Why do we struggle to turn good ecological intentions into concrete actions?
Europe . More specifically, France . It is in the country of our closest cousins that 78% of the population declares to lead a sustainable lifestyle, and yet the average carbon footprint remains around nine tons of CO2 equivalent per year, that is, about five times more than the ceiling set by the Paris Agreement. We could call it the “green gap paradox” : the gap between what we promise the environment and what we actually do.
A recent study led by Stéphane Borraz , professor-researcher at Neoma Business School, in collaboration with Clément Dubreuil of Kedge Business School, investigated this very gap with the intent of seeing more clearly and understanding the causes, so as to be able to study possible solutions. Interviewing about thirty people professionally or associatively involved in the climate front, Borraz asked the participants to explain why, although aware of the environmental challenges, they are unable to respect the limits suggested by science .
Three main lines of justification emerge from the conversations. First of all, the low tangibility of the parameter: many struggle to translate the number of a “ton of CO2” into understandable daily consequences and, faced with an indicator perceived as abstract, tend to underestimate its weight. The second line arises from ideological rejection . For some, the carbon footprint is the product of a productivist logic tailored more to companies than to people, therefore unsuitable for guiding a true ecological transition and in any case insufficient to photograph other key factors, such as the exploitation of water or the loss of biodiversity. Finally, a strong sense of injustice emerges among the interviewees: those who make individual efforts often perceive a misalignment with respect to governments and large companies and, feeling alone in the sacrifice, slow down their commitment.
Professor Borraz, how can we encourage greater trust in good environmental practices?
“It is essential to make data on the carbon impact at an individual level more transparent. Providing clear, understandable and easily accessible information on the real impact of daily choices allows each person to orient themselves in an informed way. Talking about tons of CO2 means nothing: we do not know how many are in a yogurt or a pair of jeans. In addition to transparency, it is important to encourage collective recognition of good practices. Publicly praising those who adopt exemplary behaviors can strengthen the commitment of others and stimulate a broader and more engaging mobilization”.
What strategies can make the climate emergency understandable and who should be the bearer of it?
“Making people understand the climate urgency requires that the message be conveyed by a plurality of actors: associations, media, public institutions. Reducing the gap between awareness and action – the so-called “green gap” – requires a combination of educational, cultural and political interventions.
Education and collective awareness play a central role: tools like the “Fresque du Climat” can generate a real shock of awareness. It is necessary to show the importance of both individual and collective efforts, turning each citizen into an ambassador of change.
Furthermore, it is essential to involve recognized and legitimized figures – such as educators, NGOs, local actors – to spread environmental messages in a credible and transversal way in different social environments. In parallel, we need to develop tools to measure the carbon footprint that are both practical and engaging. To counter the perception of injustice with respect to the efforts required, incentive mechanisms can be introduced such as prizes, awards or more fair and understandable carbon pricing systems”.
What are some concrete examples of the justifications given by participants for their ecological contradictions?
“Our research is not based on a quantitative survey, but on a qualitative and interpretative investigation. We conducted numerous in-depth interviews with people who are actively engaged in reducing their carbon footprint.
Despite their initial goodwill, these people justify their contradictions by appealing to personal priorities, doubts about the effectiveness of individual actions, or criticisms of existing tools.
Some, for example, put personal values – such as family or cultural enrichment through travel – before their ecological beliefs. One person interviewed during the study, for example, said: '5 or 10 tons compared to the gigatons emitted each year in the world have no effect on the climate. But introducing (my children) to Egyptian civilization has a direct impact on their lives, on their culture, on their awakening to the world, on tolerance (...) It is not the same thing between an infinitesimal impact on the climate and the opportunity to open my children to the world.'
Some interviewees recognize the limits of individual action and highlight the importance of change on a collective and systemic scale. According to them, personal choices – however coherent – remain invisible and have little influence if they are not accompanied by initiatives capable of involving larger groups. For this reason, they prefer to engage in training and raising awareness among other people, even in professional and institutional contexts, aiming to generate a multiplier effect and create networks of aware individuals. Others, however, express strong skepticism towards environmental footprint calculation tools. They perceive them as the expression of a productivist and control logic, far from an authentic and respectful relationship with nature. From this perspective, it is not so much a matter of quantifying every behavior, but of radically changing one's relationship with the environment, abandoning the idea that everything must be measured and optimized”.
Luce
