In theory, younger consumers should be leading the green economy. Gen Z and millennials routinely rank climate change among their top global concerns, follow sustainability influencers, and expect brands to take a stance on everything from packaging to politics. But in practice, their purchasing behaviour last year tells a different story.
According to McKinsey, the percentage of Gen Z and millennial consumers in Western markets who ranked sustainability as a top purchasing factor dropped noticeably in the first quarter of 2024 compared to the previous year. Willingness to pay more for eco-friendly products, once a defining trait of these generations, is also declining. In fashion and CPG categories in particular, demand for green-labelled products is increasingly conditional on price parity. When faced with economic pressure, even the most vocal proponents of sustainability are defaulting to affordability.
The data mirrors a pattern captured in our Green Brand report: while most consumers say they care about sustainability, fewer are willing to compromise on convenience, performance, or price to act on it. Gen Z respondents across markets still express high levels of environmental concern, but that concern is no longer translating into behaviour when budgets are tight. One of our report’s starkest findings is that even those who consider themselves eco-conscious rarely let that identity drive final purchase decisions unless the value proposition is unmistakable.
This isn’t a retreat from climate concern. It’s a recalibration. As the cost of living continues to rise, the question isn’t whether people care—it’s how much they’re willing to pay to prove it. Brands that built their messaging around values alone now face a harder truth: today, value is back in charge.
Why Price Is Outweighing Principle
There is no shortage of public support for sustainability. In our Green Brand report, concern about environmental issues remains high across generations, especially among Gen Z and millennials. But concern and commitment are diverging—and fast.
While younger consumers continue to express strong interest in climate action, their ability to act on that interest is constrained by more immediate economic realities. High inflation, stagnant wages, and escalating rent costs are forcing difficult trade-offs. The result is a growing gap between intention and execution, particularly when sustainable products carry a higher price tag.
Our research shows that while the majority of consumers globally say sustainability matters to them, few follow through if the greener option costs more. In the UK and US, this drop-off is especially pronounced. A majority of Gen Z respondents in these markets describe themselves as environmentally conscious, but fewer than a third said they would consistently choose a sustainable product if it were more expensive than a conventional alternative. In Southeast Asia, the tension plays out differently.
In countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, younger consumers often express optimism about sustainable living, but price sensitivity remains high. In lower-income urban areas, premium-priced green goods are seen as aspirational but out of reach.
Across regions, the pattern is consistent: concern remains high, but economic pressure is shifting priorities. In many cases, consumers expect brands to absorb the cost of sustainability. Our data reveals that a growing segment of buyers believe it’s the company’s job—not theirs—to make products sustainable without charging more. This expectation is reshaping how value is judged, particularly in categories like food, fashion, and household goods, where switching between brands is easy and driven by price.
What’s fading is the assumption that people will pay more for principles. A rising number of consumers are now treating sustainability as a baseline expectation rather than a bonus feature worth a premium. In doing so, they are redefining the terms of brand trust—placing the burden of responsibility squarely on the supplier, not the shopper.
When Green Marketing Meets Market Reality
For years, brands that positioned themselves as sustainable leaders were seen as future-proof. Marketing strategies emphasised recycled fabrics, low-emissions sourcing, refill programs, and purpose-driven storytelling. But that return is now beginning to stall—particularly as price tags no longer align with consumer priorities.
Fashion is one of the clearest case studies. Mid-market brands that led with environmental credentials—organic cotton, closed-loop production, carbon offsetting—are facing stagnant growth as customers opt for cheaper alternatives with fewer claims and fewer caveats. Some DTC labels that built their reputations on sustainability are quietly shifting messaging away from mission and toward price, discounts, and durability. The signals are subtle: fewer lifestyle montages about purpose, more emphasis on value-per-wear.
In the beauty sector, refillable packaging and clean ingredient lists once helped newer entrants differentiate themselves. But our Green Brand report found that in mature markets, especially the US and UK, those features are no longer enough to justify a higher price. Many consumers now expect sustainable packaging as standard—and increasingly reject the idea of paying extra for it.
This creates a bind. According to the report, more than half of Gen Z and millennials still believe sustainability should be a priority for brands. Yet those same consumers are often unwilling to pay more for products with environmental certifications unless they also deliver a personal, tangible benefit. The disconnect is particularly acute in categories like skincare and cleaning products, where brand responsibility is expected—but the price premium is not tolerated.
A recent McKinsey analysis on consumer sentiment echoes the frustration felt by sustainability-led brands. Many are investing in responsible sourcing and packaging, only to find those efforts do little to influence final purchase decisions. Analysts have described this behavior as part of a growing “green fatigue”—where price and convenience consistently override eco-focused messaging, particularly in sectors like beauty, apparel, and household goods.
Automotive brands are facing their own version of this. While electric vehicle adoption is growing, brands that leaned heavily on sustainability messaging without solving for infrastructure, affordability, or maintenance are struggling to scale. Consumers might support the idea in theory, but without practical solutions, the value case remains unconvincing.
The tension isn’t going away. If anything, it’s becoming sharper. Brands are learning, sometimes reluctantly, that belief in sustainability doesn’t always translate into action. And when value is promised but not delivered, the backlash is quick.
What Consumers Actually Want From Sustainable Brands
The rules have changed. Consumers aren’t walking away from sustainability, but they’re no longer accepting vague virtue signals or price premiums in exchange for loosely defined ethics. The demand now is for relevance, utility, and clarity—sustainability that works for them.
What’s Driving Sustainable Purchase Today:
| Priority | Consumer Expectation |
| Health & Safety | Products must offer tangible benefits—like being toxin-free or allergy-safe—not just eco |
| Durability | “Buy less, buy better” resonates—if durability equals savings over time |
| Convenience | Circularity is attractive only if seamless; friction kills follow-through |
| Local Impact | Locally sourced > carbon offsetting; it feels real, not symbolic |
Our Green Brand report found that while seven in ten Gen Z and millennial consumers claim sustainability matters to them, less than one in three will follow through if the greener product comes at a premium. Instead, they reward products that solve real-world problems while aligning with environmental values.
Simon-Kucher’s recent study supports this behavioural gap: among those who rank sustainability as a top-three concern, half admit they only choose green alternatives when pricing is equal or better.
The data also reveals growing scepticism around broad claims. Phrases like eco-friendly or sustainable packaging are now met with caution unless backed by specifics. Consumers are gravitating toward hard metrics—“90% recycled material,” “no microplastics,” or “locally sourced within 100 miles.” Clarity, not idealism, builds trust.
Circular and refillable models remain appealing but require frictionless execution. In our study, Gen Z consumers repeatedly flagged dropout points—confusing signage, inconsistent availability, or unclear value propositions. Euromonitor echoes this, noting that in 2024, the leading barrier to reusable product uptake isn’t cost—it’s complexity.
The expectation has shifted: brands are still expected to lead on sustainability, but the terms have changed. Consumers are asking less about the planet in the abstract and more about how your product fits into their daily life—and whether it’s worth switching for. That’s not disengagement. It’s discernment.
Making Sustainability Make Sense
Some brands are no longer treating sustainability as a message. They’re treating it as a system. The difference shows in performance.
Uniqlo is one of the clearest examples. Its “LifeWear” positioning emphasises longevity and utility over trend. The brand avoids the language of sustainability but delivers it in practice. Consumers aren’t sold on values—they’re sold on fewer purchases, less waste, and more function. The result: Uniqlo consistently ranks high in consumer trust, despite rarely leading with climate or ethics messaging.
In the household category, Seventh Generation has narrowed the price gap with mainstream competitors. Once considered a premium eco-label, it now competes on convenience and cost, not just mission. Refill concentrates and simplified packaging have reduced production costs while giving consumers a product that fits into existing routines. Our Green Brand report notes that this shift toward seamless integration is key to retaining sustainability-conscious buyers who are also budget-conscious.
Southeast Asian retailers are pushing refillable models that require almost no behavioural change. Supermarkets in Thailand and Indonesia offer branded refill stations with clear instructions and price incentives. These programs succeed where others have failed because the decision is built into the shopping experience. Consumers aren’t persuaded by ethics alone. They follow the easier, faster option—if it aligns with their values.
Circularity is gaining ground when positioned as service, not sacrifice. Patagonia’s resale platform, Worn Wear, is growing steadily because the process is simple and familiar. IKEA’s buy-back program lets customers return used furniture for store credit with minimal effort. Both succeed not by appealing to ethics, but by creating easy, cost-effective alternatives to new consumption.
The brands making headway aren’t winning on messaging. They’re winning on design. They’ve stopped asking consumers to make difficult choices. Instead, they’ve made the better choice feel automatic.
The Future of Sustainability Hinges on What Consumers Do Next
The idea that consumers will make sacrifices for sustainability has been overstated. What they’re doing instead is recalibrating. That shift—from saying to choosing, from caring to acting—deserves more attention than most strategy decks allow. Especially now.
The gap between what consumers claim to value and what they actually buy isn’t new. What’s changed is how quickly that gap is shifting, and how unevenly it plays out across categories, price points, and cultures. In some markets, refill stations thrive. In others, they collect dust. The same consumer who buys reusable packaging in one category won’t tolerate it in another. Context matters, friction matters, timing matters. It always has—but brands that succeed now are those that bother to map it.
Market research is not a post-rationalisation tool. It’s what should tell you where your sustainability story breaks down, which claims build trust, and which changes are worth making because the consumer will notice. It reveals where values still win, where value dominates, and where new expectations are quietly forming.
The path forward won’t be defined by idealists or sceptics. It will be shaped by the millions of individual decisions made every day at the shelf, on a screen, or in-store. Brands that understand those decisions in real time—and respond accordingly—will be the ones that make sustainability mean something again.
Get regular insights
Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.
Senior Marketing Executive
Sales & Marketing
General Manager PR -Internal Communications & Government Affairs
Vital Strategies
Customer Intelligence Director