“I gave in and I’m not proud . . . ”: When responsible consumers transgress their personal norms

Responsible consumers

The negative effects of our consumption patterns on the environment and society are now a growing awareness that is gradually pushing consumers toward the search for a more responsible consumption (Mulcahy et al., 2020; Séré de Lanauze and Lallement, 2018). The latter is now the focus of much research, providing the keys to a better understanding of these responsible consumers, their profiles (Balderjahn et al., 2018; Gonzalez-Arcos et al., 2021), their motivations, and their “green” behaviors. Although they are particularly rich in contributions to understanding responsible consumers, the prior research mobilizes, and sometimes defines, what a “responsible consumer” is in different ways. No objective criteria today seem to make it easy to identify what a responsible consumer is (Makaoui and Taphanel, 2018). The identity of the responsible consumer appears complex to define for essentially three reasons.

The first derives from the diversity of practices implemented by consumers when they come to responsible consumption. Indeed, it combines very different practices under the same banner, such as purchasing organic or local products (Abid et al., 2020; Dekhili, 2016; Merle and Piotrowski, 2020), adopting a vegetarian diet (Wiart et al., 2022), the use of sustainable transport (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2022), recycling (Ceschi et al., 2021; Winterich et al., 2019), and the reuse of household waste (Mani and Cova, 2014; Park and Lin, 2020), or even join boycott movements (Özçaglar-Toulouse, 2009).

The second questions the place of the individual within this responsible consumption. Certain conceptions of responsible consumption seem to offer a central place to the individual who can act alone during an act of consumption (Rémy, 2007). However, other conceptions of responsible consumption highlight the central role of the collective within such consumption (Béji-Bécheur and Özçağlar-Toulouse, 2014). This reconnects with initiatives, such as alternative systems, such as AMAP (Association pour le Maintien d’une Agriculture Paysanne) or consumer associations (Robert-Demontrond et al., 2017).

The third reason concerns the multi-dimensionality of the definitions of responsible consumption which makes the establishment of an identity within the individual complex. For example, Francois-Lecompte and Valette-Florence (2006: 72–73) defined the responsible consumer through five factors:

the refusal to buy from companies considered to behave irresponsibly, the intention to buy products with part of the price donated to a specific cause, the desire to help small businesses and thus defend local employment, sensitivity to the origin of products by favoring one’s region of origin in one’s purchases, French or even European products and the desire to reduce the volume of consumption to what is really necessary

Along the same lines, Özçaglar-Toulouse (2009: 5) defined responsible consumption as “a set of voluntary acts within the sphere of consumption performed due to awareness of negatively perceived consequences of consumption on the outside world.” This latter can be expressed by consumers through three actions: he or she can continue to consume certain products while limiting the negative consequences linked to this consumption (boycott), or stop certain acts of consumption deemed too negative, or even express himself or herself as a consumer to modify the system (boycott). However, 10 years later, Lim (2016, 2017) revisited the definition and argued that social (e.g. maximizing the benefits for society and social equity), environmental (e.g. minimizing resource use, encouraging preservation, and reducing environmental degradation), and ethical (e.g. morally wrong for society to engage in activities that pollute and destroy the economic, natural, and social environment) dimensions are incorporated under the term of responsible consumption.

If this research helps to better understand the concept of “responsible consumption,” it remains unclear about the identity of the responsible consumer. This latter can identify himself as such by obeying only one or the other of the dimensions raised previously or by combining several of them or even all of them. In other words, it seems that given the malleability of the concept, responsible consumption is fundamentally constructed by individuals themselves and each one has his or her own vision of it (Sebbane et al., 2017).

The role of personal norms in responsible consumption

By combining very different practices they consider as more ethical, better for the environment or society, responsible consumers express individual and supra-individual concerns that are part of a value system (Gleim and Lawson, 2014; Roos and Hahn, 2017; White et al., 2019). From these values, norms are developed (Schwartz, 1977). They can be distinguished according to the source of normative influence in social norms and personal norms:

