Understanding Gen Z Consumers: A Typology of (Un)sustainable Purchases

Summary

This study applies neutralisation theory to explain the paradox between Gen Z’s pro-environmental attitudes and their often unsustainable purchasing behaviour. Using 25 semi-structured interviews, the authors identify six neutralisation techniques Gen Z uses to rationalise unsustainable purchases: four established techniques (denial of responsibility, condemning the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, metaphor of the ledger) and two novel ones introduced here (denial of efficacy and denial of proximity). From the ways these techniques are deployed the researchers develop a three-part consumer typology — Disengaged, Moderates and Advocates — and offer targeted marketing and policy interventions to close the attitude–behaviour gap.

Key Points

Gen Z shows strong environmental predispositions but a persistent attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable purchases.
Neutralisation theory explains psychological strategies used to justify unsustainable buying.
Six neutralisation techniques identified: denial of responsibility, condemning the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, metaphor of the ledger, denial of efficacy (novel), denial of proximity (novel).
Three consumer types emerge: Disengaged (low sustainable action), Moderates (occasional green choices), Advocates (actively pursue sustainable options and activism).
Practical interventions should be segment-specific: affordability and convenience for Disengaged, clearer authentic messaging for Moderates, and facilitation of activism and transparency for Advocates.
Qualitative method: 25 in-depth interviews, thematic coding, saturation reached; findings are exploratory but provide actionable insights.

Content Summary

The paper opens by framing Gen Z as a pivotal cohort: environmentally aware, digitally connected and growing in purchasing power, yet often failing to behave in line with stated values. To unpack this, the authors extend neutralisation theory — originally from criminology — to consumer sustainability. Interviews reveal that Gen Z frequently shifts blame to institutions, compares themselves to worse offenders, or balances bad choices with good deeds. Two new rationalisations stand out: denial of efficacy (feeling that individual actions are futile) and denial of proximity (seeing environmental harm as distant in time or place).

By mapping how strongly individuals use each technique, the researchers classify consumers into Disengaged, Moderates and Advocates. Disengaged respondents feel powerless, prioritise other crises and need low-cost, convenient green options. Moderates mix pragmatic concerns with occasional green choices. Advocates combine scepticism of greenwashing with active pursuit of systemic change and community action.

Context and Relevance

This article is important for marketers, policy-makers and sustainability practitioners trying to convert Gen Z’s intent into action. It ties psychological theory to practical segmentation and shows why one-size-fits-all campaigns fail. The identification of denial of efficacy and denial of proximity is timely: as climate impacts often feel abstract, interventions must make consequences and collective impact more tangible and make green choices easier and cheaper.

Why should I read this?

Because if you work on product strategy, comms or policy aimed at Gen Z, this paper saves you guessing. Instead of blanket green messages, it tells you who needs cheaper, easier options, who needs clearer proof of authenticity, and who can be mobilised as influencers and activists. Short version: stop shouting slogans and start designing targeted fixes.

Author style

Punchy and practical — the authors blend theory and real voices to give clear, actionable segments. If you care about converting attitude into purchase (or crafting policy that actually shifts behaviour), the typology and novel neutralisation concepts are worth digging into.

Source

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.70013?af=R