Professor and Associate Dean at Copenhagen Business School I focused on ESG and corporate sustainability
New research looking into why people support climate action but then do not act. Main finding: While people in principle support a low-carbon lifestyle, entrenched public discussions of climate delay are limiting peoples' beliefs that a low-carbon future is possible. The study identifies four 'entrenched' public narratives of climate inaction (see image). Many people draw on elements of these narratives and thereby generate defensive responses to discussions of low-carbon lifestyles. This undermines the public's belief that change is possible and fair... Such research is critical as it moves beyond just looking at peoples' intentions. For instance, very recent studies show: (1) the vast majority of people want governments to take stronger climate action (80% across countries - https://lnkd.in/d2CxjiFV) and (2) a majority of people are willing to pay for climate action (69% across countries - https://lnkd.in/d-jndW4M). BUT, we need to understand much better why these intensions do not translate into individual behaviour change - such as lifestyle choices and, most of all, voting behavior... == Full Study (open access): https://lnkd.in/dFyH2ceG #climatechange, #esg, #sustainability, #climateaction
Julia Vol
5d
I think most of all this is a human psychology question. It is the same that 99% of people will tell you smoking is dangerous for their health, yet how many people smoke? Even worse, how many doctors smoke? That is primarily the biased belief that even though you know something is bad, you feel like it won't affect you. Some with climate change, in my opinion. And then of course there's what you mentioned, the doom and gloom and the feeling of the individual that they cannot influence it anyway. A notion that is fueled by the big oil lobby and PR machine. Michael Mann wrote extensively about it.
These findings are so interesting Andreas Rasche! It's a shame that this article is based on such old data (a sample from the UK in 2020/2021) since I'm not sure how it applies to today in the UK or outside of it.
Having been a footprint reduction coach for the last 5 years and witnessed individuals who are quite willing to reduce their footprints and take personal action, I might have some answers Andreas Rasche ☺️. Shall we connect?
There is apparently an omission in your efforts to understand why people do not act, which is that they will if you ask them to AND get them to make a tangible commitment to change. So much of what the individual is presented with by way of climate education is passive, allowing freedom of choice, which all too often equals inaction. What is needed is active education that impels towards commitment. One of the main reasons you see the popular endorsement of stronger government action is because it alleviates the burden of choice; ie. people will act if their choices are limited. But since public sensitivity to affirmative action may cost votes, politicians are too gutless to take the action needed to create real change. Therefore, active education of individuals in a ‘captive’ arena (the workplace), where the spontaneous effects of peer pressure may be relied upon to bring about commitment, and notions of giving one’s word and honour to create ongoing action, is the best option for starting wholesale action and change.
intresting not a million miles away from the Discourse fo Delay as mapped by Cambridge university we have developed a set of cards with conversational starters to explore these objections/reasons to delay action you can see them all here https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7132357239671017473
Anna Hyde
5d
This is my favourite chart to explain inaction, everyone thinks it is some ones elses job but the reality is we are all the system We are all citizens ,we are all ecomomically active in some way and we all consume so we must be the change . As many suffer the effects of greenhouse gas pollution all over the world we must realise that resilience and survival is a team game. 'They' cannot fix it only 'we' can . To quote the mighty Robert Bilott character inthe film Dark Waters The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us
Hugo C.
5d
This nice matrix, unfortunatly describes half of the problem, because it does not consider why people construct such narratives, and not others. Western social-economic models are designed to the point of one feeling bad if does not consume enought, for one may be accused of not contributing to the economy. One must have credits for this and that, buy the last car etc, - the pressure is real, and has been guided by Policy!
ITV news last night reported that the 'top 5 issues facing Britain' were: NHS / Economy / Immigration / Inflation / Housing (Ipsos). There's definitely a differing sense of immediacy in terms of rising costs, compared to climate change where people think it's a future issue. There's also so much insidious climate denial material on social media, that the climate effects the UK feels is often explained away as 'just a hot summer'. When swathes of our coastline are literally under water it may get up into the top 5! Capitalism has conditioned us to be short-termist, and is the core reason for inaction by the profiteers (as even and their descendants won't escape the effects, despite their money). How do we overcome such a long term ingrained mindset in a short space of time?
Thanks a lot for this interesting paper. However In the reference list I found just one single reference to the consumer behavior literature (JMM) and none to the innovation adoption/diffusion (and change management) literature. Maybe some opportunities for interdisciplinary cross fertilization? Let’s try to not reinvent the wheels each on our own…
Head of Positioning and Business Model, Merck Electronics
5dThanks Andreas Rasche, the fundamental challenge we face is quite simply that in an economy which has been built upon burning fossile fuels for almost free the only two ways for reducing emissions are either 1) REDUCING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (ie. producing less, consuming less...) 2) SWITCHING TO LOWER EMISSIONS ALTERNATIVES, which in the short run are typically more expensive. Now imagine a western politician who tells his voters to 1) moderate consumption 2) pay more for the lifestyle they are used to Sounds like certain political suicide at the next election. How can we enable politicians to pursue and drive the much needed longer term environmental agenda even though it clearly comes with nearer term pain for voters?