Overview of change

Achieving net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reducing levels of pollution and waste, and reversing damage to ecosystems and species loss will require changes in behaviour and consumption at every level down to households and individuals to complement technological advancements.1,2,3 For example, achieving the Paris Agreement target of keeping climate change below 1.5°C requires reducing GHG emissions to the equivalent of 2.5 tonnes of CO₂ (tCO2) per person per year by 2030. Some individuals emit more than others;4,5,6 the wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related GHG emissions, while the bottom 50% of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10%.7 The top 1% of EU households have per capita greenhouse gas emissions 22 times larger than the 2.5 tCO2 limit, and only about 5% of EU households live within this limit (the UK’s per-capita CO2 emissions in 2019 was 5.3 tCO2, below the EU average of 7tCO2).8,9,10 Growth in affluence has outpaced technological improvements to reduce impacts; growing per capita consumption since 1970 has driven increases in biodiversity loss, waste, pollution and carbon emissions.11,12

Challenges and opportunities

There is some evidence that consumers’ attitudes, values and knowledge affect their behaviour,13,14 and that measures aimed at communicating information or changing attitudes can contribute to environmentally-sustainable behaviours.15,16,17 However, a body of recent evidence suggests that the efficacy of these measures is limited,18,19 since much consumer behaviour does not result from choices based on attitudes or knowledge but is shaped by habits,20 social norms and expectations,21,22,23 and physical surroundings.24,25 Even if consumers have positive environmental values, attitudes and intentions, this frequently fails to translate into green purchasing behaviour and other pro-environmental behaviours.26 Qualitative research suggests there is a lack of knowledge on how to overcome perceived barriers to green consumption and scepticism about the marketing of green products.27 The body of evidence suggests that interventions should not only focus on attitudes or knowledge, but change the contexts within which consumers act to foster habits that produce better environmental outcomes.28,29,30

Changing consumption behaviours can be supported by various measures, including those addressing:

  • Physical infrastructure. Lisbon saw an 817% increase in cycling after expanding its cycle networks and implementing a new electric bike-sharing31
  • Financial incentives. Carbon taxes can incentivise reductions in fuel consumption, and increase the efficiency and use of cleaner fuels and technologies.32 When countries put a price on carbon, their national emissions from fuel combustion grow at a rate 2 percentage points less than those of countries without a carbon price.33
  • Cultural norms. Encouraging office workers to adopt less formal clothing has been used to help reduce energy use in buildings in Japan.34
  • Giving low-income families training to develop their cookery skills increased consumption of locally produced foods in two US cities.35
  • Joined-up policy approaches. Every area of policy can affect consumption behaviour and its environmental outcomes.36,37 For example, education policies that encourage children to attend local schools serve to reduce the distances families travel daily,38 cutting emissions and air pollution.

Interventions can change how much people consume, or shift the timing and location of consumption behaviours, reducing environmental harms. For example, time-of-use tariffs encourage consumers to use energy at off-peak times, reducing the environmental impacts of the electricity grid.39 Providing some healthcare services at home via digital technologies, rather than in clinical settings, has reduced travel emissions and hospitals’ energy use in UK case study sites.40 Research suggests that long-term approaches41 that combine different types of intervention42, 43, 44 and engage with the diverse professionals and institutions whose work influences consumption45,46 can be effective in systematically shifting consumer behaviours to produce better environmental outcomes.

Key unknowns

Research has suggested that public debates about product sustainability are often contradictory and confusing because of the lack of objective measures of environmental and biodiversity impacts.47

Nature conservation policy initiatives rarely lead to individuals making changes because they focus on educational and structural measures with no knowledge of what measures would foster behaviours in different actors that would lead to better biodiversity outcomes.48

Shifting baseline syndrome describes a persistent downgrading of perceived ‘normal’ environmental conditions between generations. A study has provided empirical evidence of this shift in the UK, but it is unclear how to improve intergenerational communication to avoid losing critical historical local environmental knowledge and the true magnitude of long-term environmental change.49

Key questions for Parliament

What are the most effective policy instruments for changing the behaviours of different actors, including how best to communicate positive consumption choices?50,51 How can policy create conditions that foster sustainable habits by addressing cultural, social and material influences on behaviour?52 This would include the means of assessing the impacts of different policy areas on consumption behaviours and ensure that environmental goals are taken into account across all policy areas.36

How to equitably design environmental taxation? The International Monetary Fund suggests carbon tax revenue redistribution to cleaner energy users and the poorest households impacted by the costs.53

Are carbon border taxes based on emission assessments of imports needed to complement a domestic carbon tax?54,55 The life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of products traded multiple times across borders constitute 10% of global emissions.56

Likelihood and impact

The important role of behaviour change in achieving the Sixth Carbon Budget has been set out by the Climate Change Committee.3

Research for Parliament 2021

Experts have helped us identify 30 areas of change to help the UK Parliament prepare for the future.

References

  1. Allwood, J., et al. (2019). Absolute Zero.
  2. Ivanova, D, et al. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, vol 15 (9)
  3. Climate Change Committee. (2020). The Sixth Carbon Budget. The UK’s path to Net Zero.
  4. Gössling, S, and Humpe, A. (2020). The global scale, distribution and growth of aviation: Implications for climate change. Global Environmental Change, vol 65, 102194
  5. United Nations Environment Programme (2020). Emissions Gap Report 2020 – Executive summary.
  6. Oxfam media briefing. (2020). Confronting Carbon Inequality
  7. Weidmann, T., et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, vol 11, Article number: 3107
  8. Ivanova, D., and Wood, R. (2020). The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability. Global Sustainability, vol 3, e18
  9. Ivanova, D., and Wood, R. (2020). Top 1% of EU households have carbon footprints 22 times larger than climate targets allow. The Conversation.
  10. Evans, S. (2020). Analysis: UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade. Carbon Brief
  11. Díaz, S. et al. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, vol 366, no. 6471.
  12. Wilting, H., et al. (2020). Subnational greenhouse gas and land‐based biodiversity footprints in the European Union. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
  13. Goldman,D, et al. (2020). Education for Environmental Citizenship and Responsible Environmental Behaviour. In: Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education, Eds Hadjichambis et al.
  14. Kim, M, and Stepchenkova,S. (2019). Altruistic values and environmental knowledge as triggers of pro-environmental behavior among tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, vol 23 (13)
  15. Elf, P, et al. (2020). Above and beyond? How businesses can drive sustainable development by promoting lasting pro‐environmental behaviour change: An examination of the IKEA Live Lagom project. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol 30 (2), pgs 1037-1050
  16. Elf,P, et al. (2019). Facilitating Positive Spillover Effects: New Insights From a Mixed-Methods Approach Exploring Factors Enabling People to Live More Sustainable Lifestyles. Front. Psychol
  17. Gwozdz, W, et al. (2020). Behaviour Change for Sustainable Consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy, vol 43, pgs 249–253
  18. Jakučionytė-Skodienė, M, et al. (2020). Do general pro-environmental behaviour, attitude, and knowledge contribute to energy savings and climate change mitigation in the residential sector? Energy, vol 193, 116784
  19. Van den Broek, K, et al. (2019). Drivers of energy saving behaviour: The relative influence of intentional, normative, situational and habitual processes. Energy Policy, vol 132, pgs 811-819
  20. Breadsell, J, et al. (2019). Understanding Resource Consumption in the Home, Community and Society through Behaviour and Social Practice Theories. Sustainability, vol 11(22), 6513
  21. Horne, C, and Kennedy, E. (2017). The power of social norms for reducing and shifting electricity use. Energy Policy, vol 107, pgs 43-52
  22. Roysen, R, and Mertens, F. (2019). New normalities in grassroots innovations: The reconfiguration and normalization of social practices in an ecovillage. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol 236, 117647
  23. Watson, M, et al. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for re-framing resource use policy with practice theories: The change points approach. Global Environmental Change, vol 62, 102072
  24. Hansen, A. et al. (2018). How building design and technologies influence heat-related habits. Building Research & Information, vol 46, (1)
  25. Shove,E, and Trentman, F. (2020). Infrastructures in Practice. The Dynamics of Demand in Networked Societies.
  26. Moser, A. (2015). Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol 32(3), pgs 167–175.
  27. Beatson, A, et al. (2020), Green consumption practices for sustainability: an exploration through social practice theory, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 10 (2), pgs 197-213.
  28. Kammelander, M, et al. (2020). How does a social practice perspective add to the development of policy instruments to reduce consumption-based CO2 emissions? A case study of Austria. Climate Policy, vol 20 (3), pgs 323-340
  29. Shittu, O. (2020). Emerging sustainability concerns and policy implications of urban household consumption: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol 246, 119034
  30. Liebe, U, et al. (2021). Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. Nature Human Behaviour
  31. Félix, R, et al. (2020). Build it and give ‘em bikes, and they will come: The effects of cycling infrastructure and bike-sharing system in Lisbon. Case Studies on Transport Policy, vol 8 (2), pgs 672-682
  32. UNFCCC, Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
  33. Best, R. et al. (2020). Carbon Pricing Efficacy: Cross-Country Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 77, pgs 69–94
  34. Hampton, S, and Adams, R. (2018). Behavioural economics vs social practice theory: Perspectives from inside the United Kingdom government. Energy Research & Social Science, vol 46, pgs 214-224
  35. Gaddis, J, et al. (2020). Incorporating local foods into low-income families’home-cooking practices: The critical role of sustained economic subsidies. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, vol 10(1), pgs 117–132
  36. Cox, E, et al. (2019). From exports to exercise: How non-energy policies affect energy systems. Energy Research & Social Science, vol 55, pgs 179-188
  37. Royston, S, et al. (2020). Invisible energy policies: A new agenda for energy demand reduction. Energy Policy, vol 123, pgs 127-135
  38. Mandic, S et al. (2017). Enrolling in the Closest School or Not? Implications of school choice decisions for active transport to school. Journal of Transport & Health, vol 6, pgs 347-357
  39. Nicolson, M, et al. (2018). Consumer demand for time of use electricity tariffs: A systematized review of the empirical evidence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol 97, pgs 276-289
  40. Royal College of Physicians (2018). Outpatients: The future. Adding value through sustainability
  41. Goldman,D, et al. (2020). Education for Environmental Citizenship and Responsible Environmental Behaviour. In: Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education, Eds Hadjichambis et al.
  42. Kammelander, M, et al. (2020). How does a social practice perspective add to the development of policy instruments to reduce consumption-based CO2 emissions? A case study of Austria, Climate Policy, vol 20 (3), pgs 323-340
  43. Heiskanen, E, and Laakso, S. (2019). Editing out unsustainability from consumption: From information provision to nudging and social practice theory. In: A Research Agenda for Sustainable Consumption Governance, Ed, Mont, O.
  44. Breadsell, J, et al. (2019). Understanding Resource Consumption in the Home, Community and Society through Behaviour and Social Practice Theories. Sustainability, 11(22), 6513
  45. Hoolahan, C, and Browne, A. (2020). Design thinking for practice-based intervention: Co-producing the change points toolkit to unlock (un)sustainable practices. Design Studies, vol 67, pgs 102-132
  46. Peltomaa, J, et al. (2019). Housing managers as middle actors implementing sustainable housing policies in Finland. Building Research & Information, vol 48 (1), pgs 53-66
  47. Meijaard, E, et al. (2020). Coconut oil, conservation and the conscientious consumer. Current Biology, vol 30, (13), PR757-R758
  48. Marselle, M, et al. (2020). Addressing behavior in pollinator conservation policies to combat the implementation gap. Conservation Biology
  49. Jones, L, et al. (2020). Investigating the implications of shifting baseline syndrome on conservation. People and Nature
  50. Hardisty D, et al. (2019). 5 ways to shift consumers towards sustainable behaviour. The Conversation.
  51. White, K et al. (2019). How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. Journal of Marketing, vol 83 (3).
  52. Watson, M, et al. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for re-framing resource use policy with practice theories: The change points approach. Global Environmental Change, vol 62, 102072
  53. International Monetary Fund (2020). World Economic Outlook, Chapter 3: Mitigating Climate Change
  54. Helm, D. (2020). Net Zero: How We Stop Causing Climate Change. HarperCollins
  55. Helm, D. (2021). Bespoke carbon taxes on food.
  56. Hertwich, E. (2020). Carbon fueling complex global value chains tripled in the period 1995–2012. Energy Economics, vol 86, 104651

Photo by Gary Butterfield on Unsplash

Related posts