Consumers Don’t Buy Corporate Blame Shifting on Climate
By Justin Worland
Want more from TIME in your inbox? Explore our other newsletters here.
One of the most pervasive misunderstandings I hear in some corporate circles is that consumers really don’t care about climate change because, by and large, they aren’t willing to pay much to address it. To make this argument, skeptics of corporate climate action often point to the mounds of evidence showing that most consumers prioritize price over sustainability in their buying decisions.
It is true—and unsurprising—that price remains the top concern for most consumers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t care at all. Indeed, surveys suggest that consumers do care about climate change. They just don’t think it’s their responsibility to address it.
In a recent poll asking who bears responsibility for climate change, respondents answered decisively: companies, first and foremost, are responsible. In the June 4 University of Chicago survey, 62% of respondents said that industry bears significant responsibility in cutting emissions. That’s followed closely by 59% who say the same about the federal government. (I am the journalism fellow at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago).
Another survey released earlier this year by the consulting firm EY found that two-thirds of American consumers think that they have already done enough to address climate change and that energy companies should take the lead in reducing energy consumption.
An economics-minded reader might balk at the apparent contradiction in these findings. Companies can offer more climate friendly products in a range of industries right now without any further technological breakthroughs, but those costs would ultimately hit consumers in one way or another. In other words, consumers can’t have their cake and eat it, too.
领英推荐
But the findings are nonetheless worth reflecting on. For one, they throw cold water on the long-running campaigns by some companies and industry groups aimed at convincing individuals to take responsibility for climate change. Despite decades of pushing that message, only 41% of respondents to the Chicago survey said individuals bear significant responsibility for addressing climate change.
Extrapolate a little further, and the findings help make the case for companies to find ways to prioritize sustainability. For one, it’s worth noting that some consumers say they are willing to pay a sustainability premium, if only a small one. And behavioral economists have found that companies can effectively “ nudge" consumers into greener choices—think of making the default option the more sustainable one. Even consumers who aren’t willing to pay a premium for sustainability right now may see a company’s green products as a differentiator when the cost comes down.
In the long run, as more and more companies invest in sustainability efforts, sustainability metrics are likely to become less of a “nice-to-have” and more of a baseline for entry. Threading the cost and sustainability needle isn’t always easy, but it’s increasingly necessary.
Must-read stories from TIME Business:
General Broker (Self-employed) available for consultation on agricultural products, systems, and services
9 个月I agree!
Quality Manager bei Northland Power Inc.
9 个月If Corporations make "sustainable investing" but not the conservative ones, then there is no way to put the blame on consumers
Director Strategic Partnership and Business Excellence | Leading Creative Business Strategy | Problem Solutions - Process Improvements
9 个月Consumers do not take things lying down and get impacted unless they force to adapt and adjust, like plastic carry ban in stores. Its small peg in a hole. Corporates are big fish who have $$ and who can Think ahead and make a significant change in Consumer everyday life or the way Climate changes can be adapted with their products
I help companies to translate and synthesize ideas, goals, and ambitions into tangible processes to create a unique branding experience. Say hi!
9 个月It's not exactly my area, but yes! I think an article like this definitely deserves the necessary attention and is worth exploring beyond the title. In brand building, "empathy" is a quality that not only arises but must be cultivated. I believe that in this regard, large corporations, instead of presenting an honest face to their audience—and in the case of the biggest ones, to society—often propose solutions that are sugar-coated, fragile, and precarious. This is why, as some data analysis experts would say, while people can be manipulated and influenced in many ways, they are rarely foolish. When faced with such fictional exercises by these corporations, it’s easy for a sense of rejection to grow over time. If not addressed properly and promptly, this can become a slow poison for the entire industry.
Multifaceted Relationship Manager | Facilitator | Collaborator - Advancing Shared Goals with Stakeholders
9 个月It's time to put a price on the largest emitters--irresponsible corporations. As your surveys show, we aren't duped by these big polluters into thinking that individual actions stand a chance of having impacts close to what major corporations could do. I challenge the conclusion that the cost will come to the consumer and "consumers can't have their cake and eat it, too." What if the CEOs that make nearly 200 times what their employees make, I don't know, took a small pay cut to help keep the planet livable to the human race? I know, unfathomable... https://apnews.com/article/ceo-pay-compensation-ratio-workers-fa25db3338b68ad9eb395dfd46190383