The Sustainability Marketing Paradox
Sustainability claims are everywhere. From fast fashion to food packaging, nearly every brand today touts its environmental, social, or governance (ESG) credentials. The logic certainly seems sound; consumers care about sustainability, ergo promoting greener choices should drive sales. But reality often paints a different picture.
Despite 76% of consumers believing urgent environmental action is needed and many willing to pay up to 9.7% more for sustainable products, brands continue to struggle with converting eco-conscious messaging into actual revenue growth. Many executives in FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) industries cite a “value-action gap”, where sustainability claims fail to deliver expected sales outcomes. So, where’s the disconnect happening?
The Problem: Sustainability Marketing Myopia
Many brands fall into the trap of sustainability marketing myopia, a phenomenon where businesses focus too heavily on environmental messaging while neglecting core consumer motivations. Instead of selling a tangible product benefit, they sell an ideal – a better world, a greener future, a collective responsibility.
While noble, this approach overlooks a key truth: purchasing decisions are emotionally driven and inherently individualistic. When somebody buys an energy-efficient appliance, it’s usually motivated first by a reduction in their energy bills, and then because it’s better for the planet; consumption is rarely an act of altruism. Consumers want products that improve their daily lives, not just the planet’s future. If a sustainability message doesn’t align with or directly serve their personal needs – convenience, performance, aesthetics, or financial savings – it falls flat.
What Works: Lessons from EVs and Solar Power
Ironically, some of the most successful sustainability-oriented products hardly market themselves as such. Electric vehicles (EVs) and solar panels provide compelling case studies in balancing sustainability with consumer priorities.
We can see this with electric vehicle marketing. A 2022 study by Polestar found that 55% of drivers weren’t motivated by environmental reasons when purchasing an EV. Instead, they were drawn in by sleek design, cutting-edge tech, and high-performance capabilities. Tesla’s marketing doesn’t scream “green”. It sells the future.
Another example is solar panels. The messaging around residential solar isn’t about “saving the planet”. It’s about lowering electricity bills and gaining a reliable source of power not tied to the grid. The focus is on tangible, personal benefits, rather than lofty ideals. Consumers already implicitly understand that EVs and solar panels are supposed to be a better choice for the environment, so there’s no point in trying to convince people of the value of something that they’ve already accepted or disregarded from the outset, depending on their own values.
The Misses: When Sustainability Overshadows Consumer Needs
Contrast this with sustainability-driven campaigns that missed the mark.
In 1999, Electrolux introduced a bold experiment. It introduced a pay-per-use washing machine model in Sweden, where customers only paid per cycle instead of outright buying the appliance– the only upfront cost was a small installation fee. The machines were highly energy and water-efficient, and even after paying for hundreds of loads of laundry, you still wouldn’t have even come close to the price of a comparable machine– and yet the program failed. Why? Electrolux focused too much on environmental benefits and failed to emphasize cost savings, convenience, and free maintenance – factors that could have truly resonated with consumers.
Another example comes from Fairtrade coffee. The company aimed to improve conditions for farmers by offering guaranteed higher prices for beans bought directly from farmers. It wanted to cut out the middleman and get higher wages in the hands of the producers of the product. However, similarly to Electrolux, Fairtrade neglected to incorporate messaging about the quality or taste of the coffee, focusing purely on the ethicality of the product. As a result, farmers knew they’d get a good price irrespective of the quality of the beans, so they sold their best stock to broader markets where price was fixed to quality and then sold the worse beans to Fairtrade. Consequently, Fairtrade ended up with worse quality, bitter coffee that failed to satisfy consumers.
The Takeaway: Sustainability as a Support, Not the Star
Sustainability matters – but that doesn’t mean it should always be the primary sales pitch – it better serves as an auxiliary benefit. Brands that successfully integrate sustainability do so without making it the sole reason to buy. Instead, they prioritise product quality, consumer experience, and personal benefits, while letting sustainability enhance the appeal.
The challenge for marketers isn’t convincing people that sustainability is important – it’s showing them why choosing a sustainable product is the best decision for them as individuals. When brands make that shift, they bridge the value-action gap and turn good intentions into real business success.
https://issuu.com/monashbusinessschool/docs/acrs_2024_retail_sustainability_spotlight_report?fr=sM2Q4YjcyNzg0MjA
https://channels.ft.com/en/ft-moral-money/selling-sustainability-what-consumers-really-want/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296321005889
https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-elusive-green-consumer
https://www.statista.com/topics/10534/sustainable-consumption-in-australia/#statisticChapter
https://peoplesclimate.vote/document/Peoples_Climate_Vote_Report_2024.pdf
https://www.bu.edu/bhr/2022/09/28/how-to-avoid-sustainability-marketing-myopia/
