ing sustainable consumption easy’ pivotal to successful behavioural change as “convenience often takes precedence over environmental considerations in daily routines” and results in consumers overestimating the costs (financial and otherwise) of modifying behaviours (Scholl et al. 2010). The theory of ego-depletion, whereby decision-making relating to ethical behaviours draws from limited energy resources, works alongside perceived self-efficacy and self-determination, together making the perceived costs of behavioural change too high for a majority of consumers to subscribe to (Thorgersen 2005). It is arguably the responsibility of firms to tackle these dimensions, alongside government regulation, oversight and policies which promote and support such actions (Miles & Covin 2000; Mont & Plays 2007; Assakdourian 2010; Kotler 2011). Three considerable obstacles obstruct the promotion of sustainable consumption: (1) process credibility; (2) temporal relevance; and (3) noise (Molina-Murillo & Smith 2005). While these three obstacles are not foreign or newly-developed concepts in the field of marketing communications, the development of environmental policy faces unique challenges with regard to each of these obstructions.
Towards a consolidated approach to consumer policy Strategies to mitigate the negative forces of the already difficult environment in which environmental policies operate stems from an understanding of motivational forces. The identification of intrinsically motivating forces (need for competence, relatedness and autonomy), which positively influence behavioural change, allow policymakers to better direct and deploy effective environmental strategies and are heavily influenced by marketing communications activities, though often negatively (Thorgersen 2005). Notably, the impact of noise and the sheer clout of conflicting, misleading and often false environmental claims have greatly detracted from consumers’ abilities to develop any meaningful degree of competence regarding environmentally friendly product choice (Molina-Murillo & Smith 2005). The challenges brought on by over exposure to and confusion surrounding environmental communications reinforce the notion that under uncertainty, individuals are “less likely to make an effort for the common good” (Luchs & Thorgersen 2011; Thorgersen 2005). The development of consistent, transparent and ethical regulations concerning environmental communications is therefore necessary to empower consumers with the tools and knowledge necessary to behave sustainably (ibid.). An interdisciplinary approach which consolidates methods employed by policymakers and sustainable marketers could positively influence consumer awareness, convenience and further green the markets while simultaneously mitigating uncertainty around environmental knowledge by raising consumer competence and reducing noise. Furthermore, as both governments and businesses bear the bulk of the responsibility for shaping consumption and economic behaviours, consumer policy is the ideal mechanism for large-scale norm reversal (Murphy 2005; Sheth & Sisodia 2007; Koletsu & Mancy 2011). Conceptualising consumer policy as a communications tool first requires the acknowledgement that the complex and multi-faceted nature of shaping mass consumption behaviours requires an integrated approach utilising both policy and marketing instruments. While integration has occurred to some degree, a cohesive programme leveraging both forces has yet to materialise effectively (Berg 2010). Instead,
an assessment of tools utilised by policymakers and marketers independently is necessary before addressing any possible interdisciplinary solutions. Policymakers and governments generally favour economic and regulatory instruments, engaging in what is known as ‘choice editing’ to phase out unsustainable products (Berg 2010; Emery 2012). The removal of energy inefficient lightbulbs from the market is a prime example of such regulatory action. Such sweeping and effective measures are few and far between however, as policy tends to delegate responsibility to third parties such as NGOs, business or even consumers themselves (Berg 2010; Scholl et al. 2010). While the threat of ideological flux seems to justify this tendency, a lack of regulatory authority or oversight means that businesses are far less likely to adhere to policy with no effective means of enforcement (Thorgersen 2005; Berg 2010). A more widely accepted form of environmental policy is the widespread adoption of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) programmes which tackle the issues of their namesake along three organisational principles: deliberation, efficiency and sufficiency (Berg 2010;). Policy favours addressing deliberation and efficiency, both primarily economic policy instruments which aim to enhance social learning and increase the environmental efficiency of products and services on the market (ibid.). In effect, these instruments address the ‘consumer awareness’ and ‘greening of the markets’ dimensions of sustainable behaviour adoption. Like sustainable behaviours, environmental policy is defined along ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ dimensions, in which weak policy addresses symptoms of problems, while strong policy aims to remedy structural and systemic challenges (ibid.). The bulk of consumer policy falls into the ‘weak’ category, presenting a slew of policy actions which do little in the way of laying out regulatory frameworks, medium-term targets for stated long-term goals and ongoing audits and oversight of the proposed actions (ibid.). Businesses and firms have generally communicated environmental programmes and initiatives through corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and activities (van de Ven 2008; Alvarado-Herrera et al. 2015). However, CSR programmes tend to favour PR-friendly initiatives which directly target end-users, implementing ‘green labelling’ and the use of vague terminology or puffery (Molina-Murillo & Smith 2005). As consumers are increasingly informed and have access to a constant stream of information, allowing them to be vigilant of businesses, their activities and their ethics, CSR is the favoured instrument for environmental reputation management. Incorporated into general marketing messages or, more frequently, in financial reporting, CSR messaging employs an incredible diversity of “inconsistent metrics, reporting formats and [has] a tendency to promote environmental programs with high public relations value”, only adding to the noise making sustainable consumption more difficult for consumers (ibid.). In addition, while CSR reporting is more prevalent than ever, it remains questionable how truthful, reliable or relevant such activities are. For example, a study conducted by the UK Environmental Agency found that in those companies surveyed, only 12% of companies who made environmental disclosures in their reporting did so in audited sections of their financial and annual reports (ibid.). Combine this with a 1993 study which “found that sixty percent of environmentally based advertisements had unacceptable claims ranging from ambiguous to false” and it becomes clear that there is a credibility problem in the