Understanding How Sustainability Initiatives Fail: A Framework to Aid Design of Effective Interventions

Abstract

Background:

Many sustainability initiatives are successful and produce results that benefit the environment. However, others miss the mark and fail to produce the desired outcome. Past research has typically focused on understanding why initiatives fail, without first considering differences in how they fail.

Focus of the Article:

This manuscript is related to Research and Evaluation—specifically, the social marketing concept it focuses on is evaluating the outcome of sustainability initiatives.

Research Question:

What are the different ways in which sustainability initiatives can fail?

Program Design/Approach:

A multi-day workshop of interdisciplinary behavioral sustainability scholars led to the identification of five systematic differences in how sustainability initiatives can fail, suggesting that failure can take on not only different levels of severity, but different forms altogether. Within this framework, we provide examples of each type of failure.

Importance to the Social Marketing Field:

We argue that diagnosing how instead of just why an initiative fails offers important insights that can reduce the likelihood of future failures—insights that may be missed by a narrow focus on the why behind any given failure.

Recommendations for Research or Practice:

The identification of the different ways in which sustainability initiatives fail can lead to improvements in the design and implementation of behavioral interventions, facilitating successful sustainability outcomes and preventing unintended outcomes. Specific recommendations are discussed for each type of failure.

Limitations:

The examples in our framework are not exhaustive, but are instead intended to be illustrative exemplars of each type of failure. Moreover, as our focus is on how sustainability initiatives fail, we do not attempt to diagnose why particular initiatives fail.

Keywords

sustainability nudges intervention consumer choice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beale

J. R.

Bonsall

P. W.

(2007). Marketing in the bus industry: A psychological interpretation of some attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Transportation Research Part F, 10, 271–287.

Brown

Johnstone

Vong

Barascud

(2013). Testing the effect of defaults on the thermostat settings of OECD employees. Energy Economics, 39, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.04.011

Campbell-Arvai

Arvai

Kalof

(2014). Motivating sustainable food choices: The role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision. Environment and Behavior, 46(4), 453–475.

Catlin

J. R.

Wang

(2013). Recycling gone bad: When the option to recycle increases resource consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 122–127. https://doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.04.001

Cialdini

R. B.

(2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109.

De Young

(1993). Changing behavior and making it stick: The conceptualization and management of conservation behavior. Environment and Behavior, 25(4), 485–505.

Dickerson

C. A.

Thibodeau

Aronson

Miller

(1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 841–854.

Ferraro

P. J.

Price

M. K.

(2013). Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00344

Goldstein

N. J.

Cialdini

R. B.

Griskevicius

(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1086/586910

10.

Hargreaves

Nye

Burgess

(2013). Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy, 52, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.027

11.

Holland

R. W.

Aarts

Langendam

(2006). Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006

12.

Homsy

G. C.

Hart

(2019). Sustainability backfire: The unintended consequences of failing to engage neighborhood residents in policymaking. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1607746

13.

Klöckner

C. A.

Nayum

Mehmetoglu

(2013). Positive and negative spillover effects from electric car purchase to car use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 21, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.007

14.

Kristal

A. S.

Whillans

A. W.

(2020). What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour. Nature Human Behavior, 4(1), 169–176.

15.

Luchs

M. G.

Naylor

R. W.

Irwin

J. R.

Raghunathan

(2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.

16.

Maki

Carrico

A. R.

Raimi

K. T.

Truelove

H. B.

Araujo

Yeung

K. L.

(2019). Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9

17.

Margetts

E. A.

Kashima

(2017). Spillover between pro-environmental behaviours: The role of resources and perceived similarity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.005

18.

McMahon

(2019). How a grocery store’s plan to shame customers into using reusable bags backfired. National Public Radio, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/08/739580158/how-a-grocery-stores-plan-to-shame-customers-into-using-reusable-bags-backfired

19.

Newman

G. E.

Gorlin

Dhar

(2014). When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1086/677841

20.

Rosenthal

(1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638.

21.

Sachdeva

Boghrati

Dehghani

(2019). Testing the influence of purity-based interventions on pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(6), 1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061811

22.

Schultz

P. W.

Nolan

J. P.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

Griskevicius

(2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.

23.

Simonsohn

Nelson

L. D.

Simmons

J. P.

(2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534.

24.

Sun

Trudel

(2017). The effect of recycling versus trashing on consumption: Theory and experimental evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0574

25.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

26.

Wang

Krishna

McFerran

(2017). Turning off the lights: Consumers’ environmental efforts depend on visible efforts of firms. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(3), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0441

27.

Werfel

S. H.

(2017). Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nature Climate Change, 7(7), 512–515. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3316

28.

Winther

Ericson

(2013). Matching policy and people? Household responses to the promotion of renewable electricity. Energy Efficiency, 6, 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-012-9170-x