• Consumers want to act sustainably but face confusion and friction. Despite growing concern about climate change, vague claims, high costs, and unclear labels have made sustainable consumption difficult to navigate and slow to adopt.
• Making sustainable choices effortless and default reduces friction. By designing sustainability into product packaging, placement, and digital choice architecture, companies can turn good intentions into automatic, habitual behavior.
• Reframing higher prices as superior value boosts adoption. When sustainability is positioned as higher quality, performance, and convenience—paired with small rewards—it feels like a smart choice, not a sacrifice.
• Clearer messaging and social proof improve credibility. Standardized labels, transparent metrics, and comparison tools empower consumers to make informed decisions and reduce skepticism about greenwashing.

In recent years, the urgency of climate change has been felt and seen. What once seemed like an abstract, far-away issue has presented itself in record-breaking wildfires, floods, and heatwaves. As awareness of climate change has become woven into our everyday lives, people are beginning to factor it into their decisions. According to People’s Climate Vote 2024, 63% of respondents consider climate change when deciding where to live, work, or what to buy.¹ 

More and more people want to do their part to help the environment by making more sustainable consumption choices. While people seem motivated in theory, the reality is that people don’t follow through, revealing an intention-action gap. We may say that we’ll choose eco-friendly products, but when the time comes, we’re driven by habits and immediate benefits (like saving money). Moreover, we lack adequate knowledge on which choices are truly sustainable. Vague claims, greenwashing, and confusing labels can discourage us from making the eco-friendly choice. 

According to the 2023 NielsenIQ Green Divide report, current adoption of conscious consumerism is low, with 61% of the global population lacking the awareness, motivation, and action to consume more sustainably. Some of the biggest barriers reported are cost, lack of clarity, and limited access to sustainable options.²

If we are to close the intention-action gap, we must understand what drives consumer behavior. Sustainable options have to be framed as the easy, desirable, and default one. Since people rely on heuristics in decision-making environments, we must reduce the ambiguity associated with sustainable products and make the benefits clearer, more immediate, and more credible. 

For most people, conscious consumerism is still relatively new, especially for FMCGs. Although people often have the best intentions to consume more sustainably, that desire is often overpowered by the strong force of habit. 

In a 2020 GlobeScan survey across 27 countries, 50% of respondents said they had a strong desire to change their lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, but only 25% reported modifying their consumption behavior in the past year to align with those intentions.³ When we shop, we rely on heuristics to avoid choice overload. This is especially true in consumption categories we engage with frequently—food, household items, and personal care.

Most stores carry so many options that shopping can feel overwhelming, so we default to what we are familiar with, whether it be a brand or a specific product. Now factor in the rise of online shopping, where the number of choices increases exponentially. Instead of choosing only what’s in front of us at a physical store, we must now navigate everything available online. Even a small friction, like the mental effort of evaluating the environmental value of a product, is enough to dissuade people from making a change to their habitual purchases.³ 

One reason the sustainable choice often feels harder is that consumers lack clarity about what “sustainable” actually means. Sustainability has become a catch-all phrase and can mean a number of things: ethical supply chain practices, sustainable ingredients, or recyclable packaging.⁴ There aren’t clear, universal definitions or metrics by which products are evaluated, leaving consumers to have to do the work to judge the sustainable value of a product. According to Kantar’s 2023 survey of 112,000 respondents across 35 countries, 48% of respondents say that a big barrier to shopping sustainability is that they don’t feel equipped to identify what qualifies as a sustainable choice.⁵

There are over 400 different eco-labels or green certification systems in the market, which can lead to confusion, especially when sustainable consumption is still in its infancy.⁶ Many frequent consumption categories have products that already include a myriad of ingredients difficult to understand. Just look at the back of a sauce bottle or your shampoo—it’s likely you won’t recognize some, if not most, of them. 

Organizations often focus on interventions like advertising or even discounts to promote their sustainable products, but overlook one of the biggest barriers: the friction that prevents sustainable choices from becoming repeat decisions. While a consumer may be drawn to try a new sustainable product once if it’s marketed well, they’ll likely return to their usual purchases if there are no cues, simplified steps, or rewards to remind them to make sustainable choices. 

To bridge the gap between consumers’ intention to purchase sustainability and their actual behavior, friction must be removed and sustainable options must be presented as the easy, default option in order to become a habit. 

As data shows that people have positive attitudes towards eco-friendly products and want to shop more sustainably, turning those intentions into action requires making sustainable products easy to identify, purchase, and seamlessly integrate into existing habits.

Currently, sustainability is almost an afterthought when it comes to product packaging. A sustainable product may have a sticker indicating its eco-certification or text on the back that states its environmental impact, but these are hard to identify and require effort on the part of the consumer. Instead, sustainability should be central to the product’s design. Colors like green and blue associated with the environment should be used as strong visible cues. A 2024 study in China found that color was the design element that effectively conveyed sustainability, as it had the most immediate and strongest impression on consumers.⁷

At physical stores, there are easy ways to adapt the choice architecture to make sustainable products the most accessible options. Sustainable products can be placed at eye level, as studies have shown that products in this placement receive 35% greater attention than those on lower shelves.⁸ Moreover, they can be placed at end-cap displays or near the check-out, as these are areas where people make fast, habitual decisions. 

Online, several nudges such as framing, opt-in and opt-out formats, and presentation order can influence people to make sustainable choices. E-commerce platforms can automatically filter products from “sustainable” to “non-sustainable.” Consumers are likely to stop at the first product that satisfies their needs rather than scroll through every available product. Easy visual cues can also be placed next to products to clearly convey that they are eco-friendly, such as a green leaf. Amazon incorporated this tactic by placing a CPF badge next to sustainable products, which resulted in a 12% sales lift in their first year, with the products receiving 10% more product page clicks. This not only encourages consumers but also demonstrates to companies that they are more likely to be successful if they produce sustainable products.⁹ 

However, even more powerful than using cues to reduce friction is removing the idea of choice altogether. If sustainable products are presented as the default, then it actually becomes more of an effort to choose non-sustainable products. This tactic has been effective in promoting various sustainable behaviors, such as making the reuse of towels the default in hotels, receiving electronic rather than paper bank statements as the default option, or requiring customers to explicitly request a plastic straw if they want one.¹⁰ 

When sustainable products are presented as the default, they are more likely to become a habit. If a grocery meal kit company automatically includes sustainably sourced fish or plant-based alternatives, consumers will become accustomed to eating those products. This may influence them to choose similar options when they are shopping for groceries or dining at a restaurant. Companies can also auto-select refills or subscriptions for eco-friendly products at checkout, making it more likely that the consumer will continue to use the same product, as it requires no effort on their part. 

By integrating sustainability into product design and default settings, companies can make eco-friendly choices more accessible and habitual for consumers. This approach not only supports environmental goals but also improves the customer experience by reducing decision fatigue.

Over the past few years, the cost of living has left many consumers struggling to meet their basic needs and living paycheck to paycheck. Wages are simply not growing at the same rate as the price of consumer goods, reducing people’s purchasing power. The COVID-19 pandemic drove up prices due to supply issues and disruptions, and although many sectors have returned to operating as before, many goods have not returned to their pre-pandemic prices. In Canada, between 2021 and 2024, the cost of groceries has increased by nearly 40%, whereas people have only experienced an 8.2% increase in average earnings in the same time period.¹¹ 

Often, the sustainable choice is a more expensive one. They are often produced at a smaller scale, are made of higher-quality materials, and brands pay fair wages and ensure safe working conditions, which increases production costs. Most companies pass on these extra costs to the consumer, which causes the average consumer to view sustainable products as a luxury.¹² During times of economic hardship, our ability and willingness to pay a premium for products that are considered a “nice-to-have” rather than essential declines.

For the majority of consumers, even if they report pro-environmental intentions, paying an extra dollar or two for a product is often enough to change their mind. Loss aversion reveals that people feel the emotional impact of a loss disproportionality, causing the loss of a small sum of money to feel worse than the perceived gain of consuming a sustainable good. 

According to the 2023 NIQ Green Divide report, the cost of sustainable options is the biggest barrier for consumers, with 41% percent reporting that sustainable options are too expensive.² When choosing what to buy, there are multiple other priorities that compete with a desire to be environmentally friendly—and according to the report, “affordable/lower prices” is the most important.

Despite these economic challenges, 61% of survey respondents say they are still likely to choose a sustainable option even if it costs more—but this often doesn’t play out in practice.² One reason is that most sustainable marketing emphasizes virtue. While highlighting emotional benefits, like feeling good about making environmentally friendly choices, can be powerful, it often falls short when the price is higher. Due to present bias, we tend to prioritize immediate rewards over future payoffs. Because the environmental impacts of sustainable consumption are long-term and intangible, people place greater weight on short-term savings.¹³ 

Companies need to reconsider how to frame sustainable products. Previous attempts to justify premiums—technical jargon, long sustainability reports, or certification badges—have often failed to translate into clear, personal value. 

The intention-action gap reveals that the ethical and moral desire to help the planet is insufficient to change consumer behavior. If consumers feel this is the only reason they are paying a premium, then at the point of purchase, cognitive biases like opportunity cost will outweigh intention. Research has shown that injunctive norms—what people should ethically do—are often ineffective at promoting prosocial behavior.

Evidently, the easiest way to reduce opportunity cost is to lower prices, but that’s often not an option due to higher production costs or being unappealing to businesses. Instead, companies need to ensure that consumers associate the higher cost with higher value. Currently, companies often focus on the emotional or social benefits of sustainable consumption, targeting that “feel-good” factor, but neglect to emphasize the functional benefits. Highlighting superior quality or improved performance will make consumers feel that the extra few dollars are worth it. Moreover, this can help companies to reach diverse audiences beyond those who claim to want to make more sustainable choices. 

For example, to promote its plant-based milks, Swedish brand Oatly emphasized the personal benefits of its product, such as improved digestion and enhanced performance. The company also featured prominent male athletes, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, to create an association between their plant-based milk and strength. This strategy was particularly effective with male customers, a demographic that has had historically shown slower adoption of plant-based milks.¹³ 

Incentives can also boost perceived value. Since the positive impacts of sustainable consumption are long-term and intangible, companies should find ways to offer consumers immediate rewards. Loyalty programs, for instance, could reward customers for buying sustainable products—such as giving a free item after buying 10 products. To increase refill program participation, brands can offer discounts on refills compared to buying a new product. For example, both Costa Coffee and Starbucks offer lower prices to customers who bring reusable cups. Rewarding repeat sustainable actions also supports habit formation.¹² 

Ultimately, bridging the intention-action gap requires companies to move beyond moral appeals and make the value of sustainable products clear, immediate, and personally relevant. By emphasizing functional benefits—such as quality, performance, and convenience—and pairing them with incentives for repeat behavior, sustainable products are perceived as both desirable and rewarding on top of being an ethical choice. 

In recent years, as demand for sustainable products and practices has increased, and many companies have realized they can charge a premium for eco-friendly goods, greenwashing has become more prevalent. Consumers have been misled through false environmental claims, believing that they are purchasing products made sustainably or supporting brands that market themselves as “green.” Companies have leveraged buzzwords and other signals that evoke sustainability without actually making changes to their operations.¹⁴ 

Unfortunately, there are ample examples of greenwashing. For example, Coca-Cola introduced its PlantBottle in 2009, which used plant-based materials instead of fossil fuels in the creation of plastic. However, when authorities investigated further, they found that the bottle was only partially made of plant-based material, yet marketing efforts, such as labeling it “PlantBottle,” exaggerated the environmental benefits with little evidence.¹⁵ 

In 2011, H&M introduced its “Conscious Collection,” showing customers environmental scorecards for their clothing and labeling particular items as a “conscious choice,” both in-store and online. However, after investigation, it was determined that these scorecards were either misleading or deceptive. Many of the so-called “eco-friendly” garments were actually made from synthetic fibers, offering minimal real reduction in environmental impact.¹⁶ 

As authorities have cracked down on greenwashing and introduced bills to change the approach to environmental marketing—for example, in Canada’s Bill C-59, which required all environmental claims (explicit or implied) be substantiated,¹⁷ and the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority rule introduced in 2024¹⁸—historical instances have led to a mistrust in consumers. For companies that have been accused of greenwashing, consumers feel burned and stop being a customer, even if the companies revise their policies or products. According to the 2023 NIQ Green Divide report, 77% of consumers say they would stop purchasing from a brand found guilty of greenwashing.² Sometimes, consumers may completely disregard any environmental claims, skeptical of the entire category due to historical instances of greenwashing, treating any future claims as marketing noise.

Although there are policies in place to protect consumers, regulatory standards and third-party verification vary across product categories. Often, labels are ambiguous or use complicated language to describe the brand’s sustainability practices. As we’ve explored, people often face information overload when making purchasing decisions. Due to ambiguity aversion, when customers are uncertain about a claim’s credibility, they tend to revert to habitual choices. 

To rebuild trust and reduce backlash against greenwashing, companies must create clear, credible signals that combine transparency and social proof with simple, accessible messaging that consumers can easily interpret and evaluate. 

Greenwashing has created a widespread distrust of eco-friendly products or campaigns. Many customers struggle to determine whether a product is truly sustainable, as many companies often rely on self-defined claims and long descriptions filled with technical jargon. Combined with the higher prices of sustainable products, consumers may feel that they are being manipulated.

To earn consumers’ trust, we must develop standardized and easy-to-recognize labels or certifications. Independent verification from non-profits or governments can help reduce perceived skepticism and make sustainability products easy to recognize. Third-party certifications signal credibility to a consumer and can be used as a short-cut to ease their decision-making. In the U.S., 93% of consumers recognize the government’s Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star label, and 73% say they’re more likely to purchase products with that designation.⁶ 

Moreover, companies should leverage simple claims to explain the value and environmental impact of their products. Choice overload can make decision-making difficult; comparable metrics can be used to simplify the decision. For example, a bottle labeled “50% less plastic” allows consumers to easily understand its environmental benefits. These types of  claims translate abstract concepts into tangible, clear benefits. 

Companies can also offer consumers tools through which to compare products. Since sustainability is a catch-all phrase, consumers could compare two products that are marketed as sustainable to understand the differences between them. These tools could also allow users to filter based on the values that matter most to them. Part of the reason sustainability claims are not enough to persuade individuals to change their spending habits is because people care about different things. According to Kantar’s 2023 report, the top ten frequent reasons for choosing a sustainable product were:

By allowing consumers to compare what matters most to them, sustainability benefits feel more personalized. It also helps people feel more in control of their decisions, reducing the fear of being misled and making the evaluation process simpler.

Open Food Facts is a collaborative project that provides consumers with easy-to-understand information about food products. When creating an account on their mobile app, users can select what information matters most to them, ranging from nutritional quality to environmental impact. Users can either look up a food product or scan a barcode to access clear, concise information. The app helps users decode labels to make sense of the fine print, provides a “Green Score” and compares products. This allows consumers to leverage information at the point of purchase, where decision friction often contributes to the intention-action gap in sustainable consumption. In addition, as an open-source database, with contributors from around the world, the app leverages social proof and reduces skepticism. 

Building consumer trust in sustainability requires more than good intentions—it demands transparency, clarity, and credibility. When people feel empowered with reliable, comparable information, they’re more likely to act on their pro-environmental intentions.

While behavioral interventions can make sustainable consumption easier and more appealing, these choices will only have a positive impact on our planet if the products themselves are genuinely sustainable. Many of the tactics outlined in this article could be leveraged by companies that aren't truly committed to sustainability—for example, using green packaging to suggest eco-friendliness or highlighting one sustainability feature while hiding other environmentally harmful components. 

While consumers can be guided towards better choices, it’s up to companies to ensure that there are options available to them. According to the NIQ 2023 Green Divide report, after cost, a lack of choice is the second most consistent barrier to sustainable consumption.² 

Throughout this article, we’ve explored how behavioral science can help bridge the gap between intention and action in sustainable consumption. Research shows that people care about the planet and want to do their part to reduce their environmental impact, but this rarely translates into their consumer behavior. However, small design changes that make sustainable products the easy, obvious, and rewarding choice can help people follow through on their intentions. Choice architecture can be a powerful tool for shifting behavior towards social good. By making sustainable choices more intuitive and rewarding, these small interventions can remove barriers to sustainable consumption.

To achieve real impact, behavioral design must work in tandem with broader sustainability goals. Consumers, businesses, and governments must work together towards a greener economy. Sustainability remains an abstract concept to many, with long-term and intangible impacts. By simplifying eco-friendly messaging and offering immediate rewards, we can make sustainability the default.

At The Decision Lab, we specialize in applying behavioral science to design interventions to help address sustainability challenges. Through our deep understanding of consumer behavior and the climate and sustainability sector, we build solutions that serve both people and the planet. Partner with us to transform your sustainability goals into measurable, lasting impact.

Motivating Sustainable Behaviors in Businesses

For real progress to be made, both consumers and businesses need to be motivated to engage in sustainable behaviors. While we’ve explored ways to influence consumers, this article focuses on the behavioral barriers that businesses face that prevent them from making their sustainability pledges a reality. 

Are Workplaces the Key to Sustainable Cities?