Numerous studies have used social norms to understand and guide behavior toward responsible consumption. For example, Goldstein et al. (2008) and Elgaaied-Gambier et al. (2018) show that the adoption of pro-environmental or societal behavior can be influenced by a “descriptive norm,” that is, the behavior adopted by people in similar situations. At the same time, other research carried out on food waste shows that social pressure only plays a limited role in motivating individuals to reduce their waste (Sebbane et al., 2017; Stancu et al., 2016). Looking beyond specific behavior, Özçaglar-Toulouse (2009) has looked at the meanings associated with responsible consumption more broadly. The author highlighted the efforts made by individuals to avoid isolation (an imposed social norm) or to join a community of like-minded individuals (a desired social norm). However, these social norms are only one motivation for responsible consumption among others, more personal, such as seeking inner well-being or rediscovering the “authentic” self (Ghali, 2019). The research by Séré de Lanauze and Sirieix (2021) on vegetarianism is consistent with this. Although this diet is not dominant, it is shared by many French people, thus constituting a social norm. When interviewing vegetarians, the authors show that the respondents impulsively associate themselves with a vegetarian profile. Nevertheless, they specify or modulate the definition to suit their own individual case. Furthermore, the authors refer to an individual adoption of a set of practices associated with vegetarianism and based on what is personally considered acceptable regarding their values.

Another stream of research focuses on personal norms and introduces the idea that they play a crucial role in responsible consumption (ElHaffar et al., 2020), such as the use of public transportation (Bamberg et al., 2007), water conservation (Cauberghe et al., 2021; Han and Hyun, 2018), conservation of energy (Zhang et al., 2013), or yet purchase of green food products (Thøgersen, 2006). With the theory of norm activation, Schwartz (1977) proposed a framework for studying the influence of personal norms on behavior. Based on this model, Stern (2000) placed awareness of the problem as the starting point for the adoption of responsible behavior (Hunt and Vitell, 2006). In addition, the author underlined the essential role of assuming responsibility in the adoption of responsible behavior (Bernard et al., 2015; Sebbane et al., 2017). More recently, Sajjad et al. (2024) also showed that the adoption of responsible consumption – in particular, the purchase of circular economy products – is part of the growing awareness of the effects of individual consumption once the environment and the role it can play through its consumption behaviors. Not only does the strengthening of personal norms influences consumption choices but it also increases sensitivity to discourse and calls for more responsible consumption (Séré de Lanauze et al., 2021) and a decreasing sensitivity to negative looks and remarks from others (Séré de Lanauze and Sirieix, 2021). However, despite generally strengthening of personal norms and favorable attitudes toward more responsible consumption, consumers constantly manifest a gap with real adopting of green behaviors (Eckhardt and Dobscha, 2014).

From the “green gap” to the “green transgression”

While the gap between stated attitudes and actual behavior is not a new phenomenon in the social sciences (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), recent research has highlighted it in the context of responsible consumption, dubbing it the “green gap” (Dekhili et al., 2023; Dubreuil and Borraz, 2024; ElHaffar et al., 2020). Individuals may state that they care for the environment and want to engage in “green” behavior, but they do not always follow through with their intentions. They are not always willing to deal with the hassle of recycling, to spend additional money on green products, or to risk the potential embarrassment of having less environmentally friendly products than they thought (Gleim and Lawson, 2014; Kropfeld et al., 2018).

This gap between attitudes and behaviors in relation to responsible consumption has given rise to numerous research studies. They aim to understand the reasons for this “green gap” by modeling complex consumer decision-making processes. Some obstacles to responsible purchasing and practices have already been highlighted:

While this stream of research on the “green gap” has proved useful – providing the keys to a better understanding of the gap between attitudes and behavior, as suggested by Dubreuil and Borraz (2024), it has tended to focus on the adoption phase by exploring the difficulties of developing new responsible behavior. Furthermore, this gap between attitude and behavior is not necessarily conscious or elaborate. Yet, as strong as personal norms may be, responsible consumers are sometimes faced with difficulties that can lead them to occasionally and consciously deviate from their responsible course of action. To our knowledge, and except for Dubreuil and Borraz’s (2024) research, these “incidents” that occur once responsible behavior has already been implemented in consumers’ daily lives have not yet been (explicitly) explored.

