Green pack in consumer product choice/

1. Preference for green packaging in consumer product
choices – Do consumers care?
Joonas Rokka and Liisa Uusitalo
Department of Marketing and Management, Helsinki School of Economics HSE, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords
Consumer preference, product choice,
environmental packaging and labels, conjoint
analysis, segmentation.
Correspondence
Joonas Rokka, Department of Marketing and
Management, Helsinki School of Economics
HSE, PO Box 1210, Helsinki FIN-00101,
Finland.
E-mail: joonas.rokka@hse.fi
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x
Abstract
In this paper, consumer environmental choice is studied by analysing the relative impor-
tance of green packaging when compared with other relevant product attributes. The
empirical study is based on a choice-based conjoint analysis of preferences for functional
drink products of a sample of 330 consumers using these products. Our choice-based
approach on environmental behaviour brings new insights to previous research, which
predominantly relies on attitude models. Results indicate that consumers differ in their
preferences for packaging, brand, price and convenience of use of daily products.
In addition, various distinctive consumer segments can be identified on the market. Con-
trary to several previous studies, we found that the largest consumer segment, one-third of
consumers, favoured environmentally labelled packaging as the most important criteria in
their choice. The findings emphasize the increasing importance of ethical and environmen-
tal dimension in product choices. We also propose that the attention in environmental
consumer research should be shifted from general attitude studies towards the study of
actual product choices.
Introduction
Discussions on marketing ethics and corporate social responsibil-
ity have presented conflicting views on the validity of the approach
in marketing and consumer studies. It has been claimed that the
ongoing debate either fails to give adaptable theoretical insights or
lacks empirical foundation (e.g. Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Laczniak,
1993; Laczniak and Murphy, 1993; Smith, 1995, 2001; Thomp-
son, 1995; Smith and Quelch, 1996; Gaski, 1999; Carrigan and
Attala, 2001). The essence of ethical marketing practices and
corporate responsibility programmes lies in that they help compa-
nies to generate a positive corporate image and increase custom-
ers’ willingness to purchase the company’s products (for a review,
see Pirsch et al., 2007).
It has been established that consumers do value environment-
friendly and ethical products. However, the daily buying behaviour
of consumers is often inconsistent with this (e.g. Uusitalo, 1989,
1990a; Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen,
1999, 2004; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003; Moisander, 2007). As
a result, a number of researchers (e.g. Creyer and Ross, 1997;
Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan
and Attala, 2001; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005) are concerned about
whether the companies’ socially and ethically sound behaviours
pay off and whether the growing ethical and environmental con-
sciousness among consumers is translated into widespread pur-
chasing behaviour. The objective of this paper is to contribute to
the discourse on this dilemma by examining the importance of
environment-friendly packaging in the choice of daily products,
which is so far a fairly under-researched area.
Theoretically, this paper builds on ideas from the environmental
behaviour paradigm and models of consumer multi-attribute
choice in a sense that we interpret environmental choice as a
trade-off situation between several choice criteria. Whereas many
earlier studies have focused on describing the underlying values,
attitudes and intentions towards socially responsible products, we
try to explore environmental consumer behaviour in a more real-
istic choice situation in which consumers have to balance their
preferences over different product attributes. Our aim is to evalu-
ate the extent to which consumers value environment-friendly
labelled packaging in their product choices compared with other
product characteristics. Moreover, we will use this knowledge in
grouping consumers according to their preferences and estimating
how large these groups are – an analysis missing from earlier
studies on environmental choice.
Theoretical background
Environmentally responsible
consumer behaviour
There has been a growing interest in environmental and ethical
issues in consumer behaviour, and a number of studies have exam-
ined various aspects of socially responsible consumption, ‘green
consumerism’ and ethical awareness in general (Anderson and
International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
516

2. Cunningham, 1972; Webster, 1975; Uusitalo, 1990b; Pieters,
1991; Berger and Corbin, 1992; Creyer and Ross, 1997; Shaw and
Clarke, 1999; Shaw and Shiu, 2003; Thøgersen and Ölander,
2003; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Shaw et al., 2005; Fraj and
Martinez, 2007; Moisander, 2007). Concern for the environment is
linked to consumer behaviour, and consumers are assumed, to
some extent, to take an active part in solving environmental prob-
lems by recycling and choosing environment-friendly products
and ways of life (e.g. Uusitalo, 1986; Thøgersen, 1996, 1999).
In economic and cognitive psychology traditions, it is assumed
that consumer behaviour is rational in the sense that consumers
act consistently according to their preferences and beliefs. Most
empirical studies of environmental or ethical consumer behaviour
are based on this assumption and apply different variations of
attitude–behaviour models, such as the Theory of Reasoned
Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) or the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985). These models have clearly demonstrated
that attitudes can predict behaviour (intention), but the relationship
between attitudes and behaviour has been much weaker than
expected (Wicker, 1969; Webster, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980). Extended models have improved the predictability of the
basic models but only slightly (e.g. Shaw and Shiu, 2003).
Consequently, studies show that consumers have a high prefer-
ence for ethical or ‘green’ products, but the consistency between
consumer attitudes and behavioural measures is rather low. Incon-
sistency has been found not only between the more general envi-
ronmental attitudes and specific behaviours but also between
specific environmental attitudes and corresponding behavioural
intentions (e.g. Uusitalo, 1989, 1990a; Moisander and Uusitalo,
1995; Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen,
1999; Moisander, 2007).
There is also evidence that the importance of environmental
issues to the consumer is not likely to ‘spill over’ into other
environmentally relevant behavioural domains (e.g. recycling,
commuting, energy saving). Instead, arguments tend to support the
view that correlations between behaviours in different domains are
small, nonexistent or even negative (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003;
Thøgersen, 2004). Because of these contradictory findings, it has
been difficult both for policymakers and product marketers to
ascertain whether environmental friendliness really is an impor-
tant product attribute for consumers.
There are relatively few studies about the impact of environ-
mental preferences in the actual product or brand choice situa-
tions; instead, the central dependent variable has usually been the
intention to buy. Moreover, the studies often focus on consumer
environmental attitudes at a general level. This may be one reason
why green attitudes are only weakly associated with specific
behaviours (Moisander and Uusitalo, 1995). The dilemma
between attitudes and behaviour has been explained also by the
motivational complexities present at the consumer decision-
making level; for example, consumers are often assumed to
possess a considerable amount of knowledge about complex eco-
logical or ethical issues and their consequences (Schröder and
McEachern, 2004; Moisander, 2007). There is also the ‘free rider
tendency’ – often present when a consumer’s individual utility
contradicts with broader social goals – which may in part explain
the discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour (Uusitalo, 1989).
In addition to the above-mentioned free-rider and measurement
problems, several other reasons have been proposed for the incon-
sistency between attitudes and behaviour: the time lag between
value and behavioural changes; the lack of necessary motivation,
opportunities for change and ability to change; the awareness
variation between types of behaviour; and finally, the conflicting
preferences between environmental and other product character-
istics (Uusitalo, 1989, 1990a,b; Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Bech-
Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen, 1999, 2004; Thøgersen and Ölander,
2003; Moisander, 2007). Even the most environment-friendly con-
sumers do not choose products or services merely on the basis of
their environmental aspects. Rather, the choice is always a multi-
attribute choice where the consumer has to trade off between
various product attributes. We can conclude that when conceptu-
alizing environmental choice behaviour, we need to shift focus on
choices instead of attitudes and examine environment-friendliness
in relation to other relevant choice criteria.
Choice of environment-friendly package
In the choice of packaging – a choice made when a desired product
comes in alternative packages – functional package characteristics
such as convenience of use, design and aesthetics have been in the
forefront. Only recently have the environmental consequences of
packaging and the amount of household waste become a focus
(e.g. Prendergast et al., 1997; Thøgersen, 1999; Bone and Corey,
2000; Roper and Parker, 2006). From earlier studies, we know that
energy use, household waste and discarded products form the
biggest environmental problems in the field of consumption
worldwide, but it has proven difficult to change consumption pat-
terns and basic structures that support them (Uusitalo, 1986). For
example, the self-service retailing of food products inevitably
means an increase in packaging waste.
The importance of the waste problem suggests that
environment-friendliness of product packaging should be added
into consumer choice models as a relevant product attribute. Most
of the research so far has been related to waste production and
disposal at the aggregate level, or to consumers’ recycling behav-
iours (Uusitalo, 1986, 1989; Pieters, 1991; Thøgersen, 1994, 1996;
Ackerman, 1997). Few studies can be found where the environ-
mental product packaging is explicitly studied at the buying stage
as one of the determinants of consumers’ product choice.
The reasons why consumers fail to choose environment-friendly
packaging, despite favourable attitudes, are largely the same as
listed in the previous section for the environmental product
choices in general. Congruent with this, Thøgersen (1999)
suggests that moral reasoning is likely in the choice of product
packaging only when environmental impacts are perceived
considerable and there are no other important characteristics (e.g.
a high price) involved in the particular purchasing situation. Many
consumers fail to understand the connection between their buying
decision and various environmental consequences if there is no
environmental information, such as labels, to remind them of it.
Other reasons include the lack of supply of environment-friendly
packaging options in the marketplace and consumers’ inability to
distinguish between the more and less environment-friendly
package alternatives (Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen, 1996). Often
consumers also undervalue the impact of their own ‘marginal’
contribution to the problem (Uusitalo, 1989).
Personal norms improve the likelihood to choose such
environment-friendly packages in the supermarket (Thøgersen,
J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo Preference for green packaging
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
517

3. 1999). Uusitalo (1989) adds that personal norms often depend on
how widely accepted such norms are in society and whether social
norms are supported by positive or negative sanctions. Favourable
environmental attitudes alone will not predict behaviour if the
social norms are too weak or individuals are not aware of them.
Thus, information about how other people actually behave, and
about the social benefits of behaving according to the social norm,
is needed to encourage consumers to collaborate. If a consumer
learns that the majority of other consumers avoid buying non-
recyclable bottles and recycle bottles, the consumer is more likely
to adopt that kind of behaviour. Moreover, incentives such as
charges on non-recyclable packages will further strengthen the
norm and influence also those consumers that are unwilling to
cooperate.
The primary interest of packaging research has focused on
communicative characteristics of the package (e.g. labelling, func-
tionality, colour, size) (e.g. Roper and Parker, 2006; Silayoi and
Speece, 2007). In a few cases where environmental packaging has
been an issue, the studies indicate that functional packaging char-
acteristics influence consumers’ purchasing decisions, whereas
environmental characteristics do not seem to have any practical
importance. However, Bech-Larsen (1996) suggests that there
might be a group of consumers – albeit small – with strong pref-
erences for green packaging, and there might be a market for this
type of packaging.
Few studies compare the importance of environmental product
packaging with other relevant product attributes at the level of
attitudes (e.g. Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen, 1999), but the
attributes have not been examined in a choice situation. It has been
pointed out, however, that the level of abstraction tends to have an
impact on results; when consumers were asked about their atti-
tudes to packaging in general, there seems to be a tendency to
associate it with negative environmental effects, whereas when
asked about a specific package, consumers tend to emphasize the
positive, functional characteristics of the package (Bech-Larsen,
1995). We can conclude that in order to broaden our understanding
of the environmental package choice, we should also study spe-
cific product choices that consumers are facing in their everyday
lives and take into account the pertinence of trade-offs they
involve.
Research design and methods
The choice of packaged daily food products
To illustrate our argument, we selected a packaged daily food
product, functional drinks, as a product category. Previous studies
on functional food products have focused predominantly only on
their core benefits (health effects) and how consumers are moti-
vated by them (e.g. Jonas and Beckmann, 1998; Bech-Larsen and
Grunert, 2003; Urala and Lähteenmäki, 2003, 2004; Niva and
Mäkelä, 2007). The purpose of our study, however, is to take the
core benefits as given and focus on other relevant product
attributes – brand, price, package and convenience of use – that
can yield competitive advantage in the markets where the core
benefits of the competing brands are fairly identical.
Functional drinks in our study are products consumed daily, and
they offer health benefits beyond basic nutrition, especially in
terms of stomach well-being, stability and defence mechanism (by
providing stomach-friendly bacteria). The selected brands are
packaged either in small (recyclable) cartons or (non-recyclable)
plastic bottles.1
Hence, they provide us with an ideal research
setting by representing a product category where (1) more and less
environment-friendly packaging exists on the market; (2) environ-
mental aspects are apparent because of frequent product use and
the resulting high amounts of package waste per consumed
content; (3) the core benefits (health effects) are fairly identical
across product alternatives; and (4) products are innovative, rela-
tively new to consumers and have a great growth potential (e.g.
Heasman and Mellentin, 2001; Urala and Lähteenmäki, 2003,
2004; Niva and Mäkelä, 2007).
Accordingly, two existing brands were included in this Finnish
study: the domestic functional drink, Valio Gefilus, and a
multinational competitor, Danone Actimel. The brands are packed
in the same-sized packages (4 ¥ 100 ml/3.4 oz) and occupy the
same price category. However, as described above, they have
different packaging materials: one product (Valio Gefilus) is
distributed in a recyclable carton and the other (Danone Actimel)
in a non-recyclable plastic.
Sample and data collection
The sample of respondents was drawn from a consumer panel
(15 000 registered members) that represented the whole popula-
tion of Finland. In the first phase of data collection, a subsample
(n = 530) was formed of consumers having experience of using
functional drink products. In the second phase, an Internet ques-
tionnaire was presented to the subsample to obtain the data. The
final sample size was 330 respondents, indicating a response rate
of 62%. This type of data collection enabled a feasible, cost-
effective and quick way of gathering the data. The data were
collected in June 2005.
In the questionnaire, a choice-based conjoint analysis was used
to study preferences for environmentally labelled packaging. The
respondents were shown different product alternatives having dif-
ferent attribute level compositions. They were asked to evaluate
and make choices from sets of functional drink product profiles
(three alternative products in each choice set) by choosing the
product in each set that they would most likely purchase (see
Fig. 1).
Background data were collected concerning gender, age, edu-
cation, household size, place of living and frequency of product
use. In addition, to help interpret the main results, descriptive data
on attitudes towards environmental packaging and recycling were
gathered with a simple 11-item, five-point Likert questionnaire.
Description of the sample in terms of background variables can be
found in Table 1.
Research design and analysis
The empirical method was quantitative and applied two multivari-
ate techniques. First, the relative importance of selected product
attributes was estimated by conducting a conjoint analysis on the
basis of choice data of the Internet-based consumer survey. This
1
The carton packages have an official recycling-label issued by the national
environmental agency, and they can be recycled, whereas there is no
similar recycling system for plastic at present.
Preference for green packaging J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
518

4. resulted in utility (or part-worth) functions for each individual,
reflecting respondents’ preferences for different attributes in the
product choice, and consequently, the average importance of each
product attribute could be calculated. Second, the respondents
were grouped in relation to their utility functions using cluster
analysis (e.g. Allenby and Ginter, 1995). In the cluster analysis,
consumers were segmented on the basis of the most important
attributes in their choices.
Conjoint analysis is one of the most popular methodologies to
analyse consumer preferences (e.g. Green and Srinivasan, 1990;
Carroll and Green, 1995). The underlying idea of conjoint analysis
is that the consumer’s overall perception of utility can be broken
down into a combination of part-worth utilities, or benefits, pro-
vided by various product attributes, when the consumer must trade
off between attributes. Also, the method provides ways to examine
individual differences (e.g. Green and Krieger, 1991; Green et al.,
2000).
Choice-based conjoint analysis was applied in which the
respondents express their preferences by choosing products (or
product profiles) from sets of products rather than by ranking or
rating products along various attributes. Part-worth utilities for
different product attributes are then deduced from consumers’
choices. Thus, the technique resembles closely the real-life con-
sumer choice in which the trade-off between different product
attributes takes place unconsciously. With choice-based conjoint
analysis and recent developments in hierarchical Bayes methods,
it is also possible to estimate the individual-level utility functions
that are necessary for clustering respondents into segments (see
Allenby and Ginter, 1995).
In conjoint analysis, the selection of attributes and their levels is
crucial. In this study, only attributes that can be observed in the
marketplace were included – these attributes, except the fairly new
attribute, environment-friendliness of the package, are familiar
from marketing theory. Not too many attributes should be included
in order to avoid misleading results. Green and Srinivasan (1990)
suggest a maximum of 6–10 attributes to handle in traditional
full-profile conjoint studies, but for choice-based conjoint analy-
sis, the effective number of attributes is lower. The number and
variance of attribute levels should be likewise kept low (Wittink
et al., 1989). Restriction of attributes and levels makes the evalu-
ation task easier for the respondent and better resembles the real
choice situation.
The following four attributes, all with two or three various
levels, were chosen for the conjoint study:
• Brand. Two alternatives representing the existing brands in the
market – Valio Gefilus and Danone Actimel.
• Price. As a price attribute, the unit price of a drink pack includ-
ing four 100 ml/3.4 oz bottles was chosen. Three price levels were
assigned around the average price on the market (€1.60; €2.00;
€2.40).
• Packaging. Three alternatives included: carton package (recy-
clable), plastic package 1 (non-recyclable) and plastic package 2
(non-recyclable). The design was different for the two plastic
packages. All of the packaging types had been in the market.
• Package resealability (convenience of use). The fourth
attribute was resealability of the package; whether the drink bottle
could be opened and closed with a cap. Based on preliminary
interviews, this attribute was recognized to be important for some
of the functional drink users.
The selected combination of four attributes and 10 levels
resulted in a 36-profile full factorial design. But as we wanted to
construct various product profiles mainly on the basis of real
Figure 1 An example of conjoint choice set.
J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo Preference for green packaging
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
519

5. products on the markets, and because of restrictions relating to
their visual presentation, we decided to prohibit certain attribute
combinations. As a result, a total of 24 various product profiles
were generated for the study.
The data for the conjoint analysis was collected using the
choice-based conjoint analysis software (CBC System) by Saw-
tooth Software Ltd. (Sequim, WA, USA). A total of 14 conjoint
choice sets (each including three product variants) were presented
for each respondent by using a random (complete enumeration)
sampling of profiles. Both text and visuals were used in presenting
the functional drink profiles to the respondents. An example of the
choice sets as they were presented to the consumers is displayed in
Fig. 1.
Based on the choice data, the utility of attribute levels and the
importance of attributes for respondents were estimated with the
help of the hierarchical Bayes estimation method, which has been
described as an effective estimation method in many journal
articles (e.g. Allenby and Ginter, 1995; Orme, 2000). An advan-
tage of this method is its ability to provide individual utility
(part-worth) estimates for the respondents on the basis of only a
few product choices by each individual (Allenby and Ginter,
1995).
After the conjoint analysis, a cluster analysis was used in an
attempt to group the respondents into homogenous segments
based on the similarity of their preferences in product choices.
In this study, SPSS software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and
K-means cluster analysis were applied, in which the researcher
must specify in advance the desired number of clusters. Cluster
analysis is not a statistical inference technique and will not provide
a single correct answer. An optimal five-cluster solution was found
through testing several alternative solutions.
The findings: choice of functional
drink products
The relative importance of attributes
The average utility estimates for each attribute level are shown in
Fig. 2. The results indicate that product packaging was an impor-
tant product attribute in the consumer choice, contributing to 34%
of the overall utility of attributes. The respondents clearly preferred
the environment-friendly package alternative (recyclable-labelled
carton package), whereas both non-recyclable plastic packages
produced negative utility estimates for the respondents. An equally
important attribute was price with the relative importance of 35%
on the average. Respondents preferred most the least expensive
product; the middle-price product produced only slightly negative
utility and the most expensive price produced clearly negative
utility. The third important attribute was package resealability,
contributing to 17% of overall utility, while the least significant
attribute, rather surprisingly, was brand with a relative importance
of 15%. Strong brand preferences were not found on average,
perhaps because of the novelty of the functional drink market.
The relative importance of attributes shows how the respondents
of the whole sample valued the different product attributes on
average. Also, the validation (pre-Bayesian estimation) by count-
ing the choices gave results of the main effects that supported the
above findings.2
In the following discussion, we will go beyond
the average importance of each attribute and identify distinct con-
sumer groups in terms of their attribute preferences.
Consumer segments based on
attribute preferences
The respondents were grouped in five clusters based on the simi-
larity of their preferences for various attributes. Table 2 presents
the preference profiles in detail, displaying the average utility
estimates for each attribute level and the relative importance of
attributes both for the whole sample and for each respondent
cluster. In addition, the relative size of each cluster is given in the
table. In the following, we describe the clusters in the order of their
size.
2
Although this estimation by counting the choices is rather inaccurate, as
compared to hierarchical Bayes estimation, it can be used to evaluate the
reliability of the analysis. All of the main effects were statistically signifi-
cant, yielding c2
with probabilities less than 0.01.
Table 1 Respondent profiles in terms of background variables (n = 330)
Variable Frequency (%)
Gender
Female 62
Male 38
Age (years)
17–31 25
32–40 25
41–52 25
53–71 25
Education
Primary 13
Secondary 30
Academic degree 23
Other 34
Household size (number of persons)
One 17
Two 38
Three 19
Four 15
Five or more 11
Residence
Capital district 29
Other city with over 30 000 residents 35
Other city with under 30 000 residents 16
Other area 20
Valio Gefilus drink use
Product not familiar 3
Familiar product, have not tried 26
Have tried once 26
Occasional use 32
Monthly use 7
Weekly use 5
Danone Actimel drink use
Product not familiar 13
Familiar product, have not tried 38
Have tried once 23
Occasional use 17
Monthly use 4
Weekly use 5
Preference for green packaging J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
520

6. The positive impact of environment-friendly package was stron-
gest in Cluster 1, which represented 31% of all respondents. This
cluster was named the green packaging segment. The relative
importance of packaging for this segment was 63% on average,
and the environment-friendly package alternative produced clearly
the most utility to the respondents. The second important attribute
for this group was price (19%), followed by package resealability
(10%) and brand (8%).
Cluster 2 was named the price-sensitive segment. It included
23% of all respondents and clearly emphasized price as the main
choice criterion. The relative importance of the price for this group
was 73%. Packaging was also important, but package resealability
and brand produced only little utility to these price-sensitive con-
sumers.
Cluster 4, with 22% of respondents, preferred practical and
convenience related attributes in functional drinks. This cluster
was named the convenience segment. The relative importance of
package resealability for this group was 39%, and it was the most
important attribute for this group. All other attributes were appre-
ciated quite evenly by the group, with brand being the least impor-
tant attribute.
The last two clusters were characterized by consumers’ brand
preference. Cluster 5, named the Gefilus loyal, represented 13% of
the respondents and preferred strongly the domestic brand Valio
Gefilus. Brand was the most important attribute for the group
(relative importance of 46%), followed by price and packaging.
Cluster 3, with 11% of respondents, was the only group to prefer
the multinational Danone Actimel brand and the non-disposable
plastic packaging. This group was named the prefer Actimel
segment. However, packaging was the most important attribute
(33%) for this group and the brand attribute was only as important
as price and package resealability.
Figure 2 The average utility estimates for
attribute levels.
Table 2 Relative attribute importance for preference clusters
Respondents (n = 330) Total
Cluster 1
(Green packaging)
Cluster 2
(Price sensitive)
Cluster 3
(Prefer Actimel)
Cluster 4
(Convenience)
Cluster 5
(Gefilus loyal)
Respondents in cluster (%) 100 31 23 11 22 13
Number of respondents 330 102 76 36 73 43
Average utility values for attribute levels
Valio Gefilus (domestic brand) 13.23 11.48 5.51 -35.14 1.55 91.38
Danone Actimel (multinational brand) -13.23 -11.48 -5.51 35.14 -1.55 -91.38
Carton package (recyclable) 65.62 162.99 28.57 -67.36 51.46 35.51
Plastic package 1 (non-recyclable) -27.32 -77.68 -12.54 55.36 -20.05 -15.59
Plastic package 2 (non-recyclable) -38.30 -85.31 -16.03 12.00 -31.41 -19.92
Resealable package 31.97 19.13 14.71 39.90 77.23 9.46
Non-resealable package -31.97 -19.13 -14.71 -39.90 -77.23 -9.46
Price €1.60 (four bottles) 67.04 30.08 159.25 47.62 44.42 46.39
Price €2.00 (four bottles) -1.25 7.29 -27.25 -8.18 13.96 4.47
Price €2.40 (four bottles) -65.79 -37.37 -131.99 -39.44 -58.38 -50.86
Average importance of attributes (%)
Brand 14.58 8.29 6.38 22.13 9.85 45.69
Packaging 34.01 62.58 12.90 32.71 23.60 22.34
Resealability 16.90 10.28 7.91 22.22 38.87 6.72
Price 34.51 18.85 72.81 22.95 27.68 25.25
J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo Preference for green packaging
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
521

7. Background characteristics of the
green segment
The respondent groups were also analysed and profiled in terms of
background variables (gender, age, education, household size and
place of living), but no statistically significant differences between
the groups could be identified, as shown in Table 3. These findings
agree with most of the other studies, where it has been found that
background variables and environmental or ethical attitudes are
relatively weakly associated (e.g. Anderson and Cunningham,
1972; Uusitalo, 1990a; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). However, it
was acknowledged that, on the average, members of the green
packaging segment were slightly more likely to be female and
older respondents, whereas a higher level of education did not
seem to indicate green preferences. Actually, the relative propor-
tion of academically educated respondents was highest in the
Gefilus brand loyal segment.
