An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of three green strategies on key consumer metrics. More specifically, it aims to measure consumers' purchase intentions of new green, recycled/refurbished products, green company processes and a non‐green product/process.

Design/methodology/approach

Between subjects 2×2×4 experimental design with two levels of price (high and low), two levels of brand name (known and unknown) and four levels of green strategies.

Findings

Purchase intentions for green product and process strategies are significantly higher than non‐green approaches. However, post‐hoc analysis shows no significant advantage of one green strategy over another. Price and brand name do not have significant interactive effects with green strategies.

Practical implications

Although it is essential that companies develop green strategies for the eco consumer it is not important what specific strategy is selected i.e. going green is the key. Also, despite the continued growth in the demand for green products, price is still the most important driver for consumer purchase – even for the eco consumer. Lastly, despite continued improvements in functional performance, green products do not have a significant advantage in perceived quality. Companies cannot focus completely on the green nature of their products or processes.

Social implications

Consumers believe that purchasing green products or products from green companies may be a way they can help the environmental problems society faces today. This project provides guidance to companies pursuing this market by evaluating different product and process approaches to this growing social trend.

Originality/value

This project is one of the first to focus on the consumer impact of different corporate approaches to the green market.

Citation

Borin, N., Lindsey‐Mullikin, J. and Krishnan, R. (2013), "An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421311320997