Social incentives as a solution
A large section of the population are concerned about the environment and the effects of climate change (Pirani and Secondi, 2011) although environmental knowledge or concern are not sufficient for stimulating eco-friendly behaviour (Sorqvist et al, 2016; Schanes et al, 2018; Taufique et al, 2016). On the production side additional stakeholders have emerged to promote and monitor sustainability, with several consortiums of business and non-profit organisations working to improve sustainability of global food production (Pandey et al, 2019). On the consumption side, however, sustainability remains a niche concern.
Bjelle et al (2017) suggest that consumption behaviour must change to achieve the targets. Several factors have been shown to affect sustainability intentions and behaviour such as habits (Russell et al, 2017), motivation (Grunert et al, 2013), perceived consumer effectiveness, self-efficacy and group-efficacy (Reese and Junge, 2017), availability and social pressure, an absence of such factors often leads to an ‘attitude-behaviour gap’ (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). The sustainability attitude-behaviour gap in the concerned public can be exploited by producers using marketing materials for eco-friendly products in the absence of alternative behavioural prompts. Valerio-Ureña and Rogers (2019) show that internet searches related to energy-saving return mostly marketing material for electronic products, but little associated with sustainable choices in other behaviour.
One of the most prominent examples of a sustainable behaviour prompt is food producers using ‘eco-labels’ to increase sales of their eco-friendly products. Hundreds of food labelling schemes have been devised and implemented across the world to indicate various attributes such as Fair Trade certification, GHG emissions or carbon footprint (Grunert et al, 2013). In many cases, using labels can influence consumers’ choice of product (Elofsson et al, 2015) and have even enhanced consumers’ evaluation of unrelated aspects of products such as their taste or health benefits (Sorqvist et al, 2016). Although eco-labels can increase an environmentally-concerned consumer’s appetite for a given product, it is not clear whether they improve the general public’s sustainability attitude or behaviour.
While choosing more economical electrical goods and eco-labelled products is likely to benefit the environment, there are many other areas for improvement in the general public’s sustainability behaviour which do not have producers as interested stakeholders. Although consumers may have a financial incentive to reduce consumption, research shows that cost-saving competes for priority with other conflicting factors such as perceived food safety, freshness and being a good provider (Schanes et al, 2018) so consumers may be conflicted with regards to overall consumption reduction.
Behaviours not typically targeted by product-marketing include turning off lights, driving economically, recycling, reducing food waste, choosing less carbon-intense products and generally conserving energy, water and natural resources. Such areas are primarily the concern of the consumer and, to a lesser extent, governments or charities. It has been suggested that policy makers and regulators should intervene to promote sustainable behaviour in areas where no major stakeholders exist such as reducing domestic food waste (Schanes et al, 2018; Dou et al, 2016) and plastic consumption (Vince and Hardesty, 2018; Iverson, 2019). Those intending to influence individual and collective behaviour in these areas must adopt various strategies to achieve the desired result.
Previous studies attempted to map the determinants of home energy use (Fell and Chiu, 2013; Hall and Allen, 2014; Yang et al, 2015), use of eco-friendly packaging (Tifferet et al, 2017) and the decision to commute by car or a greener alternative (Johansson-Stenman, 2002; Hjorthol and Fyhri, 2008; Zhang et al, 2013; Hall and Allen, 2014; Astegiano et al, 2015; Cherry et al, 2015; Clark et al, 2015; Lieven, 2015; van der Waerden et al, 2015; Campbell et al, 2016; Liu et al, 2016; Hayden et al, 2017; Simsekoglu & Klöckner, 2018; Becker and Carmi, 2019; Mehdizadeh et al, 2019; Romanowska et al, 2019) and while no intervention was performed by the authors, the findings could inform future solutions. Other studies which have performed interventions in controlled laboratory settings such as the effect of social norms on recycled water consumption (Leong and Lebel, 2019) or different food labels on locally sourced food sales (Li et al, 2019). Such studies may also inform potential solutions, but field research would be needed before these can be implemented as real world solutions to climate change.
There have been several studies which have included real world interventions to promote sustainable choices through different methods often divided into two categories: Motivational interventions and volitional interventions (Lee and Walker, 2019).
Van Houwelinger and Van Raaij (1989) demonstrated how goal-setting and consumer feedback can be instrumental in reducing home energy use in a study involving 258 households. Goette et al (2019) investigated the effect of interventions on home water use. Elofsson et al (2015) showed that displaying climate information in stores can increase the demand for climate-certified milk over a four-week period. Shah et al (2019) suggest that punishment can reduce energy misuse in the public sector. Lee and Walker (2019) reported on the effect of motivational posters on elevator use in student halls. Several studies have shown the effect of social norms on elevator use, towel re-use and turning off PCs (Poskus, 2016).
Influencing Individuals
Willis et al (2019) investigated how the installation of water refill stations effected single-use plastic bottle waste although the absence of a control group in this study brings the reliability of the results into question. Theoretical findings?
Poortinga and Whitaker (2018) used various interventions to reduce the use of disposable cups and reported on their comparative success. Theoretical findings?
Changing behaviour and COVID-19 pandemic
Even where benefits can be demonstrated, established consumption patterns can be a barrier to potential wider impact necessitating a change in either consumer behaviour, services or both (Beitzen-Heineke et al, 2017). Supermarkets have been described as gatekeepers of the food supply chain (Fox and Vorley, 2004), holding significant influence over the consumption habits of the end consumer. In recent years, some supermarkets have taken a more sustainable approach to packaging to appeal to environmentally concerned customers, but packaging waste continues to rise. Shopping practices and food shortages during the lockdown could trigger the start of consumers acting in ways that could solve these problems.
The outbreak of COVID-19, declared a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO) 11th March 2020 (WHO, 2020), lead to the majority of countries implementing at least partial lockdown despite negative projections for national and global economies to ensure the welfare of the populous. The UK government, for example, introduced The Coronavirus Act 2020 (The Stationary Office, 2020) placing restrictions on public mobility. The lockdown, while not desirable, has generated several areas of potential progress for sustainable behaviour.
Tolvik Consulting (2020) estimates that UK residual waste will reduce by between 2% and 6% due to COVID-19. Reduced food waste has been reported during lockdown in the UK due to, among other things, reduced sales of takeaway and ready meals and better food management strategies such as keeping inventory, writing lists and planning meals (WRAP, 2020). In the context of changing consumer behaviour in response to the 2020 UK lockdown, an investigation into the barriers to the implementation of the concepts previously mentioned, could provide a breakthrough for sustainability in society. Whether these changes are short-term necessary adjustments that cease as the lockdown eases or indications of changing long-term attitudes and behaviours is likely to be an area of interest in the field of climate change mitigation. May studies have shown the effectiveness of various treatments to improve sustainable behaviour. With proper application, these treatments could be used to increase participation in the FPRCs discussed previously.
Behaviour change treatments
Effective strategies for improving sustainable behaviour have included motivational posters (Lee and Walker, 2019) goal-setting (Van Houwelinger and Van Raaij, 1989), providing informative prompts (Elofsson et al, 2015) and punishment (Shah et al, 2019).
Interventions such as that of Willis et al (2019) which aim to reduce the inconvenience of sustainable behaviour will be considered as a subject of enquiry in this project. The authors investigated how the installation of water refill stations effected single-use plastic bottle waste although the absence of a control group in this study brings the reliability of the results into question. Deliberate location of facilities for DRS, for example, could improve participation.
Habits
Habits can be defined in several ways (Camic, 1986; Clark et al, 2007) of which some may be applicable to food shopping behaviour. The lockdown has enabled, and in many cases necessitated, a change in shopping behaviour of individuals. Therein lies an opportunity for ceasing existing shopping habits which might not have otherwise been presented. While new adaptive habits can be formed by consistent repetition within a given context (Lally et al, 2009; Wood and Runger, 2016), cessation of existing maladaptive habits would usually require the additional trait of individual self-control or willpower (Adriaanse, 2014).
The context in which the behaviour occurs acts as a conditioned stimulus and enforces habits. Significant life events such as moving home, changing jobs, or having children have been reported to encourage and change in an individual’s behaviour as they can often remove the conditioned stimulus, although the success targeting such events to promote a desired changed is dependent on the method and timing of treatment (Schäfer et al, 2012). A world-wide event affecting millions of people, such as the lockdown, could be a significant life event circumventing the self-control requirement and is therefore an opportunity to observe a habit-breaking stimulus working on a large-scale. Individuals in different CDM style groups might be more prone to habitual shopping behaviour so likelihood of habit cessation and formation could also vary between individuals grouped by factor clusters (Sproles and Kendal, 1986; Anić et al, 2014). Of course, without conscious intent individuals could just as easily break adaptive habits and form maladaptive habits because of the lockdown. Re-introduction of the original context could also restart the conditioned response (Schwartz, 1984, p.121-122). Once again this makes the lockdown a unique area of interest with implications for the theoretical literature. For most life events listed above, the individuals rarely change back to the original context so it cannot be determined whether the existing context-response relationship has been unlearned or whether it is simply no longer activated (prison sentences could be comparable although the sentence itself is a treatment for a previous pattern of behaviour).
Hypotheses (potential)
- Adaptive habits can form in the presence of any two of three crucial factors:
- Attitude/intention
- Intervention
- Context shift (including life events described in literature)
- Chronologically could be illustrated as: Intervention > Attitude > Behaviour (in absence of existing habit) > Habit
- Adaptive habits are more likely to form if all three are present
- Packaging waste creation can be considered as a habit to some extent. Packaging waste can therefore be reduced with effective treatments which adjust other habits such as exercise, substance use, diet.