To shed light on these incidents, the study of transgressions provides a relevant analytical framework. The term transgression (from the Latin “transgressio”) etymologically means, the fact of being beyond, of going over the limit or a prohibition. It refers to acts that violate a code of conduct (Kennedy and Guzmán, 2021) and posits the existence of pre-established standards (Aggarwal, 2004). More precisely, the transgressions are defined in the work by Aaker et al. (2004: 3) as “violations of implicit or explicit rules.” Initially applied to the study of the consumer-brand relationship (Fournaise et al., 2023; Khamitov et al., 2020), this definition can be extended to the study of consumption behaviors that go against the personal norms consumers adhere to. Indeed, these latter represent an individual’s implicit moral rules, one’s own feeling of moral obligation to act or not in a certain way (Schwartz, 1977, 2012). Thus, this article focuses specifically on situations in which the responsible consumer transgresses personal norms: the “consumer green transgressions.” To our knowledge, only one study has examined responsible consumption from the perspective of transgression. Thus, Mathras (2015) finds that Catholics demonstrate more environmentally friendly behaviors after making a green confession versus merely reflecting about one’s “consumer green transgressions.” Although it provides initial insight, this research does not investigate in-depth the notion of green transgression, the reason why responsible consumers transgress, and how they manage these transgressions.

Coping strategies in situations of transgressions

Transgression represents a contradiction between a belief (in the context of this research, an internalized belief in the form of a personal norm) and a behavior. This state of dissonance is a real catalyst for negative emotions which incite the consumer to engage in adjustment strategies or coping strategies (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2007). This consists of establishing a set of cognitive and behavioral processes (Duhachek, 2005) to withstand, control, or reduce the impact of a situation that goes against one’s well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The concept of coping strategies has thus been mobilized to understand how the individual manages different negative emotions, such as the expression of regret (Inman, 2007), anger (Gelbrich, 2010; Strizhakova et al., 2012), fear (Norberg and Horne, 2014), stress (Luce et al., 1999; Yi and Baumgartner, 2004), or guilt (Saintives and Lunardo, 2016). Thus, when consumers think they have transgressed their personal norms, for example, a pro-environmental belief, they feel guilt (Baumeister et al., 1994) and then engage in cognitive strategies, such as the positive reinterpretation of the transgression (Saintives and Lunardo, 2016).

Furthermore, Beudaert et al. (2017) suggest that coping also has a behavioral dimension that is not opposed to the consumer’s cognitive efforts. This assertion corroborates the two-dimensional model of coping proposed in the work by Folkman and Lazarus (1988). The authors propose two ways to adjust to an aversive situation: (1) problem-focused adjustment, which involves direct actions that can improve or resolve the situation, and (2) emotion-focused adjustment. The latter involves indirect actions designed to minimize the emotion that consumers feel. Following on from Folkman’s and Lazarus’s (1988) article, this research has sought to refine and complete the list of coping strategies (Skinner et al., 2003). These are presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Coping strategies identified in the literature.

Coping	Authors	Description
Action	(Folkman and Lazarus, 1988; Norberg and Horne, 2014; Strizhakova et al., 2012)	Consumer attempts to manage the incident by implementing solutions or alternatives to solve the problem or avoid its recurrence in the future.
Rationalization	(Duhachek, 2005; Hamilton and Hassan, 2010)	Consumer attempts to deal with the incident by taking a step back from the situation, by being more rational.
Positive reinterpretation	(Duhachek, 2005; Saintives and Lunardo, 2016)	Consumer attempts to look for positive externalities to the incident. The consumer tries to “look on the bright side”.
Search for emotional support	(Gelbrich, 2010; Stanton et al., 2000; Strizhakova et al., 2012)	Consumer attempts to draw on social resources to improve emotional or cognitive state following an incident. The consumer seeks comfort from others.
Search for advice	(Gelbrich, 2010; Strizhakova et al., 2012)	Consumer attempts to draw on social resources to act against the incident. Consumer tries to obtain advice from others.
Expression of emotions	(Duhachek, 2005; Strizhakova et al., 2012)	Consumer attempts to recognize and express emotions.
Avoidance	(Luce, 1998; Stanton et al., 2000)	Consumer attempts to create a psychic distance between oneself and the incident, to forget the transgression.
Deny	(Hamilton and Hassan, 2010; Strizhakova et al., 2012)	Consumer attempts to shut down and ignore the existence of the incident.

Thus, each of the concepts mentioned in our literature review provides elements that meet our research objectives. More specifically, the concepts of personal norms and transgressions are used to shed light on the situations in which the responsible consumer occasionally deviates from, or transgresses personal environmental, social, and ethical norms. Subsequently, coping strategies contribute to identifying the consequences of transgressions.

