Content uploaded by Helene Cherrier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helene Cherrier on Feb 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Anti-consumption as part of living a
sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices,
contextual motivations and
subjective values
Iain R. Black
1
*and Helene Cherrier
2
1
Department of Marketing, University of Edinburgh Business School, University of Edinburgh,
Scotland, EH8 9JS, UK
2
Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan,
QLD 4111, Australia
This research examines anti-consumption practices, motivations and values within
attempts to live a more sustainable lifestyle. Sixteen women were interviewed and from
their narratives, anti-consumption for sustainability was found to be practiced via acts of
rejection, reduction and reuse. In addition, practices of anti-consumption for sustain-
ability are constructed through the collaboration between the needs of the individual and
the needs for environmental preservation. This perspective moves sustainable consump-
tion away from a rational information processing and environmentally motivated choice
to incorporate various subjective and individualistic needs and values. Hence, the
challenge for sustainable marketers is to position sustainable practices along side self
interested notions such as independence, beauty, quality or value for money.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Global warming. It’s huge, everyone
should be doing it. It’s, like it’s not a fad
or a craze, it’s not going to go away any
time soon, it’s just, this is the way that
people should live, you shouldn’t have
clothes dryers and we shouldn’t have a 4
wheel drive. (Lisa)
We have a fairly small car and one of the
reasons, I mean it’s for gas and we find you
don’t need a big SUV, and ‘oh why can’t we
have a bigger car mummy, we want one of
those cars that has, you know, a DVD
player and da, da, da...’ (Katherine)
In the excerpts above, both Lisa and
Katherine express a strong resistance to
acquiring and using an SUV. Although both
informants avoid the same product, their
motivations against SUV consumption are
quite different. Lisa refuses to buy a four
wheel drive because of its impact on global
Journal of Consumer Behaviour
J. Consumer Behav. 9: 437–453 (2010)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.337
*Correspondence to: Iain R. Black, Department of Market-
ing, University of Edinburgh Business School, University
of Edinburgh, Scotland, EH8 9JS, UK.
E-mail: Iain.Black@Ed.ac.uk
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
warming and Katherine refuses to purchase an
SUV because she does not really need it and it is
expensive to run. Considering these motiva-
tional differences; should we say that only
Lisa’s rejection represents a form of sustainable
behaviour and that Katherine’s rejection is
objective, self-interested and materialistic and
therefore should not be viewed as being based
on sustainability?
This question highlights some important
concerns for the nascent field of anti-con-
sumption and its association with sustainable
development: does anti-consumption fit within
the discourse of sustainability? If so, what are
the characteristics and meanings affiliated to
practices of anti-consumption for sustainability
and what makes practices of anti-consumption
part of sustainable living? In order to answer
these questions, we examine practices of anti-
consumption in a corpus of narratives from
women who are trying to live a sustainable
lifestyle. The analysis of 16 phenomenological
interviews concentrates on the daily anti-
consumption practices, the meanings that
consumers give to their anti-consumption prac-
tices, and how these practices are incorporated
within wider discourses of sustainable living.
The findings offer anti-consumption for
sustainability as a practice of rejection,
reduction and reuse. Although each of these
practices associate with environmental pres-
ervation, they are mostly constructed through
a web of identity claims and responsibilities.
This perspective moves sustainable consump-
tion away from a rational information proces-
sing and environmentally motivated choice to
incorporate various subjective and individua-
listic needs. Hence, the challenge for sustain-
able marketers is to position sustainable
practices alongside self-interested notions
such as independence, beauty, quality or value
for money. Finally, this study helps re-visit the
notion of sustainability. For our informants,
sustainable practices incorporate actions that
do not necessarily have many green creden-
tials. Yet, these actions allow consumers to
integrate sustainability within their daily lives
and experience anti-consumption for sustain-
ability as pleasurable and self-fulfilling prac-
tices. This suggests that prescriptive and
normative views of sustainability may be more
alienating than inviting to consumers whose
values, attitudes and beliefs do not necessarily
fit the well-defined ‘environmentally conscious
consumers’ (Ottman, 1993).
In the following discussion, we review the
concept of sustainable consumption and its
association to anti-consumption literature. We
then offer details of the study and the themes
theorized during the analysis. In conclusion,
we highlight the importance of offering self-
interested benefits when promoting sustain-
able lifestyles and make recommendations on
how to frame the effects these practices have
on identity.
Sustainable consumption
The question of sustainability is often discussed
around issues of sustainable consumption
(Heiskanen and Pantzar, 1997). Although
increasingly central to academic and policy
debates, this notion is still as elusive as its official
definition: ‘sustainable consumption is the use
of goods and related products which respond to
basic needs and bring a better quality of life,
while minimising the use of natural resources
and toxic materials as well as the emissions of
wasteandpollutantsoverthelifecycle,soasnot
to jeopardise the needs of future generations’
(Norwegian Ministry of Environment, 1994,
cited in OECD, 2002). The ambiguity of the
concept has led to multiple interpretations and
to a general acceptance that ‘there is no
clear definition of sustainable consumption’
(Heiskanen and Pantzar 1997, p. 410).
For some, sustainable consumption refers
to the consumption of ‘greener’ products; also
referred to as green consumption (Ottman,
1993; Tanner and Kast, 2003; Moisander,
2007). Marketers often build on this view to
develop and promote environmentally friendly
choices such as organic and locally grown
fruit and vegetables, recycled paper, alterna-
tive formulations for detergents, eco-friendly
magazines or low-energy light bulbs. In each
case, marketers promote ‘shopping with the
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
438 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
planet in mind’ and introduce new green retail
environments such as the ‘Ecomall: a place to
help save the planet’ (ecomall.com). This
conceptualization supports the notion that
continued economic growth based on improved
efficiency, green taxation and informed con-
sumers is compatible with sustainability (Fisk,
1973). Here, environmental preservation can be
achieved through consumer demand for green
and environmentally friendly products. The key
to sustainable consumption from this perspect-
ive relies on rational and environmentally aware
consumers who make decisions based on their
deep values (Ottman, 1993). These consumers,
named ‘environmentally conscious consu-
mers’ (Ottman, 1993) or ‘green consumers’
(Elkington et al., 1990; Tanner and Kast, 2003),
are individuals willing to use some of their time
and money to express their concern and care
for the environment. Support for the relevance
of environmental concerns in motivating sus-
tainable consumption is contained in Harrison
et al.’s acknowledgement that ethical con-
sumers all have in common, a concern ‘with
the effects that a purchasing choice has, not
only on themselves, but also on the external
world around them’ (Harrison et al., 2005, p.
2). Here, being a consumer and purchasing of
green or environmentally friendly products
entails being environmentally informed and
doing deeds greater than fulfilling personal
desires and satisfaction for the self.
For others, sustainable consumption is broader
and includes rethinking the social and cultural
function of material consumption and affluence
(Schumacher, 1974). This alternative view entails
downscaling consumption and reframing the
normative framework based on material pros-
perity and wealth to an ‘anticonsumerist ethic’
(Press and Arnould, 2009). Here, environmen-
tal consciousness and moral restraints on
consumption choices undermine the tradi-
tional model of self-interested consumers and
individualization of responsibility (Press and
Arnould, 2009). Following this perspective,
consumers are ‘ecological citizens’ who share
personal commitments to sustainability and
take actions in their daily lives to reduce their
impacts on others and on the environment
(Dodson, 2003). The idea of ecological citizens
incorporates the notion of downscaling con-
sumption. This, to some extent, signals that
anti-consumption may represent an innovative
motivational force for sustainable development.
Anti-consumption ‘literally means against
consumption’ (Lee et al., 2009). Although
most research in anti-consumption focus on
the reasons behind product/brand avoidance,
a review of the literature indicates that
practices of anti-consumption are elements
of sustainable lifestyles. For example, in studies
on sustainability, green consumers refuse to
purchase products that are harmful to the
environment (Moisander and Pesonen, 2002;
Moisander, 2007), in research on fair trade,
ethical consumers reject products from
socially irresponsible businesses (Ozcaglar-
Toulouse et al., 2006), in political consump-
tion studies, consumers do not purchase
brands and products that do not respond to
their particular political ideology (Micheletti
et al., 2003; Sandıkcı and Ekici, 2009) and in
anti-globalization analysis, resistant consumers
boycott organizations that negatively impact
society (Klein et al., 2004).
Although most sustainability studies note
that practices of anti-consumption are most
likely to be associated with environmental
concerns, some show that anti-consumption
can be motivated by individuals prioritizing
their self-interests and well-being. For
example, reducing consumption for voluntary
simplifiers is mostly an inner experience
driven by a desire to live the good life (Cherrier
and Murray, 2007). Craig-Lees and Hill empiri-
cally noted that most of voluntary simplifiers
surveyed did not refer to the environment as a
key reason for their anti-consumption prac-
tices (Craig-Lees and Hill, 2002, p. 198).
Instead, in their reflections on the relationship
between consumption and the good life,
voluntary simplifiers refuse to purchase items
that fail to improve their level of happiness
(Elgin, 1981b) and reject consumption activi-
ties that do not correspond to their self-
concept (Craig-Lees and Hill, 2002). In addition
to voluntary simplicity and downshifting, anti-
consumption practices have been conceptu-
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 439
alised in terms of self-interested motivations in
studies on ethical consumption. For example,
during their discussion on virtue ethics, Barnett
et al. (2005) extend our understandings of ethical
consumption beyond consumers’ socio-environ-
mental concerns to consider the relevance of
self-interested concerns. Similarly, looking at
boycotting, Kozinets and Handelman (1998)
note personal integrity as a driver to product
avoidance and anti-consumption practices.
The existence of practices of anti-consump-
tion in sustainable lifestyles as well as the
diversity of environmental and self-interested
concerns are interesting pieces in the sustain-
able development puzzle, and yet not well-
understood (Lee et al., 2009). In this paper, we
explore anti-consumption within sustainable
lifestyles and the meanings ascribed to the
practices with the aim of offering details on the
characteristics of anti-consumption within
sustainable living. We also question whether
self-interested concerns can be drivers to anti-
consumption for sustainability and hence
sustainable development.
The study
Sixteen in-depth interviews in total were
conducted with women who had committed
to living a sustainable lifestyle (see Table 1). All
respondents were aged between 23 and 64
with a household income above 40 000 Euros.
An initial set of interviews was conducted in
Sydney, Australia with the informants recruited
from a database of people who had attended
a series of ‘greenhome’ workshops ran by
local councils and the Australian Conservation
Foundation. These workshops provided infor-
mation and tips on how to live more sustain-
able lives. Potential informants were screened
to ensure they had made a conscious decision
to change their consumption practices to
reflect their growing environmental awareness
and that this decision had been put into
practice.
To allow a national comparison to this group,
a second set of interviews were conducted in
Toronto, Canada. The long term commitment
by state and municipal governments in this
part of Canada made it likely that a pool of
women experienced in environmentally con-
scious behaviour existed from which the
sample could be recruited. The Toronto mothers
were recruited by a professional fieldwork
agency working to a strict respondent screener.
This measured socio-demographics (to ensure
a match with the Sydney group), which
environmentally friendly behaviours were
Table 1. Informants
Name Age Profession Partner Children
Sydney
Rachel 50 Social worker Yes 4
Susan 23 Environmental scientist No 0
Angie 50 High school teacher No 0
Mandy 51 Home maker Yes 2
Taylor 38 Home maker Yes 2
Anne 41 Home maker Yes 0
Lucy 57 Home maker Yes 3
Lisa 25 Personal assistant Yes 0
Laurie 55 Clinical psychologist Yes 2
Carol 64 Registered nurse Yes 3
Toronto
Katherine 36 Homemaker Yes 2
Sarah 43 Teacher Yes 2
Kate 43 Homemaker Yes 1
Deborah 36 Homemaker Yes 3
Francis 43 Primary school teacher Yes 2
Pearl 42 Lead trading co. Yes 1
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
440 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
practiced and the length of time they had been
actively engaged in these behaviours.
The discussions followed the long interview
design discussed by Thompson et al. (1989),
were conducted in the informants homes and
lasted between 1.5 and 3 hours. They topics
discussed were guided by questions on brands,
products or activities that were avoided and
reasons for this. The discussions were audio
taped, from which verbatim transcripts were
prepared. During the analysis we adopted
the hermeneutic circle (Thompson, 1997)
where by multiple readings and documenting
recurring patterns, meaning-based linkages
where developed for and between each
informant.
Findings
The findings showed that whilst the individual
sustainable practices performed by the respon-
dents differed (mainly due to product avail-
ability and local council facilities), they are all
situated in a similar set of socio-environmental
issues and share a common set of self-
concerns. We found during the analysis that
whilst both groups clearly practiced different
behaviours, the underlying types of behaviour
and their meanings and roles were similar.
Hence, whereas Australians recycled sun tan
lotion bottles more often than the Canadians,
the meanings attached to these different anti-
consumption actions were common to both
groups. Therefore, for this paper, we feel it is
appropriate to combine both groups within
the analysis.
All informants offered myriads of anti-
consumption practices shaped by their self-
concepts, families, and occupations. A broad
range of practices were discussed from common
ones such as turning off lights and not driving a
car where possible, to ones that can be
described as more involved and extreme such
as attempting not to use fresh water to flush
toilets or not using purchased pesticides but
instead making their own mixtures.
Informants referred to their anti-consump-
tion practices using discourses on sustainabil-
ity, organic production, ecological footprint,
environment, nature and global warming. As
well as being aware of the general concerns
about the state of the ecosystem, they talked in
detail about specific environmental issues such
as greenhouse gas emissions, rubbish disposal
and pollution in air, water and food. Air
pollution was the most frequently mentioned
concern, though water shortages were also
mentioned regularly. They also discussed what
they saw as the consequences of these issues,
with global warming and health problems
attributed to specific concerns. It was also
common for a clear link to be made between
environmental concerns, the potential con-
sequences of this and their motivation to act.
Rachel:‘Well because the Earth is in need of it
I guess, and you know, worrying about your
kids futures and what’s it going to look like
for them and the whole global warming
thing.’ Here, we start to see the motivations
for their actions are not primarily driven by
concern over the environment but instead by
self interest, an idea expanded upon during
theme two.
In this finding section, theme one and two
explain how anti-consumption is prioritized
over green consumption and what types of
anti-consumption practices our informants
performed. These acts of rejection, reduction,
and reuse, although diverse, highlight the
efforts and commitments associated to prac-
tices of anti-consumption for sustainability.
Theme three shows practices of anti-consump-
tion being incorporated in daily lives not so
much as environmental investments but rather
in terms of self-expressions. The last theme
portrays the notion of sustainability as sub-
jectively constructed where practices of anti-
consumption help re-align unsustainable acts
into discourses of sustainability.
Anti-consumption for sustainability
versus green consumption
In our analysis, all informants are clearly aware
that living a sustainable lifestyle involves
‘shopping with the planet in mind.’ Our
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 441
informants evaluate their purchase decisions
and try to favour products that they consider
‘better’‘eco-friendly’ (Sarah) or ‘green, envir-
onmentally friendly’ (Katherine). The pro-
ducts ranged from food items (organic, less
packaging, and locally grown) to cleaning
products (green detergent, toilet paper) to
renovating material (‘green’ paint).
Although references to green consumption
are offered in the narratives, faithfully practi-
cing these consumption activities are not
fundamental to living a sustainable lifestyle.
As expressed in the excerpt below, our
informants do not necessarily purchase envir-
onmentally friendly products.
Katherine: I bought this very un-environ-
mentally friendly product, a Swiffer.
They’re ... it’s a mop but it’s not like a
pain in the neck mop where you have to
wring out the stuff or ... you get a
disposable pad that goes on it. And then
you squirt stuff out of the actual mop and
then go over it. They’re fantastic but they’re
not very environmentally friendly because
you’ve got this throw away thing that ...
Katherine expresses her personal prefer-
ences for using a mop that is ‘un-environmen-
tally friendly’. Similarly, Sarah purchases
‘double ply toilet paper’ that is ‘not very
sustainably friendly to buy’ and Francis
admits that she ‘don’t use them (environmen-
tally friendly cleaners) as much as my friends
do or people... I think I want that just a little
bit extra clean.’ For Susan, she believes that
not only does using environmentally friendly
products not necessarily preserve the natural
environment but also ‘potentially you could
lose money by choosing more environmen-
tally friendly products—they’re a bit more
expensive.’
The analysis here suggests that green
consumption is not an essential part of
sustainable living. Across the sample, each
informant gave examples where they had set
limits on what green products or eco-friendly
items they could incorporate in their daily
lives. In most occasions, these limits originate
from conflicting identities. During the inter-
views, each informant discussed how, within
their daily lives, they embraced diverse
identities such as mother, wife, sister, artist,
teacher and lawyer and how each identity
contributes to a range of values. It is the
management of the boundaries between these
identities that, it is argued here, can help
explain consumer’s inclination for anti-con-
sumption practices over green consumption.
For example, Susan cited above, considers
green products as ‘too expensive’ (Susan).
Similarly in the excerpt below, Katherine
explains how important organic is and yet
does not purchase this type of product.
Katherine: Organic is big and it’s getting
bigger and bigger and bigger. And I ... I
haven’t been buying it. I’ve just started
kind of paying attention to some of the
stuff and looking at price points and stuff,
there’s some things are outrageously
expensive. [...]Organic milk is big, like
all my girlfriends seem to be buying
organic milk right now. It costs twice as
much as regular milk and I haven’t gone
that route yet...I don’t know if I’m totally
convinced yet.
Throughout her narrative, Katherine, a
homemaker, expresses caring about money
and savings as key value. As saving is a strong
part of her identity, the idea of purchasing
more expensive green products such as
organic fruits, milk or beef conflicts with her
core values: ‘because when I looked at the
price I was like oh’ (Katherine). Similarly Kate,
below, has not been ‘convinced yet’ by the
superiority of green products over conven-
tional goods.
Kate: We want to paint the house so my
husband likes Benjamin Moore paint and I
told him that there’s a new green paint that
comes out. But there’s issues about it
because you know once I said the paint
will start fading, you know it doesn’t have
the right pigments and dyes in it. So they
haven’t perfected it yet.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
442 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
Here we see that for Kate, the idea of
purchasing green paint is attractive but the
uncertainty over its quality leads to conflict
with her need for a beautiful home. As a
homemaker, Kate’s main identity evolves
around caring for the home and is proud to
create a comfortable one for her family. When
considering whether to purchase green paint
or not, she faced a conflict between wanting to
offer a beautiful home to her husband (wife
values) and the desire to preserve the environ-
ment (environmental values). As we expand
upon below, with most informants, family
values are given priority over sustainability.
Whereas a range of identity conflicts occurred
(mother versus wife, friend versus environmen-
talist), limitations were typically placed on green
products that either challenged core mothering
values or modified the home or body (core
elements of self, Belk, 1988). For example,
Francis is a mother. She eats organic food, grows
vegetables and uses publictransportyetrefuses
to purchase and use environmentally friendly
cleaners. Her refusal is linked to her identity as a
mother. Francis does not buy these cleaners as
she does not think they clean well and using
them would challenge her conceptualization of
‘being mother’ as a homemaker, where cleanli-
ness is critically important. Similarly, Taylor will
not acquire solar panels because they would
change the look her home. Taylor’s core identity
reflects strongly her care for her family and
risking the aesthetic of her family home conflicts
with this. In both of these examples, the eco-
friendly cleaners and the solar panel were
rejected because buying and using them
involved modifying one’s core identity. Other
examples showed the importance of hobby and
work identities taking precedence over issues of
sustainability. For example, Francis says that she
does‘ love the environment, I am enjoying the
trees, the birds and you know just the nature. I
love nature’ and yet in the excerpt below, she
acknowledge consuming non-environmentally
productstosatisfyherpassionforpainting.
Francis: There’s no environmentally
friendly ... there’s some recycled paper you
can use but they’re not as ... the quality
isn’t as good or there are some paints,
cheaper paints that you can use that are a
little more environmentally friendly but
they’re not as saturating colour and things
like that.
This first theme shows that our informants
appear to prioritize anti-consumption activities
over green consumption. This lack of commit-
ment to consumption of green alternatives
despite professing positive attitudes towards
such purchases is well known in the literature
(see Mannetti et al., 2004 and Peattie and
Peattie 2009 for review of this area). In
addition to concerns for cost or quality often
described in the literature on resistance to
green consumption, our analysis suggests that
part of this ‘green gap’ may be due to core
elements of the self that clash with the
purchase or use of green products. Further-
more, the following themes suggest that this
‘green gap’ may also be due to the perform-
ance of anti-consumption rather than pro-
environmental consumption to provide diver-
sities of practices that are sufficiently flexible
to allow for self-expression.
Anti-consumption for sustainability:
rejecting, reducing and reusing
As highlighted in theme one, our informants’
sustainable living is mainly expressed through
practices of anti-consumption. The practices inte-
grate processes of rejecting, reducing and reusing
products, brands or consumption activities.
In term of rejection, our informants rejected
the consumption of a wide range of products,
brands or consumption activities. For example,
Kate ‘can’t use any insecticides’ and Katherine
will not buy non-organic fruits ‘like for apples,
strawberries, I guess also fruits and vegetables
that come in contact with a lot of pesticides.’As
shown below, this rejection of particular
products or brands is often a practice that has
been incorporated into a sustainable lifestyle.
Katherine: No, I’m pretty good now but I
used to print off ... I do a lot of writing.
And I used to print off the cases I would
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 443
have to read first and read them and then
do it. Now I try to ...I don’t print off stuff, I
just read from my computer which isn’t as
pleasant and you can’t do it anywhere
unless I’ve got my laptop with me. But
yeah, I won’t print stuff out...
Although Katherine used to print articles,
her awareness on sustainability has led her to
stop printing. Although incorporated into her
lifestyle, this behaviour requires effort and
commitment. As mentioned above, not print-
ing means that she must read from the screen,
which ‘isn’t as pleasant’ and requires her to
carry the ‘laptop with me.’ Yet, as this
behaviour does not clash with Katherine’s
core values, she is prepared to bear these costs.
In addition to rejecting particular products,
brands or consumption activities, our analysis
shows that anti-consumption for sustainability
incorporates practices of reducing. Theoreti-
cally speaking, we incorporate reducing con-
sumption activity within the concept of anti-
consumption based on Lee et al.’s (2009)
conceptualization that: ‘anti-consumption lit-
erary means against consumption’ (p. 145).
Under this conception, anti-consumption incorp-
orates a rejection to the entire consumption
process: acquisition, usage and disposal. Reducing
represents a form of anti-consumption towards the
usage of particular products, brands or con-
sumption activities. For example, Francis
describes her sustainable lifestyle mainly
referring to reducing her consumption levels.
Francis: Well I first of all, for example,
cleaning or laundry, I’ll wait until I have
full loads before I run the machine. I try to
hang up my clothes as much ... as much as I
can in the summer...I run my dishwasher
at night, I compost, I recycle, we have a
green ... green bin system where we put a
lot of biodegradable and things like that
and that’s ... besides the garbage...I do use
my car but I try to limit ... try to car-pool as
much as I can. I try not to idle my car.
Rather than rejecting owning a car or a
dishwasher, Francis tries to drive as little as
possible and ‘run my dishwasher at night.’
Similarly, Rachel will ‘try not to use the oven’
or ‘try not to use the oven too much’. Explicit
to these examples of rejection and reduction is
the notion of ‘trying.’ Expressions such as
‘trying’ or ‘as much as I can’ were present in all
narratives and clearly show anti-consumption
for sustainability as practices that entail efforts,
commitments and acceptable failures. Rachel
and Francis (and Laurie below) recognise that
they ‘try’, even if sometimes they fail in trying
to reduce their consumption, the simple
aspect of ‘trying’ appears vital to their
sustainable narratives. The practices explained
by Laurie below do not represent a strict
rejection of ‘packaged products’, ‘junk foods’,
‘ towels’, ‘ washing machine’, ‘vacuum
cleaner’or ‘car’ but rather an effort
‘to reduce that to more of a minimum.’
Laurie: I use the washing machine less
frequently both for power and water
conservation, so, and that’s easier with
only 2 of us here but I’ll save towels up and
do, so I’ve tried to reduce that to more of a
minimum. Um, as far as water goes, we’ve
fitted the shower, well we’ve, one our
daughter’s has moved out who had long
hair and long showers – (laugh) that made
a big difference but seriously we put um,
the, you know, water saving shower heads
and things like, all that on the taps, we’ve
done that. Um, Ross certainly reduced how
long he’s in the shower. [...] we try, recycle
waste as much as we-, well we don’t have a
lot of-, I don’t think we have a lot of waste.
We don’t, I don’t buy a lot of packaged
products, um, mostly fresh fruit and
vegetables so there’s not much, we don’t
use much in the way of sort of junk foods,
but we do recycle pretty faithfully. I
suppose we do have a reasonable turnover
of wine bottles. So we recycle. I have a
worm farm, um, that all the kitchen scraps
go to. Um, what else? I use the vacuum
cleaner minimally (laugh). Um, yeah I
can’t think of anything else. I walk to work,
um, so use the car fairly sparingly. We’ve
sold a car, so we, my, Ross has a work
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
444 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
vehicle and we have one other car but, and
we use that at weekends, but I tend to, I
walk to work because that’s local. So our
petrol consumption’s fairly small.
Laurie’s behaviour shows a diversity of
practices that touch a broad range of essential
parts her day-to-day life such as transportation,
washing and eating. In addition, this quote
highlights that reducing consumption does not
take precedence over other roles. Laurie’s
efforts and commitment to sustainable living
are contingent upon her life stages and since
her daughter left home, sustainable living is
more possible. Similarly, Laurie’s desire to
reduce her consumption ‘to more of a
minimum’ has not led to drastic changes in
her daily life during which she continues to
‘have a reasonable turnover of wine bottles.’
In addition to rejection and reduction, our
informants expressed another practice posi-
tioned ‘against consumption’ (Lee et al., 2009).
Reusing is against all three processes that
define consumption: acquisition, usage, and
disposition (Holbrook, 1987). On the one
hand, reusing is against the acquisition and use
of new products; and on the other hand, it is
against unnecessary disposal of products
(Cherrier, 2010). For example, as seen below,
Rachel collects the water from the washing
machine and uses it to flush the toilet.
Rachel: Another thing, I mean another
thing we do is, now this is really going and
this is not something I would promote with
anyone but the runoff water from the last
couple of rinses in the wash, you know
from the washing machine, I collect that
and put it the bathroom to flush the toilet.
So ah, that’s something I’ve been doing for
the last, I don’t know, 6 months, but it’s
something that’s almost crazy (laugh).
And something I would never advocate to
people because you’re constantly running
back and it looks a bit silly, running back
and forth with buckets of water to the
bathroom and ah. And I try not to go crook
on people for not using it (laugh). But it’s a,
it is a bit of a weird thing to do (laugh).
In all narratives, reusing was an important
aspect of sustainable living and as Rachel’s excerpt
above suggests, the practice could involve
great efforts and demonstrate high level of
commitment to sustainability. As stated above,
Rachel understands that reusing water ‘from
the washing machine’‘to flush the toilet’is
‘almost crazy.’ It is an act she would not
advocate. This behaviour interestingly demon-
strates a high degree of motivation towards
water conservation and reuse, but rather than
being proud of her commitment, she expresses
notions of embarrassment. As she does not
want others to know about what she does, she
is clearly uncomfortable about its social image
and fears being stigmatized as a crazy person.
