Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav.

13: 9–17 (2014)

Published online 28 December 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1439

Social normalisation: Using marketing to make green normal

RUTH RETTIE*, KEVIN BURCHELL and CHRIS BARNHAM
Business School, Kingston University, Kingston, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a novel environmental marketing approach in which the adoption of greener consumer behaviours is encouraged by
repositioning them as normal. The research was undertaken in order to help explain the disappointing performance of green marketing ini-
tiatives. The methodology was qualitative, with focus groups and a wide range of stimulus materials. The study illuminates the ways in
which consumers conceptualise and adopt pro-environmental behaviours and highlights the importance of consumer ideas about what is
normal. The research indicates that consumers are more likely to adopt behaviour and products that they think are normal and that what
is regarded as normal changes over time. New activities and products that are initially seen as different, and as outside normal behaviour,
can eventually become mainstream and accepted as normal, in a process of ‘social normalisation’. As part of this process, other behaviours,
which have been mainstream everyday ways of doing things, can become marginalised over time. The research suggests that companies and
policy makers tend to position green marketing initiatives as targeting a green niche and that this inhibits social normalisation and main-
stream adoption. Green marketing can potentially play an important role in the social normalisation of green practices and products by
portraying these as normal and everyday instead of emphasizing their greenness. The study contributes to understanding of consumer
behaviour and the adoption of more sustainable products and practices and identifies practical ways to improve green initiatives. Copyright
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION to what most people generally do, that is, in a descriptive sense
rather than in the normative sense of what people ought to do.
The 2008 Climate Change Act committed the UK to an 80 However, as will be discussed later, understandings of what is
per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The UK normal may carry normative connotations; that is, what most
government expects consumer behaviour change to play a people do may imply what people ought to do.
major role in achieving this reduction (HM Government, The research indicates that consumers are more likely to
2011) and has developed its own behaviour change strategy, adopt behaviours that they think are normal and that what
the MINDSPACE approach (Institute for Government and is regarded as normal changes over time. Some activities that
the Cabinet Office, 2010). MINDSPACE recognises the role are initially seen as being different and outside of normal
of social marketing and suggests that its efficacy could be behaviour eventually become mainstream and are accepted
improved by insights from behavioural economics, including as normal. There seems to be a process of ‘social
Thaler and Sunstein’s (2008) ‘nudge’ thesis. This paper fo- normalisation’ in which some ideas, behaviours and products
cuses on the role of marketing as an approach to sustainable that are initially regarded as outside the range of normality,
behaviour change. Although marketing has been criticised gradually become accepted as normal and as part of ordinary,
for stimulating unsustainable levels of consumption (Sheth everyday life. As part of this process, other behaviours, which
and Parvatiyar, 1995; Van Dam and Apeldoorn, 1996; have been mainstream, everyday, ways of doing things, can be-
Stearns, 2001; Abela, 2006), others have drawn attention to come marginalised over time. The paper argues that marketing
the potential role that marketing can play in the adoption of can potentially contribute to sustainability objectives by encour-
more sustainable behaviours (Jones et al., 2007; Peattie and aging the social normalisation of pro-environmental behaviours.
Peattie, 2009). This research is of interest to policy-makers and practitioners in
On the basis of qualitative research, this paper proposes a the domains of sustainable marketing, communications and
novel environmental marketing approach in which greener behaviour change.
consumer behaviours are encouraged by repositioning them The next section briefly introduces green marketing and
as ‘normal’ rather than ‘green’. The research was undertaken reviews key theories relating to environmental behaviour,
in order to help explain the disappointing performance of green the role of norms and normalisation. This is followed by
marketing initiatives (Peattie and Crane, 2005; Pickett-Baker the research methodology and findings, which focus on
and Ozaki, 2008). Although climate change is a key consumer participants’ conceptions of normality. The paper concludes
issue, with 59 per cent of consumers concerned worldwide with a discussion of the theoretical implications of the
(Nielsen, 2011), this is not reflected in consumer behaviour research and the potential role of marketing in the social
(Young et al., 2010). This study illuminates the ways in which normalisation of sustainable behaviours.
consumers conceptualise and adopt pro-environmental behav-
iours and highlights the importance of consumer ideas about
what is normal. In this paper, we use the term ‘normal’ to refer THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
*Correspondence to: Ruth Rettie, Business School, Kingston University,
Kingston Hill, Kingston, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK. Several authors have argued that green marketing can poten-
E-mail: [email protected] tially play an important role in encouraging more sustainable

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10 R. Rettie et al.

behaviour and consumption (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; what is the right thing to do or what people ought to do
Jones et al., 2007; Peattie and Peattie, 2009). However, (Cialdini et al., 1990; Berkowitz, 2004). Thus, there are
Peattie and Crane (2005: 357) note the disappointing perfor- two senses of ‘norm’: norm as average, as in what most
mance of green marketing, attributing this failure to people do and norm as normative, as in what people ought
‘misconceived’ marketing practices, which are often ineffec- to do. However, this distinction is blurred, describing what
tive and provoke consumer criticism and cynicism. These most other people do seem to connote injunction; that is,
practices, along with ‘greenwash’, help to explain the ‘most people do this’ also becomes ‘people should do this’.
‘greenophobia’ observed by Grant (2007: 200), where Although injunctive social norms feature in the TPB and
consumers see green products as more expensive, less effec- similar models, where ‘subjective norm’ is a determinant of
tive and for ‘weird’ people. intention, meta-analyses show that the predictive power of
Marketing studies of green consumers, green behaviour subjective norm is limited (Armitage and Connor, 2001).
and green consumption have been particularly influenced However, these approaches define subjective norm rather
by theories from psychology. The Theory of Reasoned Ac- narrowly as an individual’s perception of whether people that
tion (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) links beliefs about behaviour are important to him think he should perform the behaviour.
and evaluation of outcomes to attitudes. Attitudes are seen as The social norms approach (SNA) combines both descrip-
the antecedents of intentions, which are, in turn, seen as de- tive and injunctive norms and attempts to influence behav-
termining behaviour. The Theory of Planned Behaviour iour by communicating information about what most other
(TPB) is a development of the Theory of Reasoned Action, people do or think people should do (see the reviews by
which adds ‘perceived behavioural control’ as an antecedent Berkowitz, 2004; McAlaney et al., 2010; Burchell et al.,
of both intention and action (Ajzen, 1985). The Theory of In- 2013). For Thaler and Sunstein (2008), the SNA is an exam-
terpersonal Behaviour is similarly based on beliefs about be- ple of an effective nudge. Burchell et al. (2013) identify two
haviour and outcomes but adds two additional determinants main types of social norm intervention: in the traditional ap-
of intent, social factors (norms, roles and self-concept) and proach, the norm is simply communicated and in the
affect (emotion), and two additional determinants of behav- personalised approach, the behaviour of an individual or in-
iour, facilitating conditions and habits (Triandis, 1977). dividual household is compared with others that are similar.
Despite the popularity of these models, there is extensive A particularly relevant finding of this research is that the in-
empirical evidence of an attitude–behaviour or ‘green gap’ fluence of descriptive social norms is increased by the use of
(Black, 2010), in which pro-environmental attitudes are not the most appropriate reference group (Berkowitz, 2004;
always reflected in sustainable behaviours. Young et al. McAlaney et al., 2010). Typically, this is the group with
(2010) noted that, although 30 per cent of consumers claim which the target group most identifies (as opposed to aspires
to be very concerned about the environment, this does not to or disassociates from); that is to say, people like them-
always translate into green purchase behaviour. Numerous selves, for example, in their SNA studies of campus alcohol
studies of environmental behaviour report only modest cor- consumption, researchers have shown this with respect to
relations between environmental values, attitudes, intentions gender and race (Neighbors et al., 2010). SNA studies have
and actual behaviour (Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Follows targeted green behaviours including recycling (Schultz,
and Jobber, 2000; Fraj and Martinez, 2007; Finisterra do 1999), conservation (Cialdini et al., 2006), hotel towel reuse
Paço and Raposo, 2010; Jansson et al., 2011). Similarly, in (Goldstein et al., 2008) and food waste (Nomura et al.,
Bamberg and Moser’s (2007) meta-analysis of 57 studies 2011). Research has also focused on energy consumption
of pro-environmental behaviour, intentions accounted for (Schultz et al., 2007; Nolan et al., 2008), and large scale tri-
only 27 per cent of the variance in self-reported pro-environ- als in the USA produced energy reductions of about 2 per
mental behaviour. This gap is also supported by qualitative cent (Allcott, 2010; Opower, 2013). However, in UK re-
research, for example, Carrigan and Attalla (2001) reported search by the authors (Harries et al., 2013), the impact of
that despite consumer intentions, purchase behaviour often both individual and social norm feedback was only 3 per cent
remains unaffected by ethical concerns. Szmigin et al. (not significant).
(2009) found that even very ethically conscious consumers The term ‘normalisation’ has previously been applied to
are inconsistent in their purchase behaviour. Unfortunately, social change and the increased prevalence of attitudes and
although the addition of other factors may have improved practices. For instance, researchers have used it to describe
the predictive reliability of the Triandis model, it is of only the way in which behaviours that were previously understood
limited use for designing behaviour change interventions, to be deviant, become widespread within society (see Parker
because it is very difficult to change social factors, affect et al. (1998) on UK adolescent drug use). Similarly, Nirje
and habits. Consequently, social policy tends to focus on (1969) and Wolfensberger (1972) used ‘normalisation’ to
the provision of information with the aim of shaping atti- describe the process and principle of social inclusion for
tudes and thus changing behaviour. previously excluded groups, such as people with disabilities.
A number of approaches from social psychology, often May and Finch (2009) introduced normalisation process
grounded in research on conformity (Milgram, 1974; Asch, theory, which describes the emergence and adoption of new
1976), emphasise the role of norms in shaping attitudes, technologies and work practices in healthcare. An emphasis
intentions and behaviour. Some researchers distinguish be- on increased adoption over time is also reflected in Rogers’
tween two types of norm: descriptive norms simply describe (1962) technology adoption lifecycle and its successors,
the behaviour of the majority and injunctive norms refer to including socio-technical transitions theory (Geels, 2002).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Using marketing to make green normal 11

Shove’s (2003) discussion of the replacement of weekly incentive (Table 1). To increase engagement with the topic
baths with daily showers can also be understood in terms (Heisley and Levy, 1991), participants were given disposable
of the normalisation. In practice theory (Schatzki, 1996; cameras on initial recruitment and asked to ‘take photographs
Shove, 2003), socially shared practices are seen as stabilising of things they thought were green’ and to bring the resulting
and shaping individual actions, whereas social change is un- prints to the groups, which were held 3 weeks later. This was
derstood in terms of the evolution of practices rather than the an effective way of stimulating discussion but may also have
choices of individuals. Jensen and Wagoner (2012) described influenced the findings.
a cyclical model of social change and normalisation in which The extent to which pro-environmental behaviour is
new ideals, for example new norms, go through four pro- deliberative versus habitual was explored in a general discus-
cesses: communication, implementation, public engagement sion of sustainability and green activities prompted by
and deliberative. The model is cyclical because new norms discussion of the photographs. The topic guide included
may be rejected and reformulated, leading to further cycles. attitudes, intentions and decision making related to sustain-
Other uses of ‘normalisation’ have more tangential relevance ability; sustainability related behaviours and consumption;
to ours. Foucault (1975) famously employed the term and social norms and the influence of others. In order to
‘normalisation’ to describe a specifically 19th-century form understand the slow adoption of pro-environmental behav-
of institutional disciplinary power that aims to correct and iours, a range of advertisements depicting manufacturer,
normalise perceived deviant behaviour. In some contexts, retailer, government and non-governmental organization
the idea of normalisation is relevant to Labelling Theory. If green initiatives was introduced and discussed in the groups.
what is normal is prescriptive, what is not normal may be de- The groups were moderated by the second author of this
viant. The stigma resulting from a deviant label may encour- paper, who produced an initial analysis of the findings.
age members of that group to adopt out-group norms Two researchers independently coded the photographs and
(Tannenbaum, 1938). the transcripts. One code was assigned to each photograph,
This paper is framed by the literature in three ways. Firstly, resulting in 43 codes that were compared and consolidated
there seems to be general consensus that the performance of to form six final codes. The transcripts were anonymised
green marketing initiatives has been disappointing and that and coded using ATLAS.ti (www.atlas.ti.com). Coding was
there is a need for more interpretive, qualitative research influenced by grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)
(Hartmann and Ibáñez, 2006; Mostafa, 2007). Secondly, re- with some codes emerging from the research during line-
search indicates that there is a gap between attitudes, intentions by-line analysis, whereas others were based on the literature.
and behaviour. Thirdly, there is some evidence that behaviour The two coders compared and consolidated their codes,
may be influenced by social norms and ideas of what is normal. using 89 codes for the final coding. Key themes used in the
These suggest the following research questions: analysis were behaviour change, choice/habit, guilt/could
do more, green becoming normal and how things used to
1. Why have consumers been slow to adopt pro-
be/manufacturer cynicism; these occurred in every group.
environmental behaviours?
Pittsburgh University merge software (www.ucsur.pitt.edu/qdap)
2. In what ways are pro-environmental behaviours shaped
was used to identify disagreements between the two coders.
by social norms?
These were resolved by discussion and re-examination of the
relevant text. Table 2 shows the code segment by group matrix
METHODOLOGY for the key codes discussed in the findings.

Qualitative research was selected in order to explore respon-

dents’ understandings, attitudes, norms and behaviours, in- RESULTS
cluding those that were not immediately salient. Focus
groups were used because the interaction between partici- Participants brought 261 photographs of objects and
pants provides key insights about language use, world views activities they saw as green to the groups. Table 3 shows
and group norms (Kitzinger, 1994) and because they are par- the number of pictures collected classified by subject. There
ticularly appropriate for exploring socially shared knowledge were few differences between the groups in terms of the
(Marková et al., 2007). The research consisted of six focus types of activities identified, the number and variety of activ-
groups of eight people who each received a small financial ities and the reported difficulty in performing the task.

Table 1. Focus group structure

Group Sex Demographics Location
1 Female 55–65, C1C2 (lower middle and skilled working class)a Birmingham
2 Female 21–29, BC1 (middle and lower middle class) Birmingham
3 Female 40–55, C1C2 (lower middle and skilled working class) Manchester
4 Male 25–35, BC1 (middle and lower middle class) Manchester
5 Female 25–35, C1C2 (lower middle and skilled working class) London
6 Male 40–55, BC1 (middle and lower middle class) London
a
Head of household (Market Research Society, 2006).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
12 R. Rettie et al.

Table 2. Coding frame by group

Group/code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Cynicism 49 17 27 44 48 52 237
Behaviour change 10 15 40 14 13 17 109
Green as normal/back to basics 10 4 21 4 8 12 59
Other people do not/why should we 15 8 9 8 12 1 53
Could do more/guilt 11 7 13 4 15 8 58
Norms 6 6 5 11 3 20 51

Table 3. Respondents’ photographs

Code Total Proportion of photographs (%)
Recycling (e.g. recycling bin) 79 30
Transport (e.g. bike and bus) 50 19
Energy saving (e.g. energy saving bulb) 40 15
Plastic bags 21 9
Water conservation (e.g. rain butt) 15 6
Miscellaneous 56 21
Total 261 100

Within the groups, there was a broad consensus as to what is because they are just seen as normal. Secondly, some activ-
thought of as green. Interviewees had no difficulty labelling ities, which are recognised as green (an example from the
activities as green or not green, although they did not try to research was putting a water bottle in a lavatory cistern to
assess greenness in terms of impact on the environment, for reduce water consumption) but which have not been
example calculating carbon emissions. normalised, are not adopted because they seem too different
The photographs led naturally into a discussion of partic- from the way things are normally carried out.
ipants’ green behaviours. Recycling was the most salient These features of the focus group discussions were not
activity and all recycled, although the range of items recycled always directly reflected in participants’ comments. Rather,
differed. Nearly all interviewees claimed that they had they emerged in often vague and extended interactions
adopted greener behaviours over the last 5 years, and this between participants. However, group 2’s discussion of the
was often presented as part of a wider social change, ‘people water saving measure of placing a water-filled plastic bottle
are starting to care about things a bit more’ (group 2). The in the toilet cistern demonstrates the ways in which an under-
discourse was often one of the progress, for instance, ‘Yes, standing of an activity as not normal precludes its adoption.
I could still get better but they’ve definitely massively The topic was introduced by a participant with the observa-
improved’ (group 5). Behaviour change was seen as a slow tion ‘I’ve known for ages that if you put one of those big
process because it took time and ‘retraining’ to acquire new two or three litre bottles of lemonade, when you’ve used it
habits, for example ‘I keep trying to get myself into the habit up, fill it with water and put it in your toilet system once
of doing that [turning the tap off] but I haven’t managed to you’ve flushed it, then every time it fills up it uses less water.
do it.’ (group 2). The difficulty experienced in trying to And have I done it? No.’ Having made this comment, the
change habits partly helps to explain why consumers have participant went on to explain the technique to the other
been slow to adopt pro-environmental behaviours. participants, some of whom struggled to understand, and
The most striking feature of the focus groups was the way attempt to explain why she had not started to do something
in which participants discussed green behaviours in relation that she clearly thought was sensible. Throughout these
to their understandings of what they felt other people do or exchanges, the tone of the discussion revealed that while
what is ‘normal’. This is often framed in terms of what other the group thought this was green, its likelihood of being
people do or in terms of what is going on, for instance, ‘peo- adopted was minimal, because it was also understood to be
ple are doing things about it [caring for the environment]’ or not normal. This was brought into sharp relief by another
in terms of what is going on ‘everywhere’ as in ‘Yes, but participant who commented, ‘I’m going to tell my friend
now I am [concerned about the environment] because of about that, she’ll love that, she’s so green’. This comment
what’s happening around me.’ (group 6).The analysis distin- is important because it reflects a sense among the group that
guished two aspects of this. Firstly, for many consumers, it this particular behaviour is specifically for people who are
appears that there is something about considering an activity green but not for normal people like themselves.
to be normal that makes its classification as ‘green’ or ‘not Whether or not an activity or product is regarded as
green’ less of an issue per se; instead, ‘you don’t even think normal is important, because the perception that an activity
about it… its just, its just normal’ (group 5). Thus, driving a is normal seems to encourage adoption and discourage
car was seen as normal, although when participants thought behaviour change, whereas the perception that it is not
about it they acknowledged that it was not green. This helps normal seems to deter adoption. The research suggests that
to explain why some unsustainable behaviours are difficult consumers do not contemplate changing some activities,
to change; they are taken for granted and not challenged such as flying abroad or driving to work, because although

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Using marketing to make green normal 13

participants recognise that these are not green activities, they This exchange illustrates how talking about their own
simply regard them as normal and therefore part of modern individual green behaviours often prompted comparison
life. Conversely, many consumers do not consider adopting between what most people generally do now (i.e. what is
those green behaviours, which they regard as not normal normal now) and what they used to do in the past (what used
and as too unusual until they are perceived as mainstream. to be normal). The focus groups highlight the importance of
The influence of ‘what is normal’ helps to explain why what is seen as normal but also indicate that this is not fixed
respondents ignore green initiatives that promote activities and varies over time.
that are currently outside the norm, such as calculating one’s It is important to distinguish the understanding of normal in
carbon footprint or drinking carbon neutral beer; these are terms of what most people do, from an individual perspective,
seen as irrelevant and as directed at those who are very green as in what is normal to me or normal to me now. The sense of
rather than at ordinary people. Thus, a key element in the ‘most people’ was often reflected in the use of the term ‘we’
promotion of green activities and products is to position them (as in the excerpt in the preceding text). However, inter-
as normal and therefore for everyone and to target a mass viewees recognised that what was seen as normal differed
market rather than a niche group of green consumers. between groups, thus, for example putting a water bottle in
Discussion of green behaviours was often framed norma- a cistern might be normal for people who are very green.
tively and related to guilt and morality, as in the next two quo- Figure 1 shows how respondents understand a range of
tations: ‘I feel guilty if I waste something’ and ‘You don’t want activities—depicting them on two axes: a scale from very
to be seen as being the bad one. You know, you want to be seen normal (i.e. what people generally do) to not at all normal
to be doing the right thing.’ (groups 1 and 6, emphasis added). and a scale from very green to not at all green. Depicting
The link between greenness and morality helps to explain activities on these scales is useful because it provides a
consumer cynicism about green initiatives (Grant, 2007). snapshot in time of the extent to which an activity has been
Respondents reacted strongly and cynically to most of the mar- normalised and the extent to which it is seen as green. Thus,
keting materials introduced into the research. They were indig- recycling is in area 1 because it is seen as green and as
nant that companies misrepresented cost-saving initiatives as normal, whereas those activities in area 3 are seen as neither
green: ‘the big companies are just cashing in’ (group 4) or normal nor green (e.g. using patio heaters). This mapping
exploited greener products by charging higher prices. also indicates possible green marketing strategies, for
Participants’ discourse also shows their awareness that example, sustainability marketing initiatives directed at pro-
what is acceptable changes over time: ‘A household that isn’t environmental activities in area 1 should focus on reinforcing
recycling anything, and they’re putting it all in the brown bin. existing conceptions. In contrast, activities in area 2 (e.g.
It would be offensive now, rather than, who cares’ (group 1). buying organic food) are seen as green but as not normal.
This quote suggests that recycling has become normal, that it Marketing could potentially be used to normalise these
is what people generally do, and, moreover, that social ac- activities by positioning them as popular, normal activities
ceptability follows normality. The following excerpt from and thus attempting to move them towards area 1. Activities
group 1 (emphasis added) shows how this temporal frame in area 4 (e.g. taking foreign holidays) are currently regarded
of what is/was normal extends to other green issues: as not green but as normal. Marketing could challenge and
attempt to reposition these less sustainable behaviours as
Don’t you think though when we were kids, thinking not normal, while reinforcing conceptions that they are not
about it, years ago, they used to put things in brown paper green. The task for less sustainable activities in area 5
bags. (e.g. driving to work) is rather different. These activities
are currently regarded as normal and as neither green nor
Yes.
not green. Marketing could help to change perceptions so
Yes.
NORMAL
And instead now you have mountains of this stuff, which 4 1
is a nuisance anyway really isn’t it? [reference to excess Driving a 4X4 Driving to work Recycling
packaging] Foreign holidays
Going shopping
Reusing plastic bags

