Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Journal of Business Ethics volume 140, pages 567–584 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. We used a median split to enable a simple illustration of the effect in Fig. 4. A separate analysis conducted using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS algorithm found that the moderator value defining the Johnson–Neyman significance region for the interaction was 6.3, suggesting that a median split, at a value of 7, is appropriate.

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for these observations and for proposing an appropriate design to test them, which inspired Study 2.

  3. We intentionally over-represented the hedonic product type given the categories used in the prior studies and the objectives of the current study.

  4. We combined these categories to simplify the exposition of the results. The pattern of results subsequently described, as well as the statistical significance of the results, remains the same when analyzing each category on its own.

  5. For simplicity, we refer to each of the three emotion dimensions (pride–guilt, confidence–distress, and excitement–disappointment) by its positively valenced anchor.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, D. C., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boston Consulting Group Report. (2009). Capturing the green advantage for consumer companies. Available at http://www.bcg.com/documents/file15407.pdf.

  • Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic and utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable economy. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

    Article  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 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., & Baron, J. (2001). Response mode effects and moral values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1–12.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(2), 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toms Shoes. (2012). One for one movement. Available at http://www.toms.com/our-movement.

  • Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187-8795, USA

    Michael G. Luchs

  2. San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA

    Minu Kumar

Authors
  1. Michael G. Luchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minu Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minu Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luchs, M.G., Kumar, M. “Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?. J Bus Ethics 140, 567–584 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2695-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2695-0

Keywords

search

Navigation