Examining the general attitudes of various segments towards
environmental packaging and recycling behaviour, we found only
little variance. All respondents expressed their concerns for the
environment and were willing to contribute by recycling and
choosing environmental-friendly products.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to move away from the traditional
attitude-based studies of environmental consumer behaviour and
to examine consumer choices between realistic product alterna-
tives when consumers have to balance their preferences over dif-
ferent product attributes. In contrast to earlier studies, our results
show that environment-friendly or ethical product aspects can
have a clear positive impact on consumer choices. In our study,
the environmental packaging was a strongly preferred product
attribute when consumers choose among functional drink products
(the average relative importance being 34%), whereas the relative
importance for price was 35%, for resealability 17%, and for brand
15%. In previous research, the proportion of ethically or environ-
mentally sensitive consumers has been relatively low, indicating
only few incentives for the marketer to pursue segmentation in
terms of green choices (Bech-Larsen, 1996; De Pelsmacker et al.,
2005).
On the basis of attribute preferences, we could identify five
different consumer segments. The green packaging segment, the
largest consumer group with one-third of respondents, consisted of
those who placed environment-friendly packaging as the most
important factor in their choices. The other distinct segments of
functional drink consumers were the price sensitive (23% of all
respondents), the brand loyal (24%) and the convenience seeking
(22%). These findings suggest that, at least for daily pre-packed
food products, it could be worthwhile for marketers to target the
environmentally sensitive consumers because – in contrast to pre-
vious assumptions – the size of the group is far from being mar-
ginal. In contrast to previous packaging studies (e.g. Bech-Larsen,
1996; Thøgersen, 1999; Roper and Parker, 2006; Silayoi and
Table 3 Preference cluster demographics
Variable
Total
sample (100%)
Green
packaging (31%)
Price
sensitive (23%)
Prefer
Actimel (11%)
Convenience
(22%)
Gefilus
loyal (13%)
Gender (0.625)
Female 62 68 61 56 59 58
Male 38 32 39 44 41 42
Age (0.334), years
17–31 25 21 37 28 21 23
32–40 25 24 20 25 25 37
41–52 25 28 25 25 25 16
53–71 25 27 18 22 30 23
Education (0.051)
Primary 13 9 12 22 22 5
Secondary 30 30 29 33 27 33
Academic 23 22 17 19 23 37
Other 34 39 42 25 27 26
Household size (0.606)
One person 17 19 16 19 19 7
Two 38 36 33 25 48 47
Three 19 20 20 25 14 19
Four 15 14 18 14 12 19
Five or more 11 12 13 17 7 9
Residence (0.057)
Capital district 29 35 30 22 22 33
Other city with over
30 000 inhabitants
35 31 34 22 49 30
Other city with under
30 000 inhabitants
16 17 17 19 16 9
Other area 20 17 18 36 12 28
In percentage of full sample or cluster.
P-value of the Pearson c2
-test is given in the parentheses.
Preference for green packaging J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
522

8. Speece, 2007), respondents in our study seem to pay much atten-
tion to the environmental package (for example, in relation to
price) when choosing among functional drink products. Therefore,
it can be argued that in product development and marketing,
environment-friendly packaging and labelling should be taken
more seriously.
Theoretically, the results can help to understand the attitude–
behaviour dilemma found in many environmental studies. Con-
sumers are often forced to trade off between several relevant
attributes when choosing between product alternatives. In con-
crete choice situations, like in the choice of functional drinks,
some attributes can become more decisive than environmental
friendliness – although the consumers in principle favour
environment-friendly packaging. Our study showed, for instance,
that for certain consumer segments, brand, price or convenience
seemed to override the importance of the environment-friendly
packaging.
A choice-based conjoint approach was applied to derive con-
sumers’ preferences from their actual choices. In the previous
environmental consumer studies, a choice-based conjoint ap-
proach has been rare, and the focus of empirical research has
been mostly on consumers’ attitudes and behavioural intentions.
When looking at consumer environmental choice, we suggest that
choice-based conjoint analysis, together with the visual display of
product alternatives with the help of the Internet, provides a useful
experimental framework that better resembles consumers’ envi-
ronmental choice in the marketplace.
As our sample was based on ‘ordinary’ and not ‘ethically sen-
sitive’ consumers, we were able to estimate the share of ‘environ-
mentally conscious’ consumers in this specific product market, an
analysis that has often been missing from earlier studies (e.g.
Carrigan and Attala, 2001). Therefore, this study can help illus-
trate to marketers the possible benefits of environmental segmen-
tation and encourage environment-friendly product and packaging
strategies. However, the results cannot be directly generalized into
other consumer markets as we studied only Finnish consumers. On
the other hand, they can be interesting as a group of pioneer
consumers; on average, they have been found to be more willing to
adopt new products, including functional food products (Bech-
Larsen and Grunert, 2003). In addition, a reservation has to be
made concerning the fact that we studied a relatively new product
category and new brands. We can assume that consumer prefer-
ences for the product attributes might evolve in the future; for
example, the relative importance of the brand may increase as the
brands become more widely known.
On the whole, we propose that when studying the importance of
ethical or environmental aspects of products, one needs to take
into account that product choices, such as the purchase of daily
consumer goods, are typically multi-attribute choices. Therefore,
plain measurement of ethical or environmental attitudes may not
be valid enough to predict actual purchasing behaviour. Instead, an
understanding of the context-specific preferences in terms of
pricing, product design, quality and alternative brands involved in
the choice should be sought and explored. With this study, we were
able to estimate the willingness of consumers to contribute. The
findings show how consumer groups had a substantially different
order of preferences for attributes in a realistic choice context –
although the general attitudes towards environment-friendly pack-
aging were equally positive among consumers.
The results reveal some important aspects of the green or ethical
consumers. It has earlier been documented, although not fully
agreed upon, that the socially responsible consumers tend to
occupy certain demographic characteristics – being highly edu-
cated and knowledgeable consumers, with relatively high income,
and more likely to be female and younger (e.g. Anderson and
Cunningham, 1972; Carrigan and Attala, 2001; De Pelsmacker
et al., 2005). However, our study showed no associations between
the environmental choice and demographic variables. The con-
sumer groups identified in this study, including the green packag-
ing segment, were not significantly different from the rest with
regard to their demographic characteristics. Therefore, we argue
that the background variables are no longer very good predictors
for green behaviour. Rather, consumers can be better characterized
based on their distinctive preferences for various product at-
tributes. This result goes well together with contemporary theories
on consumer culture: the (post)modern differentiation and group-
ing of consumers is based on common interests, preferences and
tastes rather than social background.
We started by addressing the ongoing debate in ethical market-
ing and corporate social responsibility (e.g. Hunt and Vitell, 1986;
Laczniak, 1993; Laczniak and Murphy, 1993; Smith, 1995, 2001;
Thompson, 1995; Smith and Quelch, 1996; Gaski, 1999; Carrigan
and Attala, 2001). We propose that, in future research, more
emphasis should be given to concrete consumer behaviours, such
as actual product choices. Individuals do not necessarily behave
according to their general ethical attitudes but make their own
context-dependent interpretations in different choice situations.
This includes the evaluation of available product attributes and the
use of trade-off heuristics to comply with various preferences.
Also, corporate social responsibility should be directed to more
concrete measures instead of discussing only broad ethical guide-
lines. Companies can benefit from helping consumers concretely,
for example, by offering new environmental product alternatives,
green packaging and labels.
References
Ackerman, F. (1997) Why Do We Recycle? Markets, Values and Public
Policy. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behav-
ior. In Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior (ed. by J. Kuhl
& J. Beckmann), pp. 11–39. Springer, Heidelberg.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Allenby, G.M. & Ginter, J.L. (1995) Using extremes to design products
and segment markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 392–403.
Alwitt, L.F. & Pitts, R.E. (1996) Predicting purchase intentions for an
environmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
5, 49–64.
Anderson, W.T. & Cunningham, W.H. (1972) The socially conscious
consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23–31.
Bech-Larsen, T. (1995) Consumers attitudes to food packaging – with a
focus on purchase decisions. Dissertation, Aarhus School of Business,
Denmark.
Bech-Larsen, T. (1996) Danish consumers’ attitudes to the functional
and environmental characteristics of food packaging. Journal of Con-
sumer Policy, 19, 339–363.
Bech-Larsen, T. & Grunert, K.G. (2003) The perceived healthiness of
functional foods: a conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and American
consumers’ perception of functional foods. Appetite, 40, 9–14.
J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo Preference for green packaging
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
523

9. Berger, I.E. & Corbin, R.M. (1992) Perceived consumer effectiveness
and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible
behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11, 79–89.
Bone, P.F. & Corey, R.J. (2000) Packaging ethics: perceptual differ-
ences among packaging professionals, brand managers and
ethically-interested consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 24,
199–213.
Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M. (2000) Do consumers really care about
corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude–behavior gap.
Journal of Communication Management, 4, 355–368.
Carrigan, M. & Attala, A. (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer – do
ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing,
18, 560–577.
Carroll, J.D. & Green, P.E. (1995) Psychometric methods in marketing
research: part 1, conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing, 32, 385–
391.
Creyer, E.H. & Ross, W.T. (1997) The influence of firm behavior on
purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics?
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 421–433.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. & Rayp, G. (2005) Do consumers care
about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 39, 363–385.
Fraj, E. & Martinez, E. (2007) Ecological consumer behaviour: an
empirical analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31,
26–33.
Gaski, J.F. (1999) Does marketing ethics really have anything to say?
– a critical inventory of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 18,
315–334.
Green, P.E. & Krieger, A.M. (1991) Segmenting markets with conjoint
analysis. Journal of Marketing, 55, 20–31.
Green, P.E. & Srinivasan, V. (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing
research: new developments and directions. Journal of Marketing, 54,
3–19.
Green, P.E., Wind, Y. & Jain, A.K. (2000) Benefit bundle analysis.
Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 32–38.
Heasman, M. & Mellentin, J. (2001) The Functional Foods Revolution,
Healthy People, Healthy Profits? Earthscan Publications, London.
Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S. (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics.
Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16.
Jonas, M.S. & Beckmann, S.C. (1998) Functional foods: consumer per-
ceptions in Denmark and England. MAPP Working Paper no. 55.
MAPP – Centre for Market Surveillance, Research and Strategy for
the Food Sector, Aarhus.
Laczniak, G.R. (1993) Marketing ethics: onward toward greater
expectations. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 12, 91–
96.
Laczniak, G.R. & Murphy, P.E. (1993) Ethical Marketing Decisions:
The Higher Road. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Moisander, J. (2007) Motivational complexity of green
consumerism. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31,
404–409.
Moisander, J. & Uusitalo, L. (1995) General attitudes in theory of
reasoned action framework: the influence of consumers’ pro-
environmental attitudes on their commuting intentions. Proceedings of
IAREP Conference, 3–5 August 1995, Bergen. Published also by the
Helsinki School of Economics W-123.
Niva, M. & Mäkelä, J. (2007) Finns and functional foods: socio-
demographics, health efforts, notions of technology and the accept-
ability of health-promoting foods. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 31, 34–45.
Orme, B. (2000) Hierarchical Bayes: why all the attention? Sawtooth
Software Research Paper Series, Sawtooth Software Inc. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/
techpap/hbwhy.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2005).
Pieters, R.G.M. (1991) Changing garbage disposal patterns of consum-
ers: motivation, ability and performance. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 6, 299–316.
Pirsch, J., Gupta, S. & Grau, S.L. (2007) A framework for understand-
ing corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70,
125–140.
Prendergast, G., Pitt, L. & Berthon, P. (1997) Packaging, the environ-
ment, and European legislation: marketing’s response. Journal of
Euro-Marketing, 6, 75–98.
Roper, S. & Parker, C. (2006) How (and where) the mighty have fallen:
branded litter. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 473–487.
Schröder, M.J.A. & McEachern, M.G. (2004) Consumer value conflicts
surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal
welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 168–177.
Shaw, D. & Clarke, I. (1999) Belief formation in ethical consumer
groups: an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
17, 109–119.
Shaw, D. & Shiu, E. (2003) Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate
modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1485–
1498.
Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L. & Thomson, J. (2005) An
exploration of values of ethical decision making. Journal of Con-
sumer Behaviour, 4, 185–200.
Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2007) The importance of packaging attributes:
a conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41,
1495–1517.
Smith, N.C. (1995) Marketing strategies for the ethics era. Sloan Man-
agement Review, 36, 85–98.
Smith, N.C. (2001) Ethical guidelines for marketing practice: a reply to
Gaski and some observations on the role of normative marketing
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 3–18.
Smith, N.C. & Quelch, J.A. (1996) Ethics in Marketing. Irwin, Boston,
MA.
Thompson, C.J. (1995) A contextualist proposal for the conceptualiza-
tion and study of marketing ethics. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 11, 177–191.
Thøgersen, J. (1994) A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence
from Danish source separation programmes. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 11, 145–167.
Thøgersen, J. (1996) Wasteful food consumption. Trends in food and
packaging waste. The Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12,
291–304.
Thøgersen, J. (1999) The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging
choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 439–460.
Thøgersen, J. (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consisten-
cies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 93–103.
Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F. (2003) Spillover of environment-friendly
consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225–
236.
Urala, N. & Lähteenmäki, L. (2003) Reasons behind consumers’ func-
tional food choices. Nutrition and Food Science, 33, 148–158.
Urala, N. & Lähteenmäki, L. (2004) Attitudes behind consumers’ will-
ingness to use functional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15,
793–803.
Uusitalo, L. (1986) Environmental Impacts of Consumption Patterns.
Gower Publishing Company Ltd., Aldershot.
Uusitalo, L. (1989) Economic man or social man – exploring free riding
in the production of collective goods. In Understanding Economic
Behavior (ed. by K. Grunert & F. Ölander), pp. 267–283. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Uusitalo, L. (1990a) Are environmental attitudes and behaviour incon-
sistent? Findings from a Finnish study. Scandinavian Political
Studies, 13, 211–226.
Preference for green packaging J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
524

10. Uusitalo, L. (1990b) Consumer preferences of environmental quality and
other social goals. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13, 231–251.
Webster, F.E. (1975) Determining the characteristics of the socially con-
scious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188–196.
Wicker, A.W. (1969) Attitude versus actions: the relationship of verbal
and overt behavioural responses to attitude objects. Social Issues, 25,
41–78.
Wittink, D.R., Krishnamurthi, L. & Reibstein, D.J. (1989) The effect of
differences in the number of attribute levels on conjoint results. Mar-
keting Letters, 1, 113–123.
J. Rokka and L. Uusitalo Preference for green packaging
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 516–525 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
525