The downsides of green consumerism

The downsides of green consumerism

Greenwashing misleads consumers

Greenwashing is when companies make misleading claims about the environmental benefits of their products or practices in order to appeal to green consumers. This is a major downside of green consumerism because it results in consumers buying products that are not actually as eco-friendly as claimed. Some examples of greenwashing include:

  • Companies claiming their products are “all natural” when they contain synthetic ingredients.
  • Automakers promoting hybrid vehicles as “green” when the overall environmental impact depends on factors like manufacturing and lifespan.
  • Products featuring nature imagery or words like “eco” and “sustainable” despite no evidence of environmental benefits.

Greenwashing misleads well-intentioned consumers and undermines trust in environmental claims. It also distracts from making meaningful change by promoting the perception that purchasing “green” products is sufficient.

Higher costs can limit accessibility

Many environmentally-friendly products come with a higher price tag. While some consumers are willing and able to pay more, this can limit accessibility for lower income demographics. Some examples:

  • Organic food costs up to 47% more than conventionally grown food. For a family on a tight budget, this makes it impractical to go 100% organic.
  • An electric vehicle averages $10,000+ more upfront than a comparable gas car. The long-term fuel savings rarely offset this for low-income buyers.
  • Green cleaning supplies like eco-friendly laundry detergents are priced up to 30% higher than conventional options.

The higher costs of green products ultimately exclude many consumers who would make eco-conscious purchases if pricing was more competitive. This slows the widespread adoption needed to drive meaningful environmental impact.

Promotes increased consumption

Green consumerism relies on the idea that we can shop our way to sustainability by purchasing environmentally-friendly versions of products. However, this keeps consumption at high levels rather than promoting reduction and reuse. Examples:

  • Instead of reusing a water bottle, consumers feel good about buying $20 stainless steel bottles every season.
  • Purchasing new items made from bamboo or recycled materials when used goods may be more sustainable.
  • Upgrading last year’s phone for a new model touting modest energy savings.

Continuing high levels of consumption drives demand for raw materials extraction and manufacturing. This counteracts the benefits of eco-friendly products designed to lower environmental impacts.

Slows more impactful collective action

When individual consumer purchases are seen as the solution, it can slow the push for collective action and systemic change. Some examples include:

  • Believing our personal purchases absolve responsibility to support environmental regulations and policies.
  • Assuming our reusable bags make up for the need to ban single-use plastics altogether.
  • Buying an electric car and feeling it’s unnecessary to improve public transit infrastructure.

While individual purchases do help, focusing solely on green consumerism shifts focus away from the larger scale policy changes essential to addressing environmental issues.


In summary, green consumerism provides important market incentives for eco-friendly products, but has limitations in its ability to drive meaningful environmental change. Relying solely on individual purchases risks greenwashing, inequity, overconsumption, and complacency around collective action. The most impactful approach combines conscientious consumption with pressure for system-level change.