Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 567–584 | Cite as

“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

  • Michael G. Luchs
  • Minu KumarEmail author


Consumers are increasingly facing product evaluation and choice situations that include information about product sustainability, i.e., information about a product’s relative environmental and social impact. In many cases, consumers have to make decisions that involve a trade-off between product sustainability and other valued product attributes. Similarly, product and marketing managers need to make decisions that reflect how consumers will respond to different trade-off scenarios. In the current research, we study consumer responses across two different possible trade-off scenarios: one in which consumers face a trade-off between product sustainability and hedonic value, and another in which they must trade-off between product sustainability and utilitarian value. Our results suggest that, overall, consumers are more likely to trade-off hedonic value (e.g., esthetics) for sustainability than to trade-off utilitarian value (e.g., functional performance) for sustainability. In Studies 1A and 1B, we presented participants with a product choice task and also measured their anticipatory emotions as they contemplated their options. The results suggest that given a trade-off, consumers are more likely to choose a sustainable product when they have to trade-off hedonic value than when they have to trade-off utilitarian value. Further, these studies provide some insight into the emotions underlying this effect. In Study 2, we use a different consumer response measure, relative purchase likelihood, and investigate the effect of trade-off type across categories that vary in the degree to which hedonic and utilitarian attributes are perceived to be important (referred to as ‘product type’). Our results suggest that the effect of trade-off type still holds, yet is moderated by product type such that consumers’ greater willingness to trade-off hedonic value (vs. utilitarian value) for sustainability is attenuated as the relative importance of hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attributes increases. In addition to building on our theoretical understanding of decision making given trade-offs with moral attributes, this research is also intended to support managers as they define and choose among various strategic, product development, and marketing promotion options.


Sustainability Attribute trade-offs Ethical consumption Sustainable products 



The authors thank Charles Noble and Jacob Brower for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


  1. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batson, D. C., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BBMG. (2011). Unleashed: How new consumers will revolutionize brands and scale sustainability. Available at
  4. Bennett, R. (1998). Shame, guilt and responses to non-profit and public sector advertisements. International Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 483–499.Google Scholar
  5. Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-quality trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boston Consulting Group Report. (2009). Capturing the green advantage for consumer companies. Available at
  11. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic and utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic tradeoffs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 702–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable economy. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 52–62.Google Scholar
  15. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(2), 1050–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: The appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Higgins, T. E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higgins, T. E. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 186–211). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin, J. R., & Baron, J. (2001). Response mode effects and moral values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous: Toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C. C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Van der Sloot, R. (2009). Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 445–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384–405.Google Scholar
  33. Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., & Chitturi, R. (2012). Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 903–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., Chitturi, R., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinsey & Company. (2011). The business of sustainability: McKinsey global survey results. Available at
  37. Mick, D. G., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C., & Ozanne, J. L. (2012). Origins, qualities, and envisionments of transformative consumer research. In D. G. Mick, S. Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J. L. Ozanne (Eds.), Transformative consumer research for personal and collective well-being (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Neumann, R., Seibt, B., & Strack, F. (2001). The influence of mood on the intensity of emotional responses: Disentangling feeling and knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian options. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. J. (2010). Tracking the trajectory of shame, guilt, and pride across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larcenaux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2012). Good and guilt free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfister, H. R., & Bohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  45. Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., et al. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rice, J. (2013). Why green product brands fail. Available at
  49. Sela, A., Berger, J., & Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A consumer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steenhaut, S., & Kenhove, P. V. (2006). The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Theotokis, A., & Manganari, E. (2014). The impact of choice architecture on sustainable consumer behavior: The role of guilt. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2287-4.Google Scholar
  58. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(2), 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toms Shoes. (2012). One for one movement. Available at
  60. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does being ethical pay? Available at
  62. United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Talk the walk: Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications. Available at
  63. Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Winterich, K., Han, S., & Lerner, J. S. (2010). Now that I’m sad, it’s hard to be mad: The role of cognitive appraisals in emotional blunting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1467–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The College of William and MaryWilliamsburgUSA
  2. 2.San Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations