470
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
plastic-packaged alternatives. Finally, we introduce an actionable “minimal packaging sticker” intervention, which increases the environmental friendliness perceptions of plastic-only packaging and makes consumers more likely to choose plastic-packaged products over their plastic-plus-paper overpackaged counterparts. We note that our findings can be generalized beyond the context of overpackaging: driven by “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs and proportional reasoning, people will likely perceive mixed packaging, where paper partially replaces plastic (e.g., paper packaging with a small plastic window), to be more environmentally friendly than plastic- only packaging. However, while mixed packaging can increase the objective environmental friendliness of pack- aging overall, overpackaging, where paper is added to fixed amounts of plastic, does not. As such, it is particu- larly important to examine consumers’ responses to over- packaged goods to understand whether and when their perceptions of packaging environmental friendliness will diverge from objective reality. Our research contributes to the packaging literature in marketing. Several studies show that packaging design characteristics, such as packaging size (Argo and White 2012; Coelho do Vale, Pieters, and Zeelenberg 2008), shape (Chandon and Ordabayeva 2009), color (Mai, Symmank, and Seeberg-Elverfeldt 2016), and front-of- pack labeling (Dubois et al. 2021), affect consumers’ pur- chase decisions and consumption. We add to the above line of work by showing how packaging composition—plastic only versus plastic plus paper—affects consumers’ evalua- tions of product packaging and shapes their willingness to pay and choice. Moreover, our work adds to the emerging literature on consumer behavior and sustainability. Research suggests that perceived environmental friendliness of products and product packaging influences consumer judgments and choice. It can increase food quality perceptions (Magnier, Schoormans, and Mugge 2016), improve overall brand atti- tudes (Olsen, Slotegraaf, and Chandukala 2014), and increase product usage rates (Lin and Chang 2012). At the same time, perceived environmental friendliness can reduce preference for products with strength-related attrib- utes (Luchs et al. 2010) and reduce perceived product effi- cacy (Lin and Chang 2012). Critically, much less is known about how consumers come to perceive a product or prod- uct packaging as environmentally friendly in the first place (for exceptions, see Gershoff and Frels 2015; Reid, Gonzalez, and Papalambros 2010). We add to this work by outlining the psychological underpinnings of environmen- tal friendliness judgments of product packaging. This research also has important practical implications. A few companies, such as premium skincare brand Kiehl’s, Procter & Gamble, and Nestle, are taking action to eliminate unnecessary packaging and reduce packaging waste. For instance, Kiehl’s avoids using unnecessary
paper cartons for their products. Similarly, Procter & Gamble eliminated cardboard box packaging for their Crest toothpaste; and Nestle Waters, North America, switched to narrower paper labels on their bottles, an initia- tive saving the company over 20 million pounds of paper over a 5-year period (Deutsch 2007). However, our find- ings across multiple product categories suggest that when companies eliminate paper packaging in plastic-packaged products, they may be penalized by consumers who will perceive plastic-only packaging as less, and not more, environmentally friendly. Critically, we find that explicitly stating that a given product uses minimal packaging via, for example, on-package stickers, attenuates the perceived environmental friendliness bias in packaging evaluations and choice. As such, our work underscores the importance of combining companies’ packaging waste reduction initia- tives with marketing communications that draw consumer attention to the amount of packaging used in minimally packaged products. Finally, our work has implications for policymakers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Elimination of superfluous packaging will reduce the amount of green- house gas emissions from both the production and disposal of product packaging. One of the proposed ways to reduce environmental waste is through a pre-cycling strategy, wherein consumers consciously reduce waste by not buy- ing overpackaged products (Elgaa¨ıed-Gambier 2016). Our work suggests that shifting responsibility toward consum- ers may not be a very successful strategy of packaging waste reduction, since consumers’ perception of the envi- ronmental friendliness of packaging may not align with its objective environmental friendliness. Asking managers to eliminate superfluous packaging may not work either. As noted earlier, managers may be disincentivized to elimi- nate unnecessary paper packaging, because the addition of paper packaging can boost their customers’ environmental friendliness evaluations, willingness to pay, and choice. Our intervention study, however, suggests that a “minimal packaging” sticker can correct consumer perceptions of environmental friendliness of product packaging and boost demand. Thus, governments and NGOs may consider introducing minimal packaging certifications and on- package labels that would motivate consumers to buy and, consequently, incentivize companies to offer minimally packaged products. In the next sections, we build our predictions and report eight experiments testing our theorizing. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of this research.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
We propose that consumers will perceive the objectively less environmentally friendly plastic-plus-paper packaging
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker