IJEPDM2015GroeningInmanandRoss PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/295258463
The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase decisions
Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.1504/IJEPDM.2015.074719
CITATIONS READS
2 784
3 authors:
Christopher John Groening J. Jeffrey Inman

Kent State University University of Pittsburgh
18 PUBLICATIONS 297 CITATIONS 89 PUBLICATIONS 5,735 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
William T. Ross Jr
University of Connecticut
59 PUBLICATIONS 3,233 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reward vs. Restriction Frames in Promotional Offers View project
Shopper-Facing Retail Technology: An Adoption Decision Framework View project
All content following this page was uploaded by J. Jeffrey Inman on 29 November 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Environmental Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2015 261
The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase

decisions
Christopher Groening*
College of Business Administration,
Kent State University,
Kent, OH 44242, USA
Email: cgroenin@kent.edu
*Corresponding author
J. Jeffrey Inman
Katz Graduate School of Business,
University of Pittsburgh,
356 Mervis Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Email: jinman@katz.pitt.edu
William T. Ross Jr.

School of Business,
University of Connecticut,
2100 Hillside Road Unit 1041,
Storrs, CT 06269-1041, USA
Email: bill.ross@business.uconn.edu
Abstract: The central research question that this paper addresses is how the
presence and content of a carbon emission label could influence consumer
product choice. The authors develop and test a framework based on
accountability. The first group of studies establishes that carbon emissions and
a carbon emissions label play a role in consumer product decisions. The second
group of studies shows that the lowest levels of carbon emissions are preferred
at the usage stage followed by the transportation and disposal stages, with the
manufacturing stage last. However, these results can be modified by carbon
emissions dispersion across life-cycle stages. For instance, a product with the
same level of emissions at each life-cycle stage is preferred to a product with
widely varying emissions at each stage even if the lowest amount occurs in the
usage stage. The third group of studies shows that consumers value recycling
compared to other forms of carbon emission offsets. Finally, consumers prefer
that companies run their own offset programmes, rather than outsource them,
despite acknowledging that firms are less likely to have equivalent carbon
offset expertise.
Keywords: accountability; sustainability; carbon emissions; carbon footprint;
product life-cycle; consumer choice.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Groening, C., Inman, J.J.
and Ross Jr., W.T. (2015) ‘The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase
decisions’, Int. J. Environmental Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1, No. 4,
pp.261–296.
Biographical notes: Christopher Groening is an Assistant Professor in
Marketing and Entrepreneurship at the Kent State University. He earned his
PhD in Business from the University of Pittsburgh. His research is in the areas
Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

262 C. Groening et al.
of customer satisfaction and corporate social responsibility. His publications

have appeared in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Consumer Research and Consumer Needs and Solutions. He has
taught at the undergraduate, MBA, and doctoral level in the area of marketing
strategy.
J. Jeffrey Inman is the Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing and
Associate Dean of Research and Faculty at the Katz Graduate School of
Business at the University of Pittsburgh. He is the former President of the
Association for Consumer Research and an academic trustee at the Marketing
Science Institute. His research focuses on consumer decision-making. He is on
the editorial board of the leading marketing journals, including the Journal of
Consumer Research, the Journal of Marketing Research, the Journal of
Marketing, Marketing Science, the Journal of Consumer Psychology and the
Journal of Retailing. He is also an Associate Editor at JMR and JM. His work
has appeared in the many of the most prestigious business journals.
William T. Ross Jr. is Voya Financial Chair in Marketing at the University
of Connecticut. He earned his PhD in Business from Duke University.
His research is in the areas of channel and brand management, ethical
decision-making, and buyer decision-making. His publications have appeared
in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of
Marketing Research, Marketing Science and Management Science. He has
taught at the undergraduate, MBA, EMBA, and doctoral level including
courses in consumer behaviour, sales force management, business-to-business
marketing, marketing management, marketing strategy, retailing, business
ethics, and channels of distribution.
1 Introduction
The consumer market is transitioning from a focus on eco-efficiency to an era of

sustainable development, due to a confluence of forces:
1 increasing concern for a stable living environment for future generations (Mintel
Corporation, 2011)
2 the creation of tools to measure a product’s environmental impact (The New York
Times, 2011b)
3 governmental carbon emissions regulations.
These forces have prompted firms to create products that emit less carbon (e.g.,
automobiles, light bulbs and appliances) and create fewer emissions during their
life-cycle stages including manufacture (e.g., thinner plastic containers), transportation
(e.g., concentrated laundry detergent), disposal (e.g., biodegradable beverage containers)
and usage (e.g., more fuel efficient cars) (The New York Times, 2011a).
Many corporations are recognising their place in a larger community and need to help
to protect the common good (Brickson 2007) by acting as corporate citizens (Marsden,
2000). Indeed, 95% of CEOs surveyed believe that “society has greater expectations than
it did five years ago that companies will assume public responsibilities” [Bielak et al.,
(2007), p.1]. A logical extension of these developments is a carbon footprint label (i.e., a
label reporting the increase in carbon dioxide in the environment created by the
The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase decisions 263
production, transportation, usage and disposal of the product) that will become
commonplace on many products.
In fact, evolution to a carbon footprint label already has begun. Disparate firms in the
manufacturing and distribution channel (e.g., the EPA, VF Corp., Target, and Gap) have
banded together to create the Higg index, which measures the environmental impact of
apparel (The Wall Street Journal, 2012). Britain has announced that starting in 2013 all
businesses listed on the London Stock Exchange will have to report their greenhouse gas
emissions (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2012). Tesco (2008), a
British supermarket chain, announced plans to place labels detailing carbon usage on 20
products in four different categories: laundry detergent, orange juice, potatoes and light
bulbs. General Electric has introduced a credit card to help consumers earn greenhouse
gas emissions credits to reduce their personal carbon footprint (The Wall Street Journal,
2008) and Wal-Mart has initiated a sustainability index consortium (The Wall Street
Journal, 2009b). Following the lead of the European Union, the Australian government
issued a carbon tax on its 500 biggest polluters with a market-based trading programme
to take effect by 2015 and California enacted similar legislation due to take effect in 2013
(The New York Times, 2011a). In October 2011, two new measurement tools were
announced that help measure carbon emissions throughout the supply chain on an
individual product level (The New York Times, 2011b). The latest advancement in
emissions labelling is the announcement that Chevrolet, beginning with the 2012 Sonic,
will provide information on the lifetime environmental impact of its cars (General
Motors, 2012). These examples are representative of a greater set of forces, both internal
and external to a firm, facilitating the opportunity, motivation and ability of a firm to
address carbon emissions.
Yet, how will consumers incorporate carbon emission information into their product
choices? This is the central research question that this paper addresses. Consumers are
becoming increasingly familiar with the term ‘carbon footprint’ through extended news
coverage of climate change, treaties such as the Kyoto protocol and investment in a green
economy (e.g., The New York Times, 2008). Yet, while consumers may be aware of
carbon footprints, they may not be equipped to calculate the size of their own carbon
footprints. Surprisingly, research has not heretofore examined consumer reaction to
carbon emission awareness, specifically in terms of how to incorporate carbon emission
information into individual product choices. This paper examines the role that a carbon
emission label may play in decision-making, as well as which aspects of the label may be
most influential in consumer product choices.
Driving this paper’s investigation is the notion of accountability, because the
underlying premise of carbon emissions reduction is to leave a viable planet for future
generations. Thus, when we consume, we are accountable for the creation of carbon
emissions that affect the earth’s atmosphere now and in the future. Accountability is
defined as the need to be able to justify one’s actions to others (Adelberg and Batson,
1978), as well as to minimise the blame on oneself if an incorrect action is chosen
(Tetlock and Boettger, 1994). Due to the fact that consumers may view the carbon label
with uncertainty, ambiguity aversion should moderate the role of accountability (Keren
and Gerritsen, 1999).
To answer our research question a number of studies were run. These studies used
undergraduates as participants. Both pen and paper as well as online methodologies were
used. The studies used Likert scales, conjoint analysis and forced choice to elicit
participant response. Participants had access to information on carbon emissions
and sustainability (Appendix C) and a glossary sheet of definitions (Appendix B). The
first group of studies (1A–1D) establishes the importance of a carbon label in the
decision-making process by showing that consumers:
1 value decreased carbon emissions
2 prefer that firms aim to reduce emissions
3 use carbon emissions to make product decisions
4 prefer to see detailed carbon emissions data.
These results stem from conjoint analysis and choices between paired carbon emission
labels.
The second group of studies (2A–2D) applies accountability as the reason why
participants:
1 prefer lower carbon emissions in the usage stage, followed equally by transportation
and disposal, while preferring the highest carbon emissions to occur in the
manufacturing stage
2 feel more in control of carbon emissions that occur at the usage stage compared to
the manufacturing stage
3 prefer an equal level of carbon emission across all stages rather than greatly varying
amounts between stages
4 prefer the highest levels of emissions to occur at the manufacturing stage and for the
lowest to occur at the usage stage can be substantially by ambiguity aversion. In
other words, consumers feel more accountable for emissions that occur due to their
actions (usage) than they feel accountable for emissions that are more in control of
the firm (manufacture).
These results are obtained from paired product comparisons where only the carbon
emission label varied.
The final area of investigation (studies 3A–3C) shows that accountability also affects
participant product choice decisions in that they prefer recycling to other forms of offsets
and that firms be accountable for running their own offset programme rather than
outsourcing the offset programme. Thus participants prefer that they have a hand in
carbon reduction (recycling vs. offsets), but they also wish for the firm to assume a
certain level of responsibility. Again, these results are obtained from paired carbon
emission label comparisons.
2 Background and literature review
2.1 Carbon footprint labelling

The environmental impact of a product on the earth’s resources can be quantified
partially by a measure known as a carbon footprint. Carbon dioxide is an atmospheric gas
that could change the climate (Solomon et al., 2009). While the exact effect of carbon
emissions is a topic of debate, the vast majority of scientific studies show an increase in
both carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperatures (Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions, 2011). A product’s carbon footprint refers specifically to the increase
in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere created by the production, transportation, usage and
disposal of that product. Thus, a smaller carbon footprint implies a lower increase in
carbon dioxide and hence a less harmful impact on the earth’s atmosphere. Until recently,
this kind of measurement of carbon emissions occurred only at the national or firm level,
but carbon measurement has advanced to the degree that a new job category, professional
pollution calculator, has begun to emerge (The Wall Street Journal, 2009a).
The ability to measure carbon emission at multiple stages of product development and
across the supply chain has made it possible for individual consumers to calculate their
personal carbon footprint. A number of corporate, non-profit and government entities
have begun to bring this possibility to life. For example, the British government has
released guidelines (PAS 2050, 2008), for calculating carbon emissions. PepsiCo has
begun a number of sustainability initiatives including calculation and display of the
carbon emissions on Tropicana orange juice cartons (The New York Times, 2009) and
displaying the carbon emission totals on the Walkers crisps package (Walkers, 2009).
Similarly, a number of companies are investigating ways to reduce their carbon footprint:
I.B.M., Nike, Coca-Cola, Google, Yahoo and Dell. Coca-Cola, Coors and Cadbury
Schweppes, among others, have joined Tesco in working with The Carbon Trust (2009)
to create a common carbon footprint label (see Appendix A).
It generally is not possible to create a product with zero carbon emissions. Therefore,
firms may offset some of their carbon emissions through means such as a carbon sinks, or
living machines (Todd and Todd, 1995). A carbon sink is a method to offset carbon
consumption, such as planting trees, which both absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen,
thus offsetting carbon dioxide emissions (Lewis et al., 2009). A living machine is an
organism that consumes ecologically harmful material, such as arsenic (Todd and
Josephson, 1996). These offsets sequester, or absorb, carbon emissions, effectively
removing them from the earth’s atmosphere. However, there is debate regarding the
validity, effectiveness and permanence of carbon offsets (David Suzuki Foundation,
2012). The presence of a carbon footprint label on a product would provide a method for
consumers to consider the levels of a product’s carbon emissions and offsets when
making purchasing decisions. It also would provide a common comparison metric for
manufactured goods comparable to caloric measure labelling of foods.
2.2 Carbon emission label used in the studies

An individual carbon footprint label on products would be a useful and efficient way for
consumers to measure their own carbon footprints, the sustainable actions of a firm and
to compare carbon emissions across brands and types of products. Currently, there is no
commonly accepted method for displaying carbon footprints, but most existing
approaches possess many similar characteristics (Appendix A). In order to illustrate and
facilitate the discussion of carbon footprints, a hypothetical carbon footprint label that
contains the common aspects of carbon emissions and offsets is shown in Figure 1. The
label contains the four life-cycle stages of a product: manufacture, transportation, usage
and disposal, as well as carbon emissions offsets.
The label utilised in the three sets of studies relies on a carbon footprint measurement
using a common metric (e.g., grams or kilograms) so as to provide a consistent
measurement system for all manufacturers and consumers. Carbon emissions are
displayed for each of the four product life-cycle stages (manufacture, transportation,
usage and disposal), the sum of the four stages, each offset type (recycling and carbon
sinks), the sum of the offsets and finally, the net or total of carbon emissions (sum of life-
cycle stage emissions – sum of the offsets). As of yet, existing or proposed carbon labels
do not display average usage amounts, so they have not been added to the label used in
this paper.
Figure 1 Carbon label
Products vary in how different stages of their life-cycle contribute to their carbon
footprint levels. A television is an example of a product whose weight impacts carbon
footprint levels in the transportation stage and due to the daily use of electricity and its
multi-year lifespan, has a high footprint level in the usage stage. Televisions have few
recyclable components and may contain hazardous materials such as lead, so their most
significant carbon footprint impact may be in their disposal. On the other hand, a
lawnmower’s greatest carbon footprint impact may be its gas emissions during usage,
making usage the biggest contributor to its high carbon footprint. A product that may
have a relatively high carbon footprint in the transportation stage in comparison with
other stages is bottled water. Finally, the production of beef creates a considerable
amount of carbon emissions during ‘manufacture’.
2.3 Product choice influencer in a sustainability context: accountability

Although there are many product attributes and factors that may affect a consumer’s
product choice, we focus on the particular influence that a carbon emission label may
exert on this decision-making process. The first study set establishes the importance of
carbon emissions among other product attributes, while the remaining studies manipulate
the characteristics of the carbon emission label. Our central thesis is that the carbon label
will induce a sense of accountability and that accountability will be a significant criterion
that consumers will use to make their product judgment (Bettman and Sujan, 1987).
Accountability (Bettman et al., 1998; Shafir et al., 1993) should play a major role in the
decision process because consumers will make their choice based primarily upon the
level of carbon emissions. In other words, by purchasing a particular product, consumers,
wittingly or unwittingly, make a decision that carbon will be emitted in a particular
manner. For example, consumers are able to allocate the responsibility for the carbon
emissions level more to the firm (by accepting a higher level of emissions in the
manufacturing stage) or further away from the firm (by accepting a higher level of
emissions in the disposal stage). The further from the firm consumers allocate carbon
emissions, the more they are increasing their own accountability. An interesting effect of
accountable decision-making is that accountability encourages consumers to use data
rather than theoretical information in making their choices (Rozelle and Baxter, 1981).
Thus, a data-oriented carbon footprint label should assist in accountable decision-making.
Accountability is the acknowledgement of responsibility for one’s actions. It also
connotes the need to be able to justify one’s actions to others (Adelberg and Batson,
1978). This justification or blame avoidance, which can be thought of as risk
minimisation, also can be explained by loss aversion (Tetlock and Boettger, 1994).
Accountability can influence choices by influencing consumers to make choices based
upon possible guilt (Peloza et al., 2013), where guilt is more likely to be present under
conditions of ethical decision-making (Steenhaut and van Kenhove, 2006).
In the context of carbon emissions, the purchase of a product implies that carbon
emissions will result and; therefore, that the consumer is responsible to a considerable
degree for those carbon emissions. Thus, guilt arises from creating emissions that may
alter the Earth’s environment creating a less desirable place for future generations to live
(Pisarski et al., 2011). Prior research investigating the role of accountability in
product choice has found that accountable individuals use more information and integrate
their thoughts in the decision process to a greater degree than do individuals in
non-accountable choice environments (Lee et al., 1999). Moreover, Lee at al. (1999) find
that accountability leads to extrinsic rewards or self-impression management and
motivates one to make more justifiable decisions. These rewards are activated when the
outcome of the decision becomes more salient. Applying these results to carbon
emissions, as consumers become more aware of their actual carbon emissions, their
concern for carbon emission reduction should increase.
Because of the availability of the label in this paper’s studies, participants were aware
that their choices would cause carbon emissions, which would in turn affect the earth’s
atmosphere. Therefore personal accountability was implied, making participants more
vigilant and thoughtful processors of the carbon information presented (Tetlock, 1985,
1992), especially since the format of the carbon label encourages data driven processing
(Rozelle and Baxter, 1981).
Of course, accountability (e.g., Lerner and Tetlock, 1999) and decision-making (e.g.,
Fox and Tversky, 1995) are contingent. One major factor in the domain of carbon
emissions is the lack of knowledge regarding carbon emissions (Reynolds et al., 2010).
This may lead consumers to be uncertain in their decision-making. They may question
whether carbon emitted at manufacture can be compared with carbon emitted during
transportation. Questions may be raised about the validity of carbon emission
measurement or reliability of offsets (Weber et al., 2010). In other words, to some degree,
consumers may not know how to use the information contained on the carbon emission
label. They may wish to minimise possible mistakes based on their ignorance or on the
fact that the science underlying carbon emissions may change. These types of issues may
affect how consumers decide between products based upon the carbon label.
One method to alleviate concerns of making the incorrect choice is to minimise
uncertainty (Fox and Tversky, 1995). Thus, a product that involves uncertainty in how to
utilise diagnostic information often is seen as less desirable than the same product where
the need to utilise the diagnostic information is minimised or where the diagnostic
information is simpler to understand Fox and Weber, 2002). This mistake or ambiguity
aversion may manifest itself when consumers are confronted by the dispersion or
variance of carbon emissions. Thus, consumers should prefer a label that contains equal
amounts (no dispersion) of carbon emissions at each life-cycle stage over a product that
has varying amount of carbon emitted at each stage. For instance, even though the
average user, for reasons of accountability, may prefer that the least amount of carbon is
emitted during the usage stage, a product with equal amounts of carbon emitted at each
stage may be preferred. Ambiguity aversion has been found to be a very robust
phenomena even occurring under normatively superior conditions (Keren and Gerritsen,
1999).
3 Methodology
3.1 Overview of studies

Overall this paper consists of three groups of 11 studies (4, 4 and 3 respectively). The
goal of these studies is to show that:
1 carbon emissions do play a role in the product decision process
2 the greater the control or accountability a consumer has over the emissions at a given
stage, the greater the desire to have a lower level of carbon emitted at that stage
3 higher levels of offsets and firm involvement in offset programmes are preferred.
An overview of the methodology and questions used in each study can be found in
Table 1.
Table 1 Overview of studies
Study Method Questions

1A Likert scale 1 All things being equal, would you pay more for a product that is
Qs 1, 2, 4, 5: (1 = created by a firm that engages in CSR than by a firm that does not
never, 7 = always) engage in CSR?
Qs 3,6: (1 = none, 2 How often do you take into account CSR when purchasing a
7 = a great product?
amount) 3 What level do you think firms should engage in CSR?
Questions 4–6 switched ‘CSR’ with ‘carbon emissions’.
1B Likert scale (1 = How attractive is the printer to you?
very unattractive, 15 printers described in terms of: price (lower than industry
5 = very attractive) average, industry average, higher than industry average and highest
in a conjoint study in industry) and carbon emissions (none, lower than industry
average, industry average and higher than industry average).
Table 1 Overview of studies (continued)

1C Likert scale (1 = How attractive is the car to you?
very attractive, 5 =
very unattractive) 17 cars described in terms of carbon usage (minimal, below
in a conjoint study average, average and above average), maintenance (great, good,
so-so and issues), age (new, recent, used and old) and life
expectancy (one to two years, three to four years, five to seven
years and eight to ten years).
1D Forced choice Six choices between two carbon labels. First label only has net
emissions, second has a detailed label. The net emissions are the
same for both choices. The detailed label’s six variants are as
follows:
1 all stages with equal emissions
2 all stages with equal emissions but no offsets
3 all stages with equal emissions except manufacture which is
higher
4 all stages with equal emissions except disposal which is higher
5 all stages with equal emissions except transportation which is
higher
6 all stages with equal emissions but with no recycling.
2A Likert scale (1 = 1 Please assign the amount of accountability at each of the four
the firm is stages (manufacture, transportation, usage and disposal) to either
accountable for the yourself or to the firm.
carbon emissions,
2 To what degree do you believe that you are in control of the
7 = I am
amount of carbon that is emitted at each of the four stages
accountable for the
carbon emissions) 3 To what degree do you believe that the firm is in control of the
amount of carbon that is emitted at each of the four stages
2B Forced choice Choices 1–2 contrasted disposal and manufacture, choice 3
contrasts transportation and disposal and choices 4–5 contrasted
transportation and manufacture.
2C Forced choice Choices 1–2 contrast small and large dispersions, choices 3–4 small
and no dispersion.
2D Forced choice Seven paired choices with the same total emissions. Choices 1–4
contrasted a product with equal carbon emissions at all stages to a
product that had differing levels of carbon emissions. Choices 5–7
contrasted products with slightly differing levels of emissions at
each stage (see Table 3D).
3A Forced choice Three paired choices with same net emissions, varying where
offsets occur:
1 only offsets vs. recycling and offsets
2 only recycling vs. recycling and offsets
3 only recycling vs. only offsets.
Table 1 Overview of studies (continued)

3B Forced choice Three paired choices, first choice = manufacturer outsources its
offset programmes, second choice = manufacturer runs its own
offset programme. Choices vary offsets and net emissions:
1 both are equal
2 more offsets and lower net emissions vs. fewer offsets and higher
net emissions
3 fewer offsets and higher net emissions vs. more offsets and lower
net emissions.
3C Likert scale (1 = 1 My car manufacturer can run an honest carbon offset programme.
strongly disagree, 2 A third party company specialising in offsets can run an honest
5 = strongly agree) carbon offset programme.
3 My car manufacturer has the skills and expertise to run a carbon
offset programme.
4 A third party company specialising in offsets has the skills and
expertise to run a carbon offset programme.
5 My car manufacturer cares about the environment.
6 A third party company specialising in offsets cares about the
environment.
7 My car manufacturer has the skills and expertise to perform
transactions in an expected manner.
8 My car manufacturer is fair in its conduct of customer
transactions.
3.2 Data collection

The studies have a number of commonalities. First, undergraduates participated in the
studies for course credit. The only exception to this population was Study 2A, where a
general population sample was used to help increase the generalisability of the studies.
Second, for all studies, a half page introduction to carbon emissions and sustainability
(see Appendix C) as well as a glossary sheet (see Appendix B) were given to each
participant prior to any survey questions. For clarification, the glossary contained brief
definitions of key concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability,
offsets and carbon emissions. Participants were instructed to carefully read the
introduction and glossary sheets and were given three minutes to do so prior to answering
the study questions. Studies 1A, 2A and 3C consisted of Likert scale questions. Studies
1B and 1C are conjoint studies with a number of varying product attributes (e.g., price,
carbon emissions, maintenance). The remaining studies were paired product comparisons
with identical attributes except for their carbon emission label. Studies 1A–1C were
completed on paper and the remaining studies were completed online in a computer lab.
The exception to this is Study 2A where participants were able to use their own
computers outside of the computer lab. Comparisons and comparison order were
randomised in all studies. To alleviate participant fatigue, the number of choices was kept
to a minimum. To introduce a consequence for participants’ choices, participants were

informed that based on one of their selections, chosen randomly, they would receive a
large tasty cookie that conformed to the carbon emission label. Again, Study 2A was the
exception to this cookie rule.
4 Findings
4.1 Studies 1A–1D: carbon emissions effect on consumer choice

The first set of studies is preliminary in nature. They are executed to verify that carbon
emissions do play a role in consumer product choice and that a detailed carbon emission
label is preferred. In general, the expectation is that, among the factors that influence
product choice, carbon emissions will play a role. However, we also expect that price will
play the more dominant role in choice in the same way that Bhattacharya and Sen (2004)
have shown it to be in the CSR context.
4.2 Study 1A: consumers’ concern with carbon emissions