Throughout the data there were examples,
where despite performing radical conservation
behaviours, informants rejected the label or
identity of ‘conservationist’ (or indeed ‘tree
hugger’). The fear of being stigmatized as deviant
and acting outside the mainstream shows that our
informants did not perform sustainable consump-
tion practices that could potentially shift their
identities. Rather, our informants’ anti-consump-
tion practices were performed within their
existing identities and desired identities.
Theme two offers examples where the
informants reflected on rejecting, reducing,
and reusing as essential to living a sustainable
lifestyle. In this study, we categorize each of
these practices as anti-consumption activities
for three main reasons: (1) anti-consumption
means against consumption, (2) rejection,
reducing and reusing are activities that were
performed by our informants so that they
would not have to acquire, use or waste and (3)
these practices do not involve any process of
acquisition of new products or consumption
activities. This second theme also shows that
our informants’ anti-consumption practices
were performed within their existing identities
and desired identities.
Anti-consumption for sustainability
and self-expression
When defining the green consumer, Elkington
et al. (1990) emphasize that caring for the
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 445
environment leads consumers to reduce the
number of purchases to a minimum. Although
our analysis notes that our informants strongly
adhere to environmental preservation and care
for nature, the actual practices of anti-con-
sumption for sustainability mostly relate to a
concern for self-expression, either in terms of
identities or desired identities. For example,
Rachel identifies herself as a person of ‘faith.’
Her spiritual connection to Christianity is vital
to her self-concept and it is her faith that leads
to anti-consumption practices.
Rachel:‘But the original energy for our
motivation came more from our faith I
think. There’s the importance placed
within Christianity on our impact on
others, our capacity to contribute to the
quality of others’ lives or not, an orien-
tation to social responsibility - which
happens outside of faith contexts too, I
know, but which for us is central to
making the effort. The concept of justice
was probably a key 30 years ago, for us -
there are only limited resources on the
planet and richer countries are taking a
disproportionate share. It expresses soli-
darity with people who are poor and
future generations to be prudent with the
use of resources. Only gradually have we
become more aware of concepts such as
sustainability, ecological footprints and
climate change, but they fit easily with the
values derived from our faith.’
Each informant expressed a diversity of
identities that led them to practices of anti-
consumption for sustainability. As seen above,
Rachel’s sustainable living is an expression of
her faith and ‘an orientation to social
responsibility.’ For Angela, it is her strong
sense of involvement and her aptitude to make
decisions that compelled her to join an
environmental group and adopt of sustainable
lifestyle.
Angela:Um, I’m a teacher at a local school,
local high school. I’ve been always very
strongly involved in the community from
local historical societies to community sort
of nursing groups to the hospital board
and then becoming involved in local
government in 1991, so lots of hands on
experience I guess in making decisions, ah,
in relation to um, ah issues of the
environment.
All narratives depict a clear relationship
between our informants’ identities and sustain-
able practices. Adopting a sustainable lifestyle
allows informants to express who they are
(identities) and who they desire to be (desired
identities). In terms of desired identities, Susan
dreams of becoming self-sufficient and one day
having ‘my dream home, to have a fully, like
self-contained sustainable house’. For all the
informants, living a sustainable life is a goal,
sort of a dream that entails ‘a shift along a
continuum towards feeling more hopeful’
(Laurie). The dream, hope or the goals to
become ‘self-sufficient’ (Susan), ‘more hope-
ful’ (Laurie) or to ‘be the leaders’ (Lisa), leads
informants to question their way of living and
leads them to gradually adopt a more sustain-
able lifestyle. Here, we see our informants
explaining their choices to adopt anti-con-
sumption practices for sustainable living as
part of their pursuit of desired identities.
In addition, all anti-consumption practices,
despite their different characterizations,
(reject, reduce, reuse) are described a means
for self-expression. For example, Francis
explains that sustainable living is an expression
of her identity as a caring woman who gives in
order to receive something back. Francis’s
identities relates to caring: ‘care of people,
taking care of plants, taking care of myself,’
caring for her child, caring for her husband.
Francis: I like ... I like to take care of things,
yeah. And caring and ...and the quality of
... of what I do. And so, that would be you
know taking care of people, taking care of
plants, taking care of myself, so ... and
taking care of the environment of course.
And it’s all encompassing you know it’s ...
when you take care of the environment
you’re also ...you give something to it and
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
446 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
it gives back to you. So, I also feel that with
my child and my husband. I give them
something and they give it back to me and
it’s more rewarding, yeah.
In Francis’s narrative (and for all informants)
we find that using anti-consumption to express
identities or desired identities does not require
her to significantly compromise who she is or
her way of life. Practices of anti-consumption
for sustainability therefore seem to give the
informants options for embracing sustainabil-
ity within their daily life without compromis-
ing their core identities. For example, Sarah,
who identifies herself as a saver, is strongly
dedicated to reducing her electricity consump-
tion because when her ‘last electricity bill
came in, what a really great thing.’ Her core
values evolve around saving money and
reducing her consumption offers a means to
saving money. Similarly, Susan is a ‘social’
animal, she loves interacting and networking
with others. For Susan, anti-consumption for
sustainability gives her a sense of belonging to
a diversity of environmental groups.
Susan: It is being run by ’FutureNet’ which
is kind of run as a networking group for
young enviro scientists and engineers etc. I
have found out about other events mainly
through mailing lists I’m a member of. For
example, the NSW and Sutherland Greens
and Green campus groups (not necessarily
associated with ’The Greens’ party but
green groups). There’s a whole heap of e-
lists and Yahoo groups that contain this
sort of info. Also, there’s also an email
called ’Coo-ee’ that lists environmental
jobs and also upcoming events and
seminars.
For Susan, embracing sustainability in her
life allows participating in ‘e-lists and Yahoo
groups.’ Here, sustainability is not so much
about following prescribed sustainable prac-
tices or acting as a ‘green consumer.’ Rather,
Susan is using sustainability as means for self-
expression, personal fulfilment and sense of
social belonging. Hence, in contrast to existing
literature where sustainable practices are
expressions of care for the environment
(Moisander and Pesonen, 2002; Moisander,
2007), our narratives shows myriads of con-
cerns, ranging from financial evaluation, to
comfort, independence and environmental
concerns, all linked to anti-consumption for
sustainability. Most importantly, each concern
addresses both the needs of the individual and
the need for environmental preservation. For
example, Rachel below explains that her
rejection of car usage is also motivated by
road tolls and road injuries.
Rachel: There are, the road toll, that’s
something that also, um, it’s another
motivator for not getting into a car. I
mean, we, we’re alive and well. You know,
I have a number of clients who have had
accidents or colleagues you know, who
have major long term injuries because of
car accidents.
At first glance, Rachel’s narrative reveals a
series of objective evaluations based on price,
availability, convenience and safety of public
transport. Yet, this does not mean that Rachel
views her anti-consumption practice as a
purely objective and individualistic act that is
just intrinsic to her individual needs. Rachel’s
narrative combines multiple discourses that
support both her individual needs and her care
for the environment. For example, in the
excerpt below, Rachel explains her resistance
to renovate her 60 years old house using
references to rational cost-evaluation criteria,
environmental care and post-material values.
Rachel: ‘I guess we wouldn’t be big on
renovating even if we did own the home,
just because we figure, we’re just not that
into material things as well and that’s
cheaper. Not renovating your house, is
cheaper, that is cheaper, and it’s environmen-
tally friendly. So our house looks the same as it
did when it was built 60 years ago.’
Rachel’s belief in financial saving and
objective considerations are linked to her
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 447
desire to preserve the environment and to her
non-materialistic values. Yet, being a non-
material person is not sufficient to justify her
resistance to renovating the house. Similarly,
Rachel’s love for the environment does not
command her to do goods greater than
personal interests. In other words, the narra-
tive shows that neither self-interests nor
environment concerns are sufficient motiva-
tors to anti-consumption for sustainability.
Instead, self-interests and environmental con-
cerns are interrelated and both become drivers
to anti-consumption for sustainability.
This third theme shows that our informants’
identities and desired identities define a space
where they can enact the diverse practices of
anti-consumption for sustainability and as
such, these practices are performed within
existing or desired identities. We show how
the broad range of anti-consumption possibi-
lities allows the informants to express them-
selves without compromises having to take
place. This contrasts with green consumption
which may require consumers to make
compromises; for example, Francis classifies
eco-friendly cleaners as antithetical to being a
mother and when purchasing one she com-
promises her values as a woman who cares for
the environment. The final theme shows how
our informants subjectively construct their
personal notion of sustainability and sustain-
able practices.
Anti-consumption for sustainable:
a subjective construction of sustainability
Each informant discussed how, within their
daily lives, they practice sustainable living
and how each action, whether rejection,
reduction, or reuse, is situated within narra-
tives where long held, core values and desires
are acted upon. For example, throughout her
narrative, Mandy is a ‘saver,’ she enjoys saving
money and preserving rather than wasting.
These core values are also incorporated in to
her views of what constitutes sustainability
and what qualify as sustainable practices. In
this theme we show how the informants,
rather than following an objective prescribed
view of what sustainability is or what con-
stitutes a sustainable practice, subjectively
construct these notions. To illustrate this we
see in the excerpt below Mandy explaining a
wasteful act of demolishing a house using
discourses of sustainability by referring to
values of saving, reusing and recycling the
waste.
Mandy: But we did recycle a fair bit of the
timber that came out of the demolition of
the house and reused it in some of the
structure where it was suitable, um, and
um, we left a few existing ceilings in, which
I’m sort of regretting now but um, and, all
the rock that came out of the pool is, that
we dug in a pool in here and that was all
rock so we put all that under this, this is ah,
was elevated, this slab, so we recycled all
the, so instead of just getting the rock off
site, we used it as crush fill to fill all this
area in and um that saved us um some
money not carting it away.
Although Mandy’s decision to demolish the
house (waste) does not have many green
credentials, she still describes the action using
discourses of sustainability. For Mandy, the
materials she reused from the demolition site
helped her realign an unsustainable act into
a sustainable act, one which saved money
(a core value of hers) and was environmentally
friendly through reuse of waste. These descrip-
tions of living sustainably do not conform to
how sustainable practices are defined in
positivists studies on green values and environ-
mental attitudes (Balderjahn, 1988; Ottman,
1993). Indeed, several activities expressed in
the narratives such as the ‘demolition of the
house’ or driving to the ocean described below
were not particularly green, though this was
overlooked by the informants.
Mandy: We like to have, you know, like, the
clean, like clean environment so you can
swim and surf and fish and all that sort of
thing, so, I mean, we instil that sort of ethic
in our kids, like, you don’t pollute the
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
448 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
waterways, you don’t, you know, chuck
rubbish on the road. You just, doesn’t
matter where you are, just because you’re
in the bush, you can’t just throw a can out
the door, or whatever, so, um, I suppose we
educate the kids like that. Um, and,
because we do enjoy, like, getting out
and going to places like up and down the
coast and fishing and surfing and things
like that, so we enjoy that, so, um, we, um,
want that environment. There’s nothing
worse that walking onto a beach and
finding rubbish everywhere and cans
floating in the water and stuff like that.
You just don’t want to swim, you know.
Although Mandy’s leisure activities involve
both the consumption of the car (unsustain-
able) and the anti-consumption of a boat
(sustainable), they are described as sustainable
practices. Mandy’s rational for positioning
them in this way is that surfing and fishing
are activities during which ‘you don’t pollute
the waterways,’ and she is able to maintain this
as she overlooks or ignores the transportation
involved in the getting to the beach or river. In
addition to overlooking unsustainable parts of
an activity, our informants’ subjective
interpretation of sustainability allow for ‘flexi-
bility’, ‘permission’ or even ‘amnesty’. For
example, when Rachel is considering what
eggs to use when making something that
requires large numbers, such as ‘a quiche or
something like that,’ she may ‘cheat and I’ll
buy the bad packaging ones.’
These overlooked unsustainable practices
and the occasional deviances highlight that our
informants allow themselves to be ‘human,’ or
‘imperfect,’; a finding that sits clearly outside
of the normative views of sustainable practices
(Elkington et al., 1990; Ottman, 1993). These
permissions are individually set and con-
structed around prevalent values ascribed to
core identities. For example, Rachel is not
prepared to stop skiing as she sees it as part of
family bonding and a healthy lifestyle, despite:
‘you know, we have to drive two hours to a
hill and running the ski lifts and stuff can’t be
that good for the environment. And logging
the hills and stuff like that. But we’re not
giving that up.’ And yet, throughout her
narrative, Rachel defines her lifestyle as
sustainable. Hence, contrary to the idea that
consumers need to rebel against western
affluence, materialism, and consumption cul-
ture in order to embrace sustainable living
(Elgin, 1981a; Etzioni, 1998; Moisander and
Pesonen, 2002), our informants do not become
anti-consumerist whilst embracing sustainable
living. Neither their actions nor their reflec-
tions referred to the common notion that the
world will change when people change. For
them, consumer culture and sustainability are
not antithesis. Rather, our findings show that
sustainability is informed and transformed in
the course of consumer appropriation. For
example, when describing her perception of
sustainability, Angie continually mentions the
relevance of restoring old buildings and the
importance of having talented ‘heritage archi-
tects’ who can ensure that ‘the building will be
saved for future generations.’ Although Angie
adheres to the common notion that sustain-
ability relates to living so as ‘not to jeopardise
the needs of future generations’ (OECD, 1994),
her conception in incorporated in her ‘interest
in the arts, ballet and music’ and her love of
historical buildings. Interestingly, Angie’s
interests in historical sites often leads her to
fly oversee to see how old buildings have been
preserved over the years and passed on to the
next generations. Clearly, Angie, like all of our
informants, does not express a common
identity of green consumer, environmentally
conscious consumer or even ecological citi-
zen. Rather, all of our informants were
sustainable bricoleurs, negotiating sustainabil-
ity within their daily lives using whatever is
available to them. The actions are flexible, in
constant movement amongst webs of identity
claims and responsibility towards individual
needs and environmental conservations.
