An increasing number of people worldwide are trying to buy things that are good for the environment. Conscious consumption means picking products that are good for the environment, reducing waste, and protecting scarce natural resources.
However, it can be difficult to follow these eco-friendly habits. Products that are good for the environment cost more, are hard to get, and may have misleading advertising.
One big reason people don’t buy more eco-friendly products is that they cost more. Corrosive-chemical-free things, like clothes or carefully grown organic food, cost more. Sustainable goods usually need more resources, like higher-quality raw materials, fair pay for workers, and safe ways to produce that don’t damage the environment.
However, eco-friendly resources cost more. For instance, organic cotton, often used as a sustainable material, costs more to grow and harvest than regular cotton, often grown with chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Responsibly harvested wood, like FSC-certified lumber, costs more because more steps must be taken to ensure the commercially provided wood doesn’t contribute to deforestation.
Global consumer trends
A study by the Dutch consulting company Kearney found that environmentally friendly products cost 75–85% more than regular ones. According to another study by Deloitte, a U.S. financial advisory and research company, 52% of consumers find it hard to live more environmentally friendly lives because eco-friendly alternatives are expensive. If the prices were lower, more people would likely switch to sustainable options.
In Japan, 45% of individuals with higher earnings opt for sustainable items, whereas 20% of those with lower incomes do the same. This disparity is also present in China, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, and Poland.
A global poll conducted by PwC revealed that nearly 85% of customers are aware of the impact of climate change on their lives, and 46% are purchasing more eco-friendly products to support environmental sustainability. The poll also found that many people are lowering their carbon footprint by buying fewer products (43%), changing their diets (32%), and choosing electric cars instead of traditional ones (24%).
But because this choice has a cost, many people are taking more time to make sure they want to buy something before they do. In fact, 60% of people will not purchase if they find misleading information that distracts them.
Consumers also judge businesses’ sustainability based on how the products are made (40%), how eco-friendly their packaging is (38%), and how they help the environment and save water (34%). Additionally, many people (52%) plan to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and less red meat (22%).
Many people are ready to pay more for things made in a way that doesn’t harm the environment. According to a study, over 80% of consumers are willing to pay more for goods that are better for the environment. On average, they are willing to pay 9.7% more for items that meet environmental standards, like being made from recycled materials or leaving a small carbon footprint. However, this data doesn’t reflect the mindset of people from poorer economies.
A study from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation shows that people can greatly lower their carbon footprints by only purchasing what they need and choosing long-lasting, well-made items. The idea of ‘buy less, buy better’ fits with the minimalist idea of having fewer, better things instead of many things that aren’t practical.
Fast fashion’s environmental damage
The fashion business is the third biggest polluter in the world. It is responsible for 5% of all greenhouse gas emissions, more than shipping and aviation. About 2,720 liters of water are needed to make one cotton shirt, the same amount of water an average person drinks in three years. Surprisingly, about 60% of all clothes end up in dumps or fires within a year.
By 2030, annual fashion waste will reach a staggering 148 million tons, per ‘Circular Economy — Challenges for the Textile and Clothing Industry’ paper published in Autex Research Journal. Also, after agriculture, cloth dyeing is the world’s second-biggest polluter of clean water.
The clothes that fast-fashion companies make are usually thrown away after 35 days or less than five wears. The fast fashion market was worth $106.42 billion in 2022. It’s expected to hit $184.96 billion by 2027, growing at 15.6% annually.
Greenwashing and trust issues
Greenwashing is one of the major concerns of conscious consumption. This deceptive practice involves companies using misleading terms like ‘natural’ or ‘eco-friendly’ on products that may not genuinely support environmental sustainability. Greenwashing confuses customers and hurts trust. Let’s see a few examples.
McDonald’s 2019 decision to use paper straws that can’t be recycled is a good example of how companies can abuse sustainability efforts. Coca-Cola Life’s green packaging led people to buy more, but it still had a lot of sugar, which is against its health claims.
