Exploring the use and impact of LCA-based information in corporate communications

METHODOLOGY

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

The effective communication of corporate environmental messages has a history of mixed results and concerns remain around the quality and accurateness of these messages. Life cycle assessment (LCA) information is often presented as a promising informational tool, by which improved communication effectiveness of environmental/sustainable claims may materialize; however, the possibility of information overload has limited its application in marketing communication settings. The overall purpose of this research is to better understand how LCA-based environmental performance information might be effectively communicated in an advertising setting, the impact of such messages on individuals’ attitudes and behavioral intentions, and the mediating roles of informational complexity and credibility.

Methods

Fictitious, but realistic, advertisements employing LCA-based information were created and tested empirically in two experimental settings. The first, in a business-to-consumer (B2C) setting, examines the influence of several environmental information contents, formats, and disclosures on attitudinal factors toward the ad, brand, and company, as well as behavioral intentions. Using hair shampoo as the product category, and the biodegradability capacity of its bottle as the environmental attribute, regression analyses were developed based on a sample of 3,292 subjects evaluating one of 12 different advertisements. The second experiment presented in this paper expands upon these ideas by focusing on a business-to-business (B2B) environment where the need for cognition, and thus the complexity threshold, is thought to be quite high and where environmental performance is expected to be of importance to the purchaser. This experimental setting includes responses from 1,062 architects and engineers—all of whom are members of the U.S. Green Building Council who evaluated one of eight different advertisements. In this experimental setting, the volume of LCA-based information is varied, while exploring the role of this information in conjunction with functional product performance messages.

Results

Results indicate that LCA-based information can be effective within an advertising medium in enhancing message credibility, attitudes toward the brand and company, and positively influencing behavioral intentions toward purchasing, even though this information is viewed as complex and detrimental to attitudes toward the advertisement itself. More specifically, results from the first empirical experiment indicate that LCA-based communications make for more poorly reviewed advertising, but the credibility gained through explicit LCA-based environmental disclosures favorably influences the perceptions toward the company and the brand. These results are confirmed in the business-to-business experiment. Evidence from this study suggests that, within environmentally aware and sensitive recipients, advertisements with environmental messages are more effective than those presenting functional product benefits alone, but only when the messages are substantiated with elaborated LCA-based information.

Discussion

Within the B2C respondents, we found that the perceived complexity of the ad in fact generated a significantly positive attitudinal response concerning the company under evaluation, which was not evident in the B2B study. The results suggest that the end-use consumers in the first experiment more often processed the ad through the peripheral route of persuasion, where the downside risk of presenting complex and detailed environmental information is significant (i.e. people won’t pay attention to the ad), but can be balanced (or even surpassed) by positive associations with presenting additional information (i.e. the company must be strong if it is willing to fully disclose all of this information).

Conclusions

The influence of perceived complexity of LCA-based advertisements does not appear to negatively influence most measures typically used to assess advertising effectiveness; however, the appeal of the advertisement itself is significantly negatively impacted by increases in complexity. The credibility gained through more elaborated LCA-based environmental messages, to a high extent, compensates the effect of complexity on the attitude toward the appeal of the ad itself. In fact, this credibility strongly influences in a positive manner the attitudes buyers have toward the ad, the brand, the company, and their intention to purchase the product under evaluation.

Recommendations and perspectives

Practitioners are to reconsider the position that simple and appealing advertisements are most effective to an overall marketing communication strategy addressing environmental performance. Simple messages are often required to gain market awareness and break through the noisy hypermedia marketplace; however, our results suggest that a firm’s ability to gain credibility in its message can compensate for many of the negative effects of highly complex messages. Researchers and LCA professionals influencing methodologies and implementation of LCA at the product level should recognize the potential use of selected and incomplete LCA-based information by firms in marketing communications. While strategic differentiation benefits associated with effective communication of environmental performance may lead to increased use of LCA techniques by firms, appropriate development of standards and certifications may be required to preserve perceptions of objectivity and transparency associated with LCA methodologies.

Keywords

Advertising Business-to-business (B2B) Business-to-consumer (B2C) Communications Information complexity Information credibility LCA information Marketing Product environmental performance 

Supplementary material

11367_2008_42_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (222 kb)
Appendix 1. Mock advertisements tested in the business to consumer (B2C) study (PDF 221 KB).
11367_2008_42_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (173 kb)
Appendix 2. Mock advertisements tested in the business to business (B2B) study (PDF 173 KB).

