Advertisement

Consumers’ willingness to pay for green cars: a discrete choice analysis in Italy

  • Ericka Costa
  • Dario Montemurro
  • Diego Giuliani
Article

Abstract

In September 2015, the Volkswagen Group was involved in a massive scandal regarding vehicles’ emissions of substances harmful to the environment. This scandal, known as Dieselgate, caused a commotion in the automotive sector and raised the question of whether or not there exists consumer demand for cleaner cars. This paper aims to investigate consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price for lower CO2 emitting cars. To do so, it adopts a discrete choice methodological approach and an exploratory survey involving 278 potential Italian car buyers. The results provide strong support for the primary hypothesis of the research that consumers are willing to pay more for cleaner vehicles, as expressed by a positive marginal willingness to pay for lower emissions. Potential car buyers indeed appear willing to pay a price premium of about € 2100 for a 20% CO2 reduction per kilometre from the current standard level that car industry has to comply with. In particular, we estimate a willingness to pay approximately € 88 for 1-g of CO2 reduction per kilometre (with a 95% confidence interval ranging between € 54 and € 122).

Keywords

Dieselgate Willingness to pay Corporate social responsibility Automotive industry Discrete choice analysis 

References

  1. Achtnicht, M. (2012). German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO2 emissions. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 679–697.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1503412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Swait, J. (1998). Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Washington: NOAA-National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
  3. Aizaki, H., & Nishimura, K. (2008). Design and analysis of choice experiments using R: A brief introduction. Agricultural Information Research, 17(2), 86–94.  https://doi.org/10.3173/air.17.86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allcott, H. (2017). Evaluating energy efficiency policies. NBER Reporter, 2, 8.Google Scholar
  5. Bak, A., & Bartlomowicz, T. (2009). Conjoint analysis method and its implementation in conjoint R package. Wroclaw: University of Economics.Google Scholar
  6. Bazrbachi, A., Sidique, S. F., Shamsudin, M. N., Radam, A., Kaffashi, S., & Adam, S. U. (2017). Willingness to pay to improve air quality: A study of private vehicle owners in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand (Vol. 9). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bunch, D. S., Bradley, M., Golob, T. F., Kitamura, R., & Occhiuzzo, G. P. (1993). Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 27(3), 237–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(93)90062-P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Willey.Google Scholar
  11. Eurostat. (2015). Internet activity by age group. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Internet_use_statistics_-_individuals#Internet_activity_by_age_group. Date of access: 28th March 2016.
  12. Hackbarth, A., & Madlener, R. (2016). Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 85, 89–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann, W. M. (1989). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(4), 1057–1061.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1242685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hausman, J. A. (1979). Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. He, J., Dupras, J., & Poder, T. G. (2017). The value of wetlands in Quebec: A comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), 51–78.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1199976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hersch, J., & Viscusi, W. K. (2006). The generational divide in support for environmental policies: European evidence. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 121–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9074-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinnen, G., Hille, S. L., & Wittmer, A. (2017). Willingness to pay for green products in air travel: Ready for take-off? Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16(8), 827–840.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lane, B., & Potter, S. (2007). The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: Exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1085–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence, S. R., Collins, E., Pavlovich, K., & Arunachalam, M. (2006). Sustainability practices of SMEs: The case of NZ. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 242–257.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, J., & Cho, Y. (2009). Demand forecasting of diesel passenger car considering consumer preference and government regulation in South Korea. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(4), 420–429.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.007.Google Scholar
  22. Liao, C. S., Lou, K. R., & Gao, C. T. (2013). Sustainable development of electrical and electronic equipment: User-driven green design for cell phones. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1), 36–48.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu, Y., Yang, D., & Xu, H. (2017). Factors influencing consumer willingness to pay for low-carbon products: A simulation study in China. Business Strategy and the Environment.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1959.Google Scholar
  24. Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2004). A choice experiment model for beef attributes: What consumer preferences tell us. In Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual meetings (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
  25. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. McFadden, D. (1980). Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. Journal of Business.  https://doi.org/10.1086/296093.Google Scholar
  27. McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 5(4), 275–297.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.5.4.275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michaud, C., & Llerena, D. (2011). Green consumer behaviour: An experimental analysis of willingness to pay for remanufactured products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(6), 408–420.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.703.Google Scholar
  29. Oberhofer, P., & Dieplinger, M. (2014). Sustainability in the transport and logistics sector: Lacking environmental measures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 236–253.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poder, T. G., & He, J. (2016). Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: A contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada. International Journal of Health Economics and Management, 16(4), 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poder, T. G., & He, J. (2017). Willingness to pay for a cleaner car: The case of car pollution in Quebec and France. Energy, 130, 48–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Potoglou, D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2007). Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D, 12, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quattroruote. (2015). 2015 Quotations’ catalogue. Retrieved from http://www.quattroruote.it/listino/. Date of access: 1st March 2016.
  34. Ramìrez-Hurtado, J. M. (2010). Measuring preferences: From conjoint analysis to integrated conjoint experiments. Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa, 9, 28–43.Google Scholar
  35. Rowlands, I. H., Scott, D., & Parker, P. (2003). Consumers and green electricity: Profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 36–48.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sammer, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2006). The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour—Results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 185–199.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt, C. W. (2016). Beyond a one-time scandal Europe’s ongoing diesel pollution problem. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(1), 19–22.Google Scholar
  38. Sharma, S. (2001). Different strokes: Regulatory styles and environmental strategy in the North-American oil and gas industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(6), 344–364.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tilley, F. (1999). The gap between the environmental attitudes and the environmental behaviour of small firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(4), 238.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199907/08)8:4<238::AID-BSE197>3.0.CO;2-M.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 275–304.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ulrich, P., & Sarasin, C. (1995). Facing public interest. The ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communications. London: Kluwer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0399-2.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Human health and environmental effects of emissions from power generation. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/captrade/documents/power.pdf. Date of access: 15th March 2016.
  43. Veisten, K. (2007). Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(1), 29–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2006.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verma, R., Iqbal, Z., & Plaschka, G. (2004). Understanding customer choices in e-financial services. California Management Review, 46(4), 43–67.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41166274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2006). The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: A rational and behavioral blend. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 151–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9075-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Voelckner, F. (2006). An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5147-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williander, M. (2007). Absorptive capacity and interpretation system’s impact when ‘going green’: An empirical study of Ford, Volvo cars and Toyota. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(3), 202–213.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Luxottica Group S.p.aMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations