Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 67–90 | Cite as

Maximizing the Efficiency of Greenhouse Gas Related Consumer Policy

Original Paper

Abstract

Consumer policy approaches regarding green products and solutions can be differentiated by their main focus. “Green positioning” is basically targeted at environmentally aware consumers, while “efficiency-focused positioning” concentrates on the efficiency gain of the product or solution, targeting the whole society, regardless of consumers' environmental awareness. The paper argues that the scope and total environmental benefit can be increased if green products or solutions are promoted in different ways, not only as “green” but also based on other arguments (like cost-efficiency, return on investment, etc.). The paper suggests a model for improving the efficiency of greenhouse gas (GHG)-related consumer policy. Based on the marginal social cost curve and the marginal private cost curve, different (green, yellow, and red) zones of action are identified. GHG mitigation options chosen from those zones are then evaluated with the help of profiling method, addressing the barriers to implementation. Profiling may help design an implementation strategy for the selected options and make consumer policy more effective and acceptable for mass market. Case study results show three different ways of positioning of GHG-related consumer policy in Hungary from 2000 and give practical examples of profiling, based on the latest marginal social cost curve and the contemporary energy saving policy of the state regarding the residential sector.

Keywords

Green positioning GHG emission Marginal abatement costs Marginal social costs Consumer policy profile 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Akaah, I. P., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1988). A conjoint investigation of the relative importance of risk relievers in direct marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(4), 38–44.Google Scholar
  3. Arbuthnott, K. D. (2009). Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baden, S., Fairey, P., Waide, P., de T'serclaes, P., & Lautsen, J. (2006). Hurdling financial barriers to low energy buildings: Experiences from the USA and Europe on financial incentives and monetizing building energy savings in private investment decisions. Proceedings of 2006 ACEEE Summer Study of Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  5. Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertoldi, P., & Bogdan, A. (2006a). Residential lighting consumption and saving potential in the enlarged EU. European Commission Directorate–General Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  7. Bertoldi, P., & Bogdan, A. (2006b). Electricity consumption and efficiency trends in the enlarged European Union—Status report 2006. European Commission Directorate–General Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  8. Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G. M., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, G., Davies, G., & Harrison, C. M. (2003). (Un)sustainable consumption. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science (pp. 261–293). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. CEN Technical Committee 250 (2010). Eurocodes. http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.
  11. Crane, A., & Peattie, K. (1999). Has green marketing failed…or has it never really tried? Conference Proceedings of the 1999 Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, 16th–17th September. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  12. Creyts, Y., Derkach, A., Nyquist, S., Ostrowski, K., & Stephenson, J. (2007). U.S. greenhouse gas abatement mapping initiative. Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Csutora, M., & Zilahy, G. (1998). Economic analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation options in Hungary. Ph.D. Conference. Budapest: Budapest University of Economic Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intention-behaviour mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Marketing theory, 2, 29–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 102–117.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2005). Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 217. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2008). Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 295. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2009). Energy policy factsheets for countries. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/country/hu/mix_hu_hu.pdf.
  20. European Commission Joint Research Centre. (2009). PV status report: Research, solar cell production and market implementation of photovoltaics. Available at: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refsys/pdf/PV-Report2009.pdf.
  21. Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 59, 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fliegenschnee, M., & Schelakovsky, M. (1998). Umweltpsychologie und Umweltbildung: Einführung aus humanökologischer Sicht. Wien: Facultas Universitäts Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. GAP (Global Action Plan). (2008). EcoTeams evaluation report. Available at: http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/upload/resource/GAP%20EcoTeams%20Evaluation%20Report%20June%2020081.pdf.
  24. Government Decree of 1107/1999 (08.10) of the Hungarian Government. (1999). Magyar Közlöny 99/89, Budapest.Google Scholar
  25. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. M., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinostroza, M., Cheng, C., Zhu, X., Fenhann, J., Figueres, C., & Avendano, F. (2007). Potentials and barriers for end-use energy efficiency under programmatic CDM. Working Paper No. 3, CD4CDM Working Paper Series. Roskilde: UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.cd4cdm.org/Publications/pCDM&EE.pdf.
  27. Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2009). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. CBS Working Paper Series. CBS Center for Corporate Social Responsibility. Available at: http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/7122/wp%20cbscsr%202009-1.pdf?sequence=3.
  28. Hofmeister-Tóth, Á., Kelemen, K., & Piskóti M. (2010). Changes in consumer behavior patterns in the light of sustainability. Conference Proceedings of Business and Economics Society International 2009 Conference, 15–19 July, Athen, pp 51–61.Google Scholar
  29. IPCC. (1997). Workshop on mitigation and adaptation cost assessment. Denmark: IPCC.Google Scholar
  30. Jaeger, C., Dürrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., & Truffer, B. (1993). Determinants of environmental action with regard to climate change. Climate Change, 23, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jakob, M. (2006). Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments. The case of the Swiss residential sector. Energy Policy, 34, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jakob, M. (2007). The drivers of and barriers to energy efficiency in renovation decisions of single-family home-owners. CEPE Working Paper Series 07-56. Zürich: CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH.Google Scholar
  33. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. KSH. (2005). Housing conditions at the turn of the century. Budapest: KSH.Google Scholar
  35. Labouze, E., Monier, V., Le Guern, Y., & Puyou, B. (2003). Study on environmental effects related to the lifecycle of products and services. Final Report version 2. Paris, France: European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Directorate A—Sustainable Development and Policy Support, BIO Intelligence Service/O2 France.Google Scholar
  36. Marjainé Szerényi, Z., Zsóka, Á., & Széchy, A. (2009). Environmental education and pro-environmental consumer behaviour—Results of a university survey. Joint Actions on Climate Change Conference, 8–10 June, 2009, Aalborg, Denmark. Available at: http://gin.confex.com/gin/2009/webprogram/Paper2619.html.
  37. Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2007). Cost benefit analysis (5th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Moll, H. C., Noorma, K., Kok, R., Engström, R., Throne-Holst, H., & Clark, C. (2006). Pursuing more sustainable consumption by analysing household metabolism in European countries and cities. In T. Jackson (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 67–87). UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  39. Nässén, J., & Holmberg, J. (2009). Quantifying the rebound effects of energy efficiency improvements and energy conserving behaviour in Sweden. Energy Efficiency, 2, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nemcsicsné Zsóka, Á. (2005). Consistency and gaps in pro-environmental organisational behaviour. Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest: Corvinus University of Budapest.Google Scholar
  41. NEP. (2009). National Energy Saving Programme. Available in Hungarian at: http://eupalyazatiportal.hu/nemzeti_energiatakarekossagi_program_2009/.
  42. Novikova, A., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2007). Carbon dioxide mitigation potential in the Hungarian residential sector. Report on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Hungary. Available at: http://3csep.ceu.hu/projects/carbon-dioxide-mitigation-potential-in-the-hungarian-residential-sector.
  43. Paavola, J. (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peattie, K. (1999). In M. Charter & M. Polonsky (Eds.), Rethinking marketing: Shifting to a greener paradigm. In: Greener marketing. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Reinhard, H., & Biermayr, P. (2000). The rebound effect for space heating. Empirical evidence from Austria. Energy Policy, 38, 403–410.Google Scholar
  46. Robins, N., & Roberts, S. (2006). Making sense of sustainable consumption. In T. Jackson (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 39–50). UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rubik, F., Scholl, G., Biedenkopf, K., Kalimo, H., Mohaupt, F., Söebech, Ó., et al. (2009). Innovative approaches in European sustainable consumption policies. Berlin: Schriftenreihe des IÖW 192/09.Google Scholar
  49. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg Publisher.Google Scholar
  50. Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., & Ingram, J. (2007). The design of everyday life, cultures of consumption series. USA: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slovic, P., & Weber, E. U. (2002). Perception of risk posed by extreme events. The Conference on Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, held in 12–13 April, 2002, Palisades, New York, pp 1–21.Google Scholar
  53. Southerton, D., Chappells, H., & Van Vliet, B. (Eds.). (2004). Sustainable consumption: The implications of changing infrastructures of provision. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Spaargaren, G. (2000). Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: The ecological modernisation of domestic consumption. In A. P. J. Mol & D. A. Sonnenfeld (Eds.), Ecological modernisation around the world: Perspectives and critical debates. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  55. Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spaargaren, G., & Martens, S. (2005). Globalisation and the role of citizen-consumers in environmental politics. In F. Vijen, K. Zooteman, & J. Pieters (Eds.), A handbook of globalisation and environmental policy: National government interventions in a global arena. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. The American Economic Review, 98, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tukker, A., & Jansen, B. (2006). Environmental impacts of products. A detailed review of studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(3), 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., & Füle, M. (1999). Economics of greenhouse gas limitations. Hungary Country Study. Denmark: UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment and Riso National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  63. van Raaij, W., & Verhallen, T. (1983). A behavioral model of residential energy use. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weidema, B. P., Suh, S., & Notten, P. (2006). Setting priorities within product-oriented environmental policy: The Danish perspectives. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wesselink, B., & Deng, I. (2009). Sectoral emission reduction potentials and economic costs for climate change. London: ECOFYS.Google Scholar
  66. Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 30, 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. World Research Institute (2010). Global climate trends 2005. Available at: http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/cli5_2005.pdf.
  68. Wüstenhagen, R. (1998). Greening Goliaths vs. multiplying Davids, Pfade einer Coevolution ökologischer Massenmärkte und nachhaltiger Nischen. St. Gallen: IWÖ-HSG.Google Scholar
  69. Zilahy, G. (2004). Organisational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production measures in the corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(4), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zilahy, G., Nemcsicsné Zsóka, Á., Szeszler, Á., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Markandya, A., & Hunt, A. (2000). The indirect costs and benefits of greenhouse gas limitation: Hungary case study. Handbook Reports. Denmark: UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment and Riso National Laboratory.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Economics and Technology, Institute of Environmental ScienceCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations