If you only skim the headlines lately, you’d believe “conscious consumerism” is in full retreat, backpedaling to obscurity. ESG has become a political flashpoint. Corporate purpose feels diluted. DEI has been rebranded, softened, or even shelved altogether. Brands, wary of backlash, are pulling back from impact language.
And yet, consumers didn’t get the memo.
According to our own 2026 Conscious Consumer Report, conducted with our partners Ipsos and Engage for Good, 40% of North American purchases are now influenced by social and environmental considerations, which is up from 38% in last year’s report. That growth struck even during inflation, heightened price sensitivity, and what we’re continuing to see as peak “anti-woke business” rhetoric.
So we like to flip this concept on its head. Conscious consumerism isn’t collapsing. It’s normalizing, and it includes Republicans, too.
THE MYTH OF THE AFFLUENT LIBERAL SHOPPER
Two long-standing assumptions no longer hold.
First, higher income no longer predicts ethical purchasing. Sustainable shopping or values-driven purchasing doesn’t map neatly to affluence. In fact, our most engaged segment, Sustainability Stewards, are nearly twice as likely as disengaged shoppers to say price had “much more influence” on their purchasing decisions over the past year. In other words, the most values-driven consumers are also highly price sensitive.
Second, this behavior transcends party lines. In the U.S., conscious purchasing is only marginally (2%) more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Values-driven behavior spans the political spectrum.
So ultimately, the conscious consumer is not ideological, but rather mainstream. And for brand leaders navigating a polarized market, that should be helpful and clarifying. The claims that resonate most aren’t partisan, they’re actually practical.
THE REAL BARRIER: CONFUSION
Last year, we identified the biggest obstacle to conscious consumerism: claims confusion. Brands were simply missing the mark. Nearly half of consumers walked away from products with unclear sustainability claims. Among the most conscious shoppers, that number surged to 87%—so much lost opportunity.
So this year, we decided to pressure test the claims, by using the drivers and motivations for what actually drives purchase, and a very clear pattern emerged. Consumers favor claims that deliver immediate, personal benefit, or “me now, not we later.”
Claims like durability, safety, and ingredient transparency outperformed future-focused or science-heavy sustainability language by 3-4x. When we reframed more abstract claims to make the human benefit explicit (e.g. “Simple, non-toxic ingredients that are better for your health” or “Every purchase feeds your family and a family in need”), purchase motivation increased in 71% of consumables claims and 67% of wearables claims. That’s significant.
The largest gains came from claims that previously felt indirect or ideological. Adding clear, everyday language made them tangible. “Fair working conditions” performed better when rewritten as “made by people receiving living wages in safe working conditions,” for example.
Ultimately, this approach isn’t about diluting impact. It’s about translating it, and some brands already understand this intuitively. Patagonia leads with durability, i.e. “Built to last, making sustainability synonymous with quality.” Seventh Generation emphasizes products made without harmful chemicals, translating environmental care into family health. Allbirds showcases comfort first, and communicates materials used second. Oatly has a refreshing point-of-view around innovation and trial and error, and is humorous and self-deprecating.
These brand examples don’t abandon impact; instead they anchor it in everyday value and humanity.
THE CONFIDENCE GAP
Interest in corporate impact remains strong. Sixty-two percent of Americans and Canadians say they’re somewhat or very interested in learning about a company’s social and environmental actions, but nearly three in four report low or no trust in business impact communications—that’s a trust gap.
When asked which sector has the greatest ability to improve the health of people and the planet, business ranks second behind the government. But when asked which sector they’re most confident will take action, confidence drops significantly. In the U.S., confidence in government falls 24 points between perceived ability and expected action, placing it last among surveyed sectors.
Silence from organizations doesn’t ultimately reduce that risk, but rather it amplifies suspicion. Greenhushing reinforces the narrative that responsible business is fading, even when purchasing data says otherwise. This indicates that consumers see potential, but they doubt follow-through.
As sustainability and social impact professionals, we know trust isn’t built on promises, but on capability and character: products that deliver what they claim, and companies whose actions align with their words. When that foundation is in place, communication becomes a growth lever versus a liability or weakness.
A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE: FIND YOUR AUDIENCES
The findings challenge two dominant narratives we’ve seen: that sustainability is fading as a purchasing driver, and that it only matters to affluent liberals. Conscious consumerism is growing and evolving, having found among audiences long assumed to be disengaged or harder to reach. And the path forward isn’t louder ideology but clear, more cogent strategy.
Who should brands target? Everyone. What should they say? Lead with immediate human benefit. Where should they say it? In decision-making moments, where clarity drives conversion and credibility builds trust.
The backlash narrative may be loud, but the actions and behavior couldn’t be clearer. Brands that are able to translate impact into everyday value, and prove it, won’t just weather this moment, they’ll grow and ultimately thrive because of it.
Phil Haid is founder and CEO, Public Inc.