Overall we see that anti-consumption for
sustainability does not take place because the
informants had develop a sustainable consu-
mer identity over the years they have been
practicing rejection, reduction and reuse.
Instead, these practices allow them to sub-
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 449
jectively express who they are or who they
want to be (within existing identities) rather
than to conform to a prescriptive idea of green
consumer. Indeed this subjective construction
allows consumers to try, overlook and fail to
act in the best interests of the environment yet
still feel as though their action are sustainable.
Discussion and conclusions
This paper endeavoured to understand anti-
consumption within attempts to live a more
sustainable lifestyle. Our analysis focussed on
the characteristics of anti-consumption within
sustainable living and the meanings ascribed to
these practices. Overall, we find that anti-
consumption is an integral part of trying to live
a more sustainable life and in particular, the
acts of rejecting, reducing and reusing con-
sumption are key elements to sustainable
consumption. Indeed we found that green
consumption, whilst practiced, is not an
essential part of sustainable living.
Rather than finding that our informants
follow a prescriptive, objectively defined view
of a sustainable consumer and as such attempt
to ‘become’ this sort of person, they used anti-
consumption for self expression within their
existing identities (or desired identities). All
narratives depicted a clear relationship
between their identities and sustainable prac-
tices with the adoption of a sustainable lifestyle
allowing informants to express who they are
(identities) and who they desire to be (desired
identities). This suggests that efforts under-
taken to establish an economic system based
on sustainable consumption (Fisk, 1973) as
well as individual marketing efforts design to
promote a specific behaviour should not try to
change people into sustainable consumers.
Instead they should concentrate on highlight-
ing how sustainable practices and values can
allow expression of existing identities and
indeed how these identities now require these
practices and values.
This then questions green brands which
either explicitly or implicitly within their
position and communications, suggest that
purchase helps one become a sustainable
consumer. It may be, that as our informants
practiced sustainability within existing iden-
tities, then these sustainable brands are
doomed to fail because they represent the
‘sustainable consumer’ rather than a mother,
husband, worker, who practices sustainability.
Hence, will we only see sustainable brands
dominating a product category when the
existing market leaders transform themselves
(without greenwashing) into the green pro-
ducts? As it is these brands that may be able to
better satisfy the desires to express sustainable
values with existing identities.
This research also emphasizes the simple yet
important conceptual difference between anti-
consumption and ‘green’ or environmentally
friendly consumption. We found that our
informants commonly do not purchase or
use green products or brands in order to help
them live more sustainable lives. In the few
instances where consuming green alternatives
was mentioned, consumers often expressed
failure to adopt them in the long term. Beyond
this, they all admitted to continuing to use
unsustainable products regularly. Hence, we
found that anti-consumption is more of an
integral part of their sustainable lifestyles than
the purchasing of green alternatives. Whilst
this may be seen as bad news for the
manufacturers of environmentally friendly
product, this is mitigated by the environmental
benefits of not purchasing.
We argue that the management of the
boundaries between myriads of identity roles
(mother, wife, lawyer, sister homemaker) and
the range and flexibility of practices available,
can help explain consumer’s inclination for
anti-consumption practices over green con-
sumption. We saw that whereas a range of
identity conflicts occurred (mother versus
wife, friend versus environmentalist), limita-
tions were typically placed on green products
when they either challenged core mothering
values or modified the home or body. Hence,
we identify that one of the main contributing
factors to consumers not purchasing green
products is that core elements of the self may
clash with the purchase or use of green
products.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
450 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
In identifying ‘Rejecting’ as a key anti-
consumption behaviour (in addition to the
well known ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ categories
of sustainable behaviour), our respondents are
engaging in the most powerful mechanism
available to them in order to minimise their
ecological footprint (Jackson, 2009). Whilst
it is often lamented that consumers do not
convert their pro-environmental attitudes and
beliefs into purchasing action (Roberts, 1996;
Auger et al., 2003; Mannetti et al., 2004; Belk et
al., 2005; Peattie and Peattie, 2009) one under-
explored reason for this may be that they look
to enact these attitudes by not consuming.
It would make sense that consumers under-
stand that in a world which we over consume
(a message that is repeated regularly) then
perhaps rejecting and reducing and reusing are
the most sensible responses?
The rejecting, reducing and reusing prac-
tices performed fall outside of the dominant
discursive framework of socio-environmental
versus self-interest concerns. It is clear that the
informants were well informed about environ-
mental problems and they were concerned
about the impact of this on them and their
families. However, care for individual needs
was found as a strong element of anti-
consumption for sustainability. This suggests
that anti-consumption for sustainability is not
just a result of environmental concerns, but
that it mostly stems from the subjectivity of the
consumer and their personal needs. This
subjectivity includes a diversity of values
interwoven in the practices of rejecting,
reducing, and reusing. Hence, contrary to
the notion that sustainability will be conducted
by ‘a responsible consumer, a socially-aware
consumer, a consumer who thinks ahead and
tempers his or her desires by social awareness,
a consumer whose actions must be morally
defensible and who must occasionally be
prepared to sacrifice personal pleasure to
communal well-being’ (Gabriel and Lang
1995, p. 175–176), our informants’ anti-con-
sumption for sustainability do not require
‘sacrificing personal pleasure’ (Gabriel and
Lang, 1995). This leads to a key practical
contribution of this research.
We suggest that companies attempt to
highlight the economic, convenience or func-
tional benefits of their sustainable products
rather than focussing on a charity type appeal
(or more specifically the ‘sick baby’ appeal
described by (or more specifically the ‘sick
baby’ appeal described by Fine, 1990) com-
monly taken to promote pro-environmental
behaviours. The ‘charity appeal’, promotes
‘the public good, not for assistance to any
particular individuals’ (Wordnet, 2010) with
an emphasis on helping those not directly
related to the giver. The sick baby appeal
highlights this by showing how something is
wrong with something that the donor should
care about and that they can do something to
help fix it. This is commonly seen in
communications attempting to promote sus-
tainable practices such as not purchasing
products made with palm oil, wood from old
growth forests or recycling wine bottles. Here,
the emphasis is typically placed on saving a
particular animal (i.e. the orang-utan) the trees
or the planet. A specific example is the slogan
used to promote the Ecomall.com as ‘a place to
help save the planet’. Our work suggests that
companies, in addition to highlighting environ-
mental concerns and successes (Fine, 1990;
Obermiller, 1995) should also focus on the self
interested notions of taste, durability, quality,
value or positive emotions that can be anticip-
ated prior, during and after the practices has
been performed. This may help consumers feel
that they do not have to compromise other
parts of themselves in order to live more
sustainable lifestyle.
Self interested motivations and integration
of sustainability within current identities is also
highlighted where, in contrast to the ‘antic-
onsumerist ethic’ described as antithetical to
material prosperity, our informants integrated
practices of anti-consumption for sustainability
with ‘their wallet in mind.’ Anti-consumption
rather than consuming green products was
described as a money saving practice.
Finally, this research allows us to see
sustainable consumption being performed in
three interconnected ways, first through the
acquisition and use of green products, second
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 451
through anti-consumption practices such as
rejecting, reduction and reuse and finally via
the sustainable disposal practice of recycling.
Further study is required in this field. First,
what is the relation between post-material
values, anti-consumption and frugality? Second,
oes anti-consumption for sustainability requires
consumers to have had experienced affluence?
Finally, questions could focus on whether green
consumption mostly satisfies environmental
concerns and whether anti-consumption for
sustainability satisfies environmental concerns
as well as self-interested issues.
Biographical notes
Dr Iain Black (Ph.D; Strath) recently joined
the University of Edinburgh having previously
lectured at the University of Sydney, Australia.
His main teaching and research interests
revolve around sustainability and consump-
tion, in particular he is interested in anti-con-
sumption, consumer’s responses to scarcity
and how consumers dispose of goods. He
has published widely in academic journals
including the European Journal of Marketing,
Marketing Letters, Journal of Marketing Man-
agement, Journal of Consumer Behaviour
and Sustainable Development.
Dr He
´
le
`
ne Cherrier (Ph.D; University of
Arkansas) is currently a senior lecturer at Grif-
fith University, Australia. Her research interests
embrace radical changes in consumption life-
styles; social and environmental activism;
appropriation and reconfiguration of consu-
mer meanings, symbols, and usage; identity
politics; and the role of consumption in iden-
tity construction. Her work has been published
in journals including the Journal of Business
Research, Consumption Markets and Culture,
Journal of Marketing Management and the
European Journal of Marketing.
References
Auger P, Burke P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. 2003.
What will consumers pay for social product
features? Journal of Business Ethics 42(3):
281–304.
Balderjahn I. 1988. Personality variables and
environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologi-
cally responsible consumption patterns. Journal
of Business Research 17: 51–56.
Barnett C, Cafaro P, Newholm T. 2005. Philosophy
and ethical consumption. In The Ethical
Consumer, Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D
(eds). Sage: London.
Belk RW. 1988. Possessions and the extended
self. Journal of Consumer Research 15(2):
139–168.
Belk R, Devinney TM, Eckhardt G. 2005. Consumer
ethics across cultures. Consumption, Markets
and Culture 8(3): 275–289.
Cherrier H. 2010. Custodian behavior: a material
expression of anti-consumerism. Consumption,
Markets and Culture 13(3): 259–272.
Cherrier H, Murray JB. 2007. Reflexive disposses-
sion and the self: constructing a processual
theory of identity. Consumption, Markets and
Culture 10(1): 1–29.
Craig-Lees M, Hill C. 2002. Understanding voluntary
simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing 19(2):
187–210.
Dodson A. 2003. Citizenship and the Environ-
ment. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Elgin D. 1981a. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a
Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly
Rich, (1st edn). Morrow: New York.
Elgin D. 1981b. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a
Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly
Rich. Morrow: New York.
Elkington J, Hailes J, Makower J. 1990. The Green
Consumer. Penguin Books; New York.
Etzioni A. 1998. Voluntary simplicity: characteriz-
ation, select psychological implication, and
societal consequences. Journal of Economic
Psychology 19: 619–643.
Fine S. 1990. Social Marketing. Allyn & Bacon Inc.:
Boston, MA.
Fisk G. 1973. Criteria for a theory of responsible
consumption. Journal of Marketing 37(2): 24–31.
Gabriel Y, Lang T. 1995. The Unmanageable
Consumer. Sage: Thousand Oakes, CA.
Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D. 2005. Pressure
groups, campaigns and consumers. In The
Ethical Consumer, Harrison R, Newholm T,
Shaw D (eds). Sage: London.
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
452 Iain R. Black and Helene Cherrier
Heiskanen E, Pantzar M. 1997. Toward sustainable
consumption: two new perspectives. Journal of
Consumer Policy 20(4): 409–442.
Holbrook MB. 1987. What is consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June): 128–
132.
Jackson T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth? —
The Transition to a Sustainable Economy.
London, Sustainable Development Commission.
Klein JG, Smith CN, Andrew J. 2004. Why we boy-
cott: consumer motivations for boycott participa-
tion. Journal of Marketing 68 (3): 92–109.
Kozinets RV, Handelman J. 1998. Ensouling con-
sumption: a netnographic exploration of the
meaning of boycotting behavior. In Advances
in Consumer Research, Alba J, Hutchinson
W (eds). Association for Consumer Research:
Provo, UT.
Lee MSW, Fernandez KV, Hyman MR. 2009. Anti-
consumption: an overview and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research 62(2): 145–147.
Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S. 2004. Recycling:
planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 24(2): 227–236.
Micheletti M, Follesdal A, Stolle D. 2003. Politics,
Products, and Markets Exploring Political Con-
sumerism Past and Present. Transaction Press:
New Brunswick.
Moisander J. 2007. Motivational complexity of
green consumerism. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 31(4): 404–409.
Moisander J, Pesonen S. 2002. Narratives of sustain-
able ways of living: consructing the self and the
other as a green consumer. Management
Decision 40(4): 329–342.
Obermiller C. 1995. The baby is sick/the baby is
well: a test of environmental communication
appeals. Journal of Advertising 24(2): 55–70.
Ottman JA. 2003. Green Marketing: Challenges
and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age.
NTC Business Books: Lincolnwood, IL.
OECD. 2002. Policies to Promote Sustainable
Consumption: An Overview. env/epoc/wpnep
(2001)18/final, OECD, Paris.
Ozcaglar-Toulouse N, Shiu E, Shaw D. 2006. In
search of fair trade: ethical consumer decision
making in France. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies 30(5): 502–514.
Peattie K, Peattie S. 2009. Social marketing: a path-
way to consumption reduction? Journal of
Business Research 62(2): 260–268.
Press M, Arnould EJ. 2009. Constraints on sustain-
able energy consumption: market system and
public policy challenges and opportunities.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 28(1):
102–113.
Roberts JA. 1996. Will the real socially responsible
consumer please step forward? Business
Horizon 39(1): 79–83.
Sandıkcı O
¨, Ekici A. 2009. Politically motivated
brand rejection. Journal of Business Research
62(2): 208–217.
Schumacher EF. 1974. Small Is Beautiful: A Study
of Economics as If People Mattered. Sphere
Books: London.
Tanner C, Kast SW. 2003. Promoting sustainable
consumption: determinants of green purchases
by Swiss consumers. Psychology and Marketing
20(10): 883–903.
Thompson CJ. 1997. Interpreting consumers: a
hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing
insights from the texts of consumers’ consump-
tion stories. Journal of Marketing Research
34(4): 438–456.
Thompson CJ, Locander WB, Pollio HR. 1989. Put-
ting consumer experience back into consumer
research: the philosophy and method of existen-
tial phenomenology. Journal of Consumer
Research 16(2): 133–147.
Wordnet. 2010. Available at: http://wordnetweb.
princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=charity [Accessed
on 7th May 2010]
Copyright #2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Nov.–Dec. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Anti-consumption sustainability sustainable consumption identity 453