Data collection

To understand the “consumer green transgressions,” it is necessary to give voice to consumers. Hence, our decision is to conduct semi-directive interviews. Responsible consumers were able to relate in detail their various experiences of transgression, specifying the reasons for these transgressions and how they reacted. The use of discourse reveals the meaning that responsible consumers attribute to these transgressions and to their own actions. Our focus on details and feelings invited us to adopt a qualitative approach that allows us to explore the richness of the experience of transgression applied to the context of responsible consumption, and to analyze its specificities in detail.

The recruitment of respondents was determined by the desire to include a variety of personal norms relating to responsible consumption: environmental protection, animal welfare, social causes, resource conservation, and so on. These norms shape to a greater or lesser extent (Giesler and Veresiu, 2014) our informants’ definitions of responsible consumption and thus their behaviors: following a vegetarian or vegan diet, practicing zero waste, eating organic, local, or fair trade food, using green transport, and so on. We recruited consumers using the authors’ personal contacts and the social network (Kosinski et al., 2015). For example, we have integrated Facebook groups sharing vegetarian recipes or upcycling tips, and we left a message inviting people to take part in our research. After an initial contact, we asked the consumer if he or she self-identified as being committed to responsible consumption (Makaoui and Taphanel, 2018). If the answer was positive, we organized an interview. Beyond the plethora of pro-environmental or social behaviors and diverse transgressions (Appendix 1), the respondents’ profiles also presented a variety of sociodemographic characteristics (Appendix 2). The sampling thus seeks diversity and conceptual exploration rather than statistical representation (Corbin and Strauss, 2008).

To explore salient events identified by individuals and how they handled them, 28 semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2019 to May 2020. In total, these interviews represented 31 hours of recording time and explored 73 narratives of “consumer green transgressions” (Appendix 1). To encourage informants to talk about their transgressions freely and to limit the social desirability bias, the CIT (Flanagan, 1954) was used as an investigative tool. The objective of this technique is to understand noteworthy situations (events, incidents, or problems) from the individual’s point of view. It also looks at how these events are handled by the individual (Butterfield et al., 2005; Chell and Pittaway, 1998). It is therefore relevant for studying “dysfunctional consumer behavior” (Fisk et al., 2010: 423), that is, situations in which the individual does not adopt pro-environmental or social behavior (Gleim et al., 2013; Gleim and Lawson, 2014). Respondents were contacted prior to the interview and asked to reflect on a particularly salient experience in which they acted against their pro-social, environmental, and ethical beliefs. Using an interview guide (Appendix 3), the authors ensured that the following three main themes were addressed: the interviewee’s responsible way of living and associated personal norms, the circumstances and causes of the chosen incident, and the emotional and behavioral consequences of the incident. At the end of the interview, respondents were asked to reflect on other incidents, including the last time they transgressed personal norms related to responsible consumption. If each consumer has his or her own vision of responsible consumption, and as a result his or her own personal norms (Sebbane et al., 2017), a transgression of personal norms applies also to a consumer. As a result, we do not evaluate each “incident” as a transgression of personal norms or not from an external point of view. We invite respondent to talk about one or several “incident(s)” which are considered as a transgression of his or her personal norms.

Data analysis

The interviews were fully recorded and transcribed before a thematic content analysis was carried out (Miles et al., 2014; Weber, 1990) using an iterative process of back and forth between the presentation of the results and the re-readings of the selected papers (Arsel, 2017).

First, the initial readings of the interviews made it possible to identify the themes addressed and assign codes. In other words, sentences or paragraphs were cut out (codes) and assigned to one or more ideas (themes), giving meaning to the interview stage and echoing the research questions. These themes were then placed in categories that play a so-called “conceptualizing” role which goes beyond description (what the themes do) to constitute a progressive theorization. Together, these different levels (categories, first-level themes, second-level themes, etc.) compose the data analysis grid. The simultaneous and joint conduct of this thematic content analysis by the three authors on the whole corpus of data collected improved the internal coherence of the research (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989).

Second, this preliminary analysis resulted in a final analysis grid designed by the research team (Appendix 4) listing all the codes, their descriptions, and categorization. This grid was used by the authors to re-code and analyze all the interviews. This analysis drew out the meaning of the data, from facts to theorization of “consumer green transgressions.” Thus, for each story, we highlighted the overall experience of transgression, the different causes, and the way the responsible consumer reacted. We wrote also down the “cause(s) → transgression → consequence(s)” trajectory to each story.

