturing stage to its clearance. Gaining access to such information
can be extremely difficult, especially if the product has been purchased from a local market or a
small retailer.
Though the process of acquiring information about environmental difficulties and regarding all
products can be altered by: (1) Making it necessary for all products to release public information
regarding the entire procedure that the product undergoes within its lifecycle (if the company
14
Association, American Anthropological. "Green Consumerism Is No Solution." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Aug.-Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/green-consumerism-is-no-solution_b_3437457.html>.

15
Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

11

claims its a green product) ; (2) creating ways for such information to be widely spread
especially when the opportunity costs to the person are much lower.
If saving our environment is a priority, purchasing patterns of people within all classes need to be
altered, and even though in most cases we cannot expect voluntary individual contribution
instantly, there should be a learning curve process that fosters an environment where information
is accessible to everyone and constant learning is encouraged.
In conclusion, while the benefits of being socially responsible are innumerable, it is evident that
there are certainly quite a lot of issues associated with the cause. The concept does represent
something different for most people, but the motivation should be the same; To make our planet
cleaner and healthier again!

Bibliography
1. Bostrm, M., and Klintman, M.. Consumption and Public Life : Eco-Standards, Product
Labelling and Green Consumerism. London, GB: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. ProQuest
ebrary. Web. 29 November 2016.
2. Pettit, Dan. "It's Not Easy Being Green: The Limits of Green Consumerism in Light of
the Logic." Academia.edu - Share Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
3. Association, American Anthropological. "Green Consumerism Is No Solution." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Aug.-Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

12

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/greenconsumerism-is-no-solution_b_3437457.html>.
4. Sobelsohn, Richard6 J. ""Greenwashing": Deceptive Business Claims of "EcoFriendliness"" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 6 Mar. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/03/20/greenwashing-deceptive-businessclaims-of-eco-friendliness/#332b5dc258b1>.
5. Julia Layton "Is green consumerism a contradiction?" 10 December 2008.
HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/greenscience/green-consumerism-contradiction.htm> 30 November 2016
6. Williams, Freya. "Charge Less, Sell More: How to Price Green Products." GreenBiz.
N.p., May-June 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/05/10/charge-less-sell-more-how-to-price-greenproducts>.
7. Murphy, Brian B., Xuelin Zhang, and Claude Dionne. Low Income in Canada a Multiline and Multi-index Perspective. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Income Statistics Division,
2012. Low Income in Canada. Stats Canada, June-July 2012. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2016
8. Lichtenberg, Judith. "Consuming Because Others Consume." Social Theory and Practice
22.3 (1996): 273-97. Consuming Because Others Consume. June-July 1996. Web. Nov.Dec. 2016. http://www.judithlichtenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CBOCSTP.pdf
9. Lee, Martyn J.. Consumer Culture Reborn : The Cultural Politics of Consumption (1).
Abingdon, Oxon, US: Routledge, 2003. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 30 November 2016.
10. Srinivas, Hari. "Sustainable Business Concepts: Green Consumerism." Sustainable
Business Concepts: Green Consumerism. Grains Research Development Corporation,
Jan.-Feb. 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. <http://www.gdrc.org/sustbiz/green/aconsumerism.html>

13