Overview. This first study addresses the role of carbon emissions for consumers in
product choice and the level of firm involvement in reducing carbon emissions that
consumers will accept. The goal is to ascertain whether consumers value lower carbon
emissions and whether they expect that firms address their carbon emissions. If emissions
do matter and if consumers do expect firms to address the carbon emissions issue, then
these results will serve as the basis for additional analyses. To have a known comparison
standard, participants also were queried regarding CSR.
Stimuli. The task consisted of answering two groups of three questions. The first two
questions of the first group asked whether the consumer would pay more for CSR and
take CSR into account when purchasing products, on a scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).
The third question dealt with how much firms should engage in CSR and was on a scale
of 1 (none) to 7 (a great amount). The second group of three questions replicated the first
group except that ‘CSR’ was replaced with ‘carbon emissions’ in each of the three
questions.
Results and discussion. The participants (n = 67) indicated that they would pay more
for products from a firm that engages in CSR (4.22 out of 7) and for products from a firm
that has lower levels of carbon emissions (4.07). On the other hand, participants said they
did not consider CSR (2.48) and carbon emissions (2.75) much when purchasing
products. This last result is a reasonable response, given that currently there are rarely if
ever indicators of the level of either CSR or carbon emissions on product packaging.
However, participants believe that firms should engage in CSR (5.45) and the reduction
of carbon emissions (4.24). Two conclusions can be drawn from these data. These results
are similar to previous studies done in the CSR area (Mohr et al., 2001) and carbon
emissions have a similar level of importance to participants.
4.3 Study 1B: the value consumers place on carbon emissions compared to
price
Overview. The second study addresses the value placed on a product’s carbon emission
levels compared to its price levels. Study 1B is a conjoint study which compares
preference for printers based on carbon emission levels and price. The expectation is that
price will be weighted more heavily than carbon emissions, but also that the
results conform to those in Study 1A: consumers do care about carbon emissions.
Moreover, in terms of the individual levels of carbon emissions, the expectation is that
consumers will value lowering emissions levels to no worse than industry average, to
assuage their accountability and to avoid blame for the ecological harm caused by the
product.
Stimuli. Participants were asked, on a five point scale (1 = very unattractive,
5 = very attractive), to indicate the attractiveness of a set of 15 printers. The printers
only differed in price (four levels – lower than industry average, industry average,
higher than industry average and highest in industry) and carbon emissions (also four
levels – none, lower than industry average, industry average and higher than industry
average).
Figure 2 Conjoint analysis results from studies 1B (n = 101) and 1C (n = 128), (a) study 1B:
carbon part-worths (b) study1B: price part-worths (c) study 1C: age (d) study 1C:
maintenance (e) study 1C: life expectancy (f) study 1C: carbon usage
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2 Conjoint analysis results from studies 1B (n = 101) and 1C (n = 128), (a) study 1B:
carbon part-worths (b) study1B: price part-worths (c) study 1C: age (d) study 1C:
maintenance (e) study 1C: life expectancy (f) study 1C: carbon usage (continued)
(e) (f)
Results and discussion. Figures 2A and 2B (n = 101) indicate that only slightly more
value is assigned to price (55%) than to carbon emissions (45%). As predicted, based on
the attribute importance measure, defined as the coefficient for the higher level less the
coefficient for the lower level, there is significant value in reducing carbon emissions
from above industry average to industry average (1.03), a lesser drop for reducing carbon
emissions from the industry average to lower than the industry average (0.47) and a
negligible drop for eliminating carbon emissions all together (0.08). These results suggest
that firms should aim to be no worse than the industry average in carbon emissions, but
that there is relatively little benefit from a consumer preference standpoint to completely
eliminating carbon emissions. The responses for price were somewhat similar to the
response curves for carbon: moving from higher than average to average (1.20 or 61% of
value for price vs. 1.03 or 65% for carbon) and moving from average to lower than
average (0.76 or 39% for price vs. 0.47 or 30% for carbon).
The asymmetric affect of carbon emissions, when compared to the industry average,
can be explained by loss aversion (Tetlock and Boettger, 1994). In other words, the gain
in preference that a product may gain from having less emissions than the industry
average (0.47), is less in magnitude than the loss in preference from having more
emission than the industry average (1.03). This finding provides further evidence that loss
aversion is still present in accountability contexts (Pahlke et al. 2012; Vieider 2009).
4.4 Study 1C: the value placed on carbon emissions compared to other product
attributes
Overview. The third study addresses the value placed on reduced carbon emission levels
compared to other common attributes of a product: maintenance level, age and life
expectancy, used in place of price. Life expectancy could be thought of as the amount of
time that the price of a product may be amortised. That is, a shorter life expectancy
equates with a higher price. While making participants think long-term about price, the
same way that carbon emissions are long-term, we expect that life expectancy will be
weighted much more than other attributes, but that carbon emissions levels will be
weighted approximately the same as other attributes.
Stimuli. Study 1C is a conjoint study which compares the willingness to pay for a car
based on carbon emission levels, maintenance needed, age and the car’s life expectancy.
Participants were asked on a five-point scale (1 = very attractive, 5 = very unattractive) to
indicate the attractiveness of a set of 17 cars described in terms of carbon usage (minimal,
below average, average and above average), maintenance (great, good, so-so and issues),
age (new, recent, used and old) and life expectancy (one to two years, three to four years,
five to seven years and eight to ten years).
Results and discussion. Figures 2C–2F (n = 128) indicate that age (21.1%),
maintenance (21.2%) and carbon usage (20.7%) were equally weighted in terms of
importance, whereas life expectancy (37.1%) was nearly double the other attributes in
terms of importance. Please note that because the five-point Likert scale is flipped
compared to Study 1B, lower values indicate greater preference (i.e., for maintenance
‘great’: 2.75 is preferred to ‘issues’: 3.56). Similar to Figure 2A, 2F shows asymmetry – a
steep drop in preference from emitting more carbon than average to average emissions,
but not as much of a gain from performing average to better than average. These results
align with Study 1B, where lower carbon emissions were an important criterion, but not
as much as price. Overall, carbon emissions are no less important than the other
attributes.
4.5 Study 1D: the need for more detail on a carbon emission label?
Overview. The final study in this set focuses on whether the label used for this paper is
appropriate. As such it examines whether consumers value more or less information
content in the carbon emission label. In other words, would consumers prefer a single, net
emission number, or would they prefer to view data concerning the four life-cycle stages
and the offsets? Because purchasing a product results in the consumer being accountable
for that product’s carbon emissions, the expectation is that consumers should prefer more
information in making their choice (Lee et al., 1999), particularly because decisions that
involve accountability are facilitated by the use of data (Rozelle and Baxter, 1981) rather
than opinion.
Stimuli. To test whether consumers prefer a large or a small amount of carbon
emission data on the carbon label, participants were presented with carbon labels that
represented the emissions involved with a product and asked to state, based on the labels,
which product they preferred in eight choice tasks (Table 2). The first six questions
involved choosing between two products, where one had a label with only one number,
net emissions and the other product had a more inclusive label continuing all life-cycle
stages, including offsets. This inclusive label varied the emissions at each life-cycle stage
for each of the six choices as follows:
1 all stages with equal emissions
2 all stages with equal emissions but no offsets
3 all stages with equal emissions except manufacture which is higher
4 all stages with equal emissions except disposal which is higher
5 all stages with equal emissions except transportation which is higher
6 all stages with equal emissions but with no recycling.
The last two choices introduced a label that was intermediate in information content in
that it contained total emissions, total offsets and net emissions but not the detailed
information. The first of these choices had all stages with equal emissions and the second
choice had all stages equal except for transportation which had a higher level of
emissions than the other stages. Thus, comparison 1 is the same as comparison 7 except
that an intermediate label is used instead of no information. The same was true for
comparisons 5 and 8. All eight choices had the same level of net emissions.
Table 2 Study 1D stimulus and results
Total
Net emissions,
All stages
Comparison Choice emissions total offsets Other Results
and totals
only and net
emissions
1 A X Equal 74% ****
B X 26%
2 A X No offsets 70% ****
B X 30%
3 A X High manufacture 81% ****
B X 19%
4 A X High disposal 69% ****
B X 31%
5 A X High transportation 68% ****
B X 32%
6 A X No recycling 71% ****
B X 29%
7 A X Equal 60% ****
B X 19%
C X 21%
8 A X High transportation 61% ****
B X 17%
C X 22%
Notes: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01; ****p < 0.001; N = 127
Example: Comparison 3 compares the choice between a product with a carbon
label that only has net emissions (choice B) against a product with a carbon
label that shows all life-cycle stages (choice A). In this instance the manufacture
life-cycle stage has a higher level of carbon emissions than do the other stages.
Choice A, with carbon emissions shown for all life-cycle stages, is preferred 81%
to 19% (p < 0.001) to choice B that only has net emissions displayed.
Results and discussion. The results in the last column of Table 2 indicate that participants
(n = 127) prefer a carbon label with information on all stages compared to a net emission
only label in every comparison set (C1: 74% to 26%; C2: 70% to 30%; C3: 81% to 19%;
C4: 69% to 31%; C5: 68% to 32%; C6: 71% to 29%, all p < 0.001) and a carbon label
with information on all stages compared to only totals or net emissions only (C7: 60% to
19% to 21%; C8: 61% to 17% to 22%, all p < 0.001).
Summary of studies 1A–1D. Overall, these four preliminary studies provide evidence
that consumers believe that firms should reduce their carbon emissions (Study 1A) and
that, while price is still the most important attribute in product choice (Study 1B), carbon
emissions is important (Study 1B) and has an importance level comparable to other
product attributes (Study 1C). Study 1A further reveals that participants currently rarely
take carbon emissions into account when making a product choice, likely due to the lack
of carbon emission information available when making these decisions. Study 1B also
illustrates the presence of an asymmetrical effect of carbon emissions, where the negative
effect of higher than average carbon emissions weighs stronger then the positive effect of
lower than average carbon emissions. Study 1D provides some support for this
explanation, because a majority of participants chose a product with a detailed carbon
emission label when given the opportunity.
4.6 Studies 2A–2D: accountability and preference among the life-cycle stages
The goal of the second set of studies was to examine consumer accountability and control
for carbon emissions in the four life-cycle stages. In addition, preference for carbon
emission distribution is measured over the four life-cycle stages.
4.7 Study 2A: allocation of accountability for carbon emissions

Overview. One of the main contributions of this paper is that consumer decision-making
regarding carbon emission labels will be determined by consumers’ allocation of
accountability for the emissions either to the firm versus themselves. Given a
predetermined level of emissions, consumers may be more likely to choose a product
whose carbon emissions are attributable to the firm than to themselves. If consumers feel
that they are more in control of carbon emissions at a given stage, they may feel guiltier
about purchasing a product with high levels of carbon emissions at this stage.
Table 3A1 Is the firm or consumer more accountable for emissions at a given stage?
Std Displayed: row – column and significance level

Mean
dev. Manufacture Transportation Usage
Manufacture 2.03 1.27
Transportation 2.92 1.53 0.89****
Usage 4.94 1.59 2.92**** 2.03****
Disposal 4.09 1.74 2.06**** 1.17**** –0.85****
Notes: n = 109, * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, **** p < 0.001,
1–7 Likert scale: 1 = the firm is accountable for the carbon emissions at this stage,
4 = the firm and I are equally accountable for the carbon emissions at this stage,
7 = I am accountable for the carbon emissions at this stage
Stimuli. In order to ascertain where consumers feel that accountability for carbon
emissions lies, three groups of questions were presented. The first group allowed
participants to directly compare the accountability of the firm and consumer for carbon
emitted at each stage. Thus, participants assigned accountability for carbon emissions on
a seven-point Likert scale, for each of the four stages, (i.e., 1 = the firm is accountable for
the carbon emissions at this stage, 4 = the firm and I are equally accountable for the
carbon emissions at this stage, 7 = I am accountable for the carbon emissions at

this stage). The second and third groups of questions used a different word for
accountability-control. In addition, the second group only mentions the consumer (i.e., 1
= I am in control of none of the carbon emitted at this stage), while the third group only
mentions the firm (i.e., 5 = The firm is in control of all of the carbon emitted at this stage)
using a 5 point Likert scale.
Table 3A2 At what level is the consumer in control of emissions at a given stage?

Mean
Transportation 2.33 1.27 0.54****
Usage 3.61 1.13 1.83**** 1.28****
Disposal 3.03 1.21 1.24**** 0.70**** –0.59****
Notes: n = 109, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001,
1–5 Likert scale, 1 = I am in control of none of the carbon emitted at this stage,
3 = I am in control of some of the carbon emitted at this stage,
5 = I am in control of all of the carbon emitted at this stage
Table 3A3 At what level is the firm in control of emissions at a given stage?

Mean
Transportation 3.55 1.00 –0.69****
Usage 2.60 1.02 –1.64**** –0.95****
Disposal 3.15 1.12 –1.09**** –0.40**** 0.55****
Notes: n = 109, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001,
1–5 Likert scale, 1 = the firm is in control of none of the carbon emitted
at this stage,
3 = The firm is in control of some of the carbon emitted at this stage,
5 = The firm is in control of all of the carbon emitted at this stage
Table 3A4 Firm control – consumer control
Manufacture 2.45****
Transportation 1.22****
Usage –1.02****
Disposal 0.12
Notes: n = 109, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001
Results and discussion. As previously indicated, a non-student sample was used for this
study for generalisability (n = 109, age = 32.8 ± 12.6 years). The first set of results
(Table 3A1) indicates that participants think that the firm is more accountable at the
manufacture (2.03 out of 5) and transportation stages (2.92) while the consumer is more
accountable at the usage stage (4.94), while the disposal stage had equal accountability
(4.09). Each of these stages is significantly different from each other (p < 0.001).
Multiple comparisons require a Bonferroni adjustment. Since reported p-values from
SAS indicated p < 0.0001 the p-values were adjusted to p < 0.001. The second and third
set of results (Table 3A2 and 3A3) corroborated these results. Participants (consumers)
felt more in control of carbon emissions as the product advanced from the manufacture
(1.79) to transportation (2.33) to usage (3.61) and then less in control at the disposal stage
(3.03). At the same time, participants felt that the firm was less in control as the product
advanced from the manufacture (4.24) to transportation (3.55) to usage (2.60) stage and
then more in control at the disposal stage (3.15). For both the second and third groups of
questions, the stages are significantly different from each other (p < 0.001). As a final
check the differences between the results in Tables 3A2 and 3A3 were examined (i.e.,
manufacturefirm control – manufactureconsumer control) (Table 2A4). Carbon emissions that
occur during manufacture (2.45) and transportation (1.22) are significantly (p < 0.001)
more associated with the firm than with consumers, while usage (–1.02) is significantly
(p < 0.001) more associated with consumers. Disposal (0.12) is equally associated with
the firm and consumers.
4.8 Study 2B: comparison of preference for carbon emissions across life-cycle
stages
Overview. Study 2B addresses whether it matters to consumers where carbon is emitted
in the product’s life-cycle (i.e., manufacture, transportation, usage, or disposal). The
manufacture stage is the furthest from consumers, or, conversely, the closest to the firm,
because it is under the direct control of the firm. As shown in Study 2A, consumers feel
the least responsibility for this life-cycle stage. On the other hand, consumers feel more
accountable in the non-manufacturing stages. Once a decision has been made to purchase
a product from a given category, consumers may wish to minimise their role in carbon
emissions. They may need a specific product, but they can decide whether to purchase it
from a local or distant manufacturer and when and how to discard the product. In other
words, consumers can minimise their responsibility for carbon emissions by choosing
products that have higher emissions in stages that are further from their control (i.e.,
manufacture), while minimising carbon emissions in stages that are closer to their control
(disposal and transportation).
Disposal carbon emissions occur as a product reaches the end of its life-cycle. Some
consumers may envision a long lifetime for the product. Others may view a future where
the carbon emitted during disposal is minimised through further technological innovation.
Either type of consumer may prefer products with higher carbon emissions during the
disposal stage than the transportation stage. Another group of consumers may base
purchase decisions upon how much carbon is emitted to transport the product. The
amount of user involvement and control in these two stages appears to be similar. Thus,
there may not be a preference for lower carbon emissions in the disposal life-cycle stage
compared to the transportation life-cycle stage. In summary, based on user accountability
and life-cycle stage distance from the firm, consumers should prefer that less carbon
be emitted during the disposal and transportation stages than during the manufacturing
stage. However, a difference in preference for lower carbon emissions between the
transportation and disposal stages is not expected.
Table 3B
Product A Product B Results

Comparison Product Product p- Goal of comparison
Manufacture Transport. Disposal Manufacture Transport Disposal
A B value
1 15 30 45 45 30 15 38% 62% ** Is lower manufacture valued more than
lower disposal?
Study 2B stimuli comparisons
2 0 30 60 60 30 0 39% 61% ** Is lower manufacture valued more than

lower disposal? (one stage with zero
values)
3 30 15 45 30 45 15 49% 51% n.s. Is lower transportation valued more
than lower disposal?
4 45 15 30 15 45 30 64% 36% ** Is lower transportation valued more
than lower manufacture?
5 45 0 45 0 45 45 69% 31% *** Is lower transportation valued more
than lower manufacture? (one stage
with zero values)
Note: N = 97, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001
279
Stimuli. Study 2B consisted of five paired comparisons (left half of Table 3B). Each pair
of comparisons had the same total emissions. Thus, in each paired comparison, for
choices A and B, (manufactureA + transportationA + disposalA) = (manufactureB +
transportationB + disposalB). In addition, the standard deviations for the carbon emission
levels were designed to be equal between products A and B. The five comparisons
focused on two of the three stages and held the third stage constant. For example, in
comparison 1, product A with low manufacture (15) and high disposal (45) levels was
compared with product B which had high manufacture (45) and low disposal (15) levels.
Both product a and product B have equal transportation levels (30). Overall, comparisons
1 and 2 contrasted disposal and manufacture, comparison 3 contrasted transportation and
disposal and comparisons 4 and 5 contrasted transportation and manufacture.
Comparisons 2 and 5 were included to determine whether zero emissions for one of the
life-cycle stages would substantially change product choice.
Results and discussion. The results shown in the right half of Table 3B (n = 97)
illustrate that lower levels of carbon emissions are preferred during the disposal and
transportation stages than in the manufacture stage, but that there is no preference for
whether lower levels of carbon are emitted during disposal or transportation. Specifically,
a low level of carbon emissions during disposal is preferred 62% to 38% (p < 0.05), over
low levels of carbon emitted during manufacture in comparison 1 and 61% to 39% (p <
0.05) in comparison 2. A significant preference was shown for lower levels of carbon
emitted during transportation over lower levels of carbon emitted during manufacture in
comparisons 4 (64% to 36%, p < 0.05) and 5 (69% to 31%, p < 0.01). Finally,
participants displayed no difference in preference for low levels of carbon emitted during
transportation, 49%, compared to low levels of carbon emitted during disposal, 51% in
comparison 3. The lack of distinction between disposal and transportation stands in
contrast to Study 2A. However, Study 2A evaluates perceived control over emissions,
while Study 2B assesses preference for particular emission stages. Study 2B, though,
leaves unanswered whether the relationship between the emission levels at each stage
affects consumer choice. Study 2C addresses this question.
4.9 Study 2C: comparison of carbon emissions dispersion between stages –

ambiguity aversion
Individuals normally favour that which is known over that which is not known, so as to
avoid ambiguity or the unknown (Curley et al., 1986), in order to help justify their
decisions (Shafir et al., 1993). In a context such as carbon emissions, consumers may be
uncertain about the weight to apply to the reported level of emissions at each life-cycle
stage. They also may be unaware of valid reasons for favouring one stage over another.
Moreover, consumers may be unclear whether they can justify their decisions to key
constituencies. Their response to a product with high levels of dispersion among the
carbon emissions across the life-cycle stages might be to place more emphasis on the
need to justify one’s decision based on products with similar levels of emissions in each
stage. In other words, consumers may wish to minimise the chance of choosing
incorrectly (Lee et al., 1999), in an ambiguous situation (Trautmann et al., 2008), as well
as to minimise the need for justification. Therefore, consumers may prefer products for
which the levels of carbon emitted at each stage are more similar rather than more
different.
Stimuli. Four comparisons (left half of Table 3C) were designed to examine the role
of dispersion of each stage of carbon emissions. For instance, in comparison 1, product A
has a standard deviation of 5 while product B has a standard deviation of 30 across its
stages. Three levels of dispersion are used; none (0), small (5–9) and large (25–30).
Comparisons 1 and 2 contrast small and large dispersions, whereas comparisons 3 and 4
contrast small and no dispersion. Two comparisons were used for each type to vary the
emissions at each life-cycle stage so that a particular life-cycle stage did not bias the
results. For example, in comparison 1, product A manufacture has the lowest level of
emissions, but in comparison 2, product A transportation has the highest level of
emissions.
Table 3C Study 2C stimuli comparisons
Product A Product B
Manufacture Transport. Disposal Manufacture
25 30 35 0
35 20 35 45
25 25 40 30
35 20 35 30
Note: N = 97, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001
Results and discussion. The results in the right half of Table 3C (n = 97) show that
products with no dispersion in carbon emissions at each life-cycle stage are preferred to
products with small dispersion (comparisons 3 and 4) and the products with small
dispersion are preferred to products with large dispersion (comparisons 1 and 2).
Specifically, in comparison 3, no dispersion is preferred to a small dispersion 63% to
37% (p < 0.05), a result which is echoed in comparison 4; 61% to 39% (p < 0.05). In
comparison 1 a small dispersion is preferred to a large dispersion 78% to 22% (p <
0.001), a result which is duplicated in comparison 2, 60% to 40% (p < 0.05). Not only is
less dispersion preferred to greater dispersion in support of ambiguity aversion, but
earlier results are found to be moderated. Specifically, without taking into account
ambiguity aversion the expected result in comparison 4 would be that product A should
be preferred to product B. After all, the manufacturing level in product A is greater than
that for product B (35 > 30) and the combined levels of transportation and disposal for
product A are less than that for product B (55 < 60).
4.10 Study 2D: the usage stage compared to other stages

The next study introduces the remaining unaddressed stage in a product’s life-cycle –
usage. Usage was separated from the other three stages because, as Study 2A revealed,
the customer generally feels most in control of the amount of carbon emitted at this stage.
In addition, the combinatorial number of combinations for four life-cycle stages is much
more than for three stages. A consumer might choose a product with lower carbon
emissions during the usage stage for one of two reasons. First, the usage life-cycle, in
general, may be more salient to consumers because they it focuses their awareness on the
fact that, by using the product, they are directly accountable for the carbon emissions it
produces in the usage stage. To minimise their responsibility for carbon emissions, these
consumers may desire emissions at the usage stage to be lower than at the other three
stages. The second influence is that consumers who envision using the product more than
average may recognise that the published carbon emission value for the usage life-cycle
is too low. These customers may respond by mentally increasing the emissions for the
usage stage. Thus, consumers who use the product frequently would be particularly likely
to prefer products with low emissions levels during the usage stage.
Overview. To see whether participants prefer products with lower or higher levels of
carbon emissions in the usage stage, a series of studies was conducted. The previous
studies indicated that participants preferred equal amounts of emissions across all stages,
so the next set of comparisons often included one choice with equal emissions at all
stages.
Stimuli. Study 2D consists of 7 paired comparisons. Each paired comparison had the
same total emissions (manufactureA + transportationA + usageA + disposalA) =
(manufactureB + transportationB + usageB + disposalB). Ambiguity aversion was present
in this study, thus the first four comparisons contrasted a product with equal carbon
emissions at all four stages to a product that had differing levels of carbon emissions. The
fifth through seventh comparisons contrasted products with slightly differing levels of
emissions at each stage (see Table 3D). Carbon emitted during usage was lower in C1
choice B, C2 choice A, C3 choice A, C5 choice B, C6 choice B and C7 choice B. Thus,
the only C4 had equal emissions for both choices during the usage stage.
Results and discussion. The participants (n = 137) preferred the option which had
equal carbon emissions across all stages for the first three comparisons (57% vs. 43%, p
< 0.10; 74% vs. 26%, p < 0.01; 77% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). Surprisingly, in comparison 1,
customers chose option A over option B despite the fact that option B actually had lower
carbon emissions during usage (30) than did option A (50). This suggests that there is
interplay between the desire for no dispersion (mistake aversion) and the desire for low
usage levels (low responsibility). Thus, as usage levels between two products grow closer
in magnitude, there is an increasing chance that the product with a lower level of
dispersion in carbon emissions between stages will be chosen.
Comparison 4 was the first time where fewer participants chose the equal carbon
emissions across all stages compared to another option (42% to 58%, p < 0.05). The
option that was preferred had low emissions during the first 5 years of usage and higher
emissions during the last five years. Comparisons 5–7 all showed that lower carbon
emissions during usage is preferred to higher carbon emitted during usage,
1 when combined with other life-cycle stages that have slightly more emissions than
the contrasting choice (C5: 66% vs. 34%, p < 0.01)
2 when only manufacture and transportation have more emissions than the contrasting
choice (C6: 61% vs. 39%, p < 0.05)
3 when manufacture and transportation have vastly more emissions that the contrasting
choice (C7: 58% vs. 42%, p < 0.10).
Together these results suggest a boundary condition for the preference for no dispersion –
when carbon emitted during the first five years of usage is sufficiently small. In fact, low
levels of carbon emission during the first five years of usage attracts a higher level of
preference even compared to choices with low levels at manufacture, transportation and
disposal. Thus, low levels of usage are preferred, except when the levels are not
sufficiently low enough to overcome ambiguity aversion presented by equal dispersion of
emissions across life-cycle stages.
Table 3D
Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 Comparison 4 Comparison 5 Comparison 6 Comparison 7

A B A B A B A B A B A B A B
Emissions
Manufacture 25 35 25 20 25 25 25 25 25 35 10 25 10 50
Study 2D stimulus and results
Transportation 25 35 25 20 25 15 25 25 25 35 10 25 10 50
Usage
First five years 25 15 25 30 25 30 25 5 10 10 40 10 5 5
Last five years 25 15 25 30 25 30 25 45 40 10 55 55 50 10
Disposal 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 35 10 10 50 10
Total emissions 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
% preference 57 43 74 26 77 23 42 58 34 66 39 61 42 58
p-value * *** *** ** *** ** *
Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001, N = 137
283
4.11 Studies 3A–3C: the role of carbon emissions offsets in product choice
The final set of studies examines the offsets portion of the label. This portion of the label
contains information on recycling and other offsets. Individuals have direct control over
recycling. It is a physical task that one must undertake and it is tangible. Other offsets,
such as planting trees, or setting aside portions of the Amazon rainforests as carbon
sequestration, are more distal from the consumer in that they do not actively participate in
these activities. In addition, some consumers may doubt the efficacy of non-recycling
related offsets. Some may even go as far to question whether the offset programmes are
in fact occurring. The tangibility and interactive nature of recycling compared to other
offsets should lower levels of accountability for carbon emissions because recycling
increases the level of accountability.
However, consumers may wish to see the firm play an active role in carbon reduction.
Part of firm participation is conveyed through lowering the overall carbon footprint of a
product that was examined in the first group of studies. Another method that a firm can
signal it is firsthand participation in carbon reduction is through offsets. Thus we expect
that products manufactured by firms that run their own offset programmes will be
preferred to products from firms that outsource their offset programme to a third-party.
4.12 Study 3A: the value of recycling compared to other offsets

Overview. This study examines whether recycling is preferred to other forms of offsets.
Stimuli. Study 3A consists of three paired comparison tests. Each paired comparison
has the same manufacture, transportation, usage, disposal, total, offsets and net
emissions. The comparisons contrast products with varying levels of recycling and other
offsets (see Table 4A).
Table 4A Stimuli and results for Study 3A
Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3

A B A B A B
Emissions by stage
Manufacture 25 25 25 25 25 25
Transportation 25 25 25 25 25 25
Usage 25 25 25 25 25 25
Disposal 25 25 25 25 25 25
Total emissions 100 100 100 100 100 100
All offsets
Recycling 0 10 20 10 20 0
Offsets 20 10 0 10 0 20
Total offsets 20 20 20 20 20 20
Net emissions 80 80 80 80 80 80
% preference 7 93 65 35 79 21
p-value *** ** ***
Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001, N = 107
Results and discussion. In all three comparisons, participants (Table 4A, n = 107)
significantly preferred the product with a higher level of recycling;
1 when contrasted with no recycling (C1: 93% vs. 7% p < 0.01)
2 when combined with no other offsets (C2: 65% vs. 35% p < 0.05)
3 when combined with no offsets and contrasted with no recycling (C3: 79% vs. 21% p
< 0.01).
Thus, there is support that recycling is valued more than other offsets.
4.13 Study 3B: company administered offset programmes compared to

outsourced offset programmes
Overview. The preference for recycling over other offsets was established in the prior
experiment, so the next step is to examine whether participants prefer the company to
administer offset programmes or to outsource administration of the programme. In this
experiment the participants are asked their preference for the level of firm involvement in
the offset decision. The American Marketing Association (2011) has broadened the scope
of marketing’s stakeholders to ‘customers, clients, partners and society at large’
(emphasis added). The term corporate citizenship, or membership of the firm in the
community has taken hold (Marsden, 2000). Active participation is a necessary
component of being a corporate citizen (Matten and Crane, 2005), suggesting that firms
desiring to be viewed as good corporate citizens may therefore want to administer their
own offset programmes.
Table 4B Stimuli and results for study 3B
Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3

A B A B A B
Emissions by stage
Manufacture 25 25 25 25 25 25
Transportation 25 25 25 25 25 25
Usage 25 25 25 25 25 25
Disposal 25 25 25 25 25 25
Total emissions 100 100 100 100 100 100
All offsets
Recycling 10 10 15 10 10 15
Offsets 10 10 15 10 10 15
Total offsets 20 20 30 20 20 30
Net emissions 80 80 70 80 80 70
Manufacturer A outsources its offset programmes.
Manufacturer B runs its own offset programmes.
% preference 82 18 87 13 38 62
p-value *** *** **
Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001, N = 107
Stimuli. Study 3B consists of three paired comparison tests. Each paired comparison had
the same manufacture, transportation, usage, disposal, offsets and total emissions (see
Table 4B). The first comparison contrasted two products with identical emissions at all
stages. The only difference was whether the company ran its own offset programme or
outsourced the offset programme. The second comparison was similar except the offsets
were greater and therefore the net emissions were lower, for the option that ran its own
offset programme. The third comparison reversed the second comparison such that the
offsets were greater and therefore the net emissions were lower, for the option that
outsourced its offset programme.
Results and discussion. Participants (Table 4B, n = 107) preferred firms that ran their
own offset programme (82% to 18%, p < 0.01), especially if the result was lower net
emissions (87% to 13%, p < 0.01), but not if the outsourced firm is able to increase the
offset level lowering the net emission level (38% to 62%, p < 0.05). Overall, these results
show that an in-house offset programme is valued, but not if net emissions are lowered by
the outsourced firm. However, there is a significant difference (p < 0.001), based on
whether the carbon offset programme is outsourced or not, between the percentages of
participants who prefer the option with lower net emissions and higher offsets.
Employing percentages across paired comparisons, only 13% preferred the option with
higher net emissions due to lower offsets if the firm outsources the offset programme.
Yet, for firms that do not outsource the offset programme, 38% of consumers preferred
the option with higher net emissions due to lower offsets. This finding lends further
support for the idea that consumers want firms to be involved in their carbon emission
reduction.
4.14 Study 3C: beliefs regarding offset abilities

To help uncover why participants may prefer a firm to run its own carbon emissions
programme rather than outsource it, a new group of participants was asked about car
manufacturer characteristics. In other words, were there certain skill sets or knowledge
that a firm has that a third party may not have where offsets are concerned? If significant
results were found in answer to these questions, then an accountability explanation may
be minimised or incorrect. However, if it is believed that the outsourced firm has greater
skills in increasing offsets, then there is additional evidence that committed firm
involvement in reducing carbon emissions is preferred.
Stimuli. The topics of the questions ranged from whether a company could run an
honest offset programme to whether they had the skills to run an offset programme to
whether they were honest in other areas of their business. There were also questions
regarding the offset firm. The full list of questions is in Table 4C. Participants answered a
number of questions answered on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree).
Results and discussion. The responses (Table 4C, n = 115) to the questions were
analysed using paired t-tests. Question 1 was paired with question 2, 3 with 4, 5 with 6, 7
with 3 and 1 with 8. Thus, participants were compared based on whether they view a
manufacturer’s ability to run a successful carbon offset programme, with participants’
view of whether a third-party company specialising in offset could run such a successful
carbon emissions offset programme. Participants indicated that a specialised firm would
run a carbon offset programme more honestly than the manufacturer (diff. = 0.43, p <
0.01) and care more about the environment (diff. = 0.37, p < 0.01). Whether participants
believe that outside firms have superior skills and expertise in administering a carbon
offset programme is insignificant (diff. = 0.14, p = 0.14). A manufacturer was viewed as
having a higher degree of skills and expertise to perform transactions than to run a carbon
offset programme (diff. = 0.54, p < 0.01) and was viewed as being fairer in customer
transaction conduct than in running an honest carbon offset programme (diff. = 0.48, p <
0.01).
Table 4C Stimuli and results for study 3C
Avg. rating p-
Statement1
(SD) value
1 My car manufacturer can run an honest carbon offset programme. 3.34 (0.85) ****
2 A third party company specialising in offsets can run an honest 3.77 (0.89)
carbon offset programme.
3 My car manufacturer has the skills and expertise to run a carbon 3.44 (0.97) +
offset programme.
4 A third party company specialising in offsets has the skills and 3.58 (0.79)
expertise to run a carbon offset programme.
5 My car manufacturer cares about the environment. 3.19 (1.03) ***
6 A third party company specialising in offsets cares about the 3.56 (0.86)
environment.
7 My car manufacturer has the skills and expertise to perform 3.98 (0.69) ****
transactions in an expected manner.
3 My car manufacturer has the skills and expertise to run a carbon 3.44 (0.97)
offset programme.2
1 My car manufacturer can run an honest carbon offset programme.2 3.34 (0.85) ****
8 My car manufacturer is fair in its conduct of customer transactions. 3.82 (0.81)
Notes: 1Each statement was separately presented and was answered using a 1–5 scale,
1 = strongly disagree … 5 = strongly agree,
2
Statements 1 and 3 were only asked once, but they were used in two places for
the comparisons,
+p < 0.15, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001, N = 115
Together these results indicate that, not only are specialised firms perceived as better
options for administering carbon offset programmes, but manufacturers are perceived as
more adept at their core business. From a logical viewpoint, the results would indicate
that consumers should prefer that the carbon offset programme be outsourced. However,
the results from the previous study (4B) indicate that this is not consumers’ preferences.
A likely conclusion, therefore, is that consumers have a desire to see the manufacturers
involved in carbon offset programmes.
5 Discussions
Table 5 contains a summary of the results for all studies. From a theoretical perspective,
the results were guided by accountability, both of consumers and firms, as well as
ambiguity aversion. For example, the studies show that there is a significant decrease in
preference for products with higher than average carbon emissions. Moreover study
participants also preferred products with lower carbon emissions the more their
accountability increased. Thus, low levels of carbon were most desired in the usage stage
and high levels of carbon emissions were preferred in the most distal stage, manufacture.
Another way that accountability manifests itself in product choice based on carbon
emissions is through ambiguity or mistake aversion. A possible conclusion is that
consumers do not wish to be blamed for carbon emissions. Choosing a product where no
one life-cycle stage emits more carbon than another can minimise the extent of
accountability that can be assigned to the purchaser.
Table 5 Summary of results
Study Finding
1A Participants do not consider carbon emissions to a great degree (when purchasing a
product without a carbon label), but they believe a firm should reduce carbon
emissions.
1B In printer choices, participants weighed carbon emissions only slightly less than price.
1C In car choices, participants weighed carbon usage as much as age and maintenance, but
less than life expectancy.
1D Participants prefer a carbon label with more information compared to ones with less
information.
2A Participants feel more accountable for carbon emitted in the usage stage, while they feel
the firm is more accountable in the manufacture and transportation stages.
2B Lower levels of carbon emissions are preferred during the disposal and transportation
stages than in the manufacture stage
2C Less dispersion in emissions across the four stages is preferred by participants to
greater dispersion.
2D Boundary condition for 2C results: If lower total emissions occur during a products first
years of life expectancy then higher dispersion will be preferred.
3A Recycling is preferred to other forms of offsets.
3B Participants prefer that firm’s run their own offset programmes rather than outsource
them.
3C Participants have a desire to see the manufacturers involved in carbon offset
programmes.
The second group of studies also shows that participants preferred conformity or low
standard deviation in carbon emissions across the life-cycles in many cases. This
ambiguity aversion or desire for conformity in carbon emissions affects the results that
indicate that low levels at the usage stage or high levels at the manufacturing stage are
always preferred. There is a tipping point where lower levels of carbon emitted at the
manufacturing stage are preferred, a counterintuitive finding. This switch in preferences
occurs when a product with no dispersion in its carbon emission levels at each life-cycle
stage is compared with a product that has a varied amount of carbon emitted at each stage
and has slightly less carbon emitted at the manufacture stage. The same type of
phenomena is found for the usage stage. Here the tipping point occurs when the carbon
emitted during the beginning of the usage stage is low. The desire for conformity may
change as consumers learn more about carbon emissions.
The final set of studies determined that participants preferred recycling to other forms
of offsets and that participants preferred firms to run their own carbon emissions offset
programmes. A preference for recycling can be seen as governed by accountability. A
consumer or a firm engaging in recycling is alleviating their accountability for carbon
emissions first-hand by reducing those emissions through recycling. A similar

