The Fallacy of The 'Conscious Consumer'

This April, the world’s most iconic red and white logo was crushed and distorted, an innovative effort from the brand to encourage consumers to recycle more. Coca-Cola’s wordmark has remained largely the same since 1941, so it was no surprise that industry and consumers had something to say about it. An expression of Coca-Cola’s ambitious ‘World Without Waste’ goal, geared towards collecting and recycling a bottle or can for every one sold by 2030, some simply aren’t buying it calling them out for greenwashing, hypocrisy and promoting misleading information.

For many, this is familiar territory, the onus is flipped onto the consumer yet again. It’s our duty to make the world a better place…if we just recycle more, if we just stick to our paper straws, and shop using the same reusable bag. Have we too readily adopted the label of ‘conscious consumer’ without asking ourselves - what does it actually mean to be a conscious consumer? It’s certainly not something we’ve coined for ourselves. Most of us law abiding citizens are just trying to do our best.??

Conscious consumerism is driven by ethics, in particular responsibility and respect. It is more considered shopping decisions, both consuming less and prioritising sustainability, supporting companies that follow similar values. Everything we consume that damages and pollutes the environment has an inherent subsidy, an environmental cost to earth. Noone is paying for it now, but we are going to pay for it in the future. So, whilst conscious consumerism is great in principle, it is unrealistic in practice. It’s an ideology that sets us up to fail in the capitalist construct we exist in.?

Plastic bottles are a good example of this. Whilst the majority of people know plastic bottles are bad for the environment, the consumption of plastic bottles continues to rise. Our decisions are more controlled than we think, making it frankly impossible for us to consistently make sustainable purchase decisions all of the time, especially when involving others, unless we want to avoid being social altogether.?

“It’s archetypal of corporations to put the onus on individuals. Framing communications in a manner that diverts attention has been a big part of the playbook for greedy corporations, but the ineffectiveness of government has to be put into perspective” states Strategist DK Woon at SKEWED, a brand experience design studio with clients like IKEA and Volvo.

Looking to other markets who deploy a different model for sustainability, consumers in China for example are heavily influenced by a larger climate-action landscape which sits under the purview of the central government. The narrative is one of large-scale industrial transformation and carbon neutrality pushed through by each five-year plan. In contrast to this, the ‘conscious consumer’ messaging feels disorganised and chaotic. The central government is more focused on addressing urgent environmental issues at macro and systematic level. Empowering individual consumers with everyday actions and knowledge is not the priority.?

Big tech also play a critical role in shaping consumption behaviour around climate-consciousness and encouraging sustainable choices. Digitally native behaviours are embedded into everyday actions and lifestyle, leading to widespread adoption of initiatives rolled out by Tencent, Alibaba and others, many characterised by ease of entry and gamified experiences. ‘Ant Forest’, a tree planting initiative launched by Alipay, encourages its 600+million users to engage in activities that reduce carbon emissions such as transportation alternatives and reduced vehicle usage.

The main point here is that genuine change happens without fanfare, no need for sensationalism, no need for that big pat on the back. Earth Day every year becomes a parade of brands signalling their dedication to the greater good, and whilst global anti-greenwashing laws have seen brands pare back this year’s Earth Day activations, brands such as Kiehls’ #DontBuyJustRefill, Asics tree planting tracker, LG’s 3D endangered animals and others continue to make consumers feel as though their actions make a difference.?

Acknowledging that our decision making is more limited and controlled than we probably realise, it’s not to say that we are completely absolved of responsibility. There is still power in collective consumption, who we decide to support or not, as big businesses are still ultimately shaped by supply and demand. Patagonia knows this too well, as demonstrated in their ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ Black Friday campaign urging consumers to think twice before splurging. Their approach is both ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’, embracing responsibility as a big business whilst encouraging consumers on an individual level to do the same.

Vestiaire Collective also takes this joint approach, leading by example in how they do business and the messages put out to their expanding community. Their latest circularity report ‘Exposing the True Cost of Fast Fashion’ reinvigorates the notion of buy less, buy better through a new metric called cost-per-wear. "Fast fashion is a false economy. Buying cheap fast fashion is deceptive, as in the end, you end up replacing items again and again,” said Dounia Wone, Chief Impact Officer at Vestiaire Collective. Social commentary offers differing points of view, with one notable theme coming through. It’s a privilege to be able to think and behave in a sustainable way in today’s world and for most, they have no choice but to opt for the product that’s subsidised - however it may be. You need disposable income to afford more ethical and sustainable options, the luxury of time to research, and a sound knowledge of ingredients and material footprint to understand the true meaning behind labels.

Perhaps we have adopted ‘conscious consumerism’ as a way to ease our eco-anxiety. It’s a moral act yet to be substantiated by meaningful data. If we saw some pay-off in our collective acts of conscious consumerism that make a difference to the world around us for the better, we would feel more hopeful. We are all willing and able to make small ethical consumption choices on a daily basis but if big businesses’ structural incentives don’t change, progress is stunted. There is no substitute for systematic change and regulation.

Therefore, in unveiling the potential fallacy of the ‘conscious consumer’ the biggest recognition is that yes most of us are just trying to do our best, but some of us can do more.