In a world of rapidly accelerating legislation and incentivised behaviour change towards more sustainable practices, we’ve been reminded this week that it’s still the consumer who holds most of the cards. Their decision to buy or not is really all that matters and a stick without a carrot or a more sustainable proposition without sufficient personal value is likely to be viewed with suspicion if not contempt.
Consumer choice in action
Consumers cannot be forced to act in a certain way without brands and businesses delivering a genuine benefit to them. And their behaviours cannot be expected to change quickly. Without their buy-in, even the most ambitious plans can unravel, as demonstrated by recent events in two unrelated industries – dairy and automotive.
Firstly, the Global rollout of Bovaer, a methane-reducing livestock feed additive strongly backed by Arla, Morrisons, Aldi and Tesco, has been received with scepticism in some quarters, with questions raised over its safety to both cows and to humans consuming the milk they produce. Despite the positive intent for Bovaer to help reduce GHG emissions from cattle, many consumers are unwilling to jeopardise their own health or the welfare of animals for the claimed environmental benefits. Consequently, swathes of consumers across the world are boycotting products containing Bovaer and switching to organic small producers instead – perhaps a positive but unintended consequence and a useful reminder of the importance of transparency and traceability in food supply chains more generally.
Meanwhile, the motor industry is facing its own existential crisis. Despite pledges to phase out production of ICE vehicles, consumer desire for EVs is cooling, with sales growth declining from 47% in 2023 to 7.2% in 2024 (Motor Intelligence, 2024). Some EV owners are also finding themselves in negative equity due to recent discounting of new electric cars. Consumers are seemingly deterred not just by cost, but also lack of charging infrastructure and range anxiety. Consequently, they are not switching at the rate manufacturers and governments had hoped. The impact of this inertia is perhaps most starkly felt by Nissan, who this week revealed the very real danger of liquidation within the next 12 months due to such weak demand. Other manufacturers will be watching on with concern.
So, what can we learn from these 2 unrelated categories experiencing similar challenges?
Well, they both reflect a broader tension between a top-down desire to deliver the promised sustainability goals and the consumer’s right to exercise choice if they don’t feel comfortable with alternatives presented to them. There are 3 critical principles that have not been adhered to in these 2 examples:
Transparency is Non-Negotiable: Without clear, proactive communication, scepticism and misinformation can derail even the most beneficial initiatives.
Personal Value: Consumers are more likely to support change when they see direct, personal advantages alongside broader societal benefits.
Patience: Behavioural change takes time - shifting consumer behaviour is not easy and must proceed at a speed with which consumers are comfortable. Education is often required, but even that will not help if the first 2 principles are ignored.
For companies like Arla and Nissan, success lies in aligning change with consumer expectations, and the speed of that change will vary from one category to the next. Unless choice is totally taken away from the consumer by legislation, they always have the right to vote with their feet - so better to listen to what they say before being on the wrong end of what they do.
