Is it possible to reconcile the cost-of-living crisis consumers are experiencing with the need for sustainable consumption?

The cost-of-living crisis was first introduced to the scene in 2021 at the heart of the United Kingdom. This never-before-seen phenomenon was defined by The Institute for Government as the fall in real disposable incomes that the UK has experienced since late 2021, and consequently consumers began resorting to purchasing household necessities of the lowest price possible. Yet, in the face of global climate change, the incremental need for sustainable consumption clashes with the aforesaid consumer choices. This essay will evaluate the cause and course of the rising cost-of-living crisis, and discuss the possibility to reconcile consumer decisions with sustainability.

Foremost, the occurrence of the cost-of-living crisis owes to an amalgamation of issues, from escalating inflation in the UK and Brexit to the universal COVID-19 Pandemic and Russo-Ukrainian War. Moreover, April 2022 saw some dramatic overnight changes  which exerted additional economic pressure on consumers in the UK, including Ofgem increasing the energy price cap by 54%, a national insurance increase of 10%, council tax rising by around 3.5%. As such, UK residents weathering the impact of long-standing stagnancies in income are met with an escalation of household expenditure, further plunged into financial instability. 

On the other hand, the need for sustainable consumption has been accelerating at an alarming pace under the ever-expanding threat of global warming. Scientists report that 2023 is Earth’s hottest year. According to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, the global temperature is over 1.4 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels, a close shave with the 1.5-degree threshold in the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. This upsurge displays the intensification of climate change, and hence the necessity in maximising sustainable consumption to alleviate the repercussions of global environmental degradation. 

The deadlock: affordability and sustainability
The deadlock presents itself as the cost-of-living crisis experienced by consumers contravenes the urgency for sustainable consumption. Under the crisis, consumers are compelled to search for and purchase products at the lowest possible prices to minimise monetary cost. Thus, the portion of household expenditure spent on such products can be reduced and reallocated to mandatory spendings, such as tax or the water bill. However, the most affordable product choices are often the most environmentally destructive. For example, the normalisation of fast fashion, which endorses cheap, mass-produced clothing, requires 43 million tonnes of chemicals in production per year. The industry constitutes around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions due to its long supply chains and energy intensive production,  consuming more energy than the shipping and aviation industries combined. In addition, consumers in the UK make up the largest demand in the fast fashion market, amassing over €1000 in spending per person.

Due to their relatively higher price upfront, recent market entries of eco-friendly product alternatives have gained limited traction and failed to achieve the aim of widespread sustainability. The consumer demand for low cost creates a deadlock between affordability and sustainability, since pursuing cheap products forgoes eco-friendliness, vice versa.  The former and the latter appear to be inversely related, and reside at two ends of the spectrum. As a consequence, consumers situated in the cost-of-living crisis opt against sustainable consumption, worsening the impasse. 

The possible reconciliation: incentive and information
The British have been increasingly disturbed by the UK economy, with the Economy making up 51% of top mentions with a 10% jump from the previous month. Yet, the need for sustainable consumption only climbs higher each day. To seek  balance and possibly a reconciliation between affordability and sustainability, consumer choices should be altered through incentive and information. 

Consumers purchase the most cost-effective option available, inattentive to its long term consequences on household spending and the environment. In terms of household spending, LED lightbulbs, for example, last up to 50,000 hours whereas incandescent bulbs typically only last 750 hours. Bearing in mind the longevity of the two bulbs, purchasing the conventional incandescent bulb implies the need to replace it repeatedly, in turn amounting to higher costs. In terms of the environment, LED bulbs produce 514 lbs of CO2 per year, and are significantly more environmentally friendly compared to incandescent bulbs’ production of 4405 lbs per year. Yet, many consumers are uninspired by the benefits of LED lightbulbs over incandescents, and indifferent about sustainable product choices as a whole — in 2022, among 11,711 consumers worldwide, only 8% turned their way of living around, including purchasing behaviour and choices, to be more sustainable over the past five years. Amidst the stringency on their cost-of-living, only a minority of the general public are willing to go the extra mile for sustainability. Thus, the government should spearhead the strive for balance between affordability and sustainability through arousing participation from multiple stakeholders in the cause. 

To begin with, the government should constitute the driving force of expanding sustainable consumption by creating financial incentives for environmentally friendly purchases. For example, a subsidy could be introduced on eco-friendly products to reduce their cost, allowing producers to receive higher revenue while consumers enjoy a lower price for the product. Simultaneous to ensuring that producers are not worse off, this directly uproots consumers’ primary concern of a tight budget amidst the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, citizens are most likely to be motivated by economic benefits to make a change in their actions in favour of the environment. Henceforth, the government should prioritise financial incentive to drive a hike in consumer purchases for sustainable products.

Furthermore, the government should pioneer in making practical information accessible to consumers. In the government’s perspective, awareness creation should be implemented extensively. The government should take advantage of children not yet concerned by the family financial burden in the cost-of-living crisis and promote eco-friendly consumer choices through education, such as improving school syllabus content and hosting innovative competitions. The widespread exposure can embed the importance of sustainable consumption into children’s lives , educating them to make environmentally conscious actions. Following the heightened use of technology among Generation Z, government organisations should also utilise publicity via social media platforms to  alert the youth. For instance, the European Commission launched the media campaign ‘ReSet The Trend’ in 2023 to “engage young Europeans in the battle against fast fashion”.  Likewise, the government should administer the publication of tips, statistics, and success stories on social media to maintain easy access to information among young people, and hence encourage sustainable consumption. Most importantly, the government should cater the majority of its informative measures to the elder demographic. Just under a quarter (24%) of those aged 70 years and over reported were very worried about the implications of climate change, compared with 37% of those aged 25 to 34 years. Given the relatively diminished awareness among adults and the elderly, the government should fixate on providing practical guidance tailored to the cost-of-living crisis. Educational brochures or pamphlets that offer actionable steps can lead them to incorporate sustainable practices into their daily lives. This adheres to the implications where a majority of citizens believe gaining easy access to information on the steps which they can take every day can help incentivise fighting climate change in ways such as sustainable consumption.

Earth Day is a material illustration of international awareness on sustainability. It was born out of the anti-establishment movement in the 60s, and first held nationally in 1970 with nearly 20 million Americans celebrating together at community events organised to raise awareness of environmental issues. The government should build upon the vast participation and success of Earth Day and incorporate elements about the cost-of-living crisis to build relatability and a sense of urgency within communities to widen sustainable consumption.

In conclusion, the cost-of-living crisis has certainly posed a plethora of financial burdens to citizens throughout the United Kingdom, generally diverting  their focus away from current environmental issues and sustainable consumption. Eventually, this manifests in a tradeoff between affordability and sustainability, which results in consumers forfeiting eco-friendliness for cost-effectiveness. However, it is possible to reconcile the cost-of-living crisis and the need for sustainable consumption. The government should take the lead in initiating incentive and information, to harvest the reconciliation and ultimately benefit society in a win-win situation.