The Intention-Action Gap — For Marketing Leaders (2/7)
In one of the more dissonant findings in recent consumer research, 65% of consumers say they want to buy from brands that advocate sustainability. Only 26% actually do. That 39-point gap has been stable across markets and categories for years. It does not narrow when companies improve their sustainability communications. It does not narrow when they run better campaigns or invest in purpose-driven creative.
It narrows when companies change what they measure.
Most sustainability marketing is measured against the wrong instruments. Awareness, sentiment, engagement, and stated willingness-to-pay all capture what consumers say and feel. They do not capture what consumers do. When you evaluate your sustainability marketing performance against attitudinal data, you are measuring the gap itself — and calling it progress.
Three dynamics that compound the measurement failure
The intention-action gap is structural, not correctable through communications. Behavioural science research has established this gap across a wide range of sustainable behaviours, from energy choices to recycling to product selection. The gap is not primarily a function of awareness, attitude strength, or message clarity. It is a function of the distance between reflection (survey response) and decision (purchase, usage, disposal). Companies that respond to the gap by investing in better communications are solving the wrong problem.
The licensing effect means high engagement can mask zero net behaviour change. When consumers take a visible sustainability action — buying an eco-certified product, sharing sustainability content, completing a pledge — they sometimes allow themselves to be less sustainable in other areas. The initial action confers a sense of virtue that permits subsequent non-sustainable behaviour. A campaign that drives exceptional engagement metrics may produce no net change in the customer's overall sustainability footprint, or a negative one. The dashboard looks exceptional. The behaviour went nowhere.
Motivational crowding out undermines financially-incentivised sustainability. Research demonstrates that combining financial incentives — "choose the sustainable option and save" — with intrinsic sustainability appeals — "choose the sustainable option and help the planet" — produces less sustainable preference than intrinsic appeals alone. The financial signal crowds out the values-based motivation that would have sustained behaviour change over time. Pricing strategies structured around discounts and rebates to drive sustainable choices may be systematically weakening the very motivation they are trying to leverage.
The scoring implication: what counts as evidence
These three dynamics create a specific and underappreciated problem for sustainability marketing assessment. The dimensions most commonly used to report sustainability marketing performance — customer engagement (how engaged are your customers with your sustainability message?), content and stories (are you communicating about sustainability?), influencer strategy (are your influencers aligned with your sustainability position?) — are precisely the dimensions most vulnerable to attitudinal inflation.
In the MCM Sustainability framework, these dimensions form what we call the participation cluster: the six XY5 questions (145, 445, 515, 525, 535, 545) that assess whether customers are actively co-creating sustainability outcomes, not just being communicated at. The Sustainability Score (SS) is built from 19 evidenced questions across your marketing strategy. The participation cluster represents nearly a third of that total. It is also the third most likely to be over-scored in self-assessment.
The standard for evidencing a participation-cluster score is unambiguous. Survey agreement scores, social media engagement rates, and content reach are not evidence of participation. They are evidence of attention. Evidence of participation means behavioural outcome data: units returned to take-back programmes, percentage of customers who selected the sustainable product variant over the standard, behaviour tracked and repeated over time. Any participation dimension scoring above neutral must be substantiated with this class of data. Below that threshold, the honest score is neutral or negative.
This is not an academic distinction. Companies that self-score generously on participation dimensions — because the surveys looked good and the engagement was high — systematically overstate their Sustainability Score and misread their strategic position on the MCM Sustainability Compass. A company that believes it is in Q1 (Sustainable Leader, high Commercial Score and high SS) because its engagement metrics are strong, but whose customers are not demonstrably changing their behaviour, is in Q3 (Efficiency Risk). The gap between what it claims and what it can evidence is a greenwashing liability in formation.
What you should do: Before the next sustainability marketing review, separate your performance evidence into two categories: attitudinal data (surveys, sentiment, engagement, stated intent) and behavioural data (actions completed, choices made, behaviours tracked over time). Present both transparently. Where the behavioural column is thin or absent, that is the question the board should be asking — not whether the attitudinal numbers look encouraging.
The participation score inflation check
The Greenwashing Integrity Check in the MCM Sustainability framework runs the SS scoring twice: once based on the company's own perception and narrative (Claimed SS), once based on verified operational evidence (Evidenced SS). The gap between the two is the Integrity Gap.
For the participation cluster specifically, this gap runs almost universally in one direction: Claimed > Evidenced. Companies consistently score themselves higher on engagement, content, and influencer dimensions than the behavioural evidence supports, because the available metrics are attitudinal and the behavioural data has not been systematically collected.
The practical question for each participation dimension is the same: what actual behaviour changed, what was measured, and how? If that question cannot be answered with specific numbers for a specific time period, the evidenced score should not exceed neutral.
What you should do: Run the two-pass scoring process before your next formal sustainability assessment. Score first from the company's own perspective. Score second from the perspective of a sceptical external auditor who has access only to verifiable behavioural data. Wherever the gap exceeds one point on the Likert scale, you have a Claimed-versus-Evidenced divergence that needs to be either evidenced or corrected before it becomes a reputational liability.
The measurement shift that changes everything
The companies that close the intention-action gap do not do so by improving their sustainability communications. They do so by redesigning what they track. They build systems that capture behavioural outcomes — not as a reporting exercise, but as the primary signal that tells them whether their sustainability marketing is working. They make the behavioural metric the brief, not the awareness metric. The campaign is successful when the behaviour moves. Not before.
This reorientation has implications for creative, for media, for channel design, and for how sustainability is reported to the board. It requires different instruments, different timelines, and often different conversations with agency partners who are accustomed to being evaluated on reach and engagement. It is harder. It is also the only version of sustainability marketing that is verifiably not greenwashing.
This is part of the series: Sustainability in Your Marketing Strategy. Read the series introduction here.
For the earlier-career version of this article — focused on building your instinct for the right sustainability metrics — read the companion piece here.
Ready to run the two-pass scoring for your company? Book a session →