In a 2022 study, Carbon Market Watch criticized FIFA for inaccurately estimating its carbon emissions. In 2023, the Swiss Fairness Commission said that FIFA’s ‘carbon-neutral’ claims were untrue. In 2022, German authorities looked into Deutsche Bank and its subsidiary DWS because they were said to have lied to investors about their sustainability credentials. DWS said it did nothing wrong, but in 2023, it decided to pay $25 million in fines for greenwashing and other violations.
H&M’s Conscious Choice collection is a good example of this in fashion. The collection used the Higg Sustainability Profile to highlight eco-friendly products, but further research showed that many of its claims were not true. In one case, some clothing was advertised as using 20% less water to make, but it actually needed 20% more. H&M said the difference was due to a technology glitch. Even if it was an honest mistake, such incidents make customers skeptical about companies’ efforts to be more environmentally friendly.
Greenwashing claims have also been made against big companies like Volkswagen and Shell. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found out that Volkswagen lied on emissions tests to make its cars look greener than they really were. Also, Shell’s 2022 marketing effort in the UK focused on its investments in clean energy while hiding that its operations still cause much environmental damage, releasing 1.2 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Unilever has also been linked to greenwashing. The UK Competition and Markets Authority investigated Unilever for making vague claims about sustainability. The company used images like green leaves to exaggerate how good its products were for the environment. Even though the company later changed its statements, people are still worried about its use of palm oil, which is linked to cutting down trees and losing wildlife.
Bangladeshi perspective
Greenwashing is also common in Bangladesh. Businesses commonly use terms like ‘organic,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ or ‘herbal’ without offering any solid proof. According to research, 98% of these claims are greenwashed—that is, they use self-reported environmental benefits without any supporting evidence.
149 rivers along industrial areas are polluted because most factories do not have Effluent Treatment Plants (ETP). As they contain heavy metals, microplastics, and other contaminants, they have become unfit for irrigation or aquatic life. Even though the industry today has 229 certified green companies, recycling, and waste management are still major challenges because of their high prices and lack of innovative technologies.
Infrastructure is also a big issue in Bangladesh. For instance, there aren’t enough places to recycle. Many middle—and upper-class families have the resources to make greener choices but lack proper information and knowledge about the impact.
However, efforts to go sustainable are increasing in the country. For instance, shoe manufacturing giant Bata is using eco-friendly materials and more environmentally friendly supply chains, Grameenphone is lowering its carbon emissions, Apex introduced Sprint’s line of eco-friendly performance shoes (making shoes from recycled PET bottles.
Seven publicly traded companies, including Grameenphone, BAT Bangladesh, and Square Pharmaceuticals, earned Bloomberg ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores last year.
ESG metrics measure a company’s sustainability and morality. Bloomberg rates companies based on the voluntary statements they make in standard formats. Although some Bangladeshi companies made it to the list, the nation has a long way to go. The best firms in India get scores between 50 and 70, while Bangladeshi firms get scores between 23 and 40.
Policy implementation issues
The proliferation of sustainable products raises many policy-related issues that need to be overcome. Global efforts like COP26 and the Paris Agreement were good ideas but did not materialize. Stopping deforestation and reducing carbon emissions have been prioritized for a long time, but countries that depend on natural resources prioritize economic progress first.
Global organizations like the UN make many regulations, but most countries do not follow the UN’s regulations. The European Commission’s Green Deal says that making countries responsible is hard and needs better ways.
Rules like the U.S., the EU’s REACH law, and the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides are meant to fix this, but they aren’t always followed properly. Sustainable Lifestyle report from the UN Development Program pointed out that these rules make it even harder for shoppers to determine which items are good for the environment.
The bottom line is that consumers are becoming increasingly aware of responsible consumption. It is up to policymakers and relevant stakeholders to help them choose a sustainable lifestyle.
Ibrahim Hasan has a professional background in content development and research. He is a member of the content editorial team at CNTV and is currently serving as Joint Secretary of the University of Dhaka’s Economics Study Center. Previously, he worked at Android ToTo Company, ATechPedia, and Youth Policy Forum, where he contributed through writing and research.
