at the scientific and environmental levels. For example, in textiles, plant dyes and natural materials are in particular demand, while numerous studies have concluded that these dyes are more polluting than synthetic ones, as they require many phytosanitary products. The engaged consumer should make an effort to get their information from a range of independent sources;
– become spokespeople for good solutions, including among consumers with different opinions. Engagement is also making the effort to compare one’s ideas with those of consumers with different opinions on different platforms. A true responsible product, from the moment it is useful, is the widespread “core product”, made in a sustainable manner. It is not the current optimum sustainable offering alone that will reduce our impact on the planet. In order not to encourage companies to develop separate “sustainable” offerings, but to transform their “core” offerings into sustainable offerings, the engaged consumer aims to convince the unengaged consumer, as it is together that they will change these practices;
– sign petitions to support draft legislation based on good sense. In ultracompetitive markets, such as the food and textile markets, a brand that works alone has little chance of making the market change quickly and would be attempting economic suicide if it decided to withdraw its products or make them more sustainable. Brands are prisoners of a system and have a competitiveness that puts a stop to green ambitions. The suppression of single-use plastics works because it is a law that imposes the same rules on everyone. The engaged citizen-consumer can also make their voice heard by signing petitions launched by civil society to support draft legislation and bring about change in the market as a whole.
As a result, by introducing meaning to consumption to respond to greater social values, the socially responsible engagement of consumers and online communities seems to play a disruptive role while invigorating the market-oriented system. This phenomenon is as susceptible to having a “regulatory” impact on the market system by disciplining its by-products, as it is to triggering a reconsideration of the unsustainable behaviors of individuals and organizations. It is also a catalyst of responsible innovations in both marketing strategies and the redesign of analytical frameworks and tools to support its development, structuring and regulation.
On the other hand, there are still a number of difficulties that hinder the generalization of sustainable consumption practices, owing to their cost (the price of green products), their limited accessibility (transfer from the producer) and a lack of related information (the benefits of these products, tips for getting them for a lower price and less effort). These restrictions constitute avenues for improvement and fields of research with a view to making these alternative modes of consumption accessible to a greater number of people. With this in mind, the role of both the market sector (producers and retailers) and, especially, the non-market sector (public authorities and related fields) is crucial in imagining and implementing creative solutions to normalize these consumption practices.
In fact, the slowness of the generalization of these responsible consumption practices and the accessibility of these offerings risk keeping this movement as a fringe one, and even creating an attitude renouncing behavioral changes and opposition to the market-oriented ideology. The main reasons for this are linked to the clear imbalance of power (consumers versus the market system) that feeds doubts as to the effectiveness of socially responsible protest actions. Indeed, including the members of the community groups, less involved people remain dubious of the outcomes of their demands in terms of effective impact on the environment and on society, leading to periodic defections within the ranks.
1.6. References
Amine, A. and Gicquel, Y. (2011). Rethinking resistance and anti-consumption behaviours in the light of the concept of deviance. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1809–1819.
Badot, O. and Cova, B. (2008). The myopia of new marketing panaceas: The case for rebuilding our discipline. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(1/2), 205–219.
Baudrillard, J. (1970). La société de consommation. Denoël, Paris.
Benhallam, M. (2016). La résistance socialement responsable à la consommation : proposition de conceptualisation et implications pour les pratiques du marketing. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil.
Daniel, M., Siriex, L., Bricas, N., Figuié, M. (2008). Du choix des produits aux styles de vie : un repérage élargi des modalités de résistance des individus pour un développement durable. In Colloque consommation et résistance. Université Paris-Est Créteil, Créteil.
Dobscha, S. (1998). The lived experience of consumer rebellion against marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 91–97.
Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2009). La consommation engagée. Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris.
Firat, A.F. and Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 239–267.
François-Lecompte, A. and Valette-Florence, P. (2006). Mieux connaître le consommateur socialement responsable. Décisions Marketing, 41, 67–79.
Hewer, P. and Brownlie, D. (2007). Cultures of consumption of car aficionados: Aesthetics and consumption communities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(3/4), 106–119.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1971). Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: The case of air pollution. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 61–65.
Koskenniemi, A. (2019). Deviant consumption meets consumption-as-usual: The construction of deviance and normality within consumer research. Journal of Consumer Culture, September 12.
Kozinets, R.V. (2012). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Sage, London.
Manrai, L.A., Manrai, A.K., Lascu, D.N., Ryans Jr, J.K. (1997). How green-claim strength and country disposition affect product evaluation and company image. Psychology & Marketing, 14(5), 511–537.
Marion, G. (2003). Idéologie et dynamique du marketing : quelles responsabilités. Décisions Marketing, 31, 49–61.
Mick, D.G., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C., Ozanne, J.L. (2012). Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being. Routledge, New York.
Monnot, E. and Reniou, F. (2013). “Ras le bol d’entendre parler d’écologie !” : comprendre la contestation des discours écologiques par les consommateurs. Décisions Marketing, 71, 93–109.
Murray, J.B. and Ozanne, J.L. (2009). The critical participant. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(7/8), 835–841.
Nader, R., Ross, D., English, B., Highland, J. (1971). Action for a Change. A Student’s Manual for Public Interest Organizing. Grossman Publishers, New York.
Penaloza, L. and Price, L. (1993). Consumer resistance: A conceptual overview. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 23–128.
Rabhi, P. (2010). Vers la sobriété heureuse. Actes Sud, Paris.
Roux, D. (2007). La résistance du consommateur : proposition d’un cadre d’analyse. Recherche et applications en marketing, 22(4), 59–79.
Sansaloni, R. (2006). Le non-consommateur. Dunod, Paris.
1 1 Monnot and Reniou (2013) believe that contestation is a medial element in a continuum, where the starting
