Why Some People Resist Green Rewards—and How to Change That
Based on research by Jingxi Huang, Ahmad Daryanto, Margaret K. Hogg, and Didier Soopramanien
When a shampoo retailer requires you to return 10 empty shampoo bottles to receive a new bottle of shampoo, does that represent a limitation on your consumption freedom?
Ever wondered why some customers choose plastic over planet—even when eco-friendly rewards are on the table? It turns out, the answer lies in how we react to restrictions.
Green Loyalty Programmes (GLPs) are designed to reward customers for their sustainable behaviour. For example, some retailers invite customers to bring back empty shampoo bottles, rewarding each returned bottle with points that can later be exchanged for rewards. But here’s the twist: when customers are offered both eco-friendly and non-eco-friendly rewards, many still opt for the less sustainable option.
This study examines why eco-friendly rewards can backfire, focusing on psychological reactance—a motivational state that arises when people perceive their freedom of choice as constrained. In an attempt to restore this freedom, individuals may deliberately reject the intended option. Loyalty programmes actively restrict consumers’ freedom by requiring them to perform specific actions in order to earn rewards. Reactance has two components: (a) a situational component (state reactance), which is triggered when consumers feel their choices are limited, and (b) an individual-difference component (trait reactance), which reflects a chronic sensitivity to restrictions. Green loyalty programmes (GLPs) that impose effort requirements (e.g., “return 10 empty shampoo bottles to redeem a free one”) are therefore likely to elicit state reactance. Moreover, individuals high in trait reactance experience stronger state reactance under the same conditions than those low in trait reactance. This, in turn, can produce boomerang behaviours—for example, rejecting the eco-friendly option or selecting the non-eco reward despite incentives.
Dr. Jingxi Huang, a NUSC member based at the University of Greenwich, led this multi-university research. Through four studies, including an experiment, her team found that people with high trait reactance—those who dislike being told what to do—are more likely to reject eco-friendly rewards if they feel pressured.
But there’s good news: when these customers are reminded of the salient pro-environmental goal behind the programme (protecting the environment), they’re more likely to choose green rewards—even more so than low-reactance individuals.
When the reward matches the effort (e.g., free shampoo for buying five bottles), people feel their effort makes sense in itself. But if the reward feels unrelated (like getting a pen for buying shampoo), they see it as doing it only for the incentives. This idea is called the effort-reward congruity hypothesis: the reward should fit the effort.
Interestingly, this idea hasn’t really been tested in green loyalty programmes—until now. If a programme offers both eco-friendly and non-eco rewards, customers may still pick the non-eco option when it feels like a better match for their effort. For example, if you collect 5 empty shower gel bottles, a new bottle of shower gel might feel like the “right” reward, while a zero-waste shampoo bar may not.
Another key idea to this study is goal-reward congruity- the reward should match the goal. This means that when customers are reminded of the pro-environmental goal (e.g., protecting the environment), they are more likely to choose eco-friendly rewards because those rewards feel more consistent with their values and the purpose of the programme. Interestingly, people high in trait reactance show the strongest shift: when reminded of the environmental goal, they turn from non-eco to eco rewards as a way of reclaiming their freedom. This is known as the goal compatibility effect: when people are focused on a meaningful goal, they’re more likely to make choices that support it.
This research has big implications for how we design sustainability initiatives. It shows that:
- Choice isn’t enough—just giving customers the option of a green loyalty reward doesn’t guarantee they’ll choose the green option over the reward more closely aligned to their efforts.
- Goal alignment is key—reminding people why they’re participating can shift behaviour, making them more likely to use green reward options. Use promotional messages to highlight customers’ pro-environmental goals- as Boots has done to promote recycling schemes by persuading members to feel good about themselves by helping the planet.
- Psychological traits matter—one-size-fits-all programmes may miss the mark. Some loyalty programmes may lead to reactance – the goals of the programme must be clear communicated, and match the efforts and rewards for the customers.
For urban systems and sustainability advocates, this means designing reward schemes that activate environmental goals, not just offer incentives.
💬 Join the Conversation
Have you ever designed—or experienced—a loyalty programme that really changed behaviour? What works better: offering more choices, or making the goal crystal clear? How could your organisation use these insights to promote sustainable action?
Drop your thoughts in the comments or tag us with your take using #NUSCResearch. Whether you’re in retail, policy, urban planning, or behavioural science — your perspective matters.
Let’s rethink green rewards, together
#SustainableDevelopment #UrbanInnovation #GreenLoyalty #BehaviouralScience #ClimatePolicy #SmartCities #SustainabilityMatters #LeadershipForChange #ConsciousConsumer #NUSCResearch #GreenLoyalty #Sustainability #EcoFriendly #ConsumerBehaviour #ClimateAction #UrbanSustainability #SmartCities #GreenMarketing #ZeroWaste #SustainableLiving #GoGreen #GreenFuture
Disclosure: This blog post was drafted and polished with the assistance of AI tools to enhance clarity, structure, and engagement. AI was also used to generate accompanying images where applicable. All content has been reviewed and approved by the author and named lead researcher to ensure accuracy and alignment with the intended message.