on the nature of sustainable product choices: a qualitative study examining college students’...

8/9/2019 On the nature of sustainable product choices: A qualitative study examining college students attitudes toward sust

1/69

On the nature of sustainable product choices 1

Running Head: SUSTAINABILITY, COLLEGE STUDENTS, CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR,BRANDS, ATTITUDES

On the nature of sustainable product choices:A qualitative study examining college students attitudes toward sustainable brands

Ashley D. Heyer School of Education and Social Policy

Northwestern University

James Rosenbaum, PhDPrinciple Investigator

School of Education and Social Policy Northwestern University

John Laing, PhDReader

Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Philosophy Northwestern University

Bruce G. CarruthersReader

Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Sociology Northwestern University


2/69


Acknowledgements

As I bring this project to fruition, its important to notice two things (1) this is the longest thing Ihave ever written and (2) I did not write it alone -- I am deeply indebted to those around me for their support, understanding, and expertise.

A special thanks to:

John Laing, PhD. for being my most trusted advisor.

Danny Cohen for helping me develop the sorting exercises in the semi-structured interview protocol. Realizing that I could generate rich data by asking my participants to sort those cards

into piles was one of the best things that happened to this project.

Penelope Peterson, PhD for helping me to realize that this project was meant to be qualitative.

Donna Kwiatkowski for helping me sort out the paperwork to get access to the grant money Iwas awarded by the Initiative for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern University (ISEN)to fund this project

My housemates, Mike Goldstein, Paul Gafni, and David Linder, for their love and words of encouragement

And lets not forget that little thing, inspiration . Naomi Klein, Barbara Einrich, John Rawls, Immanuel Kant, Rene Magritte, Radiohead,

Sweatshop Union, Modest Mouse, The Roots, Clipse, Jay Z, and the Notorious B.I.G. providedmany of the ideas, artistic and ideological, that inspired this project and kept me motivated to

complete it.


3/69


Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................5Research Objectives & Review of Literature..........................................................6

Definition of Sustainability.........................................................................6Finality of Social Sustainability..................................................................6

American Over Consumption .....................................................................7Positive Attitudes Toward Sustainable Goods.............................................7Ethical Consumerism..................................................................................8The Attitude-Behavior Gap ........................................................................9Increased Marketing of Sustainable Products .............................................9Greenwash .................................................................................................10The Research Question...............................................................................10

Research Methods..................................................................................................11Study Participants: The Early Adopters ......................................................11Online Survey ............................................................................................12Scoring the Online Survey..........................................................................13

Semi-Structured Interviews ........................................................................13Exercise 1 Instructions....................................................................14About the Brands ............................................................................14Exercise 2 Instructions....................................................................16About the Behaviors .......................................................................16Exercise 3 Instructions....................................................................17

Data Logistics & Participant Compensation ...........................................................17Data Analysis.........................................................................................................18

Grounded Theory .......................................................................................18Concept Map..............................................................................................20

Results & Discussion .............................................................................................21The Early Adopters ....................................................................................21Results and Discussion of Exercise 1 ..........................................................21

Structure of Sustainable Brands ......................................................21Structure of Unsustainable Brands ..................................................23Affective Qualities of Sustainable and Unsustainable Brands..........25

Results and Discussion of Exercise.............................................................27Behaviors at the Top of the Hierarchy.............................................27Behaviors at the Bottom of the Hierarchy........................................28Concern for Capital.........................................................................29Historical Roots of Concern for Capital ..........................................30Stability = Unsustainability.............................................................31Moving fromStability = Unsustainability to Stability = Sustainability..................32

Policy Recommendations.......................................................................................33Price...........................................................................................................34

Pigouvian Taxes .............................................................................35The California Effect ......................................................................36

Information ................................................................................................38Educate the Consumer ....................................................................38


4/69


The Difficult Diaper Decision.........................................................38Energy Star.....................................................................................40GoodGuide and other Decision Helping Tools ................................41

Availability ................................................................................................42Sustainable Product Placement........................................................42

Leveraging Sustainable Products.....................................................42 NBCs Behavior Placement.............................................................43Benefits to Sustainable Companies .............................................................45

Conclusions ...........................................................................................................45Future Directions for Research...............................................................................47

Beyond the Early Adopters.........................................................................47Small Companies & Sustainable Business ..................................................47Situational Primers & Sustainable Consumption.........................................48

Limitations.............................................................................................................48Works Cited...........................................................................................................50Appendices ............................................................................................................53

(A) Shell Advertisement.............................................................................54(B) Online Survey Protocol ........................................................................55(C) Semi-Structured Interview Protocol......................................................60(D) Bibliography Regarding Brand Pairs ....................................................62


5/69


Abstract

Americans, the worlds most voracious consumers, claim to have positive attitudes

toward both environmentally and socially sustainable products, and many claim that they would

purchase these products even if they were more expensive than unsustainable products. The

purchasing behavior of these consumers, however, is not necessarily consistent with their

positive attitudes. To more fully understand that behavior gap, this qualitative study explores

consumer attitudes toward sustainable goods as well as sustainable business practices in order to

generate a more nuanced understanding of consumer attitudes toward sustainable products. This

consists of identifying how sustainable brands and unsustainable brands are perceivedrelative to one another, why consumers would be likely to prefer sustainable brands over

unsustainable brands, and what barriers exist to purchasing or preferring sustainable products. I

outline the basic structural and affective qualities participants attribute to sustainable and

unsustainable brands, and illuminate 4 barriers to purchasing sustainable products: (1) high price,

(2) lack of information, and (3) lack of availability, and (4) concern for capital. To have a

concern for capital 1 is to say that while someone may feel positively about purchasing

sustainable products and enjoy the concept of sustainable business, they are also worried that

operating a sustainable business is antithetical to accumulating capital. I offer policy

recommendations designed to diminish the first three barriers to purchasing sustainable products,

which may serve to temper the attitudes of consumers toward these products and diminish the

persistence of the fourth barrier. These recommendations are designed to encourage growth in

the market for sustainable products through consumer demand.

1 In neoclassical economics, capital is one of the factors of production (land, labor, organization,entrepreneurship, and management may be considered others), which are the resources employedto produce goods and services, but are not, themselves, consumed.


6/69


Research Objectives & Review of Literature

Definition of Sustainability

One of the most influential definitions of sustainability comes from the World

Commission on Environment and Development developed by the United Nations. It defines

sustainability as a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of

investments, the orientation of technological development; and institutional change are all in

harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations

(United Nations, 1987). The definition of sustainability I will use throughout this project is the

potential for long-term maintenance of Earths ecosystem, which depends on making trade offs between the economic, social, and environmental spheres to meet the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. I have chosen

this slightly altered definition to more clearly delineate the need for tradeoffs when it comes to

operating in a sustainable manner.

Finality of Social Sustainability

By alluding to the future of society, this definition contends that social sustainability is

finality of development, while economic and environmental sustainability are both goals of

sustainable development as well as instruments to achieve it. In other words, when we apply

sustainability as a concept, we should understand our ultimate concern to be the future existence

and stability of society. While sustainability certainly requires a clean environment and a

workable economic system, neither of these are sustainabilitys ultimate end. After all, what

good would a clean environment and workable economics do without a society to enjoy them?

To satisfy this definition a sustainable company should be understood as a company that makes


7/69


tradeoffs between economic, social, and environmental concerns to the end of social

sustainability.

American Over Consumption

Americans constitute less than 5% of the worlds population, consume 21% of the

worlds energy, and account for 21% of the world GDP. To compare, Europe has 7.2% of the

worlds population, uses 18% of the worlds energy, and accounts for 21% of world GDP; China

has 20% of the world's population, consumes 16% of the worlds energy, and accounts for 11%

of its GDP. In 2000 the per capita consumption of all materials in the United States was 23.7

metric tons, 52% more than the European average. In 2007, the average American generated 4.6lbs of municipal solid waste each day. For comparison, municipal solid waste generation rates

(in lbs/person/day) are 3.0 in Sweden, 3.4 in Germany, and 3.5 in the UK (University of

Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, 2009)

These numbers suggest that Americans have a much greater (negative) impact on the

natural environment than any other population, and the country is continuing to grow. In 2009

the population of the United States was 306 million and it is estimated to increase to 370 million

by 2030 (US Census Bureau, 2009). Unless the consumption patterns of Americans are

significantly adjusted to account for the limited nature of natural resources, pressure on the

environment as well as social systems will increase in an effort to produce more goods.

Positive Attitudes Toward Sustainable Goods

Despite U.S. citizens high levels of consumption, polls consistently show that a majority

of U. S. citizens consider themselves to be "environmentalists. According to the Green Gauge

Report, a nationwide long-term syndicated study of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards

the environment, eighty-seven percent of US consumers are seriously concerned about the


8/69


environment (Roper Organization, 2007). Consumers would even consider paying more for

environmentally friendly products. In a 1990 poll by the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency,

for example, 82% of the respondents said they would pay at least 5% more for a product that was

environmentally friendly, up from 49% the previous year (Levin, 1990). A more recent

Advertising Age poll showed that for 70% of the respondents purchase decisions were at least

"sometimes" influenced by environmental messages in advertising and on product labels (Chase

and Smith, 1992).

Ethical Consumerism

The rise of green consumerism lead to a broadened concept of consumption referred to asethical consumerism 2 (Uusitalo & Oksanen, 2004). Ethical consumerism refers to buyer

behavior that reflects a concern for problems that arise from unethical and unjust global trade

like child labor, low wages, human rights infringements, labor union suppression, and

environmental pollution (Strong, 1996). Both green consumerism and its subsequent ethical

consumerism are forms of symbolic consumption because consumers consider not only

individual but social values, ideas and ideologies when choosing products (Usuitalo & Oksanen,

2004).

In the U.S. consumers also seem to feel positively about ethical corporate behavior, and

they believe they would take actions to promote it through a willingness to pay higher prices for

products (Creyer & Ross, 1997; Simon, 1995). Vershoor (1997) reported that 75% of consumers

in one study claim that they would switch brands and retailers to support worthy causes like

2 There are also types of ethical consumerism that center around religious ideology like purchasing kosher meat, or halaal. In 2006 Christians in America boycotted Ecke Ranch, thelargest producer of poinsettias, because of the ranchs financial contributions to PlannedParenthood, which provides abortions. For this project I focus on applied ethics, which is a

philosophical examination from a moral standpoint of particular issues in private and public life.I do not consider ethical standards derived from purported supernatural revelation.


9/69


social justice or environmental sustainability. Over three quarters of consumers polled in the U.S.

assert that they would avoid purchasing products if they knew they were made under poor

working conditions. A comparable number claimed that they would be willing to pay more for

garments made without sweatshop labor (ORourke, 2005).

The Attitude-Behavior Gap

Although Americans may consider themselves environmentalists Hal Rothman (1998),

author of The Greening of a Nation? , argues that they are probably half-hearted ones, and are

unwilling to face difficult choices and altered lifestyles. Indeed, 83 percent of those polled in

an April 2000 Gallup poll readily agreed with the broadest goals of the environmentalmovement, but when asked to rate their own commitment to the cause, just 16 percent said they

were active participants, while over half admitted that they were sympathetic but uninvolved.

Furthermore, when these respondents were asked to rate the seriousness of various problems on

the U.S. agenda comparatively, they tended to rank the environment well behind other issues like

drug use, violence, health care, and homelessness (Guber, 2003). If this is the case with

environmental concerns, it is likely to be the case for social sustainability as well. There are

probably very few American consumers who make an effort purchase goods that are produced by

laborers who have been fairly paid and are working in safe and healthy working conditions.

Increased Marketing of Sustainable Products

Although the majority of consumers may not be willing to purchase sustainable products

right now, companies have certainly gotten the message to begin marketing sustainable products.

The Marketing Intelligence Service estimates that manufacturers identified approximately 10%

of all new products introduced in 1990 as green or otherwise environmentally friendly. This

is more than double the number of green products just one year earlier and an incredible


10/69


2000% increase over the number of green products introduced in 1985 (Drumwright, 1994;

Davis, 1992). Mayer, Gray-Lee, Scammon, and Cude's (1996) audit of grocery store products

across the United States uncovered environmental product or package claims, either explicit or

implied, for 66 percent of the 397 brands they audited.

Given the sheer number of claims made, we can assume that a good number are relatively

trivial, confusing, misleading, or downright illegal. This is greenwashing, a process whereby a

company attempts to preserve or expand its market share by presenting its products in an

unjustifiably positive light. Although the term greenwashing implies a singular concern for the

environment, I contend that a product should be considered greenwashed when it unjustly promotes a companys social impacts as well.

Greenwash

Many corporations have attempted to market sustainable products by misrepresenting or

omitting facts about the social and environmental impacts of their products. For instance, you

may have seen some of Royal Dutch Shell's advertising, where the company boasts of its

commitment to sustainability and investments in alternative energy (Appendix A). The

company, however, does not seem to be dedicated to these concepts and has sold off most of its

solar and wind energy investments. Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer recently stated that his

company will continue to be primarily an oil and gas company (Gronewald, 2009). When

companies spend money to propagate faulty information about their sustainability efforts, they

mislead and confuse consumers, which causes cynicism about all corporate sustainability claims

regardless of their truth.

The Research Question


11/69


In light of the complex nature of sustainable product decisions, we need research that

explores consumer attitudes in a more rich way than simply identifying the size of the market for

sustainable goods, which has been a popular avenue research about sustainable products. I have

chosen to conduct a qualitative study to explore consumers attitudes toward sustainable

products. To this end I will identify what kind of information consumers (specifically

Northwestern undergraduates) use when asked to differentiate between sustainable and

unsustainable goods as well as explore their attitudes toward sustainable goods and sustainable

business practices, while paying special attention to whether sustainable goods are preferred to

unsustainable goods and why. This research will lead to a more nuanced view on howconsumers perceive sustainable brands and a further understanding of the attitude-behavior gap,

which may in turn help those who have a vested interest in encouraging (or discouraging) the

purchase of sustainable products get their message out more successfully.

Research Methods

Study Participants: The Early Adopters

I have opted to focus on Northwestern undergraduate students (ages 18-22) as the subject

of this research because they are akin to type of person who is likely to care about sustainability

today. Indeed, compared to the average citizen of the United States, Northwestern undergraduate

students are wealthier, more educated, and younger.

Sustainable products are often more expensive than their unsustainable equivalents. For

instance, Organic food products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally

produced products (Winter & Davis, 2006). On a similar note, Fair Trade products are

oftentimes slightly more expensive than their equivalents because there may be a relatively small

market for Fair Trade goods, there are additional costs associated with certification, and there is


12/69


13/69


to indicate his preferences regarding corporate behavior, including how important it is to him

that companies engage in certain sustainable business practices. The survey was distributed to

Northwestern undergraduate students by personal email and was posted on Facebook. Although

some demographic information (age, gender, year in school) was collected, it was not sufficient

to identify any online survey participants.

Scoring the Online Survey

The online survey was administered using an electronic survey via GoogleDocs, which

was accessible from anywhere on the web. Once a respondent completed the survey, the data

was entered onto an excel spreadsheet and then each persons score was calculated. The scoringmethod awards a maximum of 4 points to the answers that indicate more of a preference for or

knowledge about sustainability. For instance, during the portion of the online survey that asks

the respondent to indicate how knowledgeable he is about a particular eco-label, answering very

knowledgeable will earn the respondent four points. Indicating that he is somewhat

knowledgeable will earn him 3 points, while have heard of but am unfamiliar with is worth 2

points. Selecting that he has never heard of this eco-label will earn him 1 point.

Based on the scores from this online survey, I selected twenty willing respondents to

participate in semi-structured interviews. These interviews were intended to explore an

individuals attitudes toward sustainable business practices as well as his perceptions about the

sustainability potential of different brands in-depth. On the initial online survey there were 120

total points available, and the responses I received ranged from 55 to 102 points. I wanted to

make sure I had interviewees with a relatively wide range of opinions, so I made an effort to

select individuals with varying scores. Individuals were only invited to participate in the

interview if they noted that they would be willing to participate on their online survey.


14/69


Semi-Structured Interviews

To get my interviewees talking about the issue of sustainability as it relates to both social

and environmental concerns, I devised a series of (index card) sorting exercises. The first of

these exercises were intended to get my interviewees to share what types of brands strike them as

sustainable and why (Exercise 1). I also wanted to find out how my participants believe any

company should act (Exercise 2). Finally, I wanted to explore whether any of the brands from

Exercise 1 could be associated/disassociated with the behaviors the interviewee had identified as

important during Exercise 2 (Exercise 3).

Exercise 1 Instructions: Please sort these branded cards according to how sustainable you believe them to be. Create three groups: sustainable brands, unsustainable brands, and brands of

unknown sustainability. You may have as many or as few cards in each group as you wish, but

you must sort all the cards into one of the piles.

1. Adidas2. American Apparel3. Ben & Jerrys4. Chipotle5. Chiquita6. Haagen Dazs7. Kettle Chips8. SunChips9. Timberland10. Urban Outfitters

Once participants sorted these brands I asked a series of questions to explore the participants

reasons for sorting the brands into the groups they did.

About the Brands: To incline participants to find some of these brands sustainable and

others unsustainable I selected different brands of similar things, ensuring that one of the brands

in the pair was more sustainable than the other. I did not rely on any objective measure of


15/69


sustainability to choose these brands because there does not seem to be any truly objective

method to evaluating the sustainability potential of various companies 4.

In the absence of any truly objective measure of sustainability, I wanted to make sure the

companies I chose for my pairings could reasonably be distinguished by their commitment to

sustainability. To do this I read through company reports like 10ks, sustainability & CSR reports,

corporate labor codes, and annual reports to try to get an understanding of each company's

practices in three areas, respectively: environmental impacts, labor standards, and community

engagement.

Based on my research (Appendix C) I would categorize the brands I selected as pairedaccording to product similarity, but divergent regarding sustainability:

Unsustainable vs. Sustainable

Adidas vs. TimberlandUrban Outfitters vs. American Apparel

Chiquita vs. ChipotleHaagen Dazs vs. Ben & Jerrys

SunChips vs. Kettle Chips

Furthermore, since my sample consists of Northwestern undergraduate students, I wanted to

include brands that they would be able to identify, which lead me to focus primarily on food and

clothing brands.

For the purposes of this study I paid little attention to theories about branding that are

common in marketing literature. For instance, some companies use a strong corporate brand to

create product brand recognition, while other companies focus on branding individual products

4For instance, one of the best-known sustainability measures is the Dow Jones SustainabilityIndex, which was launched in 1999 to enable people to track the financial performance of theleading sustainability driven companies. Each year it releases a review of the companies in theindex and ranks them based on their environmental, economic, and social performance. Researchsuggests, however, that DJSI tends to have a large cap bias. In other words, it tends to be biasedtoward larger corporations (Cerrin & Dobers, 2000).


16/69


(i.e. Nike v. Proctor and Gamble). I had little use for these nuanced understandings of brands

given my study design. Instead, I used the brands as triggers to get participants talking about

how they perceive the sustainability potential of brands in general.

Exercise 2 Instructions: Please sort these behavior cards in to a hierarchy according to how

important it is to you that a company engages in each of these activities. Behaviors may tie for a

position on the scale. If one or more of these behaviors is not important at all to you, please do

not include the card in your ranking system.

1. Employees may organize and bargain collectively2. Company is actively working to reduce energy and resource consumption

3.

Company is working to reduce the amount of waste it creates4. Company employs independent monitors to oversee overseas production5. Company practices environmental stewardship even if the country it operates in lacks

environmental regulations6. Employees have freedom from forced labor 7. Company is engaged with the community and supportive of it8. Company employs metrics to measure and manage energy consumption9. Employees earn a living wage10. Employer sponsors job-related education programs for employees11. Company routinely collaborates with non-profit groups

After the participants sorted the eleven behaviors into a hierarchy I asked them to explain why

they felt compelled to place the behaviors where they did on their respective hierarchies.

About the Behaviors: These eleven behaviors were selected because they account for a

variety of socially and environmentally sustainable behaviors. Although some of them may not

seem directly relevant to the way we typically think of sustainable business (for instance, that

employers ought to provide job-related education programs) I believe these behaviors have the

potential to be carried out to the benefit of society by a company interested in making tradeoffs

between economic, social, and environmental goals to the end of social sustainability.

It is noteworthy that none of these behaviors include corporate behavior related to the

accumulation of profit. For this research I took it as granted that companies are expected to


17/69


generate profit in order to fulfill responsibilities to stockholders, so I chose to focus this exercise

particularly on behaviors that tend to be associated with sustainable businesses.

Exercise 3 Instructions: Please use the groups of branded cards and your hierarchy of

behavior cards to answer the following question: Do you associate/disassociate any of these

brands with the corporate behaviors you identified as important?

