Gen Z Is Significantly More Afraid of This Trend Than Older Generations

When it comes to their shopping habits, Generation Z is a far different generation than baby boomers, Gen X and even millennials.
A survey from Lightspeed Commerce has revealed that 32 percent of Gen Z (born roughly between 1997 and 2012) shoppers are afraid of being judged or "canceled" for supporting the wrong brands-over five times more than boomers (born 1946-1964), at 6 percent.
In the aftermath of President Donald Trump's executive order to end "radical and wasteful" government DEI programs, some companies have followed suit, getting rid of DEI initiatives and emphasis on inclusivity in their workplace and in their brands.
At the same time, cancel culture is making a pervasive impact on corporations, in the entertainment industry and in consumer behavior. Choosing brands that do not align with a shopper's morals could have an effect in their social circle, especially if they're younger, the research suggests.
Gen Z is adjusting shopping habits to make room for the possibility of cancel culture, according to the Lightspeed Commerce report, which surveyed more than 2,000 North American consumers.
Nearly all participants in this age group, or 96 percent, said they buy with intention, and 66 percent said their purchases should reflect their personal values.
Many values can guide them in supporting specific brands and products, with 37 percent saying they make their brand decisions based on sustainability and environmental impact. Another 29 percent said local pride and nationalism plays a role, while 26 percent said they shop based on cultural or religious alignment.
These values could shift power away from corporations and toward the consumer, experts said.
"Companies will have to meet higher standards," Kevin Thompson, CEO of 9i Capital Group and host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "They'll be held accountable for how they operate, what they sell and how it's made. That kind of pressure could usher in a new wave of conscious capitalism, where profit and responsibility align."
A solid chunk of Gen Z consumers, 15 percent, consider a brand CEO's political views when deciding what to buy.
Still, price and quality were key priorities as well, at 78 and 67 percent respectively.
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek that Gen Z's brand anxiety comes down to their age, as ages 18 to 35 are peak social performance years.
Additionally, this generation faces zero tolerance from some of their peers for "mistake buys" and potentially the digital permanence of their every purchase.
"Every tagged photo. Every unboxing video. Every 'like' is peer surveillance," Ryan said. "Company ethics can boost your clout, or get you canceled. Gen Z doesn't just boycott bad brands. They live in fear of being boycotted."
However, HR consultant Bryan Driscoll said that Gen Z was "done separating the company from the product" and this age group was "afraid of being complicit" in issues including the exploitation of workers, rather than fearing being canceled.
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Gen Z is more socially conscious than past generations, but not just in how they dress, in what they eat and who they support. Growing up in the social media age, your online persona has to match your real-life values. If there's a disconnect, you'll be called out. Authenticity isn't optional; it's a requirement."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "When you're younger and more consistently on social media, you're more than likely to care more about your image and the perceptions that come with it. Whether it's an outfit, vehicle, or vacation spot, Gen Z is going to take into account recent social and political viewpoints before purchasing or-if they've already clicked 'Buy'-posting on the sale."
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek: "Will this fade? Yes. Mortgages, family budgets and career climbs force a shift from brand activism to basic needs. Gen Z will learn that sometimes the easiest choice is the most affordable shirt. No ethics audit required."
Bryan Driscoll, an HR consultant who specializes in generational differences, told Newsweek: "I don't think Gen Z is afraid of being canceled. I think they're afraid of being complicit. They know corporations exploit workers, dodge taxes and greenwash their way through scandals while boomers cheer them on for turning a profit. This generation is done separating the product from the company behind it. They're not buying your coffee if it comes with union busting. They're not shopping your sale if your CEO's on a yacht while your employees need GoFundMe for medical bills."
As Gen Zers are more likely to demand more from the brands they shop from, the shift could mean more corporations are forced to cater more toward the values and morals of their younger consumers.
"This is about accountability," Driscoll said. "And that scares older generations because it shifts power away from corporations and toward the collective voice of younger consumers and workers."
Related Articles
Gen Z Woman Says She Lives With Best Friends-But It's Not What You ThinkDad Didn't Want Gen Z Daughter To Move Out-So He Got To WorkWhy Gen Z Is 'Enormously Attractive' to EmployersMan Reveals One Gen Z Shopping Habit Millennials Just Can't Cope With
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

