“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?
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.
KeywordsSustainability 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.
- BBMG. (2011). Unleashed: How new consumers will revolutionize brands and scale sustainability. Available at http://bbmg.com/what/.
- Bennett, R. (1998). Shame, guilt and responses to non-profit and public sector advertisements. International Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 483–499.Google Scholar
- Boston Consulting Group Report. (2009). Capturing the green advantage for consumer companies. Available at http://www.bcg.com/documents/file15407.pdf.
- Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable economy. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 52–62.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- McKinsey & Company. (2011). The business of sustainability: McKinsey global survey results. Available at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_business_of_sustainability_McKinsey_Global_Survey_results_2867.
- 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
- 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
- Rice, J. (2013). Why green product brands fail. Available at http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/communications/why-green-product-brands-fail.
- Toms Shoes. (2012). One for one movement. Available at http://www.toms.com/our-movement.
- Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does being ethical pay? Available at http://www.WSJ.com.
- United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Talk the walk: Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications. Available at http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0763xPA-TalkWalk.pdf.