Individual responsibility versus collective action: An examination of the impact of environmental advertising
Does the individualization of environmentalism have any merits? Can it successfully co-exist with collective action? Environmental advertising (or â€œgreenâ€ advertising) assures consumers that they can evoke positive environmental change by adopting simple habits and by purchasing green goods provided by companies (Maniates, 2001). These include wearing clothing made from sustainable fibres, consuming local and organic food, purchasing hybrid cars or choosing cosmetics made with natural ingredients. However, some environmental scholars such as Michael Maniates have criticized these actions as greenwashing which individualizes environmental problems.
The tension at the heart of consumer culture is that it is a fragile system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely (Varey, 2001). The resources needed to extract, produce, transport, and advertise the products that consumers take for granted are being used up at an alarming rate, with devastating environmental costs. We all know this. Consumer culture has received ever-increasing blame for the environmental crisis, which marketing responds to with â€œgreen advertisingâ€.
Michael Maniatesâ€™ research (2001) provides an insightful critique of this individualization associated with green marketing. Green advertising, he argues, coyly sidesteps the underlying issues of overconsumption and individualization, in the attempt to preserve familiar, comfortable patterns of consumption. According to Maniates, true environmental action would involve long term solutions such as collective public policy that reduces our consumption patterns and breaks our reliance on fossil fuels. This perspective argues that within green advertising, larger social patterns and powers are ignored and civic action is disregarded as a viable solution. Instead, individualization places all blame (as well as all responsibility for action) on individual consumers. In reality, however, green advertising is sustained through a capitalist system that is innately un-environmental in its need for constant growth and the development of new markets. Goldman and Papson (1996) share these sentiments, claiming that the entire purpose of advertising is to create demand for products, and therefore advertising is inherently un-environmental.
Citizenship vs Consumption
But maybe green advertising has benefits that cannot be disregarded. First, in order to fully grasp the complexities of contemporary culture, it is necessary to broaden the traditional definitions of â€œconsumptionâ€ and â€œcitizenshipâ€. Maniates asserts that â€œthe individualization of responsibility, because it characterizes environmental problems as the consequence of destructive consumer choice, asks that individuals imagine themselves as consumers first and citizens secondâ€ (2001, p. 34). However, I wish to counter this idea and maintain an alternative view of the coupling of the â€œcitizen-consumerâ€. Trentmann agrees that this phenomenon leaves social change to the realm of consumption, but argues that this new form cannot be overlooked. Thus, the conventional definitions are no longer satisfactory. Citizenship â€“too often see as irrelevant and stuffyâ€“ is being transformed. As Trentmann asserts, â€œthe political is backâ€ (2007, p. 147). Consumption and citizenship do not have to be viewed as a zero-sum game. In fact, consumers are increasingly concerned about political ideas within their consumption habitsâ€”consumer boycotts, Fair Trade Certified alternatives and concerns over sweatshops are all examples of this.
Muldoonâ€™s research draws on the concept of the citizen-consumer in the realm of environmentalism. For instance, as Muldoon argues (2006), people have different ways of being politically active, and the marketplace may be an arena for individuals who shy away from politics to be active in environmentalism. Others argue that it is often easier for voices to be heard within the marketplace than within politics. Since companies are afraid of losing business, they may be more likely to respond to public opinion. Here, green marketing has a useful purpose and can fill the voids in collective public action (Muldoon, 2006).
Although Maniates (2001) argues that environmental change is not possible in the realm of the individual consumer, the fact remains that in several cases, (such as some food and personal hygiene products) consumption may be inevitableâ€”so why not offer environmentally-friendly alternatives? Perhaps, green advertising offers consumers a reminder and an opportunity to engage with their environmental values on an ongoing basis. Seyfang also arrives at the conclusion that individual environmentally-conscious consumption is a â€œnecessary complementâ€ to more radical actionâ€”necessary because people require some purchased goods (2005, p. 302).
Empowering the Individual?
A second argument claims that green advertisingâ€™s individualization is not detrimental because it acts as an empowering force for individuals. As previously mentioned, there was a high level of concern for the environment among Americans in the 90s. However, citizensâ€™ actions do not reflect this level of concern. This is a situation that is still extremely relevant. The authors believe that environmental advertising can be remarkably effective at empowering individuals to act on their environmental concerns. Cobb-Walgren, Ellen and Wienerâ€™s telephone survey measured perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and environmental concern. Perceived consumer effectiveness is defined as the â€œbelief that the efforts of an individual can make a difference in the solution to a problemâ€ (1991, p. 103).
However, not all advertising is equally effective in empowering consumers. Interestingly, it appears that the more â€œlightheartedâ€ advertising (advertising which serious environmentalists may critique) is more effective. The authors suggest that marketing may wish to avoid discussing how dire a situation is (what they call the â€œsick babyâ€ appeal), or else individuals will be completely overwhelmed and will not feel that there is anything they can do. As they argue, â€œone can think he or she is guilty of contributing to the problem without thinking he or she has the power to solve the problemâ€ (p. 105).
What is suggested instead of the â€œsick babyâ€ approach is marketing campaigns that show how individuals are making an impact through their daily decisions. For instance, Encorp (a Canadian recycling company) regularly features advertising that mentions the positive impact of individualsâ€™ decisions. One of their newspaper ads proudly declares: â€œJust by recycling your beverage containers you help keep the equivalent of 126,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases out of BCâ€™s atmosphereâ€ (Encorp, 2009). This way, people will be inspired to do more. The authors believe that this can be done without minimizing the importance of the issue at hand. In effect, the authors do not dismiss green advertising as a marketing campaign. Instead, they see it as a valuable tactic in warding off sentiments of hopelessness. As they argue, â€œboth public and private policymakers who seek to encourage voluntary behavior on behalf of the environment should try to enhance consumer perceptions that their own actions will improve the environmentâ€ (1991, p. 111).
Therefore, these findings suggest that green advertisingâ€™s individualization of environmental action is not wholly detrimental. Green advertising may help to raise an individualâ€™s personal sense of control in the problems of environmental destruction, causing more action to be taken. This is a key point that Maniates may have overlooked. Although collective action is perhaps the key element in positive change, individual empowerment may be the important precursor to collective action. In this way, individual action and collective action are not at odds.
Greater Effects: Voluntary Simplicity
Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that individual green consumption can actually lead to more significant action. Voluntary simplicity (VS) refers to the trend of adopting a lifestyle with little consumption and material goods (Kumju et al., 2006). This decision is noteworthy because it is born out of personal choice rather than economic necessity such as poverty or war. Voluntary simplicity is not necessarily new, but the researchers have uncovered a significant new element to add to the theory: beginner voluntary simplicity (BVS). Beginner voluntary simplifiers are not true voluntary simplifiers yet, but are important precursors in the process. They may not reduce their overall consumption, but have taken measures to purchase environmentally-friendly options (Kumju et al., 2006). Because of this, beginner voluntary simplifiers are a crucial target market for green advertising.
Essentially, consumption can be seen as a continuum rather than a binary, with voluntary simplicity on one side, and extreme consumerism on the other. This allows for the possibility of change. The authors decided to study this unique group to decide what steps they were taking, and what motivated them to take part in BVS. The authors determine that although advancement from BVS to VS is certainly not inevitable, there is a group of beginner voluntary simplifiers named â€œapprentice simplifiersâ€ who will eventually become true voluntary simplifiers (Kumju et al., 2006). The role of green advertising is quite high for this group, the authors suggest, as they may â€œrely on more accessible and mainstream media, as well as actual product information on packagingâ€ (Kumju et al., 2006, p. 526). Green advertising has educational appeal to this group of BVS.
What do you think?
After weighing the different arguments, Muldoon explains, â€œthe game of sustainable living begins when more people can play. And anything that encourages greater contemplation of, and participation in, green issues is worth examiningâ€ (2006, para. 46). Here, I believe Muldoon is correct. Collective environmental groups are made up of individualsâ€”empowered individuals who believe real change can be made. For this reason, it is simply not possible to altogether discount green advertising, and the individual action that stems from it. Green advertising and green consumerism can provide a place for the union of individual and collective action.
Therefore, I believe that individual action, though not sufficient, can be beneficial and may even strengthen areas of collective action. This is not to say that the greenwashing of products is a valuable advertising practice. Rather, I wish to avoid discounting the companies who have invested effort in the hopes of truly supplying a more environmentally-conscious product. I also want to recognize that individuals can be powerful agents of social change.
But I should open this conversation to you, the readers. Youâ€™re consumers of environmental media, and most likely buy environmentally-friendly products. What do you think? Is individual action sufficient? Is it important? Or is it just a way to continue destructive consumer culture?
Cobb-Walgren, C., Ellen, P. & Wiener, J. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 102-117. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Encorp. (2009). Beverage Containers [print ad]. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.encorp.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=914&Id=1&Se=38,58
Kumju, H., McDonald, S., Oates, C. & Young, C. W. (2006). Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515â€“534. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Goldman & Papson. (1996). Green Marketing and the Commodity Self, Sign Wars, pp. 187-215. NY, New York: Guilford Press.
Maniates, Michael. (2001). Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? Global Environmental Politics 1(3), 31-52.
Muldoon, Annie. (2006). Where the Green is: Examining the Paradox of Environmentally Conscious Consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 23. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.
Seyfang, Gill. (2005). Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship? Environmental Politics 14(2), 290-306. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Google Scholar database.
Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147-158.