This report finds semi-personalised information to consumers is the most effective way to encourage behaviour shifts. Explaining co-benefits to the individual and the environment can make the behaviour easier and more appealing, increasing its likelihood.

Publisher's summary

Summary Impacts from consumption pose a significant threat to the health of both planet and people. To safeguard resources and protect natural systems into the future, there is a need to shift consumption patterns towards more sustainable types and levels. 

This can be achieved by educating consumers on the impact of their consumption decisions, and by providing resources and initiatives to encourage more sustainable consumption in the future. Sustainable consumption is a key international goal from the Global Biodiversity Framework and relates to a number of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nationally, sustainable consumption is covered across policy in all four UK countries. 

Furthermore, industries such as soy and palm oil also have their own specific commitments and pledges on sustainability. This report aims to understand the drivers of consumption patterns, then discusses methods that may help to encourage more sustainable consumption in the general public. These methods include but are not limited to proposed extensions or modifications to the Global Environmental Impacts of Consumption (GEIC) indicator, developed by JNCC and partners at the Stockholm Environment Institute. 

Within this report, the major influences on consumption behaviour, across psychological, personal, social and cultural drivers, are discussed. How these influences can contribute to the success of various intervention approaches is then explored, including different incentive strategies, emphasis of co-benefits and the development of ecolabelling schemes. Some extensions to the GEIC indicator that could make the tool more accessible to individuals are proposed. The report ends with a broad discussion, some suggestions for future research, and key recommendations.

Read more
THEMES
Consumption
PUBLISHED
23 Feb 2026
SHARE
Facebook
Comments (0)

Related

The misted glass of a vending machine. Photo by Fredrik Ohlander via Unsplash.
Explainer
Nature Knows Best? Naturalness in the Ultra-Processed Foods Debate
The idea that more natural food – food which hasn’t been transformed by human and industrial intervention – is best for us is a powerful one. Psychologists have found a strong preference for that which is “natural”, even when people differ in what they understand that term to mean. But naturalness is a muddle – we are often signalled by advertising to see heavily manufactured foods as “natural”; the pioneers of cereal manufacturing were the greatest advocates of “natural” food in the early 20th century; and it’s rare that crops, which have been manipulated by human breeding over millennia, are seen as “unnatural”.If naturalness is a slippery idea, though, it is still undeniably compelling. At the moment, nowhere is the preference for naturalness when it comes to the food we eat more prevalent than in concerns expressed over ultra-processed foods (UPFs). But does the idea that naturalness is inherently best set up a misleading dichotomy between nature and technology that doesn’t serve the interests of a more sustainable and equitable food future? Does a narrow focus on processing itself misplace bigger questions of power and agency on the one hand, and unhelpfully dismiss scientific techniques on the other? We explore these questions in our latest explainer, Nature Knows Best? Naturalness in the Ultra-Processed Foods Debate.https://www.doi.org/10.56661/f76228c7
Read
Letterbox, is the UPF concept useful and for what goals
Letterbox
Series 5: Is the Ultra-processed Food (UPF) concept useful, and for what goals?
It is hard to open a newspaper or lifestyle magazine now without finding the concept of ‘ultra-processed food’ somewhere mentioned. Based on the idea that not only a product’s content but the processes involved in its manufacture determine its health value, UPF has captured public attention. How useful is the classification, and what can its use achieve? In this TABLE Letterbox Exchange, Rob Percival, Anthony Warner and Mike Rayner were asked to consider in their debate i) the multiple understandings of the UPF concept, ii) the context and conditions of its successful or unsuccessful use, and iii) the relative goals and outcomes of i) and ii). The Letterbox will feature a total of nine letters. Read more about the origins and terms of the concept in TABLE’s UPF Explainer. 
Read
A couple of bowls of vegetarian meals on a table
Letterbox
Series 4: Vegan or flexitarian - which diet is healthier?
In the quest for sustainable healthy diets, it is common to hear recommendations to reduce the amount of animal-sourced foods consumed in high-income countries. But what level of reduction is optimal for human health? For the best nutritional and health outcomes, should we be eating low-meat “flexitarian” diets, or entirely plant-based diets? In this Letterbox exchange, nutrition researcher Flaminia Ortenzi and physician Dr Tushar Mehta share their perspectives on the relative health and nutritional impacts of purely vegan diets compared to those that contain low levels of animal-sourced foods. Flaminia focuses on the nutrient density of different foods, while Tushar discusses data on the health outcomes of different diets.  
Read