The Environmental Impact of Consumption Lifestyles: Ethically Minded Consumption vs. Tightwads

Abstract

This study investigates the environmental impact of anti-consumption lifestyles and compares it to environmental concern and ethically minded consumption. Environmental impact was measured in a sample of 357 individuals with a carbon footprint calculator capturing all greenhouse gases released by an individual’s activities. Three types of anti-consumption lifestyles were considered: frugality, voluntary simplicity, and tightwadism. Results suggest that tightwadism is negatively associated with environmental impact. This negative association is stronger when participants are knowledgeable about the emissions impact of their behaviors. These findings suggest that tightwadism can lead to positive outcomes to achieve sustainability. Surprisingly, frugality and voluntary simplicity, as well as environmental concern, are not significantly associated with environmental impact, whereas ethically minded consumption correlates positively with the latter. This study demonstrates that increasing consumers’ environmental and ethical concerns alone might not be an effective way to lead them towards a more sustainable lifestyle. Such findings have important implications for sustainability and public policy makers.

Investigating boycotts and buycotts as antecedents towards attitude and intention to engage in ethical consumption

“…There has been growing interest in ethical consumption among people (citizens and consumers), institutions (governmental and non-governmental) and policymakers (Touchette and Nepomuceno, 2020). Ethical consumption is most basically conceptualized to mean the consideration of public and societal consequences of one’s private consumption decisions (Rindell et al , 2014).…”

Could a minimalist lifestyle reduce carbon emissions and improve wellbeing? A review of minimalism and other low consumption lifestyles

“…The frugalists had the highest impact lifestyle compared to the other three groups. Touchette and Nepomuceno (2020) looked at the emissions of American frugalists, tightwads, and simplifiers using a carbon footprint calculator. Participants were asked about environmental concern, ethical consumption, knowledge of relative emissions impact, and their expenditure on energy, transport, food, clothing, restaurants, mortgage, clothing, and education.…”

“…8-item frugality scale (Lastovicka et al, 1999) Unknown Frugalism had a greater environmental impact compared to other low consumption lifestyles (Kropfeld et al, 2018;Touchette & Nepomuceno, 2020)À Tightwadism Avoids consumption because spending causes pain (Rick et al, 2008) 4-item tightwadspendthrift scale (Rick et al, 2008)…”

“…A handful of studies have investigated the carbon emissions of other low‐consumption lifestyles including VS, tightwadism, frugalism, and living in an ecovillage using quantitative tools such as ecofootprint, carbon footprint, or lifecycle analysis (LCA) which account for both direct and indirect emissions (Brown & Kasser, 2005; Kropfeld et al, 2018; Touchette & Nepomuceno, 2020; Vita et al, 2020).…”

“…Consuming fewer goods may have additional flow‐on environmental benefits such as requiring a smaller home, which in turn needs fewer furnishings and electrical goods. Research examining carbon emissions of low‐consumption lifestyles offers initial support for this possibility (Brown & Kasser, 2005; Kropfeld et al, 2018; Touchette & Nepomuceno, 2020). It is also possible though, that minimalists may increase their nonmaterial but more carbon‐intensive consumption, such as more frequent overseas travel.…”