I don’t know about you, but when someone tries to shame me into changing my behavior, I usually put up a red flag.
‘Eco-shaming’ has been on the rise in the environmental communication realm. We’ve seen everyone from citizens to influencers, friends, and companies use this tactic to bring awareness to environmental and social problems.
But will it drive mass behavioral change (which is needed to reach a zero-carbon society)? That is the big question, which I explore in this article.
What is eco-shaming?
‘Eco-shaming’ is the highlighting of someone’s anti-environmental activity or inactivity, with the ultimate goal of discouraging that behavior and influencing a more sustainable behavior. It’s usually an action where shame, disgrace, or humiliation is projected towards someone in a public manner.
But does it work? The intention might be genuine, but this form of marketing doesn’t fulfill the greater purpose that the ecomarketer is trying to achieve. We want to see massive positive change in sustainable behaviors and regenerative buying habits.
In my opinion, positive behavioral nudges will have a much longer-term impact on change in citizens (than ‘eco-shaming’ ). “Nudges” encourage us to do something different. When used as a tool for good, marketers can use this powerful behavioral tactic. This method offers a much more lasting behavioral change that transcends the situation. So, next time you consider ‘eco-shaming’ in your campaign, consider the power of nudges for good.
Why doesn’t eco-shaming work?
It’s suppressive, aggressive, and accusatory. These types of marketing campaigns aren’t going to influence the masses toward positive sustainable habits. We need as many people as possible on the team people and planet, whether they’re perfect or imperfect at sustainability.
But sometimes it does work. When the planet-conscious (and likely wealthy) group of Swedes dubbed a new word, “Tagskryt”, as putting the shame on others for flying, ‘eco-shaming’ worked. The word had massive traction on social media and awareness was brought to the negative impact of flying.
Also, when Greenpeace used ‘eco-shaming’, like in this campaign, where Nestle was shamed for sourcing palm oil from companies associated with the destruction of the Southwest Asia rainforest. It worked, with Nestle announcing a new sourcing policy a few months later.
But two patterns can be seen in these campaigns. The shaming is done from one group to another, where the group has the financial ability to change. Many Swedes don’t face financial barriers (my assumption). In the second campaign, the shaming is done from an NGO to a company, where the company’s policies are questioned. The company is signaled out but not the individual.
We must remember that this form of behavioral change ‘eco-shaming’ isn’t conscious of larger societal problems. This messaging can put unnecessary pressure on marginalized groups, such as low income, where it’s not even possible for them to adjust their lifestyle to be more sustainable. When physical barriers exist from living life more ethically, ‘eco-shaming’ doesn’t work nor is it emphatic to the mentioned community.
As Nina Kumambetova at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences stated in her thesis, eco-shaming made people experience tiredness and loss of interest in local environmental agendas because of the lack of proper navigation of what the person could’ve done.
To wrap up, it’s not just about showing the citizens what behavior needs to change — but it’s also providing concrete and actionable methods for them to do so.
Marketing as a force for good
I can be confident and say that ‘eco-shaming’ won’t exist in my campaigns.
If I choose this method, it’s for a specific citizen group or company. You can learn more reasons why it isn’t the best method in my YouTube video (where I share another example, too):
What do you think? Why might ‘eco-shaming’ not encourage massive behavioral change for people and the planet?
You can follow my ECOMARKETER diary and insights on these channels:
- LinkedIn Newsletter – a monthly newsletter about my transformation into the ecomarketer role (and how you can do it too).
- YouTube – a deep dive into sustainable marketing topics.
If you’d like to digitally meet to discuss the ecomarketer role, book a digital coffee session with me!
I don’t know about you, but when someone tries to shame me into changing my behavior, I usually put up a red flag.
‘Eco-shaming’ has been on the rise in the environmental communication realm. We’ve seen everyone from citizens to influencers, friends, and companies use this tactic to bring awareness to environmental and social problems.
But will it drive mass behavioral change (which is needed to reach a zero-carbon society)? That is the big question, which I explore in this article.
What is eco-shaming?
‘Eco-shaming’ is the highlighting of someone’s anti-environmental activity or inactivity, with the ultimate goal of discouraging that behavior and influencing a more sustainable behavior. It’s usually an action where shame, disgrace, or humiliation is projected towards someone in a public manner.
But does it work? The intention might be genuine, but this form of marketing doesn’t fulfill the greater purpose that the ecomarketer is trying to achieve. We want to see massive positive change in sustainable behaviors and regenerative buying habits.
In my opinion, positive behavioral nudges will have a much longer-term impact on change in citizens (than ‘eco-shaming’ ). “Nudges” encourage us to do something different. When used as a tool for good, marketers can use this powerful behavioral tactic. This method offers a much more lasting behavioral change that transcends the situation. So, next time you consider ‘eco-shaming’ in your campaign, consider the power of nudges for good.
Why doesn’t eco-shaming work?
It’s suppressive, aggressive, and accusatory. These types of marketing campaigns aren’t going to influence the masses toward positive sustainable habits. We need as many people as possible on the team people and planet, whether they’re perfect or imperfect at sustainability.
But sometimes it does work. When the planet-conscious (and likely wealthy) group of Swedes dubbed a new word, “Tagskryt”, as putting the shame on others for flying, ‘eco-shaming’ worked. The word had massive traction on social media and awareness was brought to the negative impact of flying.
Also, when Greenpeace used ‘eco-shaming’, like in this campaign, where Nestle was shamed for sourcing palm oil from companies associated with the destruction of the Southwest Asia rainforest. It worked, with Nestle announcing a new sourcing policy a few months later.
But two patterns can be seen in these campaigns. The shaming is done from one group to another, where the group has the financial ability to change. Many Swedes don’t face financial barriers (my assumption). In the second campaign, the shaming is done from an NGO to a company, where the company’s policies are questioned. The company is signaled out but not the individual.
We must remember that this form of behavioral change ‘eco-shaming’ isn’t conscious of larger societal problems. This messaging can put unnecessary pressure on marginalized groups, such as low income, where it’s not even possible for them to adjust their lifestyle to be more sustainable. When physical barriers exist from living life more ethically, ‘eco-shaming’ doesn’t work nor is it emphatic to the mentioned community.
As Nina Kumambetova at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences stated in her thesis, eco-shaming made people experience tiredness and loss of interest in local environmental agendas because of the lack of proper navigation of what the person could’ve done.
To wrap up, it’s not just about showing the citizens what behavior needs to change — but it’s also providing concrete and actionable methods for them to do so.
Marketing as a force for good
I can be confident and say that ‘eco-shaming’ won’t exist in my campaigns.
If I choose this method, it’s for a specific citizen group or company. You can learn more reasons why it isn’t the best method in my YouTube video (where I share another example, too):
What do you think? Why might ‘eco-shaming’ not encourage massive behavioral change for people and the planet?
You can follow my ECOMARKETER diary and insights on these channels:
- LinkedIn Newsletter – a monthly newsletter about my transformation into the ecomarketer role (and how you can do it too).
- YouTube – a deep dive into sustainable marketing topics.
If you’d like to digitally meet to discuss the ecomarketer role, book a digital coffee session with me!