Data Logistics & Participant Compensation

To ensure participant anonymity each person was assigned a participant code, which was

used to identify him in lieu of any other type of information. The identifying information was

kept separately from the coded data. The interviews were digitally recorded and labeledaccording to the participants code. These recordings were used only to transcribe the

interviews, and will not be disseminated otherwise. Data collection was confidential, but not

anonymous since I have the ability to trace responses to subject identities.

The interviews were transcribed using Amazons Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing

marketplace that coordinates the use of human intelligence to perform tasks (like transcription)

that computers are unable to do well. I split all of the digital audio files into five-minute

segments and posted them to Mechanical Turk, where I paid $2.00-$2.50 per task. Since

transcribers had no information about any of the study participants and limited access to the

interview data, the participants are not identifiable by the transcribers. Once all the interviews

were transcribed, I checked each one of them for accuracy.

A $1250 grant from the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern

University (ISEN) made it possible for me to compensate my participants $30 cash upon the

completion of the semi-structured interview. This grant also paid for transcription services for

the 20 hours of interviews.


18/69


Data Analysis

Grounded Theory

Once the interview data was collected and transcribed my advisor and I coded it using

grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I chose to use grounded theory because it provides a

methodological framework designed to expand on what we know about a particular phenomenon

in this case consumer attitudes toward sustainable brands. In the method, conceptual properties

and categories may be discovered or generated from the qualitative data by systematically

employing a data coding scheme. The primary objective of grounded theory is to expand upon an

explanation of a phenomenon by identifying the key elements of that phenomenon, and thencategorizing the relationships of those elements to the context and process of the experiment. In

other words, the goal is to go from the general to the specific without losing sight of what makes

the subject of a study unique.

For this project, data were coded on three levels. First, the data were examined line by line

in order to discover relevant themes. Next, the data were compared and contrasted to help

elucidate categories and concepts. These two procedures together lead to the development of a

hierarchy of integrated categories, which allowed theory to emerge.

Strauss and Corbin (1994) maintain that theory consists of plausible relationships proposed

among concepts and sets of concepts. Theory focuses on how individuals interact in relation to

the phenomenon under study it asserts a plausible relation between concepts and sets of

concepts, which is derived from data acquired through fieldwork, interviews, observations, and

documents. The resulting theory can be reported in a narrative framework or as a set of

propositions (Dey, 1999).


19/69


I have organized my final codes into a concept map, which should provide a visual

representation of the types of themes and relationships I identified in the interviews. There is a

discussion of each code in the Results & Discussion section.


20/69


Figure 1. Concept map representing the relationships between final codes


21/69


Results & Discussion

The Early Adopters

As I expected, Northwestern Undergraduate students counted themselves among the people who

ought to be concerned with sustainability. Although they did not count themselves among the

most economically advantaged (poor college students) they did mention their higher level of

education as well as their youth as motivations for caring about sustainability.

You should be as well informed as you can, I think. And I think, you know, a lotof people do their homework, at least the people I talk to. People from

Northwestern, the educated, young segment of the population I think a lot of

people here have done their research on brands. Participant 36 #133-136I think that its a relatively new idea and I think the stigma is that its more of aneducated idea, so young people in college colleges are stereotyped as the placewhere radical ideas come from. Participant 35 #308-310

Probably people that appreciate nature so, like people that would like go on ahiking trip. People that study it, people that are more educated definitely have

better knowledge of like consequences and actions and whatnot. So probablymore educated, more environmentally conscious, and more nature loving people.[And] certainly younger because this information has come out more recentlyand it is penetrating more to the younger crowd. Participant 27 #188-196

Results and Discussion of Exercise 1

The Structure of Sustainable Brands: Participants tended to frame brands as sustainable if

they perceived them to be (1) a small business (2) a business with transparent operations and (3)

a business that produces expensive products. The notion of transparent operations was heavily

associated with domestic (U.S.) production, local products, and products produced by co-ops.

Small

On her feelings about big-business :

I don't know whether or not this is just a contrived thing of American culture butI, I definitely seem to trust it more if it's a smaller company. Um, for instance if Isee, like, P&G says that they're, um, Proctor & Gamble has, like, cut energy by,


22/69


like, a large, large percentage, or like, has made something organically I'm muchmore -- I'm much less likely to trust it than, like, if I see a smaller, like, farmcompany, um, saying the same thing. Participant 26 #344-348

On why he placed Ben & Jerrys in the sustainable category :

Just the whole idea of the theme that theyre trying to adopt it seemed like it was"alternative" to the big company big corporation. And they started they startedsmall, so I just associate those things with sustainable practices and other goodthings. Participant 27 #28-30

On why small businesses are more free to pursue sustainable strategies:

Larger corporations have alarger pressure to make more money and smaller corporations can be based more around ideals. Participant 25 #414-416

Transparent

On why she sorted American Apparel into the sustainable category:

I mean, they are American Apparel; I think all of their clothing is made in theUnited States. It is -- I dont know if its part of their mantra to be like fair in thelabor wages and practices but I hope so -- assume so because its in this country.Participant 35 #11-14

On how Adidas could prove it is sustainable:

I don't know what kind of campaign they could put on. They'd try and keep jobshere and not exploit workers in other countries, you know, keep wages up well.Decrease the waste they produce. Again they'd have to show me that they wereletting consumers know they were doing that. I'm not exactly sure how theywould -- if they could directly make commercials to show that they are makingefforts to stay sustainable. Participant 21 #146-150

Expensive

On the expense of sustainable clothing:

When I see things marketed as environmentally friendly organic cotton theyreway more expensive, so its hard for even me to make the decision to buy them.Participant 29 #205-207

On purchasing ethically made clothing:

You have to go to specialty stores, but then its really expensive -- out of my pricerange. Youll see a lot of organic cotton, or things made out of hemp, or bamboo.


23/69


So I think its there but you have to go looking for it and you cant always affordit unless you are some chi chi environmentalist. Participant 9 #243-245

The Structure of Unsustainable Brands: Participants tended to frame a brand as

unsustainable if they perceived it to be affiliated with (1) a big business (2) a business with

opaque operations and (3) a business that produces cheap products. The notion of opaque

operations was heavily associated with producing goods overseas in areas like China, South

America, and Southeast Asia. These factors mirror the perceptions relied upon to distinguish the

sustainable brands.

