Between intention and action: Why acting sustainably is difficult
- Javier Trespalacios
- Jun 14, 2019
- 7 min read
Updated: Nov 19
The lack of sustainable actions among individuals and organizations continues to be a central challenge in advancing sustainability. Although environmental concern has increased since the 1990s, the gap between what people declare and what they actually do remains wide. Various scientific studies attribute this gap to psychological, cognitive, and social barriers that affect environmental decision-making, even when there is knowledge or sensitivity about the ecological crisis.
Temporal Discounting
"Temporal discounting," formalized by George Ainslie [1] (1975, 2001), explains why sustainable behaviors tend to stagnate. This psychological phenomenon reflects the human tendency to value immediate rewards more than future benefits, generating a present bias. In sustainability, this leads people to prioritize current comfort—such as using a car—even though they know these decisions contribute to cumulative negative environmental impacts (Gifford, 2011; Hoffmann & Bazerman, 2007).
Paper collection day in Basel, Switzerland
Present bias makes it difficult to implement changes such as reducing energy consumption, using public transportation, or adopting responsible consumption habits, since their collective benefits are often perceived as distant and abstract. Overcoming this barrier requires mechanisms that connect sustainable action with immediate rewards, such as incentives, positive feedback, or social recognition (Fogg, 2003).
Dragons of inaction
Gifford [2] (2011) conceptualizes the "dragons of inaction" as a set of psychological and social obstacles that hinder pro-environmental behaviors, even in well-informed individuals. These include:
Cognitive limitations: The difficulty in accessing, understanding, and processing relevant information about environmental problems can lead to underestimating their severity or urgency.
Ideologies and social comparison: Beliefs that justify inaction ("it's not my responsibility") or the perception that the social environment does not favor change ("nobody else does it") weaken personal motivation.
Habits and sunk costs: Established routines and effort already invested in unsustainable practices reinforce behaviors that are difficult to modify.
Mistrust and risk perception: Skepticism regarding the effectiveness of measures adopted by governments or individuals, and doubts about the relevance of one's own actions.
Meta-conflicts and competing priorities: Dilemmas in which personal or economic challenges displace the priority of environmental issues (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Thøgersen, 2004).
Overcoming these dragons requires comprehensive strategies that simultaneously address individual and social factors: providing clear and accessible information, fostering new collective norms, reducing practical obstacles, and valuing personal and community achievements in sustainability. In this way, an effective transition from environmental desire to real and sustained action can be promoted.
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
Ajzen's TPB [3] (1991, 2011) maintains that for a person to act sustainably, they must have a favorable attitude ("recycling is good"), perceive positive social norms ("my community values recycling"), and believe that the action is feasible ("I can do it easily"). If there is a barrier in any of these dimensions, the intention to act weakens and the behavior is inhibited (Yuriev, Boiral & Guillaumie, 2020; Kim, Njite & Hancer, 2013).
For example, a person who has no information about available recycling points or who detects difficulties in the process will have less willingness to recycle, even if their attitude is positive.
Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN)
The VBN theory, proposed by Stern [4], maintains that personal values (biospheric [5], altruistic [6], or egoistic) and beliefs about environmental damage activate personal norms that motivate sustainable action. People with biospheric values, for example, develop a greater sense of moral responsibility toward environmental care, increasing the likelihood of engaging in sustainable behaviors. Interventions that connect values and ethical responsibility can strengthen this process (Stern, 2000; Wynveen, Kyle & Sutton, 2015; López-Mosquera & Sánchez, 2012).
This model explains why informing or persuading is not enough: motivation must be rooted in individuals' identity and values to promote lasting changes.
Practical examples of theory application in real contexts
Theoretical frameworks on sustainable behavior not only offer explanations but also useful tools for transforming intentions into concrete actions.
At the individual level
Although many people express favorable intentions toward recycling, the lack of adequate infrastructure, unclear rules, or perceived effort blocks their concrete action. Successful interventions simplify the process: installing accessible recycling points, providing clear instructions, and reinforcing the social norm through messages that demonstrate majority participation (Kim et al., 2013; Ajzen, 2011).
In a city
Suppose a city where the majority recognizes the importance of public transportation, but its use is low. Applying TPB, it is identified that the problem lies in low perceived control; many people believe that public transportation is not very accessible or comfortable. To reverse this, the city can:
Improve infrastructure (expand routes, frequency), facilitating its use.
Implement campaigns that communicate positive social norms (for example, "70% use public transportation to go to work").
Modify attitudes through testimonials that highlight the benefits and modernity of public transportation.
This combination favors the gradual adoption of sustainable behavior.
In a school
Low student participation in reforestation days can be explained by the VBN theory: environmental values are not integrated into students' identity. To promote action, one can:
Incorporate educational activities that strengthen biospheric and altruistic values.
Create collective rituals that promote reflection on environmental responsibilities and show visible results.
Encourage personal norms through public recognition of ecological contributions (Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, 2020).
These actions generate a sense of belonging and commitment.
In a company
To reduce energy consumption, a company detects, based on the dragons of inaction and TPB, that there is a lack of information and perceived relevance. The solution includes:
Training staff on the importance of each action for energy savings.
Establishing incentives and publicly recognizing teams with best practices, and reinforcing positive social norms.
Facilitating access to technologies and processes that increase perceived control for implementing sustainable measures (Gifford, 2011; Hoffmann & Bazerman, 2007).
This comprehensive approach facilitates sustained implementation of changes.
Conclusions
Psychological [7], cognitive [8], and social [9] barriers are key elements for understanding the lack of sustainable actions despite declared intentions. Models such as the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory provide frameworks for designing interventions that address attitudinal, normative, and control factors.
Countering the "dragons of inaction" involves reducing complexity and perceived costs, strengthening social norms, and generating internal values that motivate ethical commitment. Sustainability is not only a technical challenge but a process that requires aligning individual motivations with social structures that facilitate and reinforce action.
Ultimately, success lies in creating environments and narratives that turn environmental responsibility into a valued and accessible habit for everyone.
Notes
[1] George Ainslie is an American psychologist recognized for his studies on impulsivity and self-control, especially for formalizing the concept of temporal discounting in decision-making.
[2] Robert Gifford, a Canadian environmental psychologist recognized for his work in understanding the psychological factors that influence environmental behavior. He is especially known for having conceptualized the "dragons of inaction," which are the psychological and social barriers that prevent people from adopting pro-environmental behaviors, even when they have information and motivation to do so (Gifford, 2011).
[3] Icek Ajzen is a Polish social psychologist known for developing the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Born in 1942, his work focuses on understanding how attitudes, social norms, and perceived control influence people's intention to perform a particular behavior.
[4] Paul C. Stern is an American environmental psychologist, creator of the Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN). His research explores how personal values, beliefs about environmental damage, and norms influence the adoption of sustainable behaviors, offering a key framework for designing effective interventions in favor of pro-environmental behavior.
[5] Biospheric values: Concern and responsibility for the well-being of the environment and nature itself.
[6] Altruistic values: Concern and commitment to the well-being of other people or society in general.
[7] Psychological barriers: These are the fears, beliefs, or emotions that make it difficult for a person to adopt sustainable behaviors, such as the feeling that their actions will have no impact.
[8] Cognitive barriers: They refer to the difficulty in processing, understanding, or applying relevant information about environmental problems, which prevents making informed decisions.
[9] Social barriers: These are the norms, values, or pressures of the environment that discourage sustainable behaviors, for example, the perception that "nobody else recycles."
References
Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076860
Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of Will. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/9780521596947
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/074959789190020T
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781558606432/persuasive-technology
Gifford, R. (2011). The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2011-05935-002.html
Hoffmann, A. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Changing Practices on Sustainability: Understanding and Overcoming the Organizational and Psychological Barriers to Action. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228472917_Changing_Practices_on_Sustainability_Understanding_and_Overcoming_the_Organizational_and_Psychological_Barriers_to_Action
Kim, Y., Njite, D., & Hancer, M. (2013). Anticipated emotion in consumers' intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 255–262. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431913000505
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445–459. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378007000461
López-Mosquera, N., & Sánchez, M. (2012). Theory of planned behavior and the value-belief-norm theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 251–262. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004334
Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico. (2020). El colegio "La Pradera" de Valsaín, un "Centro Educativo Sostenible". https://www.miteco.gob.es/va/ceneam/carpeta-informativa-del-ceneam/novedades/centro-educativo-sostenible-valsain.html
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://spsp.org/sites/default/files/Publication/Journals/PSPB/2000/July/Stern.pdf
Thøgersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93–103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494403001163
Wynveen, C. J., Kyle, G. T., & Sutton, S. G. (2015). Place meanings as antecedents of place attachment among marine reserve users. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 507–531. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916513510520
Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., & Guillaumie, L. (2020). Evaluating determinants of pro-environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Management, 268, 110670. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719336131
Comments