Many of us declare how keen we are to reduce our impact on the climate, but there’s often a disconnect between what we say and what we do. This creates a so-called “green gap” between our intentions and behaviours. A study co-authored by NEOMA researcher Stéphane Borraz explores how some of us justify this mismatch when measuring our carbon footprint.

If we are going to limit the rise in the global temperature to 2°C by the end of the century, we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions to two tons of CO₂ equivalent per person per year. And yet, while 78% of people in France claim they actively support sustainable consumption, their carbon footprint is still five times higher on average than the target set in the Paris Agreement. It’s a paradox that points to a discrepancy between stated intentions and concrete actions – and this is what the researchers refer to as the “green gap”.

Although this phenomenon has been studied extensively in relation to climate-change deniers, there has been very little analysis among people who are environmentally aware. The NEOMA researcher and his coauthor asked the question: How do people who are pro-climate justify the gap between their willingness to act and their actual impact on the climate?

Tension between intentions and behaviours

Our personal carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas (measured in tones of CO₂ equivalent) we emit directly or indirectly while going about our day-to-day business. It includes, for instance, emissions from energy consumption, travel, food and purchases of goods and services. In spite of strong public support in France, efforts to shrink the footprint have produced disappointing results. The average flatlines at nine tons of CO₂ equivalent per person.

To understand the reasons behind this, the researchers carried out around 30 interviews with individuals who are actively pro-climate in the context of their professional or non-profit work. The researchers first asked participants to calculate their carbon footprint before asking them about the gap between the results and the quota targeted in the Paris Agreement. The challenge was to try to understand how these individuals explained the green gap.

Justifying yourself without shirking responsibility

The study identifies three ways people justify their actions without absolving themselves of their share of responsibility. Some interviewees questioned whether the very concept of carbon footprint is effective. They see it as being intangible, not enough of an incentive or not suited to guiding consumer behaviour. When all is said and done, what does a tone of carbon equivalent really mean in our day-to-day lives?

Other participants in the study justified their limited actions by rejecting the carbon footprint notion out of hand. They argued that it is part of a productivist ideology that is tailored more towards private enterprise, seeing it as being diametrically opposed to a genuine ecological transformation. These same individuals think that tackling global warming calls for high-impact, systemic change rather than a string of small individual actions. The idea also emerged from the interviews that our carbon impact is not the only indicator we need to factor in if we want to protect our planet. Just as important is our water consumption, land use and biodiversity protection.

Last but not least, many of the interviewees highlighted a sense of injustice, feeling that their efforts are disproportionate compared to the efforts they see being made by other people, companies or governments. This mismatch feeds into a frustration that means they scale back their commitment. They’re of the opinion that the sacrifices they make are not distributed fairly.

Changing perceptions to close the green gap

The researchers don’t just improve our understanding of the green gap. They also draw on their discussions to suggest possible ways forward for bridging this divide in society, such as developing tools for measuring our carbon footprint that are easy and attractive to use. These tools would do more than simply evaluate behaviours; they would also become levers to transform the way people act. This would mean clarifying the concrete impact of our individual choices at the moment we take our decisions. How does a specific purchase, certain foods or a particular journey impact our carbon footprint? And what are the real implications for the climate?

Governments also have to build this complexity into their policies. To take one example, the researchers talk about incentive mechanisms, such as fairer rewards or carbon-pricing systems. This, they argue, could reduce the perceived injustice and consolidate support for the changes that have to be made. Closing the green gap ultimately calls for a package of educational, cultural and political measures. If we act on the perceptions and frameworks of individual behaviours, we can support a transition towards a greener future.

Find out more

Dubreuil, C., & Borraz, S. (2024). La consommation et l’épreuve de réalité: comment les individus justifient-ils les limites assumées à leurs efforts de consommation face aux enjeux climatiques? Recherche et Applications En Marketing (French Edition), 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/07673701241269070