Why Sustainability Rarely Crosses Our Minds at the Checkout

Written by Shirin Yazgulieva (IMT Atlantique)

Most consumers say they care about the environment. Yet when standing in front of a supermarket shelf, sustainability often fails to make the mental shortlist.

That disconnect sits at the heart of a recent paper by Larissa Elmor, Guilherme A. Ramos, Yan Vieites, Bernardo Andretti, and Eduardo B. Andrade. Their work asks a simple question: Do consumers actually think about environmental impact when making everyday purchase decisions? The answer, it turns out, is usually no.

The question people rarely ask themselves

The paper that anchors this conversation began as Larissa’s master’s dissertation and later evolved into her first publication as a lead author. The project emerged during what her advisor called “Sustainable Fridays”: weekly meetings where a small research group gathered to read, discuss, and challenge the sustainability literature.

As the group dug deeper, a gap became increasingly clear. Much existing research assumes that consumers do consider sustainability but fail to act on it because of barriers like price or convenience. The authors decided to step back and test that assumption directly.

Across six studies conducted in Brazil, the US, and the UK, the team used a diverse set of research designs. Their multi-method approach allowed them to examine sustainability considerations across different contexts and levels of realism. Yet the pattern was strikingly consistent: environmental impact rarely came to mind when consumers made fast-moving consumer goods purchases.

According to Larissa, neither hypocrisy nor lack of concern explains why sustainability gets overlooked in customers’ decision-making. Cognitive accessibility is to blame. When consumers make decisions, they rely on visible, familiar, and easy-to-process product cues, such as price, brand, package size, and convenience. By contrast, environmental impact is poorly signposted at the point of purchase, abstract and of indirect consequence.

“Without reliable, easily available information, people rely on cues like packaging, color, or material to infer sustainability and those cues can be misleading.”

     - Larissa Elmor

This insight helps explain why consumers signal the importance of sustainability in surveys, but that importance recedes in real-world decisions. For managers, the critical implication is that firms may invest heavily in sustainable sourcing and production, yet if sustainability is not cognitively activated at the shelf, it cannot meaningfully influence choice. An attribute that does not enter the consideration set cannot generate a competitive advantage.

When nudges start to work

One of the central challenges in developing the paper was translating the descriptive findings into something useful. The team tested mechanisms that could prompt sustainability considerations – most notably eco-labels. Eco-labels are visual certifications displayed on products that signal environmental performance, such as reduced carbon footprint, lower resource use, or organic production. While imperfect and often fragmented in their standards, they represent one of the few tools capable of integrating environmental information directly into the comparison process consumers use at the shelf. Unlike environmental pricing, which requires systemic changes and policy realignment, eco-labels can function within existing retail environments.

“The label would be a very easy, actionable solution. But it’s beyond supermarket managers right now. Policymakers need to create standardized, reliable measures so consumers can trust and use that information.”

     - Larissa Elmor

In these studies, displaying eco-labels before or alongside product evaluation increased sustainability considerations, particularly among consumers who typically do not think much about environmental impact.

Hence, the challenge is not only increasing the supply of sustainable products, but also embedding clear and credible environmental signals into the architecture of choice. Without salience and standardization, sustainability remains abstract and loses to price, habit, and brand familiarity.

Looking ahead

Larissa’s doctoral research continues to examine how consumers infer environmental impact when explicit information is absent, as well as how sustainability intersects with socioeconomic inequality

Her goals are consistent: research that speaks to society. Larissa believes that research insights have the power to promote the greater good. Even if the effects take time, the goals are worth pursuing.

Read the paper

Interested in reading all the details about environmental sustainability considerations in consumer decision making? Read the full paper here.

Want to cite the paper?

Elmor, L., Ramos, G. A., Vieites, Y., Andretti, B., & Andrade, E. B. (2024). Environmental sustainability considerations (or lack thereof) in consumer decision making. International Journal of Research in Marketing.

---

Meet Larissa Elmor

What motivated you to pursue an academic career in consumer research?

My path into consumer research felt quite natural. Both of my parents are educators, so teaching was always part of my world growing up. But what ultimately drew me to academia wasn’t theory for theory’s sake. It was the possibility of producing research with real societal impact. What attracted me most was the chance to create practical insights from behavioural research, insights that can help increase societal well-being and address problems like climate change or inequality. That motivation really runs through my research agenda. If I weren’t in academia, I think I would be working in policymaking or in an NGO, still focused on translating evidence into action.

You worked with a relatively large group of co-authors on this paper. How did you manage the teamwork, and what helped you stay aligned as a group throughout the process?

I think what really helped is that we worked well together from the very beginning, not only professionally but also personally. We became friends outside of work, and that made a big difference. Some of us had known each other for a long time, and others met during this project, but there was a lot of trust from the start.

We were all from the same university and at similar stages, although some were more senior than I was at the time. Everyone brought different strengths to the table. Eduardo was really strong in idea generation and experimental design, Bernardo was excellent with statistics, and Guilherme and Yan were very strong writers and helped a lot with structuring the paper. I learned so much from all of them.

We also had a very collaborative way of working. We would meet regularly, brainstorm together, discuss papers, and openly share ideas. It felt like we were joining forces. I think that combination of friendship, complementary skills, and regular discussion was the key to making the teamwork work so well.

This article was written by

Shirin Yazgulieva

Ph.D. candidate at IMT Atlantique (France)