Third, a quantitative work was implemented through a theme recurrence counting process. Although sometimes criticized for its supposed inconsistency with a qualitative research approach (Gavard-Perret et al., 2018), the quantitative dimension of thematic content analysis allows us to highlight the number of times that a theme was addressed in respondents’ discourse (e.g. Flacandji and Vlad, 2020). Thus, if this quantitative work does not make it possible to generalize the results obtained, it provides insights into the predominance of certain themes addressed by the respondents. Furthermore, quantitative analysis enables us to observe “trajectories” (e.g. cause(s) → transgression → consequence(s)) that emerge by facilitating the identification of salient links between key themes. Thus, thematic analysis and quantitative work both fulfill a heuristic function of discovering a phenomenon and a function of providing proof of the conceptualization that one seeks to validate empirically (Bardin, 2017).

From norms to behaviors: a dynamic construction process

The statements collected reveal environmental and altruistic convictions that are internalized in a personal process unique to each responsible consumer. These personal norms influence their way of consuming daily. For example, Elise has got involved in a voluntary approach to simplicity in her consumption, particularly her food consumption. As many respondents, Elise refers to confrontations with social norms throughout her childhood when she discusses awareness of the consequences of her consumption behaviors: “My parents [. . .] joined a kind of hippie movement, [. . .] in my family, there was a lot of back-to-the-land, [. . .] So, when I was little, we ate vegetables from the garden, and we went to the market to buy from producers” (Elise). For others, the foundation of their personal norms began following a triggering event. Aude evokes a “shock received during a pilgrimage to Compostela” which led her to conceive a more responsible consumption. This feeling of being personally able to act for the environment is illustrated by her choice of household products, cosmetics, and clothing, and her waste management.

These personal norms are not fixed, they evolve over time. Indeed, responsible consumption appears as a progressive process that self-amplifies through knowledge transfer and acquisition, and with experiences:

What really made me want to be a vegetarian is the animals for me. [. . .] I looked at articles about animal exploitation, slaughterhouse videos on the internet and social media. And there are things that were shocking [. . .] In fact, in 2-3 months, I was already vegetarian

Social interactions also shape personal norms and behavior; people try, more or less, to conform to their social environment. For example, Romain gradually changed his diet after the arrival of a new vegetarian roommate: “After 4-5 months [. . .] most of the meals and shopping became vegetarian.” In addition, regardless of the first responsible consumption behavior adopted, personal norms spread to other behaviors:

Limit as much as possible the production of CO₂ in my lifestyle in terms of travel and food consumption, to favor products which are plant-based, which are local, which are organic, to favor public transport and if I can as much as possible too transport which has no CO₂ emissions. (Corentin)

These personal norms have led the consumers to have responsible behavior and to develop it along the time. However, being a responsible consumer is a daily tough challenge that requires constant attention and effort. As committed and motivated they may be, responsible consumers are bound to stray from the straight and narrow. They deviate from this moral behavior toward the environment and others, they transgress their personal norms. In the next paragraph, the research looks at the origins of these transgressions.

The origin of “consumer green transgressions”

The data reveal six causes which, alone or in combination, constitute the origin of transgressions: (1) social and normative influence, (2) emotions, (3) an offer of green products and services, (4) spatial environment, (5) interconnectedness of practices, and (6) inadequate information.

“Consumer green transgressions” typology

This research highlights different situations where responsible consumers act in disagreement with their personal norms. From these situations experienced by our respondents, we propose a typology based on a double categorization: anticipation (anticipated vs impulsive transgressions) and repetition (repetitive vs exceptional transgressions). In contrast with an impulsive transgression, which leads to a quick decision, an anticipated transgression is due to a more or less elaborate process of reflection prior to the incident. Exceptional transgressions are incidents that are not likely to recur, whereas repetitive transgressions occur several times. Thus, four forms of “consumer green transgressions” are highlighted. Figure 1 shows this typology as a matrix.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

“Consumer green transgression” matrix.

The first form is both repetitive and anticipated, as with Océane who changes sometimes her diet when she is with other people: “It’s about switching to vegetarianism, even though I’m vegan. [. . .] I will eat eggs, butter, milk etc. from time to time. It happens when I go to eat at a family’s and friends’ meal.” “Consumer green transgressions” can also be both repetitive and impulsive, as with David, committed to a zero plastic waste approach:

I bought an Ushuaïa coconut cream shower gel. You know, the shower gel in the square plastic packaging (. . .) Sometimes, I get a little caught up in the posters, the smells and all that . . . And there, I wandered around the aisle, and I saw this shower gel with coconuts. I took it and smelled it. I said to myself “ah the smell of coconut!.” I love this smell! And I put it in the shopping cart

The incident mentioned by Romain, who has been vegan for a few years, points out a third form of “consumer green transgressions” both exceptional and impulsive:

I was attending a concert in Lille, and we went to eat the next day with my friends. At the restaurant, I said to myself “Come on, it’s fine!.” So, I gave in, and I ordered a Welsh rarebit. Without ham of course. But I had it with eggs and cheese. [. . .] If I had gone to a restaurant in Poitiers, I don’t think I would have had eggs and cheese

Finally, transgressions that are both exceptional and anticipated appear to be more marginal, as illustrated by Leo’s transgression of boycotting multinationals:

Three years ago, Red Bull contacted me because they were launching a Battle improvisation rap concept here in France [. . .]. So, at first glance, I thought: “Red Bull, I’m not too keen.” [. . .] I told myself that if I do it, I must win, take the money from the prize money and redistribute it. I weighed the pros and cons

However, it is important to remember that each consumer has his or her own vision of responsible consumption. Hence, transgressions of personal norms are also specific to each consumer. For example, a transgression can be “impulsive” for one individual but “anticipated” for another.

In the next paragraph, we continue by revealing how these transgressions are managed by responsible consumers through the lens of coping strategies.

How do consumers cope with their “consumer green transgressions”?

Following the various incidents mentioned, seven coping strategies were identified and ordered. These coping mechanisms are used and sometimes combined by responsible consumers as a way of dealing with their “consumer green transgressions.”

Rationalization and action are the two most mentioned coping strategies. The first consists of the individual playing down the transgression act or rationalizing that they are careful enough on a day-to-day basis to have the right to sometimes give in. For example, Theo explains:

Well, today we make enough effort to recognize when we don’t have too much to blame ourselves for either. [. . .] We told ourselves that it was just once, and that on the scale of consumption in society, it was not much

For some consumers, such as Dorothée, this rationalization is so strong that it can lead them to minimize the importance of their personal norms: “I’m not infallible. I’m not perfect and I don’t want to force myself to be infallible at this point.” At the same time, responsible consumers adopt behavioral coping, often resulting in action strategies. First, actions manifest through compensatory attempts to reduce the sources of stress, as Arnaud illustrates here: “So for the printer, I bought it. But my old printer, I gave it back to a friend who didn’t have a printer. [. . .] So, well, I gave in, but I gave it a second life.” The second form of action is the search for alternatives to avoid recurrence. For example, to avoid eating meat during her homestay trips, Elodie considered the following solution: “If I do it again (homestay trip), I think I will let the person know before I get there that I’m vegan. Before even meeting the person, I should already make them aware of my diet.”

Many respondents also reinterpret their “green transgression” in a positive way, as Séverine does here: “I bought a jacket with rabbit fur [. . .] It made me feel a little guilty, but afterwards, I said to myself, it’s a secondhand product, so . . .” At a similar rate of use as this positive reinterpretation strategy, other respondents will simply express their emotions, which are mostly negative, when they think back to these events. Cyrielle states:

I was the one who suggested he eats at McDonald’s (speaking of her partner). That’s the worst! It would have relieved my guilt if he had been the one who said, “Come on, let’s go!” I would have felt guilty . . . but less.

To a lesser extent, respondents indicated that they very quickly moved on due to the desire to avoid, to forget their “consumer green transgression,” as Caroline states here: “I try not to reflect about it too much because, if I thought about it too much, I would feel guilty.” Some respondents turn to their family or friends to improve their emotional state after the transgression. For example, Morgane relies on her vegetarian friends to comfort her after she eats a hot dog despite being a vegetarian: “I felt guilty. I told myself that the girls were going to judge me. [. . .] But they told me ‘Morgane, you know, it happens to us too. Sometimes we gave in. It’s not serious’.” Using another type of reasoning, only two respondents stated that they consulted peers who had experienced similar situations. For example, Noémie asked her neighbor for advice about how to manage her green waste: “And once, I discussed it with my neighbor. I told him ‘But where do you put your green waste?’.”

Identifying “consumer green transgressions,” their causes, and the various coping strategies put in place by the questioned responsible consumers represents the first static aspect of the research. It seems interesting to take a more dynamic approach by highlighting the different trajectories that could be established between certain causes, certain transgressions, and certain coping strategies.

Trajectories of “consumer green transgressions”: links between causes, transgressions, and consequences

At the end of the thematic content analysis, quantitative work was implemented through a process of theme recurrence counting. It provides insights into the number of times that a cause, a type of transgression, and a consequence were addressed in respondents’ discourse. Furthermore, quantitative work highlights salient links between these three elements that make it possible to identify two “cause(s) → transgression → consequence(s)” trajectories: (1) Emotional trajectory (Figure 2); (2) Conative trajectory (Figure 3). We present each of these two trajectories in a Figure and illustrate them by recounting incidents mentioned by our respondents.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Emotional trajectory.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Conative trajectory.

Theoretical contributions

This research article makes four theoretical contributions. First, it contrasts with works on the “green gap” (Dekhili et al., 2023; ElHaffar et al., 2020; Gleim and Lawson, 2014) that have highlighted the gap between attitude and behaviors in relation to responsible consumption (Carrington et al., 2014; Gleim and Lawson, 2014; Kropfeld et al., 2018; Leary et al., 2014; Park and Lin, 2020). Indeed, while such research has made many useful contributions, it has focused mainly on the causes of the non-adoption of a new responsible behavior (Dubreuil and Borraz, 2024). By contrast, in positioning our research after the adoption of responsible behaviors, once behavior has been implemented daily by individuals, we reveal the causes that lead the responsible consumer to transgress these personal norms by occasionally adopting non-responsible behavior. Comparing our results to those of previous research, three interesting facts stand out:

Second, this research contributes to the transgression concept defined by Aaker et al. (2004: 3) as “violations of implicit or explicit rules.” Initially applied to the study of the consumer-brand relationship (Fournaise et al., 2023; Khamitov et al., 2020), we demonstrate that the concept of transgression can be extended to the study of personal norms. Indeed, personal norms represent individual’s implicit moral rules, his or her own feeling of moral obligation to act or not in a certain way (Schwartz, 1977, 2012). By focusing on responsible consumption, we explore incidents during which consumers transgress their personal norms. We establish a typology of “consumer green transgressions” based on a double categorization: anticipation (anticipated vs impulsive transgressions) and repetition (repetitive vs exceptional transgressions). Thus, we propose to define precisely these incidents as “consumer green transgression”: one or several conscious acts, performed in an anticipated or impulsive way, and judged by the individual as going against a personal pro-social, environmental, or ethical norm.

Third, this research enriches the literature on coping strategies. Previous works on the “green gap” have highlighted consumers use certain psychological mechanisms to cope with their gap between what they say about their growing concern for the environment, and how they genuinely contribute to sustaining this environment (Dubreuil and Borraz, 2024; ElHaffar et al., 2020). Thus, we note similarities between coping strategies dealing with the “green gap” and those dealing with the “consumer green transgression.” In both cases, coping strategies are used to help consumers to neutralize their guilt by rationalizing their behavior (Atkinson and Kim, 2015; Gruber and Schlegelmilch, 2014). According to the work by McDonald et al. (2015), consumers also implement actions such as adopting other greener behaviors and reducing non-green purchases. However, differences appear between coping strategies identified in previous work and those implemented by interviewed consumers in our research. First, in our case of “consumer green transgression,” we reveal other coping strategies, such as the positive reinterpretation or the search for emotional support. On one hand, we reveal other coping strategies to deal with “consumer green transgression” such as the positive reinterpretation or the search for emotional support. On the other hand, in the case of “green gap,” consumers also use strategies, such as denial (Atkinson and Kim, 2015; Johnstone and Tan, 2015). Furthermore, Gruber and Schlegelmilch (2014) and Dubreuil and Borraz (2024) show that responsible consumers can also adopt a condemnatory tone toward the condemner by contesting, discrediting, or demonstrating the unfairness of his affirmations. If we do not identify these two coping strategies in our research, a possible reason may be the use of the CIT. We detail this point in the limitations.

Fourth, after identifying the causes, the types of “consumer green transgressions,” and their consequences, a quantification work has been carried out. Although sometimes put down for its supposed inconsistency with a qualitative research approach (Gavard-Perret et al., 2018), the quantitative dimension of content analysis makes it possible to highlight the themes repeatedly addressed by respondents (e.g. Flacandji and Vlad, 2020) or even the relevant links between themes. Our research highlights “cause(s) → transgression → consequence(s)” trajectories that have not previously been addressed in the literature: a “virtuous conative trajectory” and a “vicious emotional trajectory.” Thus, highlighting these “cause(s) → transgression → consequence(s)” trajectories constitute a first response to ElHaffar et al. (2020) which encouraged researchers to focus on the causes contributing to positive or negative green compensation behavior.

Managerial contributions

This research proposes three managerial contributions targeting organizations and public decision-makers, on one hand, and one managerial contribution targeting consumers on the other.

Limitations and future research

Despite its contributions, this research has several limitations.

First, one limitation of this research lies exclusively on its reliance on the participants’ point of view. Since responsible consumption is fundamentally constructed by individuals themselves, each consumer has their own vision of responsible consumption, and, as a result their own personal norms (Sebbane et al., 2017). Therefore, what constitutes a transgression is also self-determined. This approach, while valuable for capturing transgressions of personal norms, remains confined to participants’ interpretations and restricts opportunities for external critical analysis. Future research could involve external observers (e.g. researchers or experts in agronomy, hydrology, textile production, etc.) to assess the incidents that are described by the participants. Another proposal would be to involve the respondents themselves in the analysis of transgressions of personal norms through focus groups. This participatory approach would allow individuals to collectively discuss experiences of transgressions (under the potential cover of anonymity of the perpetrator of the transgression), to compare their perceptions, and to explore the similarities or divergences between their personal visions of responsible consumption.

Second, if our research enabled an understanding of how personal norms of responsible consumers are constructed, it focuses on “consumer green transgressions” in which responsible consumers deviate from their personal norms. Consequently, our research does not allow us to know how deeply anchored the personal norm is in the participants’ lives. To gain an in-depth understanding of how responsible consumers live and consume, several data collection methods could then be relevant:

Third, the CIT invited respondents to reflect on a particularly significant experience in which they did something against their personal environmental, social, and ethical beliefs. However, a lack of knowledge or reflexivity from respondents could lead them not to have something “in their mind,” or not being aware of a “consumer green transgression.” Consequently, only conscious transgressions are mentioned in the interviews. Furthermore, the CIT engenders a methodological bias in the analysis of the coping strategies adopted by consumers following their “consumer green transgressions.” Although respondents are encouraged to talk about their transgressions, it stands to reason that denial strategies are not mentioned during the interviews. This means there is doubt as to their potential role in situations of “consumer green transgression.” To overcome this methodological limitation, we suggest two recommendations for future research.

The use of netnographic techniques (Kozinets, 2002) could also assist in better understanding instrumental and emotional support strategies. For example, the researcher could analyze communications and interactions between members of a virtual community of responsible consumption, such as communities of vegetarians/vegans.

Fourth, this research focuses on consumers who self-identified as being committed to responsible consumption. This sheds light on very different pro-environmental or social behaviors and personal norms. Furthermore, self-declaration does not consider individuals who adopt a responsible consumption but do not describe themselves as responsible consumers. Future research could ask people who (or do not) describe themselves as responsible consumers what they mean by this expression, what imaginaries they associate with responsible consumption, and why they (or do not) consider themselves as such.

Conclusion

Despite their motivations, responsible consumers sometimes face with difficulties that can lead them to occasionally deviate from their personal pro-social, environmental, or ethical norms. This research focused on these “consumer green transgressions” to provide concrete evidence of the causes, types, and consequences of such transgressions. It highlighted two “cause(s) → transgression(s) → consequence(s)” trajectories. First, a “vicious” emotional trajectory through which transgressions caused by strong emotions can lead responsible consumers to look for emotional support, to express emotions, or to adopt avoidance strategies. In this last case, they want to move on to escape a feeling of guilt. By not entering a reflective process, they are likely to reproduce their transgression. Second, a “virtuous” conative trajectory through which the higher cost or effort associated with responsible consumption often led to occasional lapses. Far from demotivating responsible consumers, these “consumer green transgressions” encourage responsible consumers to seek and implement concrete solutions to behave more responsibly in the future. This gives a positive note for the future.