An individual and collective commitment
By Emmanuel Rivière, Director of International Polling and Political Advisory
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was recently awarded to three scientists – Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi – for their pioneering work over the past 60 years on the environment and climate change. This recognition is a signal of our growing climate consciousness and the realisation of the threat facing humanity.
Yet, despite this increasing awareness, is our society ready to take the necessary steps to limit the impact of human activities on the environment, and abide by the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius? 1
In this article, Emmanuel Rivière, shares his analysis of a recent research study on the environment and climate change conducted by Kantar Public in September 2021, which outlines the significant gap between awareness and action. *
* Multi-country research conducted by Kantar Public between 22 September and 1st October among 9,000 adults aged 18+ (1,000 respondents per country) in the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, and New Zealand.
Climate change: a widely shared concern
When asked to indicate the three main environmental challenges currently facing the world, 62% of respondents across the nine countries covered in our research put climate change firmly at the top – ranging from 56% in the US and Poland, to 78% in Singapore. 2
When answering the same question regarding their own country, people cite climate change as the main issue in eight out of the nine countries surveyed – Poland being the only exception, with air pollution being identified as the most significant issue.
Of course, a range of other issues are also mentioned as environmental challenges, sometimes with particularly salience in one’s country:
Overall, 78% of people across the nine countries covered in our research, say that they feel concerned about climate change.
When it comes to assessing its impact, more than three out of four people say that there has been an impact at the global level (78%) and country level (76%). And over half the respondents (55%) say that they have been personally impacted, with the highest proportion (77%) in Singapore.
Level of concern about climate change and its impact
Climate change is a commonly shared concern among citizens: across the nine countries surveyed, there are only slight differences across social class or levels of education. Wider gaps can be found by comparing age groups, where lower levels of climate change impact are anticipated (albeit not systematically) by older people. But overall, there is a general – and perhaps surprising – consensus on the seriousness and importance of the climate challenge across demographic groups.
Nevertheless, there is a clear feeling at an individual level, that other people are less committed than we are ourselves.
When invited to evaluate their personal commitment to protecting the environment and planet, two thirds of respondents give themselves a much better rating than to their fellow citizens.
This perceived lack of commitment amongst others, is therefore likely to challenge the way people convert their concerns into action.
A significant finding from our research is the proximity between the ratings attributed by respondents to their national government and those attributed to their fellow citizens. These mean scores are very similar in every country except Singapore.
This suggests a strong correlation between perceptions of the government’s commitment on one hand, and the collective community effort on the other. This further underlines the importance for governments to lead by example, with a strong prescriptive role expected from the national authorities. Our research reveals that governments do not give this impression.
The perception of a poor performance of national governments
An even bigger perception gap can be seen between people’s self-evaluation mean score (6.4) and their ratings of the actions of their national government (4.9) and large corporations in their country (4.5) in relation to the preservation of the environment and the planet.
Across the nine countries surveyed, only 17% of respondents give their national government a rating above 7 in terms of their commitment to protecting the planet.
Evaluation of the commitment of different actors to protecting the environment
However, there are notable differences between countries. For instance, only 9% of German citizens attribute a rating between 8 and 10 to their government, with a similar situation in France (11%) and Poland (12%).
Although the ratings for government are hardly higher in Spain (13%) and the UK (17%), these low scores contrast sharply with the high proportion of citizens scoring themselves between 8 and 10 (respectively 40% and 44%). In these two countries the gap between self-evaluation and government evaluation is particularly high, as is also the case in Poland.
By contrast, governments in New Zealand and Singapore are rewarded with a more positive evaluation. With 39% of Singaporeans rating their national government between 8 and 10, the latter surpasses citizens’ own self-evaluation scores (34% score themselves between 8 and 10).
In the US, where the Biden administration has championed a pro-environmental policy in stark opposition to its predecessor, 21% evaluate the government with a score between 8 and 10, putting the country in 3rd place in our ranking.
Climate action: perceived commitment of national governments vs. citizens’ self-evaluation Evaluation of the commitment of different actors to protecting the environment
A perceived lack of responsibility from national governments
When asked to indicate what was needed for their national governments to better preserve the environment and the planet, 42% of our respondents selected a ‘higher sense of responsibility’ which is seen as the number one priority in the US, Spain, Poland and Singapore, and second in UK, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.
Other important factors include higher investment, greater awareness, more support from the general public (notably in Singapore and New Zealand), international cooperation (more often mentioned in the Netherlands, Germany and Poland), and independence from economic interests.
This latter factor, which was selected by almost a third of respondents overall (29%) and identified as the main priority by French citizens, is problematic when considered in the light of the low ratings attributed to large corporations for their commitment to preserving the environment.
Factors required for governments to better preserve the environment and the planet
Large corporations are also suspected of lack a responsibility towards climate action (the top answer in every country). Regulation is one way that citizens feel the commitment of big organisations could be improved – once again putting the responsibility firmly back with governments and public policy.
Control is not the only requirement from governments: citizens in Poland also expect their national government to encourage climate action by offering large corporations financial support; while a third of French, German and Dutch people consider that corporations who commit to protecting the environment should be protected against uneven foreign competition.
Overall, citizens expect their national government to assume a large share of responsibility for protecting the environment, whilst considering themselves to be relatively good at ‘doing their bit’ in this area .
However, one result from our research is really intriguing. When asked about what could help governments and large corporations to improve their commitment to protecting the environment, courage was selected as the last factor for both these stakeholder groups.
Does this therefore suggest that respondents believe that tackling climate change would not require courage on the part of governments and large corporations?
In other words, does it mean that in people’s view, governments don’t need to take any unpopular measures, or that big companies don’t need to take risks with consumers’ habits and choices? These questions invite a closer look at citizens’ commitment to preserving the planet.
The temptation of ‘easy’ solutions with minimal effort and limited lifestyle changes for citizens
The fact that people attach great importance to the preservation of the environment and the planet, is reflected by many results of our research. And when asked how they feel when taking action to preserve the planet, most people feel enthusiastic. This confirms that – at least in terms of personal values – acting to preserve the planet is aligned with what is important for many people. This in itself is a necessary condition for significant and sustainable behaviour change.
This momentum for change could however be mitigated by the fact that at least three out of four respondents say they are proud of what they are currently doing for the planet (except in Germany where this applies to only 62% of respondents). This calls into question whether people really are willing to do more.
Indeed, our research reveals a certain ambiguity in terms of people’s attitudes. A large majority (76%) say they would accept stricter environmental rules and regulations. However, almost half (46%) say that they don’t really need to change their habits.
As such, it is clear that a significant group assumes that these ‘stricter rules’ would apply mainly to other people - those blamed for not doing enough. This just doesn’t add up when such a large majority already feel proud of what they are doing.
Citizens’ acceptance of stricter environmental rules and changes to lifestyle habits
The gap between personal environmental values and individual action, is wedged open in different ways. When asked about potential solutions to the climate crisis, people tend to incline towards ‘innovation and technological discoveries’ rather than ‘individual and collective efforts to change’. This is further evidence of the lack of consensus around the need for significant efforts to be made.
In the same vein, faced with a trade-off between ‘legal enforcement and obligation’ versus ‘encouragement and persuasion to preserve the environment’, people are more likely to favour the latter.
This limited appetite for personal effort in tackling the climate issue, is further illustrated the level of importance attributed to possible climate actions. Although most measures are supported by a majority, there are some significant differences in their perceived importance.
Respondents clearly prioritize the reduction of waste and increases in recycling. This behaviour relies on citizens’ commitment, no doubt about that. However, as confirmed by the findings of a recent Eurobarometer study, this action already represents commonplace behaviour for the vast majority.
The most favoured actions that follow - stopping deforestation, protecting species, energy efficiency in buildings, banning the use of polluting substances in agriculture - are all solutions that do not require effort on the part of individuals.
In direct contrast, the ‘less popular’ solutions are those that imply a direct impact on citizens’ lifestyle: using public transport vs cars, reducing air travel, raising the price of products that fail to respect environmental criteria, and reducing meat consumption.
Importance attributed by citizens to various environmental measures
So many barriers to individual action on climate change
Beyond the general feeling that environmental issues and climate change are very serious problems that need to be addressed, there is an ambiguity about the level of effort required from citizens. Some questions remain unanswered at an individual level: is it up to me to make more of an effort if governments and large corporations are lagging behind? And with so many solutions on the table, can I avoid making those changes that would be more painful for me?
Respondents admit to uncertainty about their own capacity to change.
When asked how they feel personally about taking action to preserve the environment and the planet, only half (51%) say they would definitely take action, with a small proportion (14%) asserting that they would not. A third (35%) admit to being torn – ‘there are reasons I should, but also reasons I shouldn't’.
This ambiguity opens the door to potential barriers, and our study throws light on the multiple barriers that exist. Across the nine countries covered, 69% of citizens say they need more resources and equipment to act; 60% claim they can’t financially afford to make the efforts needed; and 55% say they are missing information and clear guidance. A significant minority (39%) don’t believe that individual effort can really have an impact. Across the nine countries surveyed:
In addition, the perceived lack of clarity about the best solutions (72% of respondents think there is no agreement among experts on this point), could lead to a ‘wait and see’ approach. But can we really afford to wait?
The need for governments to take the lead, and accept the risks
It took decades for governments to achieve results in reducing smoking or improving road safety in countries where those issues were considered the most serious. To achieve effective and sustainable behaviour change, these governments mobilised all the levers at their disposal: legislation and regulation, information and persuasion, service provision, incentives and penalties.
But experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn that we do not have decades at our disposal to keep the consequences of global warming within manageable limits.
While there is a high degree of awareness of the climate challenge amongst citizens, there is also a lack of clarity about the implications at a collective and individual level. Clearly, the conditions for significant and long-lasting change at all levels of society are not yet in place.
Certainly, taking action for the environment and the planet is aligned with individuals’ core values. Yet, there are doubts about the degree of effort required, the efficiency of individual action, and the capacity to change one’s own habits.
The commitment to take action for the planet does not appear to be established as a social norm, and there’s room for mistaken assumptions that ‘easy, painless’ solutions could be sufficient. Moreover, in most countries, the degree of commitment of the government remains in doubt.
As long as citizens believe themselves to be ahead of government in terms of commitment to environmental action, the risk of a vicious circle remains very high, where a perceived lack of engagement from government leaders creates the impression of a lack of commitment from the community as a whole, which in turn further fuels the barrier of social norms.
Clearly, the onus is on governments to take the lead. This means governments taking the risk of implementing potentially unpopular measures that combine encouragement and obligation. It may also mean supporting the design and delivery of more sustainable goods and services, whilst subsidising the efforts required from those segments of society unable to pay more for these.
The debate should no longer be about whether or not climate action is a priority. Citizens have moved way beyond this, and focusing the message here could create the impression that the issue is being effectively managed.
Instead, to drive the necessary behaviour change, all actors need to understand that ‘good for the climate’ doesn’t mean ‘good enough’.
The debate needed now is around the definition of our future model of production and consumption and its implications: we need to focus on solutions and changes that include the difficult ones, and accept the distribution of effort that is needed across all actors of society.
References and notes
1. Paris Climate Agreement
2. Multi-country research conducted by Kantar Public between 22 September and 1st October among 9,000 adults aged 18+ (1,000 respondents per country) in the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, and New Zealand.