Despite the very real and pressing issue of climate change, people continue to prioritize short-term rewards as they fail to understand the relationships between their small actions and its macro-environmental impact. To create more sustainable cities, workplaces—central to our individual and collective lives—have a role to play. In this article, Rizina Yadav explores two practical ways workplaces can encourage sustainable behavior: using competition and comparative feedback, and modeling sustainable practices from the top down. 

1. United Nations Development Programme. (2024, June 27). The world’s largest survey on climate change is out – here’s what the results show. UN DP Climate Promise. https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/worlds-largest-survey-climate-change-out-heres-what-results-show
2. NielsenIQ. (2023). The Green Divide: How to influence and change conscious consumer behaviour — A marketer’s guide for the emerging era of conscious consumption [PDF]. NielsenIQ Consumer LLC. https://nielseniq.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/09/NIQ-The-Green-Divide-2023-Global-Download.pdf
3. Smith, M. E. (2021, October 1). Bridging the sustainability intention-action gap: Overcoming barriers to adoption of greener products and services. Kogan Page. https://www.koganpage.com/bridging-the-sustainability-intention-action-gap-overcoming-barriers-to-adoption-of-greener-products-and-services
4. Mokbel, M. (2021, October 1). Sustainability: Bridging the gap between intention and action. The Drum. https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2021/10/01/sustainability-bridging-the-gap-between-intention-and-action
5. Kantar. (2023). Who Cares? Who Does? Sustainability: Planet, perception, and purchasing (Issue 5). Kantar Worldpanel Division. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.mediapost.com/uploads/whocares-who-does-2023-p.pdf
6. Ottman, J. A. (2011, October 19). How to choose the right eco-label for your brand. GreenMarketing. http://www.greenmarketing.com/blog/comments/how-to-choose-the-right-eco-label-for-your-brand/ greenmarketing.com
7. Li, R., & Li, H. (2024). The Impact of Food Packaging Design on Users’ Perception of Green Awareness. Sustainability, 16(18), 8205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188205
8. Phua Lihua, G. (2016, April 3). Eye level is buy level — The principles of visual merchandising (and shelf placement). Medium. https://medium.com/%40giaphualihua/eye-level-is-buy-level-the-principles-of-visual-merchandising-and-shelf-placement-5f2fd8f7f298
9. Tricker-ODell, P. (2025, April 22). How to earn the “leaf”: Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly badge. Carbon6. https://www.carbon6.io/blog/how-to-earn-the-leaf-amazons-climate-pledge-friendly-badge/
10. White, K., Hardisty, D. J., & Habib, R. (2019, July–August). The elusive green consumer. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-elusive-green-consumer
11. Flanagan, R. (2023, September 26). Our cost-of-living crisis: In just three years, rent and groceries are up nearly 40%. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/our-cost-of-living-crisis-in-just-three-years-rent-and-groceries-are-up-nearly/article_8ed6a480-e789-11ee-ac88-fbb27d23a241.html
12. Stroud, I. (2022, May 17). Closing the gap in sustainable consumer behaviour. Gate One Consulting. https://gateoneconsulting.com/closing-the-gap-in-sustainable-consumer-behaviour/
13. Townsend, S. (2023, July 26). Busting the sustainability value-action gap. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/solitairetownsend/2023/07/26/busting-the-sustainability-value-action-gap/
14. Vereb, M. (2024, October 8). The dangers of greenwashing: How companies mislead consumers. Arbor. https://www.arbor.eco/blog/the-greenwashers
15. Zara, C. (2013, September 3). Coca-Cola Company (KO) busted for ‘greenwashing’: PlantBottle marketing exaggerated environmental benefits, says consumer report. International Business Times. https://www.ibtimes.com/coca-cola-company-ko-busted-greenwashing-plantbottle-marketing-exaggerated-environmental-benefits
16. Shendruk, A. (2022, July 20). H&M showed bogus environmental Higg Index scores for its clothing. Quartz. https://qz.com/2180075/hm-showed-bogus-environmental-higg-index-scores-for-its-clothing
17. Noonan, N., & Southall, C. R. (2025, January 10). Canada’s new greenwashing laws: Corporate environmental claims under review. Fillmore Riley LLP. https://www.fillmoreriley.com/publication/canada-s-new-greenwashing-laws--corporate-environmental-claims-under-review
18. Cone, P. (2025, April 30). Raising the bar: UK ESG regulations and anti-greenwashing rules. Inside Practice. https://www.insidepractice.com/raising-the-bar-uk-esg-regulations-and-anti-greenwashing-rules