The green gap: why aren't followers following the leaders?

Each day, the media is flooded with polls showing strong stated propensities from businesses and people towards more sustainable lifestyles and practices. And yet, actual behavior doesn’t reflect stated intentions. Why?

There has been a considerable focus on the consumer taking responsibility for the global environment - out of the guilt for not having paid enough attention to mother earth, its resources and its conditions. Powerful movies like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” resulted in a general call for a fundamental change in culture to close the gap between consumer behavior and intentions; yet “green guilt” is either turning people off or working timidly.

This reaction is predictable. Our proprietary research (check our bimonthly EcoPinion survey ) shows that the gap is the result of a misalignment between what customers value (really) and what it is offered to them through products, messaging, features, benefits. Our global, consumer-driven society ( governments, business, people) values consumption: consumption means wealth. In this world people value freedom of choice, esthetic, ease, comfort, quantity, convenience and low prices; an yet the same people are asked to change habits, behavior, conserve, being more efficient, less concerned about the esthetic (a wind tower above your house can be disturbing, a CFL’s shape ugly and its quality of light poor) and pay a lot more (and not being resentful for it).

The gap is made worse by the fact that consumers are likely to be portrayed as greedy and as the root cause of the problem. In case you’re wondering, consumers have taken note about this. As recently revealed in a focus group conducted by EcoAlign, some consumers are reacting rather vehemently, such as this 50 year old man who said: “it’s not that I am against making sacrifices and pay a bit more for green products and for the future of my kids; but why does it have to be just us making sacrifices? What about the corporations who have more resources than we do, what are they doing besides putting out all kinds of statements about how green they are? Are they? Are they saving energy? Are they buying biodegradable carpeting for their offices? Are they replacing their windows with the latest insulating products?” Can anyone argue against this point?

Consumers are surely individualistic but their (our) drivers are deeply rooted in the aspiration to ensure existing and future generations better opportunities - there is a sense of social responsibility associated with consumption. The fear of economic recessions and the plethora of scary predictions after poor quarterly data consumption reports that monitor the strength of an economy should be enough to prove the point. Parents strive to provide children with more opportunities they had: better life, better shoes, better clothing, bigger houses, better toys, better schools. Should they feel guilty about it?

So what’s the way out? Is guilt the driver of the new green society?

We don’t think so. An article entitled the new psychology of leadership , appeared on Scientific American Mind (Sept 2007) reveals an interesting point to explain the gap and indirectly a path forward. The article points out that for a relationship between leaders (business, governments) and followers (people) to work well it must be bound by a shared social identity and by the quest to use that identity as a blueprint for action. A social identity refers to the part of a person’s sense of self that is defined by a group (work in this area has been done in the 1970s by John C. Turner) and is made of “terminal, long-lasting values”. Social identities allow people to identify and act together as group members (for example as Catholics, as Americans, as Italians, as Republicans, as Democrats, etc.). Social identities make group behavior possible as they enable people to reach consensus on what matters to them to coordinate their actions with others and to strive for shared goals.

Why this matters? Because if a proposed social identity (save, consume less, make sacrifices, change your behavior, pay more, buy more expensive renewable energy options) is out of kilter with reality (we need more energy, more consumption to support economy, energy is a right, pay the least amount possible) then it has no prospect of being realized and it will soon be discarded in favor of more socially acceptable and easier alternatives (drill, baby, drill). Today’s narrative (shared social identity) around becoming green and changing behavior is around guilt, sacrifice, and other values that are not in sync with what society values at large. I am not discounting the science of global warming and the facts that Al Gore so eloquently describes in his powerful movie (I do take those facts very seriously and I fully believe in them). I am also fully in favor of changing behavior and I personally strive every day to do so. But I ask myself: is guilt and fear of destruction the right platform to start a conversation? Is our Titanic-like society ready to swiftly change course and embrace change and reduce energy consumption and consume less and drive less and buy more efficient and expensive windows after centuries spent valuing consumption and spending the least amount as possible to increase profits? The truth is nobody likes to be told what to do, or having fingers pointed at or being cornered with guilt.

Would followers follow their leaders if the conversation started and centered on a different set of values (abundance, prosperity)? Should the conversation be uplifting and less negative?