13 minutes ago

• CNBC

The Israel-Iran conflict and the other big thing that drove the stock market this week

It's been a tense and dynamic week for the world at large. The market action on Wall Street over the past four sessions was been anything but that. For the week, the S & P 500 lost 0.15%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq ticked up 0.21%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was basically flat, up a mere 0.02%. Beneath the surface, though, there was plenty of news for investors to digest. Here's a closer look at the biggest market themes during the holiday-shortened trading week. 1. Geopolitics: The major news story was — and still is — the intensifying war between Israel and Iran. The big question on everyone's mind is whether the U.S. will get involved. As of Friday, reports indicate that while President Donald Trump is actively reviewing options to attack Iran, nothing has been authorized. The White House has said Trump he will make a decision in the "next two weeks". As a result of the Israel-Iran conflict, investors spent the week keeping an extra close eye on the movement in safe-haven assets like gold and the dollar, as well as risk assets such as oil. Gold prices pulled back this week after their initial spike last Friday, which is when Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure jolted markets. The U.S. dollar index , meanwhile, strengthened this week but still remains near multiyear lows. Oil rose again for the week, with international benchmark Brent crude climbing nearly 4%. For those looking to gauge what the market thinks will happen with Iran, look to oil. The commodity is currently acting as something of proxy on the odds of the conflict intensifying and America directly entering the fray. 2. Fed updates: The other big theme of the week centered on the health of the U.S. economy in the lead up to Wednesday afternoon, when we got the Federal Reserve's latest interest rate decision and revised economic projections. Ultimately, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged on Wednesday following its two-day policy meeting. The decision followed lackluster updates on the state of the consumer and the housing market , along with lower-than-expected inflation readings the week prior. As we outlined earlier this week , the Fed is in a tough spot when it comes to abiding by its dual mandate of ensuring price stability and low unemployment. The state of play requires nuance. On the one hand, there is evidence in support of rate cuts, namely some cracks in the consumer — even if the consumer has remained largely and impressively resilient — and the Fed's own updated outlook for lower real GDP growth and higher unemployment this year. On the other hand, the Fed is now expecting higher inflation this year than it did in March, which would support the need for higher interest rates. Given these dueling dynamics and the uncertainty around tariff impacts, the central bank's decision to keep interest rates steady makes sense. While the Fed certainly doesn't want to wait too long and make the same mistake we saw coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, we must acknowledge that the causes of a potential rebound in inflation are different this time around. Tariffs will likely push up prices, but that may be a one-time increase, as opposed to the sustained inflation we saw exiting the pandemic, which was driven by massive supply chain disruptions and shifts in consumer behavior. As a result, we believe the apparent bias to be more worried about the job market and overall economic growth — and therefore cut rates later this year — makes sense, too. Indeed, the Fed's updated projections still pencil in two rate cuts in 2025, the same as in March despite the aforementioned revisions to its inflation and growth outlook. Fed Governor Christopher Waller made the case Friday that the cuts should start as early as July, arguing that the inflation risk posed by tariffs is not significant and ensuring resiliency in the labor market should be a higher priority. Waller's argument is basically that it's better to move now than wait for a jump in unemployment. Our biggest focus at the Club is staying nimble, given the highly volatile nature of geopolitics at the moment. No doubt, rate decisions are important to think about, but they're only one small part of the investing puzzle to navigate each day. For this reason, we continue to focus more on individual company fundamentals and industry trends rather than higher-level dynamics, important as they are to shaping our worldview. Cybersecurity stocks are one example that we highlighted this week. Another example would be the news we got from Club names Meta Platforms and Amazon this week on their artificial intelligence efforts. We think the implications that AI will have on the cost structures, revenue opportunities and efficiency gains should weigh far more heavily in the minds' of long-term investors than whether the Fed will cut in July or September. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.

Forbes

an hour ago

• Forbes

Leadership Falters As Climate Costs Soar And Time To Act Runs Out

CHARLEVOIX, CANADA - JUNE 9: In this photo provided by the German Government Press Office (BPA), ... More German Chancellor Angela Merkel deliberates with US president Donald Trump on the sidelines of the official agenda on the second day of the G7 summit on June 9, 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada. Also pictured are (L-R) Larry Kudlow, director of the US National Economic Council, Theresa May, UK prime minister, Emmanuel Macron, French president, Angela Merkel, Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japanese deputy chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, Japan prime minister, Kazuyuki Yamazaki, Japanese senior deputy minister for foreign affairs, John Bolton, US national security adviser, and Donald Trump. Canada are hosting the leaders of the UK, Italy, the US, France, Germany and Japan for the two day summit. (Photo by Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images) London Climate Action Week is set to start, showcasing what urgent, inclusive climate action looks like when cities, financiers, and citizens unite. But the energy and innovation on display in London are being overshadowed by growing inaction from global leaders. Just days after the G7 failed to deliver any meaningful policy progress, and as the EU backpedals on its green regulation agenda, a troubling gap is emerging between local ambition and failures of international leadership. This retreat is happening at the worst possible moment. Climate damage costs are skyrocketing, climate science is sounding red alerts, and economic evidence points to a clear win: green investment can grow economies, create jobs, and protect communities. The world's most powerful leaders are not just missing an opportunity, they are magnifying a crisis. To grasp its scale, we need to look at the growing economic cost of inaction. The Price Of Delay And The Need For Leadership Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that in the year to May 2025, the U.S. incurred close to $1 trillion (or around 3% of GDP) in direct climate-related costs from floods, wildfires, infrastructure damage, and insurance losses. Globally, heatwaves, droughts, and extreme weather are disrupting supply chains, inflating food prices, and undermining financial stability. Insurers have seen annual catastrophe losses surge tenfold since the 1980s. Premiums have skyrocketed, and coverage has shrunk, especially in wildfire and storm prone regions, exacerbating economic disruption and housing unaffordability. At the same time, the European Union appears to be shelving the Green Claims Directive, retreating under political pressure precisely when markets are demanding clear, consistent regulation to guide sustainable investment. This uncertainty discourages capital and undermines momentum. These setbacks comes as the OECD's 2025 Green Growth report shows that climate action could unlock $7.4 trillion per year in investment and job creation if scaled by 2030. Yet rather than harnessing this opportunity, many leaders are hesitating. Nowhere is this hesitancy more evident than in the recent action, or inaction, of the G7, whose decisions ripple far beyond their border G7 Paralysis And The Global Ripple Effect The G7's latest Chair's Summary reaffirms familiar goals, like limiting warming to 1.5°C but offered no timelines, targets, or tools to achieve it. 'Once again, the G7 chose safe, business-as-usual declarations over the bold, future-proof action we urgently need,' said Daniela Fernandez, CEO of Sustainable Ocean Alliance. 'The G7's latest climate commitments reflect a deeper issue,' added Ibrahim AlHusseini, managing partner of climate investor FullCycle. 'Global leaders are increasingly distracted by immediate geopolitical crises, and climate, still perceived as a medium to long-term risk, has slipped down the agenda. But this is a dangerous miscalculation.' He added: 'Delay is not neutral, it's an accelerant of future instability,' with direct consequences for supply chains, migration, and global financial systems. And it's not just experts calling for change. According to the 2024 People's Climate Vote, 80% of people globally want their countries to strengthen climate commitments, and over two-thirds support a fast transition from fossil fuels. Other surveys echoes this: 89% of people across 125 countries support stronger government action, yet many mistakenly believe they are in the minority. This public mandate for bold climate action stands in sharp contrast to the political hesitancy now on display. As political will may be stalling, another sector is responding. What was once viewed as an environmental issue is now a pressing financial risk. Climate Risk Becomes Financial Risk Inaction is not just costly, it is destabilizing. The financial consequences are already unfolding across insurance markets and beyond. "We have already seen residential and commercial insurance premiums rise and availability drop in recent years, in response to growing insurer losses," warns Tom Sabetelli-Goodyer, vice-president of climate risk at FIS. They are early signs of a broader, systemic threat. As climate impacts intensify, they are cascading through the financial system, affecting asset valuations, credit risk, and the stability of entire markets. Regulators around the world have begun to integrate climate risk into their frameworks, but last week, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the global standard-setter for financial regulation, added its voice with a new framework for the voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. While non-binding, the guidance marks a significant step and reinforces a clear message: climate risk is no longer just environmental, it's financial. As Julia Symon, head of research and advocacy at Finance Watch put it: 'Without clear, consistent data, supervisors are flying blind, unaware of the real risks building up on balance sheets.' The Climate Clock Is Ticking Scientific indicators confirm the urgency and the danger of delay. The 2024 Indicators of Global Climate Change report shows that the average global temperature from 2015 to 2024 reached 1.24°C above pre-industrial levels, with human activity responsible for nearly all of it. In 2024 alone, global temperatures spiked to 1.52°C, temporarily crossing the critical 1.5°C threshold. More troubling still, human-induced warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate of 0.27°C per decade, the fastest rate ever recorded. At current emissions levels, the remaining carbon budget for staying below 1.5°C could be fully exhausted within just two to five years, depending on assumptions. Scientists also point to a growing Earth energy imbalance and early signs of amplifying climate feedback loops, such as ocean heat uptake and ice melt, which could further lock in extreme changes. The window for keeping global heating within safe limits is narrowing quickly. Yet even as time runs short, the economic case for prompt action continues to strengthen. Green growth offers a rare convergence of climate responsibility and financial return. Green Growth: A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity The OECD Green Growth report emphasizes that investing in clean energy and green infrastructure is not just responsible, its smart economics. Clean energy investment now outpaces fossil fuels, and 90% of global GDP is covered by net-zero targets. The report outlines how aligning financial systems with climate goals could unlock $7.4 trillion annually in investment by 2030. 'Green growth is an approach that seeks to harmonize economic growth with environmental sustainability and helps to deliver broader development benefits,' explains Jennifer Baumwoll, head of climate strategies and policy at UNDP. Far from hindering development, the green transition can generate resilient jobs, improve productivity, and enhance long-term competitiveness. In short, the report argues that climate action is not a cost but a catalyst for growth. Countries like Mongolia and Lao PDR are already demonstrating what this looks like in practice. In Mongolia, a green finance strategy, backed by the Central Bank and a new SDG-aligned taxonomy, has mobilized $120 million in climate-aligned investment, including the country's first green bond. Green lending is targeted to grow from 2% to 10% of all bank lending by 2030. Meanwhile, Lao PDR is advancing a national circular economy roadmap to reduce waste and resource use while unlocking economic opportunity. If fully implemented, it could create 1.6 million jobs and add $16 billion to GDP by 2050. These pragmatic, investment-ready models of climate action deliver real development gains. Their progress underscores a growing global divide: while emerging economies embrace opportunity, many developed nations are falling behind, precisely when their leadership is most needed. A Shrinking Window And Defining Test Of Leadership 2025 marks a critical juncture. Countries are expected to submit new national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) ahead of COP30 in Belém this November. Yet as of late June 2025, four months after the February deadline, only a small fraction had done so. Intended to reflect increased ambition following the Global Stocktake, most submissions remain overdue, and the ambition gap continues to widen. The UN expects a surge of last-minute filings, but tardiness isn't the only concern. Most existing plans fall short of aligning with the 1.5°C target, and the policy frameworks to deliver them at scale are still lacking. The challenge is not technical though but political. Instead of advancing, many major economies are retreating, weakening targets, delaying regulations, and rolling back commitments just as the case for bold action becomes stronger. Evidence shows that a well-managed transition can boost growth, reduce inequality, and build resilience. Yet that potential is being squandered. What's needed now is not just political courage, but real leadership, capable of driving structural reform and aligning finance with planetary boundaries. Decisive action today isn't only about avoiding catastrophe, it's about exercising leadership that can shape a more stable, equitable, and liveable world. The responsibility lies with those in power to act—not later, but now.

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Donald Trump's Approval Rating Underwater in 15 States He Won

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump's approval rating is underwater in 15 states he won in 2024, including all seven swing states, according to analysis by The Economist. Why It Matters Trump flew to victory in November, winning the Electoral College in 31 states, and improving his share of the vote in every state but two. But the latest polls signal potential vulnerability for the president. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, June 20, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, June 20, 2025. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP What To Know In key battlegrounds such as Michigan (-11), Nevada (-12), North Carolina (-8), Wisconsin (-13), Arizona (-12), Pennsylvania (-12), and Georgia (-6), Trump's net approval rating—the percentage of voters who approve of him minus those who disapprove—is firmly negative. These battleground states were pivotal in the 2024 election but now show a troubling decline in Trump's support. Beyond the swing states, Trump is also underwater in other states he carried in 2024, including Texas (-8), Ohio (-6), and Utah (-5). Trump's net approval ratings are also slightly negative in Missouri (-2), Indiana (-3), Florida (-3), Kansas (-4), and Iowa (-4). This means that in 15 states Trump carried in 2024, his net approval rating now stands below zero. Unsurprisingly, Trump's net approval rating is deeply negative in many Democratic-leaning states, reflecting widespread disapproval among voters in these areas. For example, D.C. (-73), California (-31), New York (-24), Maryland (-36), Massachusetts (-36), and Washington (-28) show some of his lowest net approval figures. Even smaller Democratic states such as Rhode Island (-36) and Vermont (-29) exhibit strong opposition. However, Trump retains strong approval in more solidly Republican states, posting positive net ratings in Alabama (+12), Alaska (+10), Arkansas (+25), Kentucky (+9), and South Carolina (+16). Trump's highest overall approval rating is in Arkansas. The drop comes amid a broader downward trend in Trump's approval rating in recent days, fueled by backlash to his "Liberation Day" tariffs, his hardline immigration agenda—including the mistaken deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador—and a wave of ICE raids that have sparked nationwide "No Kings" protests. That includes Newsweek's tracker, which shows Trump's net approval rating at -4 points, with 47 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. That is down from earlier this month when Trump's net approval rating sat at -2 for more than a week. Other polls have also shown Trump's approval rating trending downwards. The Economist's tracker shows Trump's net approval rating at -12, down from -7 at the start of June. And the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted between June 13-16 among 1,512 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down 2 points since last week, with 54 percent disapproving, up 2 points. The latest Morning Consult poll, conducted between June 13-15 among 2,207 registered voters, put Trump's approval rating at 46 percent, down from 47 percent last week, with 52 percent disapproving, up from 51 percent. And in the latest J.L. Partners poll, conducted on June 16-17, Trump's approval held steady at 46 percent. But disapproval was up 11 points to 51 percent since their last poll in February. Approval also held steady in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll (June 11-16) at 42 percent, but his disapproval rose by 2 points to 54 percent. A HarrisX/Harvard survey, on June 11-12, registered a more noticeable shift as approval slipped to 46 percent, down from 47 percent in May, while disapproval rose to 50 percent from 48 percent. Still, a handful of polls recorded slight gains for Trump, though largely within the margin of error. In the latest Echelon Insights poll (June 17-18) and Fox News poll (June 13-16), Trump approval rating was up 2 points, while disapproval was down by 1 point compared to last month. And in the most recent RMG Rsearch poll, conducted between June 11-19, put his approval rating up one to 53 points, while his disapproval rating remained the same at 46 points. What Happens Next Trump's approval ratings are likely to fluctuate in each state over time.