References

  1. Anderson R, Jolson M (1980) Technical wording in advertising: implication for marketing segmentation. J Market 44(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong J, Overton T (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Market Res 14(3):396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batra R, Ray M (1986) Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. J Consum Res 13(2):234–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks M, Highhouse S (2006) Familiarity breeds ambivalence. Corp Reput Rev 9(2):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calder BJ, Philips LW, Tybout AM (1981) Designing research for application. J Consum Res 8(2):197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson L, Stephen G, Kangun N (1993) A content analysis of environmental advertising claims: a matrix approach. J Advertising 22(3):27–40Google Scholar
  7. Carlson L, Grove S, Laczniak R, Kangun N (1996) Does environmental advertising reflect integrated marketing communications? An empirical investigation. J Bus Res 37(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan R (2000) The effectiveness of environmental advertising: the role of claim type and the source country green image. Int J Advertising 19(3):349–375Google Scholar
  9. Davis J (1993) Strategies for environmental advertisement. J Consum Market 10(2):19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis J (1994) The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. J Mass Commun Quart 72(2):285–299Google Scholar
  11. Del Borghi A, Binaghi L, Del Borghi M, Gallo M (2007) The application of the environmental product declaration to waste disposal in a sanitary landfill. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 464Google Scholar
  13. Easterling D, Kenworthy A, Nemzoff R (1996) The greening of advertising: a twenty-five year look at environmental advertising. J Market Theo Pract 4(1):20–34Google Scholar
  14. Ernst & Young/SPRU for the European Commission (1998) Integrated Product Policy. The executive summary can be downloaded at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ipp/home.htm
  15. Fet A, Starr C (2006) Eco-labeling, product category rules and certification procedures based on ISO 14025 requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankl P, Rubik F (1999) Life cycle assessment (LCA) in business: an overview on drivers, issues, applications and future perspectives. Global Nest: Int J 1(3):185–194Google Scholar
  17. Frankl P, Fullana P, Kreissig J (2007) Communication of Life Cycle Assessment in the Building and Energy Sectors. Report on the International Expert Workshop: Sector-Specific Approaches for Communication of Life Cycle Information to different Stakeholders, Barcelona, September 8th, 2005Google Scholar
  18. Frooman J (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manage Rev 24(2):191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison J, St. John C (1996) Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Acad Manage Exec 10(2):46–60Google Scholar
  20. Hickle G (2007) Promoting product stewardship with eco-labels, certification programs, and product standards. Environ Qual Manage 16(3):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hovland C, Weiss W (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Quart 15(4):635–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kangun N, Carlson L, Grove S (1991) Environmental advertisement claims: a preliminary investigation. J Pub Pol Market 10(2):47–58Google Scholar
  23. Karna J, Juslin H, Ahonen V, Hansen E (2001) Green advertising. Greener Manage Int 33:59–70Google Scholar
  24. Keller K (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. J Market 57(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lodish L, Abraham M, Kalmensen S, Livelsberger J, Lubetikin B, Rlghardson B, Stevens M (1995) How T.V. advertising works: a meta-analysis of 389 real world split cable T.V. advertising experiments. J Market Res 32(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loerincik Y, Kaenzig J, Jolliet O (2005) Life cycle approaches for sustainable consumption: 24th LCA Swiss discussion forum. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):228–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowrey T (1998) The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. J Consum Psychol 7(2):187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacKenzie S, Lutz R (1989) An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. J Market 53(2):48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molina-Murillo S, Smith T (2005) How much is too much? Exploring life cycle assessment information in environmental marketing communications. Buis Prof Ethics J 24(1–2):199–223Google Scholar
  30. Mungkung R, Udo de Haes H, Clift R (2006) Potentials and limitations of life cycle assessment in setting ecolabelling criteria: a case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohanian R (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J Advert 19(3):39–52Google Scholar
  32. Oosterhuis F, Rubik F, Scholl G (1996) Product policy in Europe: new environmental perspectives (Environment & Policy). Kluwer Academic, Great Britain, p 320Google Scholar
  33. Ozanne L, Vlosky R (1997) Willingness to pay for environmentally certified wood products: the consumer perspective. Forest Prod J 47(6):1–8Google Scholar
  34. Park C, Jaworski B, Maclnnis D (1986) Strategic brand concept-image management. J Market 50(4):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips B (1997) Thinking into it: consumer interpretations of complex advertising images. J Advertising 26(2):77–87Google Scholar
  36. Polonsky M, Bailey J, Baker H, Basche C, Jepson C, Neath L (1998) Communicating environmental information: are marketing claims on packaging misleading? J Bus Ethics 17(3):281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porter M (1985) Competitive advantage. The Free, New York, p 557Google Scholar
  38. Prothero A (1990) Green consumerism and the societal marketing concept: marketing strategies for the 1990s. J Market Manage 6(2):87–103Google Scholar
  39. Pujari D, Peattie K, Wright G (2004) Organizational antecedents of environmental responsiveness in industrial new product development. Ind Market Manag 33(5):381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schau E, Fet A (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmalensee R (1982) Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. Am Econ Rev 72(3):349–365Google Scholar
  42. Shimp T (1981) Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. J Advertising 10(2):9–15Google Scholar
  43. Shuptrine K, McVicker D (1981) Readability levels of magazines ads. J Advertising Res 21(5):45–52Google Scholar
  44. Steward D, Koslow S (1989) Executional factors and advertising effectiveness: a replication. J Advertising 18(3):21–32Google Scholar
  45. Swan J, Combs L (1976) Product performance and consumer satisfaction: a new concept. J Marketing 40(2):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teils M, Roe B (2005) Evaluating the factors that impact the effectiveness of eco-labeling programmes. In: Krarup S, Russell C (eds) Environment, information and consumer behaviour. Edward Elgar, UK pp 65–90Google Scholar
  47. Tellis G (2005) Advertising's role in capitalist markets: what do we know and where do we go from here? J Advertising Res 45(2):162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Truffer B, Markard J, Wüstenhagen R (2001) Eco-labeling of electricity-strategies and tradeoffs in the definition of environmental standards. Energ Policy 29(11):885–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vaughn R (1980) How advertising works: a planning model. J Advertising Res 20(5):27–33Google Scholar
  50. Winters L (1986) The effect of brand advertising on company image: implications for corporate advertising. J Advertising Res 26(2):54–59Google Scholar
  51. Woods W (1960) Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. J Marketing 24(3):15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu B, Newell S (2003) The impact of noise on recall of advertisements. J Market Theo Pract 11(2):56–65Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management, Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota-Twin CitiesSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations