Psychological obstacles to the efficacy of environmental footprint tools

Abstract

Environmental footprint tools serve the purpose of guiding consumer behavior and making people aware of the relation between their resource consumption and the environmental impact of those choices. However, recent research shows that consumers tend to misjudge the environmental impact of labeled products and choices, in particular when these products are combined with other products and choices. People intuitively think that the carbon footprint for red meat combined with a side dish labeled "eco-friendly" is lower than for the red meat alone, as if the low carbon footprint side dish somehow compensates for the environmental burden of the main course. Even if people have a reasonably good understanding of the difference between a regular and a hybrid car with regard to the vehicles' environmental cost, they intuitively think that adding hybrid cars to an existing car pool does not add to the pool's total environmental burden. Furthermore, people tend to believe fewer trees are required to compensate for a set comprising regular and low carbon footprint (energy efficient) buildings compared with a set comprising only the regular buildings. The reason for these psychological effects of environmental footprint labeling seems to be that people seek an average when they attempt to process complex stimuli that comprise both environmentally friendlier and more environmentally harmful components. Even though consumers may achieve good understanding of the environmental impact of individual products and services from environmental footprint labels, connecting consumer choices with environmental consequences accurately, these examples illustrate that consumers systematically misinterpret bundles of individually labeled services and products. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.