Big

On the sustainability potential of Unilever v. Ben & Jerrys:

Unilever is a bigger corporation so I dont know the specifics but I feel like with a bigger corporation its easier to move away from any mission they see asunprofitable. Whereas Ben and Jerrys might just do stuff because the founderswant to do it and its a good thing to do, a bigger corporation might not be asconcerned with that. Participant 10 #88-92

On why he sorted Chiquita as unsustainable:

I assume theyre also a big company so are not really concerned with how their bananas are made in terms of environmental impact because theyre just trying tomake money. Participant 10 #135-136

Opaque

On his skepticism about SunChips sustainable advertising:

I remember seeing those commercials that saying that their chips are solar powered and there are like those people dancing in the field, which is just soridiculous, but I mean Im sure they couldnt say it unless it was partly true. Butits like, okay, youre giving me no actual information. Youre saying solar

power and youre showing happy people dancing and eating SunChips. Thats justlike all right...that doesnt tell me anything. Participant 40 #274-280

On why she sorted Urban Outfitters as unsustainable:

Urban Outfitters I put as unsustainable simply because on their labels, I mean,most of their clothing is coming from Southeast Asia and China, and based on


24/69


broad sweeping generalizations and prior knowledge, most of the factories wherethese are made are big polluters, they are not necessarily paying fair wages.Participant 9 #211-213

On why he sorted Adidas as unsustainable:

When I think shoe companies I think sweatshops. And that's pretty much the samefor the two clothing companies as well. I just think child laborers in China or something. Participant 27 #104-105

Cheap

On the price of producing sustainable goods:

Theres always going to be a price issue because one of the reasons theyre madeso unsustainably is because it would cost money to do it sustainably, so I often

thought to myself if I knew that something was more environmentally friendlyand the difference in price was not prohibitive, I would actively support that.Participant 29 #222-225

On why he placed Adidas in the unsustainable group:

I know Adidas works with rubber for example for their shoes, so I'm sure that it'scheaper to synthetically make rubber in a less-sustainable way. Again, I don'tknow anything that Adidas does in that direction I just assumed that they arelooking for profit margins since I've never heard them advertising anythingtowards sustainability. Participant 6 #183-186

I think Wal-Mart is sort of notorious for poor labor practices and thats whytheyre so cheap. Participant 35 #698-699

When participants categorized a brand as being of unknown sustainability they

attributed some factors from the sustainable category as well as some factors from the

unsustainable category to the brand. Timberland was sorted into this pile on several occasions

because my participants had a difficult time deciding whether the brands association with nature

was indicative of sustainable business. Both Participant 43 and Participant 27 saw a potential

conflict between the naturalist philosophy of the brand and the way it is manufactured, leading

them to place it in the unknown category.

I don't really know anything about Timberland. The only thing I really associate


25/69


them with is an outdoorsy back to nature philosophy, but I don't really identifythat as - I mean you think they serve to like outdoors oriented clientele that theywould be environmentally responsible, but that doesn't mean they're sociallyresponsible and it doesn't actually mean they're environmentally responsible, so Idon't really know. Participant 43 #187-191

Timberland I had no idea either way. I had my clothing manufacturer pointing metowards bad, but there are all sorts of naturalist stuff. So that was a good pull andI decided to put it in the middle, but I dont really know. Participant 27 #173-175

Although I recruited participants who claimed to be differently committed to caring about

sustainable business practices and buying sustainable goods, these respondents adhered to these

frameworks relatively consistently, so the way participants characterized sustainable and

unsustainable brands was basically consistent across responses.Affective Qualities of Sustainable and Unsustainable Brands: Participants were also likely to

associate sustainable and unsustainable brands with different affective qualities. Sustainable

brands were characterized as brands from companies with authentically sustainable business

practices as well as a concern for communities, the environment, and their employees.

For instance, Participant 29 considered SunChips authentically sustainable because they

were engaged in operating sustainably before it was popular.

They were doing that a few years before the whole fad, to my knowledge, and so Ithink its something they actually care about its a priority to the corporation or its directors that this is our model, this is our marketing, this is who we are.Participant 29 #29-31

Participant 22 characterized Ben & Jerrys as authentically sustainable because of the

company was started with sustainable values in mind.

I can't saythat I put that much research into the sustainability of Ben & Jerry's, but knowing how they started...just like together as like these two liberal guys andeverything like that. And although it has grown to this huge corporation I feellike they still have some moral, more progressive values behind what they do.Participant 22 #10-14


26/69


Regarding a companys concern for communities, people, and the environment, Participant 11

noted that SunChips might be considered sustainable because it is healthy, which is good for

people and may reflect a larger concern for workers and the environment.

I felt they probably wouldn't be as bad as someone like Lays because of the factthat like the product itself is marginally more healthy, so maybe that liketranslates into a little bit of a greater consciousness about workers rights andenvironmental rights. Participant 11 #84-87

Participant 17 was willing to sort Timberland into the sustainable category based on the

fact that they seem to care about nature.

They have a tree on their logo, and if you care about trees and the outdoors, then

you are probably sustainable in some capacity. Participant 17 #333-334Participant 26 noted that she would be more willing to sort companies who are engaged

with the community into the sustainable group. Interacting with members of the

community is associated with concern on the part of the business.

For a company to be well-rounded I think that the company should just interact ona more personal level with the people its working to serve -- the people who

purchase the products. Participant 26 #473-475

Unsustainable brands, on the other hand, were characterized as brands from companies

that had either no sustainable business practices or sustainable claims based on minimal actions

and falsely constructed images of sustainability. For instance, when Participant 38 talked about

whether one should trust organic labels, he alluded to the notion that some companies would

purposely lie to consumers to sell sustainable products.

They dont realize that words like organic can be like argued for if they wereactually like contested. Someone could easily just say like well yeah, its organic

because I do this one thing and, you know, I am not claiming that I do all theseother things, I just say its organic. And I think a lot of companies are exploitingthat, because people are really getting into like eco, into anything that you puteco in front of theyre like, Oh, thats environmentally friendly, Ill pay anextra like 50 cents for that. Participant 38 #110-115


27/69


Similarly, Participant 26 noted that SunChips should not necessarily be considered

sustainable regardless of how it is marketed because a company that does not exude

sustainable qualities owns it.

I think it does help Frito-Lay's image, to have this company that's consideredhealthier and made through means that don't harm the environment as much. So Ithink it does help Frito-Lay as a brand, but it also kind of takes away from theimpact that SunChips have, because they are made by this giant conglomerate thatdoesn't necessarily stand for sustainability. Participant 26 #130-13

Results and Discussion of Exercise 2

Behaviors at the Top of the Hierarchy: In brief, respondents were asked about a number of

characteristics of companies and their products that would typically be characterized assustainable. My participants tended to sort these behaviors with an eye to ethical concerns,

especially those that are not easily dismissed, by placing broad goals at the top of the hierarchy

and appealing to moral values and ethical codes when defending the position of those corporate

behaviors. The specific behaviors they chose to rank at the top differed between respondents, but

often included basic environmental concerns like company is actively working to reduce

energy and resource consumption and company is working to reduce the amount of waste

it creates as well as relatively uncontroversial issues regarding basic human rights like and

employees have freedom from forced labor .

For instance, Participant 46 explained employees earn a living wage was at the top of

her hierarchy because it is a matter of respect and should be prioritized.

I think earning a living wage is just like a respect to the people who are, like the,like are the actual force behind the production of your product. And I think -- Imean, I just think a living wage is really important because it like, just likeensures that the employee stays above water and if they get sick, or if they havean accident, or if they, if they if their spouse loses their job, they have enoughsavings and they have enough -- they have like a moderate cushion, not to go, notto go like below the poverty line, so I just think its important to like treatemployees with that respect. Participant 46 #180-186


28/69


Participant 6 appealed to human rights when he ranked employees have freedom from

forced labor at the top of his hierarchy.

Im against slavery. I think it's wrong, um, I guess I've never been asked this before. I guess it's a human right than a freedom of your life. Participant 6 #363-365

Participant 36 also appealed to human rights in his defense of employees have freedom

from forced labor as his highest ranked behavior.

I think that's just from, like, a human rights standpoint, you know, it'sforcedlabor is, you know, really morally indefensible. Participant 36 #432-433

Behaviors at the Bottom of the Hierarchy: The bottom of hierarchies tended to consistof corporate behaviors that were perceived to require stringent corporate regulation or a

significant expenditure of corporate capital. These behaviors overwhelmingly included

employees my organize and bargain collectively, employees earn a living wage ,

company employs independent monitors to oversee overseas production, company is

engaged with the community and supportive of it, employer sponsors job related

education programs for employees, company practices environmental stewardship even

if the country it operates in lacks environmental regulations and company routinely

collaborates with non-profit groups. Most often participants would express a favorable

disposition toward these ideas in theory, but see them as contradictory to the generation of

capital.

Participant 6 identified the preference for capital over environmental protection

when he explained why less developed countries allow more pollution than more

developed countries.

I think it all comes down to economics. In more developed countries were we canafford to put levies on pollution, we do. In less developed countries, they value


29/69


the return on their industry more, so they allow pollution and contamination tooccur, but I still think it's bad. Participant 6 #460-463

Participant 3 appealed to the benefit of simply having a job, even if the wages were

unreasonably low by her standards.

And that even if they do like make their goods in America, theyre still likely,very likely, using material that came from, you know, somewhere where they pay

people less than a dollar a day, but thats a whole different story cause they dosome of the best jobs in those regions. Participant 3 #107-110

Participant 29 also appealed to the benefit of simply having a job when he argued that

there is some value to performing sweatshop labor that could be lost if wages rose.

I think its good that theres any money in those places at all, and if they had to pay a living wage they probably wouldnt be in those places, and there would beno money for those people. Participant 29 #330-332

Participant 18 considered how companies would be impacted by being made to publish

information about their energy usage, and was most concerned by the capital impacts.

I mean if every single company would have to do it, then it'd probably be good for the consumer just because they would know which companies hurting theenvironment and which ones are making more of an effort to conserve it. But I

just see -- it would just take a blow to the company itself -- just a lot more moneyto put out and a lot more work. Participant 18 #438-442

Concern for Capital: It appears that my respondents (and probably Americans in

general) see some sort of good emanating from the existence of profit-generating firms, which

is capital. At some level respondents are willing to trade socially and environmentally

sustainable practices for capital concerns, and would expect others to agree even those others

who were employed in the sweatshop or who were citizens of the polluted country. Respondents

also alluded to the negative impacts of regulating negative effects by noting that regulations tend

to make capital unhappy and likely to flee to less regulated areas, which would disadvantage the

population who insisted on regulation in the first place.


30/69


Participants associate firms and capital with opportunity in that firms and capital

provide a structure that people may engage in to make money for themselves, which can be used

to satisfy their desires. Anything that adversely affects the firms by making it harder for them to

generate profit is a direct risk to the individual engaged in the market.

Historical Roots of Concern for Capital: The notion that an individuals pursuit of

capital has beneficial consequences for the society has deep roots in the American psyche that

can be traced back to Bernard Mandevilles Fable of the Bees , which elucidated many key

principles of classical economics including the division of labor and the invisible hand. The

Fable of the Bees also propositioned the idea that the true causes of social welfare and social progress are a result of human vice people work out of greed, are polite out of self-interest, and

keep the law for fear of punishment.

As Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players,Pick-Pockets, Coiners, Quacks, Sooth-Sayers,And all those, that, in EnmityWith down-right Working, cunninglyConvert to their own Use the Labour Of their good-natur'd heedless Neighbour.These were called Knaves; but, bar the Name,The grave Industrious were the Same (Mandeville, 1705).

This notion was picked up on by Adam Smith and further propagated in the Wealth of Nations ,

which was undoubtedly influential in laying the basic groundwork for capitalist economic theory

in America. Smiths version of this concept is as follows: It is not from the benevolence of the

butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own

interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love (Smith, 1776).

Stability = Unsustainability: The companies that my participants identified as superior

at generating profit fit well into the unsustainable schema identified during the first sorting


31/69


exercise. Participant 11 noted that bigger companies are more likely to be solely seeking profit

at the expense of responsible business.

I think that smaller, more independent companies usually are formed with more

sense of responsibility and since their share, I mean, it's sort of, it's sort of hard totell because like, they might be formed just to become a larger company and inorder to reap the benefits - the economic benefits - of it's product, but I also feellike more of them are probably [pause] more sustainability minded than the largecompanies that have already been, you know, corrupted by our capitalist process.Participant 11 #73-78

Participant 25 also identified big businesses profit generation at the expense of ideals.

Larger corporations have alarger pressure to make more money and smaller corporations can be based more around ideals. Participant 25 #414-416

Indeed, participants characterized these companies as likely to take advantage of regulatory

differences (cheap labor, few environmental regulations) between or within nations in order to

capitalize on the imbalance. For instance, Participant 36 acknowledged the size and relative

economic success of Chiquita Brands, Inc. while noting their exploitive relationship to laborers.

I think large corporations that make their product in South America, I feel moreoften than not, have a tendency to do unsustainable things, like pay living wages,

bad factory conditions, exploit labor. Participant 36 #413-415

Participant 11 had a similar response to McDonalds while attempting to decipher whether to sort

Chipotle in to the sustainable or unsustainable category.

I know it is owned by McDonalds, which is a really large multinationalcorporation not known for treating its workers well and known for paying a verylow wage. Participant 11 #242-244

These attitudes signal a fundamental disconnect in that participants associate unsustainable firms

with profit and an opportunity to accumulate monetary wealth for themselves, but they also

associate these firms with negative impacts like harming the environment, employees, and the

communities. While the presence of a profit-generating firm is good for individuals it may also

generate significant harms, which could not be rectified without raising (environmental and


32/69


labor) standards. According to my respondents raising standards could make capital likely to

flee, which may jeopardize citizens chances at prosperity. Indeed, my participants associate

economic stability (capital generation) with businesses they identify as unsustainable (big,

opaque, cheap goods) and out of a concern for capital are not ready to associate economic

stability with sustainable production, no matter how positively they view sustainability.

Although primarily theoretical, concern for capital constitutes a significant barrier to purchasing

sustainable goods.

Moving from Stability=Unsustainability to Stability=Sustainability

Right now, firms have relatively little reason to make trade offs between their economicends and social/environmental goods, since their only formal end is to generate profit. Many of

my respondents, however, expressed the idea that consumers could convince firms (that seek

profit) to produce socially and environmentally sustainable goods by voting with their dollar or

purchasing a sustainable good in lieu of the unsustainable version of that good. This should send

a signal to the market that sustainable goods are preferred to unsustainable ones and may make it

relatively easier for a company to profit from producing sustainable goods. Participant 26, 40,

and 25 alluded to the impact consumers could have if they demanded sustainable products.

I am kind of working under the assumption that if the primary consumers of a product or of a companys product arent really pushing for sustainability efforts,that the company is less likely to make those efforts on their own. Participant 26#206-209

Whole Foods has done it successfully, and I think that consumer tastes willalways kind of triumph over cost. If you can get enough people to buy something

because they care about it then I think thats a pretty successful marketingtechnique. Participant 40 #539-542

The importance of [sustainability] depend[s] on how the consumers that want -like, if everybody, like, knew that like, oh, Adidas exploits Indonesian workersand then, like, everyone hated that, then they would all buy, you know, American-


33/69


made or, you know, better shoes in a sense. And then obviously Adidas wouldhave to change their priorities drastically. Participant 25 #232-236

Most respondents agreed, however, that sustainable goods are currently (1) more

expensive to produce (for the company), more expensive to purchase (for the consumer), (2)

relatively difficult to understand (requiring a intricate knowledge of sustainability), and (3)

harder to find (available only at specialty stores, in special aisles, or on the internet). At this point

it is relatively unlikely that consumers could encourage companies to make this transition purely

with their own buying power, as there are several barriers to purchasing these products.

Expensive to Produce

On transitioning businesses to more environmentally friendly technology:In lot of situations it will require internal personnel infrastructure that might notalready exist. Like, you got to have consultants. You probably have to havedifferent sort of engineers. It is going to be expensive, but I feel it is important for the long-term viability of the industry and the planet. Participant 9 #530

I just think that if a company is willing to put the extraordinary resources intosustainability when regulations for that dont even exist, like they could get awaywith it, but they dont, then I feel like its just exceptionally admirable because itis expensive. Participant 3 #392-396

Expensive to Purchase

On the extent to which all Americans could purchase sustainable goods:In our society I dont think everyone has [the option to purchase sustainable

products] because of the lower, middle, and upper class segregations. Its moreexpensive because not everything is sustainable nowadays its more of aluxury. Participant 33 #679-681

On who would be likely to buy sustainable productsThe market was a very like, small circle of people who were getting sort of keento these issues, and they could have a product sold for them, but they were like soeducated, and such a small minority. They were probably willing to pay morefor it than someone else who wasn't. Participant 36 #264-267

Hard to understand


34/69


I feel like the more sustainable people are often found in more affluent areas, because they can afford to pay premium for sustainabilityand these people havemore time to invest into understanding sustainability. Participant 6 #155-158

I feel like environmental and labor practice concerns are one of those things

where like if you arent always thinking about it and always on the ball, and makeit part of your daily life youre not going to be the kind of person to adopt it. Itsone of those things, you hear about it once and youre like ok, cool, but its anever changing spectrum and to always to be able to make the most knowledgeablechoice is not an easy thing. Participant 40 #799-783

Hard to find

You have to go to specialty stores, but then its really expensive -- out of my pricerange. Youll see a lot of organic cotton, or things made out of hemp, or bamboo.So I think its there but you have to go looking for it and you cant always afford

it unless you are some chi chi environmentalist. Participant 9 #243-245If you have a company you don't want people knowing the bad side of you, so I'mwilling to bet that some of these major corporations -- companies are going to dotheir best to kind of like hush that down. Participant 22 #441-444

Policy Recommendations

In order to encourage companies to make tradeoffs between social, environmental, and

economic concerns, steps must be taken to lower the barriers to consuming sustainable products:

(1) high price, (2) lack of information, and (3) lack of availability, and (4) concern for capital so

they may experience sales growth. By breaking down these barriers consumers may begin to see

the real costs of the products they purchase, which may diminish their concern for capital, or

their willingness to preference capital over sustainability concerns when they are in conflict.

Price

Price is the largest obstacle to purchases of green products, according to a survey of

3,600 consumers by the UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (McKinsey,

2008). Many of these products are more expensive than their equivalents for good reasons.

First, there may be a relatively small market for these products, there are additional costs


35/69


36/69


fossil fuels, thus helping to protect the environment while raising revenues for non-carbon

technologies.

A carbon tax, however, must be administered worldwide in order to ameliorate the global

warming already under way (Nader & Heaps, 2008). It would probably require a global body to

adjust and regulate this tax, but considering the unsuccessful nature of the Copenhagen climate

summit, we may be quite far from establishing any sort of legally binding agreement to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, within Pigou's framework, the changes involved are

marginal, and the size of the externality is assumed to be small enough not to distort the rest of

the economy.

Some argue, however, the impact of climate change could result in catastrophe andnon-marginal changes (Helm, 2005).

The California Effect: The California Effect, or the use of market incentives to promote

the ratcheting upward of regulatory standards provides evidence that it may be possible for

developed countries to impose higher regulatory standards without a significant loss of capital. In

1970 the Clean Air Act Amendment permitted California to enact stricter emissions standards

than the rest of the United States. Although automobile manufacturers had to spend extra capital

to produce more efficient cars, they did not simply abandon California as a market. This shows

political jurisdictions that develop stricter product standards may have the ability to force

producers to design products that meet those standards or else deny them access to its markets

(Vogel, 1997).

Developed countries, like the state of California, are in a position to establish higher

standards to encourage the adoption of social and environmental standards around the world.

These standards might ensure things like living wages, safe working conditions, corporate

community engagement and environmental stewardship in developing as well as developed


37/69


nations. As developing countries look for ways to access the markets of developed countries to

fuel their economic growth, these market incentives may actually bolster the social and

environmental standards of companies and countries. Without these market incentives from

developed countries, however, governments and companies around the world would have

relatively little reason to bolster their social and environmental standards. Instead, they may

focus on creating cheap exports, which may not be compatible with regulation in favor of

sustainability.

The United States decision to import sustainably produced goods may be especially

helpful to temper the populist anger that my respondents expressed toward big businesses that produce overseas. While it is not necessarily true that these companies are the least sustainable,

my respondents negative attitudes toward them and were quick to characterize them as

exploitive. If the U.S. made it known that they would only import goods that met certain socially

and environmentally sustainable criteria, the citizens would have little reason to assume that the

goods they purchase were made in undesirable conditions.

It is unlikely, however, that the U.S. would decide unilaterally to begin exclusively

importing sustainable goods, as it would put them at a distinct disadvantage in the market.

Again, it may be most effective to establish an international body of developed countries that are

willing to condition access to their markets on producing goods sustainably. To avoid

unreasonable or unequal expectations, I suggest that each of the developed countries also adopt

these standards of sustainability.

Creating international bodies to levy carbon taxes and set global labor standards,

however, is a very difficult process. In light of this difficulty, perhaps the real question we

should ask is not how expensive are sustainable products, but how do my purchasing habits


38/69


affect the global population and environment? One way to do this is to ensure that consumers

understand the financial and environmental returns on their investment in sustainable products.

Indeed, consumers may be more willing to try new onesespecially those that cost morewhen

they find it easy to track the savings (McKinsey, 2008). One way to do this is to educate the

consumer about the product decisions he could potentially make.

Information

Educate the Consumer: Because green products are often difficult to comprehend, the

businesses that sell them ought to see themselves as educators rather than just profit generators.

It is important for a company not only to explain its own products, but also the larger issues likeenvironmental degradation, climate change, and social instability in order to place their product

at the forefront of consumers minds when it comes to sustainability.

The Difficult Diaper Decision: The complex nature of this process is worth nothing.

First of all, what should be considered sustainable can be a complicated choice, which can be

affected by vested interests to promote particular products. Take, for instance, ones choice to

use disposable or cloth diapers for his new baby. Since the average child uses over 5,000 diapers

during the 30-month period before toilet training a parent may wish to choose the more

sustainable type. In an attempt to convince parents that using disposable diapers is not overly

degrading of the environment Proctor and Gamble commissioned a three-year study at the

University of Michigan to determine the effects of disposable diapers once they enter the landfill.

The research maintains that disposable diapers are environmentally safe (Proctor & Gamble,

1989). Despite this research, however, neither disposable nor cloth diapers can be easily

identified as the sustainable choice (Smith & Pitts, n.d.).


39/69


Disposable diapers account for about 80 percent of the diapers used in the US.

Convenience is the major reason given by parents, particularly in dual-career families where time

to care for cloth diapers may be limited. Group day care restrictions, which may require single

use diapers also influences the preferred diapering method. Families who lack access to laundry

equipment may also find cloth diapers burdensome to care for (Smith & Pitts, n.d.). Disposable

diapers account for an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 percent of municipal solid waste. With landfills

reaching capacity, solutions for the disposal of all solid waste is a concern, and disposable

diapers generate four times as much waste as cloth diapers. An archaeological study of garbage

from 1977 to 1985 determined that disposable diapers accounted for about 1% of all solid wastein landfills (Rathje, 1989).

Although disposable diapers pose environmental concerns from a solid waste perspective,

cloth diapers raise concerns regarding air and water pollution. The reusable nature of cloth

diapers reduces the solid waste problem, but laundering of cloth diapers requires water, energy,

and chemicals in the form of laundry detergent, which may contribute to water pollution.

Franklin Associates, Ltd. (1990) conducted a study that concluded that cloth diapers use about

twice as much energy and four times as much water as disposables and created greater air and

water pollution than disposable diapers.

So, although disposable diapers use more raw material in the manufacturing process,

cloth diapers use greater resources for to maintain them. This means that there might be two

potentially environmentally responsible choices. Where land is plentiful, but water is in short

supply, disposable diapers may be the best choice. On the other hand, areas that have an

overabundance of trash in landfills but have adequate water supplies may opt for the cloth diaper.


40/69


41/69


In order for eco-labels to be effective, its essential that a body take responsibility for

ensuring that the certification systems in place are legitimate. Without this assurance, purchasing

sustainable products is unlikely to become any easier. This responsibility could fall on a

government agency, like the EPA, or a trustworthy non-profit organization. In the absence of a

body like this, it may be more effective for consumers to look for other tools that can help them

access more dependable information about the goods they buy.

GoodGuide and other Decision Helping Tools: Mobile phone applications like the

GoodGuide provide an inventive way for consumers to directly access complex information

regarding the sustainability impacts of the goods they are about to purchase simply by scanningthe barcode. The GoodGuide aggregates and analyzes data on both product and company

performance and employs a health hazard assessment, an environmental impact assessment, and

a social impact assessment to identify major impacts to human health, the environment, and

society. Each of these categories is then further analyzed within specific issue areas, such as

climate change policies, labor concerns, and product toxicity. Currently, GoodGuides database

includes over 1,100 base criteria with which they evaluate products and companies (Good Guide,

2010).

Given the well-established notion that a trade-off between effort and accuracy is inherent

to human decision making (Payne et al., 1993), an application like this will reduce the effort

required to make sustainable product decisions as well as improve the accuracy of these

decisions by giving consumers access to more dependable information in an easy to use format.

An application like this does not require consumers to trust the claims on a products package or

eco-labels, although they may choose to. Rather, they will be more able to capitalize on the


42/69


enormous amount of information available about sustainability in a more objective way, which

may enable them to make more accurate sustainable product decisions than they could otherwise.

Availability

Sustainable Product Placement: Even if consumers have the information they need to

buy sustainable products, they are relatively hard to find. An informal survey of 23 retailers in

Chicago and in the San Francisco Bay area found that fewer than half sold sustainable products

(other than organic foods and CFLs), and among the minority that did sell these products only

about 10 percent stocked more than one brand option (McKinsey, 2008). If stores simply

stocked more sustainable products (including products produced locally), consumers wouldsuddenly have the opportunity to purchase these products more widely. This could be especially

effective if consumers actually understood the social and environmental returns on their

purchasing decisions, as I discussed in the last section. Stocking and supporting local products

may also help the cause by emphasizing the personal relevance of the products.

Leveraging Sustainable Products: Marketers have been leveraging products to

influence consumers for decades, and given that companies have taken to identifying many more

of their products as green there is some evidence that this is also taking place in the realm of

sustainable goods. (Drumwright, 1994; Davis, 1992; Mayer, et al, 1996). The idea simple:

leverage media to showcase a product or service being used as part of everyday life in order

to shape consumer brand perception and impact purchase behavior. For instance, in 2002 Busta

Rhymes and (the artist formerly known as) Puff Daddy collaborated on an ode to a cognac brand,

Courvoisier. After the release of Pass the Courvoisier Part II, the brands sales jumped 20

percent (Sauer, 2010).


43/69


While Busta and P.Diddy may or may not be the ideal spokespeople for sustainable

products, the basic concept still stands -- put a product in the hands of a celebrity and consumers

will interpret this as a de facto endorsement. It is important, however, that the products that are

marketed in this way could actually be considered sustainable (rather than greenwashed).

Obviously it should not be acceptable for any company to purposely greenwash their products,

but it is relatively common today. Perhaps individual spokespeople should make more of a effort

to evaluate the sustainability potential of the good before they agree to position it as sustainable.

Likewise, consumers should be mindful of the information they are receiving may not be entirely

truthful, given that it is being propagated by celebrities and for-profit entitiesNBCs Behavior Placement: Although specific advertisements may not always

influence a person to buy a specific product, political scientist Shanto Iyengar argues that the

media exercise agenda control, which is to say that it has the potential to shape what you think

about as well as what you consider important and true. For instance, the prominence of issues in

the news media fear of crime or concern about traffic congestion or worry about the condition

of the economy is correlated with the publics perception that those issues are important

(Dearing & Rogers, 1996; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987).

Along the lines of agenda control, NBCs network executives have asked producers of

almost every primetime and daytime show to incorporate a green storyline at least once a year

since 2007. In just one week during April 2010 the detectives on "Law and Order" investigated a

cash-for-clunkers scam, a nurse on "Mercy" organized a group bike ride, Al Gore made a guest

appearance on "30 Rock," and "The Office" turned Dwight Schrute into a cape-wearing

superhero obsessed with recycling. The tactic, according to General Electric (GE), owner of

NBC, is called "behavior placement. It is designed to sway viewers to adopt actions they see


44/69

on the nature of sustainable product choices: a qualitative study examining college students’...

Documents