Value-action gap
[8][9][10][11] Debates surrounding the issue of the value-action gap have mainly taken place within environmental and social psychology and research is often based within cognitive theories of how attitudes are formed and how this affects individuals’ behavior.
[14] These factors influence the reasons behind buying behavior and environmental considerations are often not taken into account, regardless of the attitudes people have regarding the environment.
For example, Dunlap (2002) used survey data which states that 54% of Americans agreed environmental protection was a key priority, even if economic growth was restricted.
Cohen and Murphy (2001) argue that for around 40% of consumers the environmental friendliness of a product will never be a factor in purchasing decisions regardless of positive attitudes towards ethical consumption.
This gap has been illustrated by Lane and Potter (2007) who found a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior regarding the adoption of cleaner vehicles.
Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) point out that initiatives such as legally logged wood, often have market shares of less than 1%, which they argue is partly due to the value-action gap.
[31] Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) also found that there was an inconsistency between the positive attitudes consumer expressed towards sustainability and their behavioral patterns.
Making decisions requires a comparison of the costs and benefits of alternative actions within a specific budget, rather than about certain values.
Young et al. (2010) argue that the gap can be due to “brand strength; culture, finance; habit; lack of information; lifestyles; personalities; or, trading off between different ethical factors” (p 22).
Moreover, time or convenience can often be the major determinant of consumer behavior, and therefore the value-action gap is understandable for environmental products, as other constraints are more dominant.
[22] Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) argue that consumers are passive with regard to sustainable consumption, and work within their budget rather than following their values .
[35] Moreover, Chatzidakis et al. (2007) argue that consumers use neutralization techniques to justify pursuing their more selfish goals instead of purchasing environmental friendly products.
[14] Blake (1999) identifies that the core assumption regarding the value-action gap is that the main barrier between environmental concern and action is the lack of appropriate information.
Hence, it is often considered that one of the most effective ways to encourage pro-environmental behavior is to highlight important facts relevant to the issues.
[41] Traditional thinking supported this idea that increased knowledge tended to encourage favorable attitudes which, in turn, lead to pro-environmental action.
[7] Owens (2000) points out that governments often aim to encourage action through big publicity campaigns and changing behavior.
[42] Barr and Gilg (2002) argue that just increasing information will not lead to a behavior change that would close this gap, and information-intensive campaigns are likely to be unproductive.
[44] Sammer and Wüstenhagen (2006) point out that while people may be aware of environmental issues, this does not necessarily mean that they play a major role in their actions.
[45] This raises issues regarding the effectiveness of methods used by NGOs, whose activities generally involve awareness campaigns and the use of non-state market driven (NSMD) forms of governance which rely on consumers to create change.
Retallack et al. (2007) identifies other barriers such as uncertainty, skepticism about the issue and distrust of national governments and organizations.
[45] Blake (1999) points out that various models of behavior are flawed in that they fail to take into consideration the social, individual and institutional constraints.
Thus, the cause of the value-action gap can be explained in terms of personal, social and structural barriers to action.
Blake identifies three categories of obstacles that exist between the environmental concern and action: individuality; responsibility and practicality.
