Author
Abstract
Greening, or adopting sustainable business practices, requires firms to balance economic, environmental, and social goals, which often creates tensions in sustainability. Firms frequently employ paradoxical logic to manage these tensions, pursuing these objectives simultaneously and without prioritization. However, using paradoxical logic may make it difficult for firms to communicate their greening initiatives to consumers. Messages that conflict with consumers' existing mental frameworks may amplify perceived tensions, arousing cognitive dissonance. Consumers with limited paradox mindsets may be unable to make sense of these tensions or tolerate their cognitive dissonance, prompting them to avoid or exit the firm or question its commitment to greening. To reduce these risks, greening firms need to consider and actively develop consumers’ paradox mindsets when crafting their sustainability communications. This paper draws on connections between cognitive dissonance and sensemaking to develop a conceptual model that illustrates how greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets. Through this iterative process, firms challenge consumers’ existing mental frameworks and offer sense-giving narratives that reframe tensions in sustainability as interdependent and complementary, reducing consumers’ cognitive dissonance. By tailoring their messages to align with consumers’ varying receptivity to paradoxical logic and sensitivity to tensions in sustainability, greening firms can craft coherent narratives that promote consumer engagement with the sensemaking process. When this process is successful, greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets and, thus, their ability to make sense of tensions in sustainability. This paper extends the literature on paradox mindset development from managers and employees to firm-consumer communications.
Suggested Citation
Claire Beach & Sitong Michelle Chen & Michael S. W. Lee, 2025.
"Developing consumers’ paradox mindsets: Making sense of tensions in sustainability,"
AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 15(1), pages 289-300, June.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s13162-025-00304-1
DOI: 10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s13162-025-00304-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.