Intentional non‐consumption for sustainability

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the special issue theme by analysing intentional non‐consumption through anti‐consumption and consumer resistance lenses.Design/methodology/approachA total of 16 in‐depth interviews with women who intentionally practise non‐consumption for sustainability were completed.FindingsTwo major themes where identified: I versus them: the careless consumers, and The objective/subjective dialectic in mundane practices.Originality/valueWhile it is tempting to delineate one concept from another, in practice, both anti‐consumption and consumer resistance intersect and represent complementary frameworks in studying non‐consumption.

Recycling today, sustainability tomorrow: Effects of psychological distance on behavioural practice

“…Inconsistency, therefore, between aspects of psychological distance suggests contradictory identifications between construal and distant dimensions potentially create conflicting behavioural associations (Fujita et al, 2008;Liberman et al, 2007). Indeed, reasons cited for the well-documented attitude-behaviour gap in ethical/sustainable contexts centre on multiple and competing identities and demands that impede and immobilise behaviour (e.g., Carrington, Zwick, & Neville, 2016;Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011). It is these very inconsistencies in mental representations and experiences that the current research reveals as direct barriers to behaviour.…”

“…An exploration of actual behaviour as experienced by consumers in the context of their everyday lives was pertinent in revealing the barriers and challenges to behaviour which may not readily occur in choice modelling research or experimental research where behaviours may not be experiential to participants. The qualitative approach adopted in the current research has enabled the exploration of multiple dimensions of psychological distance occurring in lives of consumers and, thus, the relations between them, offering a more holistic picture of the facilitators and barriers to behaviours (Black & Cherrier, 2010;Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011).…”

Green governmentality and responsibilization: new forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’

“…For example, Amine and Gicquel (2011) discuss anti-consumption in terms of deviance, as it challenges the contemporary culture of consumption. Anti-consumption can be performed for various reasons, ranging from economic constraints to deep ethical concerns and anti-capitalist ideology (Gronow and Warde 2001a, Cherrier et al 2011, Alexander and Ussher 2012, Portwood-Stacer 2012. Studies of consumption based on practice theory as well as studies of voluntary simplicity and anti-consumption enable us to see the variety of ways people can respond to the moral imperative to take their 'environmental responsibility' seriously.…”

Caring and Conflicted: Mothers’ Ethical Judgments about Consumption

“…In addition, some apparently ethical choices may conflict with women's lifestyles, values and identities (Black, 2009). Within ethical-consumption literature such tensions are often treated as conflicts either between an ethical position and a pragmatic concern for practicality (Carey et al, 2008) or between the behavioural norms of competing identities (Black and Cherrier, 2010;Cherrier et al, 2011). Given that a mother's care for her infant can "defensibly be at the forefront of a person's moral concerns" (Held, 2006: p. 10), our study considers whether these tensions are more appropriately conceptualised as moral dilemmas.…”

“…and of family can be found in the literature (Black, 2009;Cherrier et al, 2011) but are often treated as tensions between different identities. What is novel here is that our analysis, informed by care ethics, provides evidence for the fact that participants refer to these considerations as normative matters of doing the "right thing" rather than in terms of identity or as post-hoc rationalizations for "unethical" behaviour.…”