Consumer Psychology Explains Why Your Ethical Messaging Is Making Matters Worse

I’m just about old enough to remember when ethical consumerism existed on the fringes of market dynamics; a time when people were mostly concerned with balancing quality with price. These were the days when battery-farmed eggs filled trolleys, and shoppers were oblivious to the harsh realities of sweatshops behind their clothing labels. Since then, we've experienced a significant shift in consumer motivations. Issues such as animal welfare and labour rights have surged to the forefront of consumer consciousness, driven by a growing awareness of the ethical implications of their purchases. No longer satisfied with merely affordable options, consumers are now mindful of the ethical footprint of their choices. The days of mindlessly filling baskets with cheap eggs are declining; people now consider the welfare of the chickens laying those eggs—which is, of course, a good thing.

In fact, it’s such a positive change that I hope ethical consumerism will continue to progress further. Animals could be treated better, wages could be fairer, and the environment still needs protection. However, this progress is only possible if consumers can afford to pay the extra costs associated with these practices. This affordability, in turn, relies on consumers caring enough to act on such values. Recently, though, I’ve noticed that care is starting to waver. Not because consumers have suddenly abandoned their values, but because they’re tired of feeling guilty. And I know this because I’ve observed myself faltering in my commitment to my values.

Of course, this may be purely anecdotal, but the behavioural shifts we notice in ourselves often reflect real truths within psychology. I can also back my claim with real data, as recent trends indicate that while ethical consumerism has generally been on the rise, there are signs of a slight downward trend in some areas. The PwC Global Consumer Insights Pulse Survey 2022 showed that while environmental and social governance (ESG) factors remained important, they were not as high a priority as they were in 2020 and 2021. Only 25% of respondents considered ESG as a top factor in their purchasing decisions, down from 31% in 2020. Similarly, The GlobalWebIndex report from 2023 highlighted that 48% of consumers reported making fewer sustainable choices in the past year compared to 54% in 2021, citing economic concerns as a primary reason.

Undoubtedly, the factor which best explains these statistics is the rising cost of living: if we have to pay more for basic goods and services, we have less to spend on paying the extra costs that come with sustainability. For instance, EY reported that while 84% of consumers say sustainability is important when making decisions, 47% say it costs too much. However, the rising cost of living doesn't fully account for the ethical exhaustion faced by consumers. And what I find most interesting, is that this "ethical fatigue" appears to exist in tandem with a growing desire for ethical consumerism. It almost seems paradoxical that consumers seem to care more, but are now acting less. So aside from economic reasons, what else could be responsible for this phenomenon? In what follows, I will uncover how the marketing strategies of brands are, in part, responsible for the rise of ethical exhaustion.

The Evolution of Ethical Consumerism

Before we delve into things, let’s first understand how our values influence our purchasing habits. Ethical consumerism typically involves minimising the harm caused by our consumption choices rather than actively adding value to the world. For instance, while consuming resources is inevitable—such as feeding one’s family—avoiding meat and buying from local producers can reduce animal suffering and environmental waste respectively. These are just some ways in which we can consume ethically. Historically, we would consume almost mindlessly; not because nobody cared about the consequences, but because very few were acquainted with them. The effects of global warming were not known to us during the Industrial Revolution, so there was no way for these people to understand the impact these technological advancements would have on the environment. In the last 50 years, the world has become increasingly mobilised around the issue of climate change, precisely because we have become better acquainted with these consequences. Many now consciously act so to minimise the harmful impact their choices have on their environment, and the fact that they care is representative of a shift towards the belief that one can be personally responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change.

Thus, if the belief that individuals can share some responsibility for their role in mitigating the harmful effects of climate change is widespread, then what happens when we fail to uphold this duty? The answer is obvious: we experience guilt. When we fail to keep a promise to a friend, I would imagine that most would feel guilty once they have become acquainted with the consequences of their action, because they care about how their actions affect the people they value. Likewise, if we fail to consume ethically and contribute to the destruction of our world then we are liable to be held responsible, and if this is something we value, then we will inevitably experience guilt around our actions.

Challenges of Affordability in Ethical Choices

No individual can live a life in which they consume without contributing to climate change at all. Even the most steadfast environmentalist will be harming the environment to some extent. Moreover, many are not as privileged to lead lives in which they can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change, as there is always a cost to mitigating the harmful effects of our consumption. The sad reality is that some of these costs are rather steep.

