In Theory 101, we discussed greenwashing briefly. You were given the example of Royal Dutch Shell's advertising campaign, where the company boasted of its commitment to sustainability and investments in alternative energy while simultaneously selling off the majority of their alternative energy investments. The non-profit agency CorpWatch found this type of behavior so common that they created a bimonthly Greenwash award. Recipients are corporations that put more money, time, and energy into promoting their eco-friendly images than actually protecting the environment. The term “greenwashing” is used to describe the process whereby an environmentally destructive corporation attempts to preserve or expand their market share by posing as environmental stewards. In current literature, there does not seem to be a commonly accepted term for falsifying or omitting the negative social impacts of products.
This type of behavior on the part of corporations is probably detrimental to American consumers (Dragon, 1991, Carrigan & Attalla, 2001). Although there has been little research on the matter, it seems plausible that misleading or confusing information about the social and environmental impacts of company products prevent consumers from attaining the information they need to effectively purchase sustainable products. Indeed, there is some evidence that this is already the case. According to research by the National Consumer Council, although individuals seem to be concerned about sustainability and may want to buy responsibly made products, people are unsure of what sustainable consumption entails in practice (Holdsworth 2003).
My research seeks to investigate this phenomenon further by evaluating to what extent American consumers are able to apply their knowledge of sustainability to accurately assess the sustainability impacts of ubiquitous goods. If consumers have difficulty identifying sustainable products, then impacts follow. For instance, greenwashed goods could generate competitive pressures that may force down the price of high value goods. This effect would drive genuinely sustainable goods out of the market or at least prevent sustainable companies from growing their businesses, regardless of increased consumer demand.
Research Methods:
I have devised an experiment designed to test a respondent’s ability to distinguish between the sustainability impacts of two products. Respondents will be asked to differentiate these products by thinking about the general sustainability practices of the companies that produce the respective products. The survey will be administered electronically but in a central location Northwestern’s campus. Currently I intend to obtain permission from SESP faculty to utilize conference rooms in Annenberg Hall to administer my study (See Appendix A for an example of the survey instrument). Because the definition of “sustainability” can be tenuous, I will present a definition of sustainability at the outset of the survey[1]. In order to keep respondents thinking about this single, coherent definition of sustainability, I will provide respondents with this definition along with other key definitions for the duration of the survey.
The first eight questions of this survey are intended to segment respondents based on how much they know and care about sustainability as a general concept. They will be asked about their own purchasing habits as well as about their objective knowledge of sustainability, like knowledge of eco-labels. After this portion of the survey, respondents will view 6 pairs of advertisements that have appeared recently on television or in print. Survey respondents will be shown one pair of these advertisements initially, but will proceed through all six pairs in time, one after another. If the advertisement is a short video, the pair will be shown one clip at a time, but these two clips will be displayed next to each other on the screen, inviting the respondent to make use of the provided material in answering the final question.
The pairings consist of two companies that manufacture similar products. One company in each of these pairs has been identified as committed to sustainability, while the other had taken almost no decisive action in favor of these principles, although they may have advertised that they have. Companies are said to be committed to sustainability in that they are making conscious efforts to reduce waste, maintain the natural world, benefit the communities they are located in as well as enhance the livelihoods of those individuals include in their supply chain like farmers, subcontractors, and factory laborers. I have extensive notes on these six companies and corporate practices regarding human rights, environmental protection, and community engagement. These notes will serve as a way to establish a sort of objective standard about the sustainability commitments of these companies.
One would assume that individuals who exhibit more knowledge of and commitment to sustainability during the initial part of the survey would outperform other respondents in successfully identifying sustainable companies during the advertisement paring. Indeed, if individuals are clear about what sustainable production entails, they should be able to distinguish relatively easily which company is which. I hypothesize, however, that all respondents, regardless of their score on the first portion of the survey, will have a difficult time sorting companies into the binary provided, and they will also have difficult time delineating arguments as to why they feel the way they do. This may lead to short, vague responses on the open response question following each advertisements pair.
[1] Sustainability (n): The potential for long-term maintenance of Earth’s ecosystem, which depends on making trade offs between the economic, social, and environmental spheres to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
____________________________________
Carrigan, M. & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 560-578.
Dragon International (1991). Corporate reputation – does the consumer care? Dragon International, London.
Holdsworth, M. (2003). Green choice: What choice? London: National Consumer Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment