Myths on Political Consumerism and the ‘Real-World’-Shape of Sustainable
Consumption
Discussion paper presented at the virtual ECPR General Conference, August 26, 2020 Carolin Zorell, Örebro University
Introduction
It has become almost of a commonplace both in academia and in the public to assume that political consumerism is a means to ‘buy’ a good conscience, while having only limited ‘real-world’ resonance. Even if some producers have changed ways of production, materials used and products offered, presumably in response, the lives of a majority of people and the products they buy continue being characterised by a pattern of ecological ‘unsustainability’ (Jackson, 2007). That is, they are not configured in a way that minimises or eliminates the use of resources by re-using activated resources as much or for as long as possible1, or positively contributing to the natural environment and social wellbeing (Hansen et al., 2020). With that, typically the consumers are blamed for the misshapes of consumption, being too price-oriented, not walking their talk, being ignorant, unaware, or blatantly indifferent and egoistic (after all, it is challenging the prospects for future generations).
Studies from e.g. consumer psychology and behavioural economics fuel this image by pointing to evidence for how people that act sustainable in one moment, engage in unsustainable activities afterwards (Bellows et al., 2008; Devinney et al., 2010; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Mazar and Zhong, 2010; Padel and Foster, 2005; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Likewise, the so-called ‘rebound effect’ observed in economies worldwide seems to support that image further (Berkhout et al., 2000; Boström and Klintman, 2019; Font Vivanco et al., 2016; Sorrell and Dimitropoulos, 2008). Even if devices and activities have in many occasions become more energy efficient, and multiple products become more environmentally friendly, (some) people appear to just use more of it, thereby offsetting the efficiency gains.
An impressive bulk of research has been amassed delineating the many structural, social and psychological facets that underlie these patterns of consumption (see e.g., Boström et al., 2005, 2019; Boström and Klintman, 2019; Koos, 2012; Ojala, 2013, 2015; Padel and Foster, 2005; Shove, 2010; Stolle and Micheletti, 2013). Therefore, rather than repeating what has already been said in this research, the current contribution seeks to challenge the persisting criticism of and pessimism about consumers
1 This comes close to environmentally friendliness or ecological impact, but it considers also the fact that few – if any – activities, especially in the context of consumption, are truly environmentally friendly or have zero ecological impact (cf. Boström and Klintman, 2019). Even so, many activities can be carried out in different ways, some of which better than others allow for “causing little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time” (definition of sustainability according to the Cambridge Dictionary Online 2020); in other words, they are more or less sustainable, even if not truly ecological.
and sustainable consumption. On the one hand, I will present some evidence challenging the assumption that activities like political consumerism serve only to put responsibilities on the shoulders of individuals, who are in fact trapped in a system in which they can and want to do little more than continuing with their usual (non-sustainable) consumption patterns mantled in green. On the other hand, following lines of e.g. Akenji (2014), Barnett et al. (2005), Maniates (2014), and Shove (2010), I reflect about the link between these prevailing criticisms and current socio-political approaches. Political and sustainable consumer ambitions seem to be currently rather co-opted and instrumentalised by the dominant mantra of economic growth. This mantra dilutes the ambitions to live sustainably through the provision of greenwashed products and services, and furnishes pessimism through the continuation of contradictory policies (and inconsistent political rhetoric).
The scope and many faces of sustainable consumption
Social scientists have traced for more than two decades the prevalence and development of ethically, environmentally and socially conscious consumption, subsumed much under labels like political consumerism or sustainable consumption. One consistent and undeniable pattern is that it is mainly highly educated persons with middle-to-high-income, who are doing so. These results, however, are often grounded on surveys asking for whether individuals have or do regularly boycott(ed) and/or buycott(ed) products for ethical, environmental or other political reasons. That is, concentrated on shopping.
Using this question format, recent data from Sweden (2019) reiterates the old pattern. As one moves up the income and education scales, also the pervasiveness of boy- and buycotting increases. However, at the same time, the figures show that buying and boycotting products for political reasons has become more and more common, also among other social strata. Put simply, while social differences persist, these differences have moved upwards in the percentages. This is particularly visible for buycotting, while to a lesser extent for boycotting (see table 1).
Table 1. Buycotting and boycotting across levels of income and education
Income Education
Regularly (monthly or more often)…
Low Middle High Sig. N Low Med.-low Med.-high High Sig. N Buycotting 45.0 57.3 66.4 .000 1498 32.8 47.1 61.6 71 .000 1578 Boycotting 24.3 29.1 31.9 .000 1495 11.2 20.4 31.5 36.7 .000 1576
Note: Measure of correlation is Gamma, the calculations are based on unweighted data. The data was obtained as part of the Swedish nationally representative SOM-Study, conducted in Summer/Fall 2019.
However, shopping is just one of several forms through which individuals practice sustainability in their everyday lives. Research extending the perspective beyond buy- and/or boycotting shows “that citizens from all social backgrounds practice sustainable citizenship. Yet they do so through different forms of practices, adjusted to their capabilities” (Zorell and Yang, 2019, 1). While some buy- and
boycott, others focus (more) on reducing consumption or changing everyday habits, including transportation means used (Zorell and Yang, 2019). This wider perspective underpins how widespread concern and action with respect to sustainability are.
What the same work presents as well is that the activities and attitudes which are associated with political consumerism suggest it as a form of highly committed change making. It grounds on practical purchasing rules looking for healthy, ecologically and fairly produced products (e.g., Micheletti and Stolle, 2012, 107-9; Zorell and Yang, 2019, 15). And, it grounds on a consistent and high support for norms of solidarity and engaged citizenship (e.g., Micheletti et al., 2012, 156-7; Micheletti and Stolle, 2012, 109-11; Zorell and Yang, 2019, 17).
This commitment argument is supported by another empirical observation. Sustainability is not only practiced by people individually and detached from each other. Original data from the Swedish survey reveals that individuals discuss with others very much the political issues regarding consumption and influence each other to consider that in their consumption (table 2). Thus, it seems to be not about being merely an individual means to feeling ‘good’. There is a political concern underlying the individual activities, which is shared with fellow people in discussion and expressed in deliberate attempts to make others considerate of the consequences of their consumption.
In fact, interpersonal influencing seems to be quite important. Of those who have never buycotted, 67.2 per cent report never having been influenced by others either. In contrast, of those who regularly (i.e., monthly or more often) buycott, 61.4 per cent report so. Similarly, though a bit less expressively, of those who never boycotted, 59.4 per cent report that no one has ever tried to consider political issues at consumption. Whereas 66.7 per cent of those who regularly boycott report otherwise. This points to the great social element in sustainable consumption, visible in two ways.
Table 2. Interpersonal discussion and influencing of political consumption across levels of income and education
Income Education
Low Middle High Sig. N Low Med.-low Med.-high High Sig. N Regularly¹ discussing 29.9 40.8 50.6 .000 1492 17.3 32.4 46.2 54.1 .000 1573 Having (ever) been influenced 41.8 53.4 61.5 .000 1493 29.3 50.0 60.1 58.3 .000 1574
Note: Gamma measure of correlation. Data obtained as part of the Swedish nationally representative SOM-Study, conducted in Summer/Fall 2019. ¹Regularly meaning once a month or more often.
First, it might help explain an interesting pattern from table 1. It is somewhat counterintuitive that buycotting surpasses boycotting even among those with fewer monetary resources. After all, buycotting often means buying more expensive products, whereas boycotting means to rather costless rejecting something. However, the link is tight with education, and this applies not only to boy- and buycotting, but also for instance to reducing consumption (Zorell and Yang, 2019, 14). The same is observable for abstaining from travelling. From a financial vantage point, to travel less should be expected to be equally
accessible for richer as for poorer people. Despite that, analyses of the data from Sweden (2019) show that it is mainly those with high income and, more strikingly, those with high education, who abstain from travelling for ecological reasons. Hence, engagement seems to be more a matter of education, and thus likely of awareness and knowledge, rather than of practical feasibility per se.
Second, as table 2 illustrates, awareness and knowledge are spread among peers, thus pointing to a key role of the social circles in which a person is immersed. It is in these social settings, where knowledge and awareness can be shared, peer-pressure exerted, and the potentially gained ambitions, intentions and motivations be translated into actions – or inhibited from doing so.
In sum, the continuously risen levels of engagement with political and sustainable consumption suggest that is not just a trend or sporadic mood (see also Anderson, 2018). For most political consumers, it is indeed about making a political statement in favour of re-programming production and consumption towards ecological sustainability, and about contributing their own part to it. This is expressed through a variety of actions, including the use of discussion and persuasion. This broader perspective reveals that sustainability and sustainable consumption is not just something practiced by a middle-class in individualised societies, which strives to differentiate itself from others and feel good. It has real-world relevance and resonance, grounded on political ambitions shared across social classes.
The limits of sustainable consumption and political consumerism
Just as a large fraction of the studies concerned with political and sustainable consumption centre on the individual level, also political approaches tend to do so. Put simply, common political measures and the associated rhetoric target individuals, underscoring their responsibility. The common tune is to put faith in market-mechanisms, assuming that individuals in their roles as responsible consumers will take ‘the right decisions’, thus signalling demand and pressure to firms to embrace sustainability.
However, real-world developments speak another language. Looking at figures for plastic production (Geyer et al., 2017, 3), meat consumption (Ritchie, 2017), numbers of cars on the streets (OICA, 2015; Worldometer, 2020), or CO2 emissions (Ritchie and Roser, 2017), as only a few examples, showcases that this faith is insufficient. Without doubt, as highlighted above sustainable consumption has increased and spread out widely. Nonetheless, the overall pattern is that lifestyles have become more unsustainable and push beyond the “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al., 2009) – in spite or alongside a continuously increasing knowledge about the dire consequences of such.
One problem can be seen in the fact that engagement with sustainable action is embedded in social worlds and much dependent on the structural arrangements and social circles in which a person is embedded. Results from an observation study conducted in Sweden in 2019 by the author show how individuals mimic each other in everyday life. This includes seemingly tiny behaviours with yet important consequences for the environment.2 The same study also revealed that rearranging the choice
architectures in which individuals act and decide, to make environmentally sustainable behaviour easy, does not necessarily change the choices. Individuals choose as their peers do, and if these peers choose a non-sustainable product, they likely do so, too. Hence, if knowledge and awareness about the consequences of consumption is present in some, but not in others, sustainable action is doomed to continue being limited to certain social circles only.
In addition, social circles tend to be segregated and people tend to gravitate towards people that are similar to them. Hence, they remain in contact with relatively homogenous kinds of people (e.g., Al Ramiah et al., 2015; Aral et al., 2009; Centola, 2011). With this, the diffusion of knowledge and awareness across circles is difficult. What is more, the wish to distinguish the own social group from others can lead to the deliberate rejection of adopting consumption patterns embraced by the other group.
In this way, current market mechanisms, which rely very much on market and product segmentation to speak to specific kinds (groups) of people, are likely to be inhibiting and in fact acting explicitly counter a real sustainable transformation of consumption, and of societies more in general. A good example is the use of the colour and label ‘green’ on products and services with the ambition to suggest the product is ecological and to speak to those consumers that want to consume (more) sustainably and ecological. In the same go, however, these products and services can become less attractive or even unbearable to others who wish to differentiate themselves from this group.
An associated risk is that political consumer ambitions can easily be co-opted and instrumentalised through their presumable integration with the dominant mantra of economic growth. According to this mantra, everything can just go on as it does, since in the medium- to long-term, aware and knowledgeable consumers will shift their demand towards what is sustainable, and thus incentivise companies to shift their production, too. The argumentation is typically joined with the assumption that growth and the respective demand will lead to technological advancements (e.g., Jackson, 2007, 257). Such advancements are assumed to improve efficiency and productivity of production, and with that the sustainability of consumption and lifestyles. Apart from the various arguments provided above opposing or at least questioning this faith, the mantra can be put in question for a variety of reasons. On the one hand, it conflates production and consumption, ignoring that consumption is more than only using up a product or service that was produced (e.g., Warde, 2004). On the other hand, it can dilute ambitions to live sustainably through the provision of greenwashed products and services. That is, people may end up believing that they themselves are already living ‘sustainably’, while in ecological terms they are not.
Moreover, the mantra clashes with ambitions to live sustainably as it continues to build upon the assumption that ever rising scales of production and consumption are desirable and improving the wellbeing of society, and single persons (see Jackson, 2007). With this, one can observe a continuation of policy-making that is contradictory to or countervailing efforts to make societies sustainable, which would need to rethink fundamentally the allocation of time and resources. A paradigmatic case is the procedures surrounding the re-opening of businesses and implementation of financial packages after the lockdowns for the covid-19 pandemic. While e.g. in Europe, political leaders stated funds should be tied
to ecological targets and requirements, the measures were at the same time accompanied by politicians urging individuals to ‘go shopping to save the economy’ (i.e., return to pre-covid-19 patterns of over-consumption). This unveils the half-hearted rhetoric and ongoing inaction with respect to facing what a transformation really would require.
Putting all the blame and responsibility on the end-consumer then seems like mockery and a strategy to circumnavigate dealing with the real measures that are needed (Jackson, 2007). This includes the necessity to question some of the pillars upon which modern societies are built: unlimited economic growth (focused only on GDP), full employment (making it in its current setup necessary to produce ever more things people do not really need, but even so shall buy since it suggests ‘growth’ on paper), and ever rising consumption (buying things people do not need but someone produced and thus need be sold). Also, it seems like shifting attention away from the political inaction with respect to those large-scale polluters who seem to make sustainable consumption so difficult for the consumers, and where the fundamental change really could happen: industry, companies, and the socio-structural settings in which individuals are embedded, but which they themselves alone can change only little (if at all).
Taking responsibilities off the shoulders of individuals
In summary, the discussion challenges three common critiques of political consumerism. First, looking at the attitudes and activities that are associated with political consumerism, it stands out as a form of highly committed change making and major aspect of ‘real-world’ sustainable consumption. Second, whereas political consumerism is correlated with higher education, social class, and income levels, citizens from all social backgrounds practice sustainability. They just do so in different ways adjusted to their capabilities. Third, the discussion of political issues regarding consumption among individuals and their interpersonal encouragement to get involved in political and sustainable consumption are strikingly pervasive.
This underlines the need to break away from prejudices towards political consumerism and recognise it as what it is: as one way of committed individuals to practice sustainable consumption, and one means to spread the word of socio-ecological change and actions towards promoting such change. Nonetheless, political consumer ambitions are vulnerable to being co-opted and instrumentalised by the dominant mantra of economic growth and excessive faith in technological advances. Both can thin out true ambitions to live sustainably through the provision of greenwashed products and services, and through the continuation of policies and business practices which in fact are countervailing a sustainable transformation.
Usual public discussions and political measures centre on consumption and the individual citizens. Yet all too easily, this approach conflates where much of resource consumption, pollution and non-sustainable practices are originating, with the use of the goods that had been produced previously in harmful ways (Jackson, 2007, 258). Also, it blinds out facing some fundamental facets that continue favouring non-sustainable behaviours: the common structures of consumption and lifestyle, lack of
information and transparency, norms and social pressures conflicting with sustainability, to name only a few. In these contexts, even if individuals theoretically want to act sustainably, and frequently do so, they may be forced or relapse to the opposite due to inertia or other pressures at other times (Boström, 2020; Shove et al., 2012; Warde, 2004).
The discussion then points to two conclusions (which are likely not exhaustive) for what needs further serious consideration in dealing with sustainable consumption both in research and in politics. To tackle current environmental challenges, it needs more than only a select number of people changing some of their consumption patterns. Yet, gaining a few people that connect different social circles may be a first effective and viable means to foster the spreading of new patterns of behaviour and their acceptance across social environments. In this vein, there is excellent research undertaken recently on how changes may work through having the ‘right’ people change their actions. In the study of having more people get vaccinated or adopting other health behaviours, (Banerjee et al., 2014; Banjeree et al., 2018) illustrate that there are identifiable ‘central’ individuals who can act as “seeds” that educate and spread new behaviour more effectively than other people. Likewise, Paluck, Shepherd and colleagues identify “social referents” at schools (Paluck et al., 2016; Paluck and Shepherd, 2012; Shepherd and Paluck, 2015), while Gladwell speaks of “connectors”, “mavens”, and “salesmen” (2002, 70). Centola (2018) adds that for a behaviour to spread, the diffusion by opinion leaders needs to be accompanied by reinforcement among the people within the network (56-8 & 142ff; see also Centola et al. 2018; Earls 2009; Gladwell 2002; Janssen and Jager 2001; Otto et al. 2019, 3). Once set in motion, such social dynamics can be very strong. In particular when a community reaches social ‘tipping points’ (Centola et al., 2018; Doyle et al., 2016; Gladwell, 2002; Otto et al., 2019), for which critical majorities can be already small percentages (Centola et al. 2018, 360; Otto et al. 2019, 3).3 Hence, if such persons and network conditions can be activated for sustainable action and the diffusions of its acceptance across social groups, it may spread effectively and extensively, also by the help of social mechanisms like (un)conscious following and mimicking.
Second, it needs real ambitions of those in power. Where pollution and harm, and the power for change, are co-occurring, is politics and business. It is at these levels, where more ambitious laws, bans, and other concrete measures and actions are needed to advance the transformation of society and current lifestyles towards being sustainable. This should be combined with upfront communication and transparency about the urgency of the issue. Many people (especially in the most polluting countries) tend to oppose environmental measures because they want everything to remain as it is and “always has been” – overlooking that the way in which they are living today is fundamentally different from how it has been only ten years ago. So, there seems to be a great need and potential for a fundamental change
3 Studies of technology and business solutions, of consumer trends, and of health-care and health-behaviours (among others), come to a pretty much shared conclusion, suggesting that a 17 to 20 per cent market or population share “can be sufficient to cross the tipping point and scale up to become the dominant pattern” (Otto et al. 2019, 3).
in the common rhetoric about everyday lives. If ambitious endeavours are paired with a communication that is less ideologically tainted, upfront and positive by ‘central persons’ and opinion leaders, making sustainable change happen can become societally viable. After all, the experiences from the recent covid-19 pandemic have shown that fundamental changes are viable if accompanied by honest, transparent, coherent, understandable, and indiscriminate communication and action.
References
Akenji L (2014) Consumer Scapegoatism and Limits to Green Consumerism. Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 13–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022.
Al Ramiah A, Schmid K, Hewstone M, et al. (2015) Why are All the White (Asian) Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Resegregation and the Role of Intergroup Attributions and Norms. British Journal of Social Psychology 54(1): 100–124. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12064.
Anderson M (2018) Fair Trade and Consumer Social Responsibility: Exploring Consumer Citizenship as a Driver of Social and Environmental Change. Management Decision 56(3): 634–651. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.
Aral S, Muchnik L and Sundararajan A (2009) Distinguishing Influence-based Contagion from Homophily-driven Diffusion in Dynamic Networks. PNAS 106(51): 21544–21549. Available at: https://www-pnas-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/content/pnas/106/51/21544.full.pdf.
Banerjee A V., Chandrasekhar A, Duflo E, et al. (2014) Gossip: Identifying Central Individuals in a Social Network. NBER Working Paper w20422. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2425379.
Banjeree A V., Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, et al. (2018) Using Gossips to Spread Information: Theory and Evidence from two Randomized Controlled Trials. MIT Department of Economics Working Paper 14–15. Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425379.
Barnett C, Clarke N, Cloke P, et al. (2005) The Political Ethics of Consumerism. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/7143/.
Bellows AC, Onyango B, Diamond A, et al. (2008) Understanding Consumer Interest in Organics: Production Values vs. Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 6(1): Article 2. DOI: 10.2202/1542-0485.1169.
Berkhout PHG, Muskens JC and Velthuijsen JW (2000) Defining the Rebound Effect. Energy Policy 28: 425–432.
Boström M (2020) The Social Life of Mass and Excess Consumption. Environmental Sociology: 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2020.1755001.
Boström M and Klintman M (2019) Can We Rely On ‘Climate-friendly’ Consumption? Journal of Consumer Culture 19(3): 359–378. DOI: 10.1177/1469540517717782.
Boström M, Follesdal A, Klintman M, et al. (2005) Political Consumerism: Its Motivations, Power, and Conditions in the Nordic Countries and Elsewhere. In: Proceedings from the 2nd
International Seminar on Political Consumerism, Oslo August 26-29 (eds M Boström, A Follesdal, M Klintman, et al.), København, 2005, pp. 319–339. Nordisk Ministerråd.
Boström M, Micheletti M and Oosterveer P (2019) Studying Political Consumerism. In: Boström M, Micheletti M, and Oosterveer P (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–24. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.44.
Centola D (2011) An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health Behavior. Science 334(6060): 1269–1272. DOI: 10.1126/science.1207055.
1116–1119. DOI: 10.1126/science.360.6393.1082-d.
Devinney TM, Auger P, Eckhardt GM, et al. (2010) The Appeal and Reality of Ethical Consumerism. The Myth of the Ethical Consmer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doyle C, Sreenivasan S, Szymanski BK, et al. (2016) Social Consensus and Tipping Points with Opinion Inertia. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 443: 316–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.081.
Earls M (2009) Herd. How to Change Mass Behaviour By Harnessing Our True Nature. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Font Vivanco D, Kemp R and van der Voet E (2016) How to Deal with the Rebound Effect? A Policy-oriented Approach. Energy Policy 94. Elsevier: 114–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.054. Geyer R, Jambeck JR and Law KL (2017) Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made.
Science Advances 3(7): e1700782. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Gladwell M (2002) The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Back Bay Books.
Hansen AR, Jack T, Laakso S, et al. (2020) Sustainable Consumption Research: Where Should We Go From Here? ESA midterm RN5, Online Conference, 2020. Available at:
https://blogs.helsinki.fi/nonesco/2020/08/12/citizenship-and-consumption-in-the-climate-emergency/.
International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) (2015) World Vehicles in Use. Available at: http://www.oica.net/category/vehicles-in-use/ (accessed 20 August 2020). Jackson T (2007) Sustainable Consumption. In: Atkinson G, Dietz S, and Neumayer E (eds)
Handbook of Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 254–268. Kollmuss A and Agyeman J (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3): 239–260. DOI: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
Maniates M (2014) Sustainable Consumption - Three Paradoxes. Gaia 23: 201–208. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.23.S1.8.
Mazar N and Zhong C-B (2010) Do Green Products Make Us Better People? Psychological Science 21(4): 494–498. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610363538.
Micheletti M and Stolle D (2012) Sustainable Citizenship and the New Politics of Consumption. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644(1): 88–120. DOI: 10.1177/0002716212454836.
Micheletti M, Stolle D and Berlin D (2012) Habits of Sustainable Citizenship: The Example of Political Consumerism. In: Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, 2012. Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 12. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.
Otto IM, Donges JF, Bhowmik A, et al. (2019) Social Tipping Dynamics for Stabilizing Earth’s Climate by 2050. Pnas. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900577117.
Padel S and Foster C (2005) Exploring the Gap Between Attitudes and Behaviour: Understanding Why Consumers Buy or Do Not Buy Organic Food. British Food Journal 107(8): 606–625. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.
Paluck EL and Shepherd HS (2012) The Salience of Social Referents: A Field Experiment on Collective Norms and Harassment Behavior in a School Social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(6): 899–915. DOI: 10.1037/a0030015.
Paluck EL, Shepherd H and Aronow PM (2016) Correction: Changing Climates of Conflict: A Social Network Experiment in 56 Schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(3): 566–571. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804429115.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#global-meat-production (accessed 20 August 2020).
Ritchie H and Roser M (2017) Annual Total CO₂ Emissions, by World Region. Available at:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed 20 August 2020). Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. (2009) A Safe Operation Space for Humanity. Nature
461(September): 472–475.
Shepherd H and Paluck EL (2015) Stopping the Drama: Gendered Influence in a Network Field Experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly 78(2): 173–193. DOI: 10.1177/0190272515581212. Shove E (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change.
Environment and Planning A 42(6): 1273–1285. DOI: 10.1068/a42282.
Shove E, Pantzar M and Watson M (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage Publications.
Sorrell S and Dimitropoulos J (2008) The Rebound Effect: Microeconomic Definitions, Limitations and Extensions. Ecological Economics 65(3): 636–649. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013. Stolle D and Micheletti M (2013) Political Consumerism. Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vermeir I and Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(2): 169–194. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3.
Warde A (2004) Theories of Practice as an Approach to Consumption. Manchester.
Worldometer (2020) Car Production. Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/cars/ (accessed 20 August 2020).
Zorell C V. and Yang M (2019) Real-world Sustainable Citizenship Between Political Consumerism and Material Practices. Social Sciences 8(11). DOI: 10.3390/socsci8110311.