Imagine you're a family that consumes 1kg of apples per week. The price difference between organic and conventional apples in the UK is roughly £110 annually, which you cannot afford. However, you also care about mitigating the effects of climate change through your choices. You desire to consume ethically by purchasing organic apples, but cannot afford to, which creates a sense of guilt for being unable to act on your values. But it's not only organic apples you have to care about, since you care about climate change, you also need to care about unethical palm oil, fairtrade chocolate and how much you use your car. It follows, then, if you cannot afford to act on your values, should you give these things up?

I would say what things we can reasonably expect the average consumer to give up, for the sake of their ethical values, is besides the point. Each person is entitled to their own conception of the demands ethical consumerism makes of an individual. But it's the fact that this is something that one must consider, that is demonstrative of a rather taxing mental burden being placed on us—one that asks us to constantly re-evaluate whether or not our ethical commitments are being met when we do something so mundane as our weekly shopping.

One major contributor to this mental burden can be traced back to marketing campaigns. Businesses have correctly identified that consumer consciousness has shifted towards caring about the impact of their consumption, and now market their products and services accordingly. So as the ones making a profit off the back of climate change and animal suffering, most of these companies make sure to broadcast their attempts to mitigate these harmful practices. Governments and the media follow suit and underpin the message of sustainability through the dissemination of educational content. If you live in the Western world, it is impossible to go through life without being aware of the harmful consequences of your consumption. But given that most of us lack the means to be the perfect ethical consumer, many consistently find themselves guilty of failing to act on their values, despite the attempts of these various marketing campaigns.

The Phenomenon of Guilt Fatigue

The reasons why we fail to consume ethically are diverse; inevitably, we will experience guilt as long as we value mitigating the harm caused by our choices. So what happens when we are continually exposed to this guilt? We experience something called guilt fatigue—a phenomenon where individuals or society at large become overwhelmed or desensitised to feelings of guilt or responsibility.

Many studies purport to show that this effect through how overly aggressive ethical marketing can backfire. For instance, one study published in the Journal of Business Ethics discusses how an overload of ethical choices can lead to consumer fatigue. It points out that consumers often face too many options with varying ethical implications, which can lead to decision paralysis and a subsequent reduction in ethical purchasing. As mentioned at the outset of this post, economic factors undeniably play a significant role in shaping consumer behaviour. However, as we navigate the barrage of guilt-inducing messages regarding climate change, biodiversity loss, and social injustice, we frequently experience emotional exhaustion and reduced motivation to take meaningful action. While this is not the sole contributor to the decline in ethical consumerism, it still plays a complementary role. Economic constraints can push consumers toward prioritising cost over ethics, but the emotional burden of perpetual guilt can exacerbate disengagement from ethical choices.

The central problem is that it not only diminishes personal well-being, contributing to increased stress and anxiety but also undermines advocacy and collective movements aimed at addressing systemic issues. For instance, take climate change discourse. Individuals are bombarded with dire warnings and calls for urgent action, eliciting feelings of being overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem and questioning the impact of their individual choices. It’s this overwhelming feeling that often leads to disengagement or a sense of resignation, hindering efforts towards sustainable behaviour change. If the result of campaigning about issues like climate change is to inspire hopelessness towards reaching a solution, then any motivation an individual may have risks being eradicated. Unfortunately, most of the sustainable messaging I observe from businesses is rather bleak. Let’s look at a specific example.

Iceland Foods' 'Rang-tan' Campaign

In 2018, Iceland Foods released an animated short film called "Rang-tan" as their Christmas advertisement. The film highlighted the devastating effects of palm oil production on rainforests, biodiversity, and orangutans' habitats. It showed the impact of deforestation and urged consumers to boycott products containing palm oil unless it was responsibly sourced. The advertisement was initially blocked from airing on TV in the UK due to its political nature, but it gained widespread attention and support on social media. Iceland Foods then capitalised on the controversy to highlight their commitment to removing palm oil from their own-brand products and promoting ethical consumer choices; but just how effective is this strategy?

On the one hand, the advertisement was rather successful in how it attracted attention to an important issue. Its stance on boycotting palm oil, its removal from UK TV, and a strong emotional appeal to evoke guilt in consumers make for an effective marketing campaign. If the consumer consciousness only updates when it becomes acquainted with the consequences of an action, then this advertisement certainly achieved that through all the attention it drew. I definitely felt a profound sadness watching the baby orangutan’s home and family violently destroyed, and these feelings helped connect me to the consequences of my actions.

On the other hand, it's not just enough to simply care about the consequences of actions. If you want people to act accordingly, they also have to be motivated to act in light of these consequences—and this is where the advert falls short. I don’t think it inspires action because the message of ‘boycott palm oil unless you want to be personally responsible for the deaths of orangutans’ is heavy-handed and falls into the guilt fatigue trap. Consumers are now supposed to be ever-mindful in making sure they purchase nothing with unethically sourced palm oil and must also foot the costs associated with doing this, which I find particularly ironic coming from a low-cost supermarket that caters to a low-income demographic. Anyone living on a budget will know just how hard it is to eliminate unethical palm oil from their lives entirely, as it seems to be in absolutely everything and the alternatives are either more expensive or have other ethical issues associated with them. The Greta Thunbergs of the world may retort something like “Well if you really care about orangutans, then you would find a way to give it up!”, and I imagine many of us have thought something similar. So why don’t we try harder? Shouldn’t we all be ashamed of ourselves for not caring more about [current ethical issue]?

Impact of Businesses and Media on Consumer Awareness

This is the kind of guilt that "Rang-Tan" inspires. Moreover, it isn’t just a few companies that use this tone—it’s all over the news, social media, and marketing campaigns across the developed world. The cumulative effect is a sense of helplessness and doom, with little room for optimism. For it’s not just palm oil we are being told to boycott. The list of things ethical consumerism asks of us is becoming increasingly endless, and while not all carry the tone of "Rang-Tan'" many of them do. Just think about every ethical marketing campaign over the last twenty years. If every one of these campaigns carried the same tone as "Rang-Tan", then it’s easy to see why people feel overwhelmed and paralysed by inaction; the ultimate goal of ethical consumerism is being drowned out amidst a sea of emotion.

It could be argued that this doesn’t seem like a problem for businesses because it really concerns the individual’s ability to manage their feelings towards substantive issues. Businesses shouldn’t cease their activism around climate change because it makes some of us feel overwhelmed. After all, there are many who seem to manage just fine navigating these ethical issues. They never buy palm oil, only buy the fairest coffee beans and make their own clothes from recycled materials. If they can take these responsibilities into their own hands, then there is little reason why many of us can’t either. But this argument misses the point. Whose responsibility it is to navigate ethical consumerism is entirely irrelevant; what matters is solving these issues. If the cumulative effect of businesses taking hardline stances on ethical issues results in consumers succumbing to guilt fatigue, then we aren’t solving anything. Screaming "try harder" simply doesn't work.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t advocate strongly for the things we care about—like the unethical consumption of palm oil. My point is that after identifying an ethical issue like stopping the devastating effects of palm oil, we then need to think practically about the best way to bring this about. Given how human psychology works, the cumulative effect of marketing campaigns eliciting guilt may actually be driving individuals into inaction. To make matters worse, from what I have observed within mainstream ethical discourse, many appear to have adopted a more puritanical approach towards these issues. This is the idea that if there is a principle that one identifies as morally right, then any violations of this principle mean that the individual is morally defective and should be ostracised.

The problem with this mindset is that it does not allow individuals to make concessions on their moral principles, exacerbating the blame attributed when mistakes are made. Greta Thunberg embodies this sentiment best, when she says things like “I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is. I want you to panic.”. Thunberg's statements sometimes suggest that anything less than immediate, radical action is insufficient and morally wrong. Not only does the harsh and accusatory tone alienate individuals who may feel criticised or overwhelmed by the demands, but the intense focus on the severity of the crisis encourages guilt fatigue. This has the opposite effect of what she intends, and the reality is that this approach doesn’t achieve the ultimate goal of climate change activists. You don't inspire people to act by capturing a sense of panic and doom; you do it by setting achievable goals that confer benefits to the individual.

Tired of being guilty?

In short, the problem with many marketing campaigns addressing ethical issues is that they use guilt and fear-based tactics to evoke strong emotional reactions. While this can be good in isolation, the cumulative effect often results in individuals feeling guilt-fatigued and driven to inaction.

Indeed, research increasingly advises against fear and guilt-based approaches, as studies (Ruiter et al., 2014, Journal of Health Psychology) have shown that while fear and guilt can prompt immediate action, they often lead to negative emotional responses such as denial, avoidance, and decreased self-efficacy. Moreover, behavioural science often highlights the effectiveness of positive reinforcement over fear and guilt in motivating behaviour. For example, one relevant statistic comes from a study on behaviour change and motivation—a 2016 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology—found that positive reinforcement and the framing of messages in a way that emphasises benefits rather than penalties can lead to a 30-40% increase in desired behaviours compared to approaches based on fear or guilt.

I imagine the claim that the more positive aspects of human psychology better motivate and incentivise individuals into action also aligns closer with our intuitions about human psychology. And psychology is definitely most potent when its theories are able to support our intuitions with empirical evidence. Theories such as Broaden-and-Build and Self-Determination certainly seem to capture these intuitions too. Both emphasise the role of positive emotions in expanding individuals' thought-action repertoires and enhancing intrinsic motivation. If we translate these ideas into the world of marketing, this involves running campaigns which focus on positive reinforcement and empowerment. The central idea is that by highlighting achievable goals and the collective impact of individual actions, we can encourage people to engage in sustainable practices with optimism and a sense of purpose. Encouraging community involvement and sharing inspiring stories further amplifies this effect, creating a supportive environment where people feel empowered to contribute to positive change. So unlike fear and guilt-based messaging, this method not only drives immediate action but also cultivates long-term commitment to positive behavioural changes.

IKEA's 'Live Lagom' Campaign

A shining example of this approach is IKEA's "Live Lagom" campaign. This initiative promotes sustainability and embodies a philosophy of balanced living rooted in Swedish culture, where "lagom" means just the right amount. IKEA intertwines sustainability with everyday living, encouraging customers to adopt practices that are beneficial for both the environment and personal well-being. This is achieved through the cultivation of an online community which leverages engaging storytelling and practical tips to educate consumers on the environmental impact of their choices in a way that emphasises the positive outcomes of small, sustainable changes. For instance, IKEA showcases how using energy-efficient appliances or reducing waste through recycling can contribute to a more sustainable lifestyle without sacrificing comfort or style. Central to the success of the "Live Lagom" campaign is its focus on practical steps consumers can take to feel empowered to act, in light of their ethical commitments to tackle climate change. IKEA doesn't just highlight the problems; it offers accessible solutions that empower consumers to make meaningful changes, and this achieves two things.

First, by identifying sustainability as a journey towards balance and contentment, rather than a sacrifice, IKEA taps into an emotional appeal that resonates more appropriately with consumers. This provides a strong motivation for consumers to make behavioural changes because the issue is no longer being presented as an avoidance of calamity, but as one that is practically valuable to the individual. We must bear in mind that guilt fatigue stands in the shadow of a cost of living crisis, which means a marketing campaign that can target both problems at once will be far more efficient at promoting sustainability.

Second, IKEA's campaign avoids the pitfall of framing climate change in a way that becomes too abstract and unrelatable to the average consumer. A common problem that many marketing campaigns face is that they either present ethical problems as strictly existential or misunderstand the relationship between the reality of consumers and the issue at hand. While it's not wrong to present the issue of climate change in this way, it often fails to motivate action because not everyone can abstract to a future or a distant location which they can be personally responsible for. The fact is, we socially evolved to care more about our local surroundings—our nearest and dearest—because that's what was most advantageous to our survival. Caring about distant others and problems is far less intuitive because it lacks any force in the present. "Live Lagom" dodges this issue wonderfully, by focusing on local, personal solutions to present-day problems, which directly connects the consumer to these more abstract and distant problems.

Moving Beyond Guilt: Embracing Positive Action

Economic factors undeniably play the most significant role in shaping consumer behaviour, however, they are not the sole contributors to the decline in ethical consumerism. Guilt fatigue also plays a crucial role. Economic constraints can push consumers toward prioritising cost over ethics, but the emotional burden of perpetual guilt can exacerbate disengagement from ethical choices.

Economic challenges likely even heighten the effects of guilt fatigue, leading individuals to rationalise less ethical choices as a way to cope with their financial realities and emotional exhaustion. Understanding this interplay provides a more comprehensive view of the factors affecting ethical consumerism and highlights the need for strategies that address both financial and psychological barriers.

Ethical marketing campaigns must account for these problems—something IKEA's "Live Lagom campaign achieves wonderfully. These are certainly the kinds of marketing campaigns I would like to see more of, where the starting point should be to think practically about how to bring about tangible solutions, which rarely involves inciting panic and guilt. The key component in all of this is not just educating consumers to become acquainted with ethical issues and the consequences of their actions, but rather providing them with a motivation to act. As we noted earlier, it’s not terribly difficult to get most on board with caring about substantive ethical problems; the difficult part is getting them to act accordingly. However, we should be mindful of the reasons why Thunberg’s rhetoric and adverts like Rang-Tan are so readily employed, as they help us understand why we need to move away from guilt-based marketing.