Too much packaging on every thing. 5

There is.
There’s all this hard plastic stuff isn’t it, you know. NOT GREEN
GREEN
The thing is a lot of stuff now comes in its own package
where as years ago it didn’t, everything came, sort of
had to be put away. You know.
We didn’t buy the sort of food we buy now. Leaded petrol Buying organic food

No. Patio heating

NOT
Water bottle in the cistern

3 NORMAL 2
…hadn’t got fridges when I was a child, we hadn’t got a
fridge so my mum used to shop you know daily. Figure 1. Positioning map of selected activities, normal versus green.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
14 R. Rettie et al.

that eventually they are seen as not normal and not green and to companies seeking to promote the sales of greener
(area 3). As ideas of what is normal vary between segments, products and services. The research indicates that behaviour
social normalisation marketing campaigns could also focus change is constrained by ideas of what most people do or
on particular segments, for instance, targeting groups for ‘what is normal’. It is important to distinguish this use of nor-
whom public transport is not seen as not normal. mal from other uses of normal such as ‘what I do’, ‘what my
The research suggests that a process of social normalisation family does’ and ‘what people like us do’. Ideas of what is
is relevant to green behaviour. Some pro-environmental normal in this social sense are important for sustainability,
behaviours, which were once considered to be outside the because some less sustainable behaviours are currently
range of normality have gradually become normal. Respon- regarded as normal, and some greener behaviours are seen as
dents spoke about the way in which everyday normal life has outside what is normal. Respondents were reluctant to adopt
changed over time and in particular about how their awareness pro-environmental behaviours that they saw as not normal
of, and attitudes to, green issues have changed: ‘We didn’t and saw no reason to change less sustainable behaviours that
think about these sort of things five years ago, no way, none they viewed as normal. Figure 1 is interesting because it reveals
of us’ (group 6). Respondents’ comments also suggest that the tension between two types of normativity: being green and
recycling used to be seen as green, but as unusual rather than being normal, both of which imply, albeit sub-consciously, an
normal (area 2) but that it is now regarded as green, and normal element of moral obligation. Conceptions of whether behav-
(area 1). The authors conjecture that in the future, recycling iours are normal are not based on accurate information about
may well be taken for granted and, like putting out general what most people do but on ideas and images shaped in child-
rubbish for collection, regarded as neither green nor not green hood and by the media, word of mouth and advertising. More-
but just as normal (area 5). The research suggests that driving a over, understandings about what is normal are not static; the
4 x 4 car used to be seen as neither green nor not green, and as research suggests that the extent to which activities is seen as
normal (area 5), but that it is now regarded as not green, normal changes over time. New behaviours may gradually be-
although still normal. In the future, driving 4 x 4 cars may no come accepted as normal in a process of ‘social normalisation’.
longer be seen as normal (area 3). There are two distinct ele- At the same time, existing ways of doing things may become
ments to this evolution in social understandings of activities less prevalent in a corresponding process of ‘denormalisation’.
over time in that both what is considered to be normal, and The word ‘social’ in the term ‘social normalisation’ is used to
what is considered to be green, change over time. indicate that what is relevant is that the behaviour is normal
Although the groups were structured in terms of gender within a social group and not simply to an individual. Social
and age, there was no consistent gender effect. However, normalisation can be defined as a social process in which ideas,
older respondents spoke in terms of their own experience of behaviours, products and practices that are initially considered
how everyday practices had changed, for example: ‘We don’t as outside the range of normality, gradually become accepted
wear clothes as long as we used to years ago. When we were as standard, normal and part of ordinary life.
kids you had to wear them two or three days running. Now The concept of social normalisation has some parallels
they have them on half an hour and throw them into the with a number of concepts (Rogers, 1962; Nirje, 1969;
wash’ (group 1). In contrast, younger ones told stories about Wolfensberger, 1972; Foucault, 1975; Parker et al., 1998;
their parents’ generation, ‘Our nans and our mums used to go Geels, 2002; Shove, 2003; May and Finch, 2009). However,
to the shops with their little wicker bags to get their grocer- there are subtle differences; for instance, Rogers (1962)
ies, and we didn’t used to have carrier bags and then all the highlighted the role of early adopters in the diffusion of in-
carrier bag thing came in and it was convenience, conve- novation and consequent adoption of new behaviours and
nience, and now we’re going back to taking our bags with products. In contrast, this research highlights the role of the
us when we go shopping’ (group 6). majority in normalising, and thus encouraging, the adoption
There was a broad spectrum in the groups in terms of of new practices and products. Shove’s (2003) work on
commitment to green values. Greener respondents were more showering and laundering can also be understood in terms
inclined to challenge what was currently accepted as normal. of the social normalisation of specific forms of these prac-
They were more likely to see green problems as endemic in tices, thus in the UK, weekly bathing has given way to daily
normal everyday life and to envisage the possibility of a showers. In contrast to this focus on socio-technical systems,
different normality. In contrast, those who were less green this research emphasises user perceptions of technologies;
saw what is normal in more reassuring terms and were much their disruptive power depends on their acceptance and
less likely to see normal everyday life as a problem. Most adoption. What people think is normal is important, and
respondents aspired to be normal rather than green, and consequently, transitions and behaviour change may be stim-
consequently they saw initiatives that told them how to be ulated by media inspired changes in meanings and images.
green, or exhorted them to think about their carbon The concept of social normalisation also relates to practice
footprints, as irrelevant. theory approaches (Schatzki, 1996); the practice (or what is
normal) shapes what individuals do and, at the same time,
what people do shapes the practice (or what is normal). How-
DISCUSSION ever, although practice theory tends to assume that people
know what most people do, our findings suggest that people
This research is relevant to governmental and non-governmental are influenced by what they think most people do, rather than
agencies who seek to encourage more sustainable behaviour by what actually is normal.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Using marketing to make green normal 15

This research also has implications for behaviour change sub-groups, by social class, gender and age, in support of
theories. For instance, the role of conceptions of normality targeted communications.
in shaping behaviour could be treated as an additional factor In addition, many green products are positioned as differ-
within attitudinal models of behaviour. One option would be ent from the norm, either as premium or as targeting a niche
to add notions of normality to the social norm variable in the of green consumers. It is tempting to launch green products
TPB as a predictor of intention. However, the research does and brands on a platform of differentiation that enables
not suggest that ideas about what is normal are part of a premium pricing or additional shelf facings (cf. green
conscious process of choice culminating in intention. harvesting Peattie and Crane, 2005). However, the high level
Instead, these conceptions seem to work at a less conscious of consumer cynicism found in this research suggests that
level. Indeed, they were in fact sometimes used to explain this strategy is short-sighted and may damage brand values
why people did not act upon their intentions. Normality in the long term. Further, the research suggests that a key
seems to act more like a heuristic—a sub-conscious shortcut reason for the disappointing performance of green marketing
rather than part of a rational decision making process. Conse- is that it has tended to emphasise green credentials, inadver-
quently, if added to attitude–intention models, it should be as tently positioning green products and behaviours as relevant
an independent predictor of behaviour. This could improve only to a niche group of very green consumers, rather than as
predictability but much more importantly, it is also a possible targeted at mainstream consumers. Positioning a product as
route to behaviour change through marketing interventions. the ‘new normal’, rather than as a green alternative, may
In addition, when we understand normality as a heuristic, forestall consumer cynicism and secure a larger market share.
we can see that it also has relevance to the defaults and The research suggests that manufacturers who supply both
behavioural cues associated with Thaler and Sunstein’s mainstream, less sustainable, products as well as more
(2008) nudge approach. sustainable ‘green’ alternatives can be seen as hypocritical
The research finding that conceptions of normality and as lacking in commitment to the green goals they
constrain behaviour is consistent with theories of conformity espouse. Manufacturers should consider removing less green
(Milgram, 1974; Asch, 1976) and particularly with the SNA alternatives to accelerate the adoption and normalisation of
(Berkowitz, 2004; Cialdini et al., 2006; Burchell et al., new green products. Brands such as the Body Shop were
2013), which uses marketing techniques to communicate seen as avoiding this kind of hypocrisy. Their entire portfolio
descriptive statements of what most people do to influence is focussed on the same philosophy, and they are
behaviour. Recognition of the role of conceptions of normal- consequently seen as championing a new way of doing
ity creates the opportunity for marketing to deliberately things—a new normal that is rooted in their own value
shape these ideas in ways that promote sustainable behav- system and corporate culture.
iours as normal rather than as green. The role of marketing Peattie and Peattie (2009: 261) asserted that, ‘Creating
extends beyond the communication process (as in Jensen meaningful progress towards sustainability requires more
and Wagoner’s model); marketing has traditionally been radical solutions than just the development of new products
used to change consumer conceptions, to position and repo- and product substitutions amongst consumers’. This research
sition brands and to build brand values and images. These suggests one radical solution: using marketing as a vehicle of
techniques can be applied to the normalisation of behaviours; social normalisation. This would involve repositioning
for instance, campaigns could suggest normality by showing unsustainable behaviours as not normal and repositioning
celebrities or authority figures performing the relevant greener behaviours as normal. Successful marketing solu-
behaviours, or by using product or behaviour placement tions may help to answer the charge that marketing has fos-
(e.g. in television soaps) and, where feasible, by providing tered an unsustainable consumerism and to counter
selected information about the popularity of the relevant accusations of ‘greenwash’.
behaviour (as in the social norm approach Cialdini et al., This paper is based on a single qualitative case study.
2006). Obviously, the normalisation of behaviours is There is scope for further research—both quantitative and
challenging; in many cases, conceptions about what is qualitative—to investigate the relationships between con-
normal are entrenched. However, marketing could help to sumer understandings of normality and what is ‘green’. Re-
gradually change these views until a tipping point is cent quantitative UK research proposes specific marketing
reached, where the behaviour is, and is seen to be, normal. strategies on the basis of consumer conceptions of what is
In particular, as we have suggested, the five areas that are normal and what is green (Rettie et al., 2012). Future work
identified in Figure 1 can be used to devise specific strategies could include the relationships between understandings of
for changing behaviours. For instance, while recycling and what is normal and behaviour and evaluations of marketing
patio heating would not appear to be in need of repositioning, campaigns that target ideas about what is normal.
other items clearly are driving a 4 x 4, taking foreign holidays
and driving to work might be repositioned as not normal;
buying organic food and using a water bottle in the cistern
might be repositioned as normal. To support such efforts, BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
further research, both qualitative and quantitative, into
Ruth Rettie is a professor of social marketing and director of the
consumer understandings of what is normal and not normal Behaviour and Practice Research Group at Kingston University.
would be of value. Indeed, quantitative research with large Her background is interdisciplinary, combining philosophy (MA,
samples might also allow differentiation between demographic BLitt, BPhil), an MBA, a PhD in sociology and 10 years as a brand

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
16 R. Rettie et al.

manager. Professor Rettie’s work is published in many journals and Follows SB, Jobber D. 2000. Environmentally responsible purchase
in several disciplines. Her current research applies social marketing behaviour: a test of a consumer model. European Journal of
and sociological perspectives to the adoption of sustainable behav- Marketing 34(5/6): 723–746.
iours. Professor Rettie is a principal investigator of CHARM Foucault M. 1975. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
(EPSRC) and Smart Communities (ESRC). Random House: New York.
Fraj E, Martinez E. 2007. Ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical
Dr Kevin Burchell is a senior research fellow and deputy director of analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies 31(1): 26–33.
the Behaviour and Practice Research Group at Kingston University. Geels F. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary
With an interpretative social science training, he has research inter- reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-
ests in the social dimensions of the shaping of behaviour and prac- study. Research Policy 31(8-9): 1257–1274.
tice, particularly within the contexts of energy and sustainability, Glaser BG, Strauss A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
community action and social and green marketing. Dr Burchell is Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Com-
a co-investigator of Smart Communities (ESRC), contributes to pany: Chicago.
CHARM (ESPRC) and was part of the Low Carbon Communities
Goldstein NJ, Cialdini R, Griskevicius V. 2008. A room with a view
Challenge evaluation team (DECC).
point: using social norms to motivate environmental conserva-
Chris Barnham is a visiting fellow in the Behaviour and Practice tion in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research 35(3): 472–482.
Research Group at Kingston University and runs a qualitative re- Grant J. 2007. Green is a Principle, not a Proposition: A Review of the
search consultancy. He read PPE at Magdalen College, Oxford Green Marketing Manifesto. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.
and conducted research in Whitbread PLC and several major UK Harries T, Rettie R, Studley M, Burchell K, Chambers S. 2013. So-
agencies before establishing his consultancy in 1996. Chris cial norms marketing: reducing domestic electricity consump-
Barnham has presented papers at UK and international conferences; tion? European Journal of Marketing, 47(9): 1458–1475.
has published academic papers on qualitative research, essence and Hartmann P, Ibáñez VA. 2006. Green value added. Marketing Intel-
brands; and teaches group moderation and analysis for the Associa- ligence and Planning 24(7): 673–680.
tion for Qualitative Research. Heisley DD, Levy SJ. 1991. Autodriving: a photoelicitation tech-
nique. Journal of Consumer Research 18(3): 257–272.
HM Government. 2011. Carbon Plan, http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/
content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/carbon_plan.aspx#
REFERENCES Institute for Government and the Cabinet Office. 2010.
MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour through public policy.
Abela AV. 2006. Marketing and consumerism: a response to Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A. 2011. Exploring consumer adoption
O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy. European Journal of Mar- of a high involvement eco-innovation using value-belief-norm
keting 40(1/2): 5–16. theory. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10(1): 51–60.
Ajzen I. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned be- Jensen E, Wagoner B. 2012. Cycles of Social Change, In Wagoner B,
haviour. In Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds). Action-control: From Jensen E, Oldmeadow S, (eds). Culture and Social Change:
Cognition to Behaviour. Springer: Heidelberg; 11–39. Transforming Society through the Power of Ideas. Information
Allcott H. 2010. Social norms and energy conservation. O-POWER, Age Publishing: Charlotte, N.C.
http://tinyurl.com/2v72pfp. Jones P, Clarke-Hill C, Comfort D, Hillier D. 2007. Marketing and sus-
Armitage CJ, Connor M. 2001. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned tainability. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 26(2): 123–130.
Behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Kitzinger J. 1994. The methodology of focus groups: the impor-
Psychology 40: 471–499. tance of interaction between participants. Sociology of Health
Asch SE. 1976. Studies of independence and conformity: a minority & Illness 16(1): 103–121.
of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs Market Research Society. 2006. Occupation groupings: a job dic-
70: 1–70. tionary. Market Research Society: London.
Bamberg S, Moser G. 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, Marková I, Linell P, Grossen M, Salazar-Orvig A. 2007. Dialogue
and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants in Focus Groups: Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge. Equi-
of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psy- nox: London.
chology 27(1): 14–25. May C, Finch T. 2009. Implementation, embedding, and integration:
Berkowitz AD. 2004. The social norms approach: theory, research, and an outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology 43(3):
annotated bibliography. Available at http://www.alanberkowitz.com. 535–554.
Black I. 2010. Editorial: Sustainability through anti-consumption. McAlaney J, Bewick B, Bauerle J. 2010. Social norms guidebook: a
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(6): 403–411. guide to implementing the social norms approach in the UK,
Burchell K, Rettie R, Patel K. 2013. Marketing social norms: social http://www.normativebeliefs.org.uk/Guidebook.pdf.
marketing and the ‘social norm approach’. Journal of Consumer Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row: New
Behaviour 12(1): 1–9. York, NY.
Carrigan M, Attalla A. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer—do Neighbors C, Labrie JW, Hummer JF, Lewis MA., Lee CM, Sruti D,
ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Mar- Kilmer JR, Larimer ME. 2010. Group identification as a moderator
keting 18(7): 560–577. of the relationship between perceived social norms and alcohol
Cialdini R, Reno R, Kallgren C. 1990. A focus theory of normative consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 24(3): 522–528.
conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in Nielsen. 2011. The Nielsen/Oxford University Environment and Cli-
public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology mate Change Barometer. AC Nielsen: Oxford.
58(6): 1015–1026. Nirje B. 1969. The normalization principle and its human manage-
Cialdini R, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter ment implications. SRV-VRS: The International Social Role Val-
PL. 2006. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social orization Journal 1(2): 19–23.
Influence 1(1): 3–15. Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini R, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V.
Finisterra do Paço A, Raposo M. 2010. ‘Green’ segmentation: an 2008. Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality
application to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intel- and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(7): 913–923.
ligence and Planning 27(3): 364–379. Nomura H, John P, Cotterill S. 2011. The use of feedback to en-
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behav- hance environmental outcomes: a randomized controlled trial
iour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley: of a food waste scheme. Local Environment 16(7): 637–653.
Reading, MA. Opower. 2013. http://opower.com/.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Using marketing to make green normal 17

Parker H, Aldridge J, Measham F. 1998. Illegal Leisure: The Normal- Sheth J, Parvatiyar A. 1995. Ecological imperatives and the role of
ization of Adolescent Recreational Drug Use. Routledge: London. marketing. In Polonsky M, Mintu-Wimsatt A (eds). Environ-
Peattie K, Crane A. 2005. Green marketing: legend, myth, farces or mental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory and Research.
prophesy? Qualitative Market Research: An International Jour- Haworth Press: New York; 3–20.
nal 8(4): 357–370. Shove E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social
Peattie K, Peattie S. 2009. Social marketing: a pathway to sustain- Organisation of Normality. Berg: Oxford.
ability. Journal of Business Research 62(2): 260–268. Stearns PN. 2001. Consumerism in World History: The Global
Pickett-Baker J, Ozaki R. 2008. Pro-environmental products: mar- Transformation of Desire. Routledge: New York.
keting influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Szmigin I, Carrigan M, McEachern MG. 2009. The conscious con-
Consumer Marketing 25(5): 281–293. sumer: taking a flexible approach to ethical behaviour.
Rettie R, Burchell K and Riley D. 2012. Normalising green behav- International Journal of Consumer Studies 33(2): 224–231.
iours: a new approach to sustainability marketing. Journal of Tannenbaum F. 1938. Crime and Community. Columbia University
Marketing Management 28(3-4): 420–444. Press: London and New York.
Rogers EM. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press: Glencoe. Thaler R, Sunstein C. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about
Schatzki TR. 1996. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Hu- Health, Wealth and Happiness. Yale University Press:
man Activity and the Social. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. London.
Schlegelmilch BB, Bohlen GM, Diamantopoulos A. 1996. The link Triandis H. 1977. Interpersonal Behaviour. Brooks/Cole: Monterey, CA.
between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmen- Van Dam YK, Apeldoorn PAC. 1996. Sustainable marketing.
tal consciousness. European Journal of Marketing 30(5): 35–55. Journal of Macromarketing 16(2): 45–56.
Schultz PW. 1999. Changing behavior with normative feedback Wolfensberger W. 1972. Normalization: the principle of
interventions: a field experiment of curbside recycling. Basic normalisation in human services (Toronto, National Institute
and Applied Social Psychology 21: 25–36. on Mental Retardation).
Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini R, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ. 2010. Sustainable
2007. The constructive, destructive and reconstructive power consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing
of social norms. Psychology Science 18(5): 429–434. products. Sustainable Development 18(1): 21–31.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 13: 9–17 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/cb