Demand-side solutions to climate change (such as reducing meat consumption, car use, or air travel) have been ascribed significant mitigation potential, but their uptake remains limited, often due to normative concerns about individual welfare when conceptualized as preference satisfaction. Here, we address the normative desirability of demand-side mitigation by reviewing work that raises questions about key assumptions underlying standard welfare analysis and their normative implications. Departing from the assumption that observed behavior reliably reflects individuals' underlying fixed preferences and their hedonic well-being, we show how preferences are context-sensitive, constructed, and endogenous to environments. Drawing on novel decision-making frameworks better equipped for sustainable transformation, we argue that conceptualizing preference as malleable is crucial for the broader adoption of demand-side solutions and their embedding into sustainable transformation efforts.