explanation may apply to consumer preference for firms to administer their own offset
programmes rather than outsourcing, even if outsourced firm is more expert.
Together, the results suggest a few early guidelines for managers. First, it seems
important not be worst in class – carbon emissions should be no worse than the category
average. Second, when deciding where to allocate carbon reduction resources, firms
should consider either a) reducing carbon emissions first at the usage stage, followed by
the transportation and disposal stages and lastly the manufacture stage, or b) reducing
carbon levels such that each stage emits about the same level. Third, whenever possible,
designing and producing a product that can be recycled will find greater favour with
consumers. Finally, a firm may need to show that concern for carbon emissions and one
way to do this is by running its own offset programme rather than employing a third
party.
The role of accountability may be affected by the environment in which the product is
purchased and consumed. The influence of carbon emitted during different life-cycle
stages may diverge between products purchased online and consumed in private
compared with products purchase and utilised in public. In fact, it is possible that the size
of the carbon footprint label can accentuate feelings of accountability. A larger, more
visible, label should induce greater feelings of accountability in public settings. In the
product selection stage, customers may assume that their choices will be made in the
presence of other shoppers which will contribute to increasing a sense of accountability
(Guerin, 1989). Consumers will likely expect that the product they choose will be linked
to them, because other people will see them using the products that they have purchased
and therefore weigh the carbon emission consequences carefully (Price 1987).
From a public policy perspective, introduction of legislation requiring carbon
emission labels and mandating oversight of these labels could prove to be a valuable tool
in reducing carbon emissions. In examining food labels, Ippolito and Mathios (1994) find
that the advent of labels detailing food fat content coincided with reductions in fat
consumption. If firms are rewarded by consumers for having the lowest emission levels,
then only a couple of firms in an industry may try to achieve the lowest emission levels
for a competitive advantage. However, the studies show that products with the highest
carbon emission levels in any one specific category are much less desired. The hoped for
result may be a virtuous circle where the worst carbon emitter improves its emission
level, then the new worst offender reduces its carbon emission level and so on.
Eventually the category as a whole will produce fewer emissions. The second benefit is
that firms are likely to concentrate on lowering emissions at life-cycle stages with the
highest emission levels. Thus, these firms will lower the overall emission levels for their
products, which will decrease the average carbon level for the product category, which
will impel firms with the highest carbon emission to reduce their emissions.
An application of this line of thinking to carbon emissions suggests that simply
labelling products with their carbon emissions levels could result in consumers being
more attuned to carbon emissions levels and thus purchasing either fewer products, or
products with a lower lifetime carbon emission level. If this were to occur, carbon
footprint labelling might produce cross-industry carbon reduction, benefiting society as a
whole and providing a significant step toward a sustainable planet (The Carbon Trust,
2009). On the other hand, the introduction of a carbon footprint label may have
counterintuitive consequences. Wansink and Chandon (2006) demonstrate that low-fat
nutrition labels can increase some consumers’ perceptions of the appropriate serving size
while decreasing guilt. A similar effect might occur with carbon emission labels. A
consumer who contributes to excess carbon emissions may feel guilty, but if the carbon
footprint label assuages those guilt feelings, then that consumer may purchase and use
more products, potentially resulting in increased carbon emission levels. In fact,
Responsible Travel, a green travel agency has come to that very conclusion (Rosenthal,
2009). Wansink and Chandon suggest explicit serving-size information to combat
over-eating, at least among normal weight consumers, hence a strong argument can be
made to include carbon emissions per serving size on the carbon emission label.
In general, the ability of a firm to reduce consumer feelings of accountability for
carbon emissions may provide value in other areas. Can a firm accentuate the feelings of
guilt for a product to increase preference? Or try to reduce consumer anticipated guilt
through their product offerings? Peloza et al. (2013) suggest that activation of
self-accountability may produce more positive reactions to ethical appeals. Thus, firms
that excel at reducing carbon emissions may be able to override preferences for the
cheaper product. In a similar manner Passyn and Sujan (2006) find that the addition of
guilt to fear increases action. Meaning that for those who fear the possible adverse
consequences of carbon emissions could be guilted into purchasing products that have
carbon emissions for which they are less accountable (i.e., at the manufacturing stage).
As with all research, the studies have limitations. One area that there was not room to
address was examination of the level of average usage akin to the number of calories per
serving (e.g., 12,000 miles per year for a car or 200 loads of laundry for washing
machines). Such an addition would offer numerous opportunities to see how usage
amount not only affects consumers’ views of the usage life-cycle stage, but also ancillary
effects on the other stages. Perhaps the greatest issue is whether the indicated behaviour
will translate into the real world. Experimental economics techniques were used to
increase the generalisability of the results to non-laboratory settings by offering, in the
choice studies, a real product for consumption that matched the emission description. The
participants were told that based on one of their selections, chosen randomly, they would
receive a large tasty cookie that conformed to the carbon emission label. However, more
work can and should be done in this area. Moreover, many products are either purchased
in private or consumed in private, thus possibly minimising the role of accountability.
Examination which products categories are more susceptible to accountability provides a
further avenue for future research.
6 Conclusions
In conclusion, this paper examined how consumers may react to the presence of a carbon
footprint label on products. We find that participants not only will take the carbon label
into account when making product decisions, but they wanted detailed information on the
label. Moreover, participants indicated that they place differential emphasis on which
stage they feel more responsible for the emissions. They indicated that they feel most
accountable for carbon emissions that occur during the usage stage, while the firm should
be accountable during the manufacture and transportation stages. Consumer concern with
climate change is growing and governmental legislation regulating emissions is
increasing. Thus, firms should be preparing for how they may affect consumer choice. In
fact, carbon footprint labels are already beginning to appear on products so it behooves
researchers to continue to investigate this trend.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participants at a University of Missouri presentation for providing
feedback on an earlier version of the paper, especially Peter Bloch, Marsha Richins and
S. Ratneshwar. This research was supported by grants from the Robert J. Trulaske, Sr.
College of Business Small Grant Program.
References
Adelberg, S. and Batson, D.C. (1978) ‘Accountability and helping: when needs exceed resources’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.343–50.
American Marketing Association (2011) Definition of Marketing [online]
http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx (accessed
8/12/12).
Bettman, J.R. and Sujan, M. (1987) ‘Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and
noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.141–154.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998) ‘Constructive consumer choice processes’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.187–217.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2004) ‘Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers
respond to corporate social initiatives’, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 1,
pp.9–24.
Bielak, D., Bonin, S.M.J. and Oppenheim, J.M. (2007) ‘CEOs on strategy and social issues’, The
McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4, pp.8–12.
Brickson, S.L. (2007) ‘Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm and
distinct forms of social value’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.864–888.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2011) Global Warming Facts and Figures [online]
http://www.pewclimate.org/facts-figures (accessed 5/3/12).
Curley, S., Yates, F. and Abrams, R.A. (1986) ‘Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp.230–256.
David Suzuki Foundation (2012) The Problems with Carbon Offsets from Tree-Planting [online]
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/the-problems-with-carbon-offsets-
from-tree-planting/ (accessed 24 April 2012).
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2012) Leading Businesses to Disclose
Greenhouse Gas Emissions [online] http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/06/20/greenhouse-
gas-reporting/ (accessed 5/3/12).
Fox, C.R. and Tversky, A. (1995) ‘Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance’, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 3, pp.585–603.
Fox, C.R. and Weber, M. (2002) ‘Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision
context’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88, No. 1,
pp.476–498.
General Motors (2012) Chevrolet Pioneers Auto Environmental Label [online]
http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012
/Jan/0126_ecologic (accessed 5/3/12).
Guerin, B. (1989) ‘Reducing evaluation effects in mere presence’, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 129, No. 2, pp.183–190.
Ippolito, P.M. and Mathios, A.D. (1994) ‘Information, policy, and the sources of fat and cholesterol
in the U.S. Diet’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.200–217.
Keren, G. and Gerritsen, L.E.M. (1999), ‘On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity
aversion’, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 103, Nos. 1–2, pp.149–72.
Lee, H., Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, C. (1999) ‘Motivated search: effects of choice
accountability, issue involvement, and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.75–88.
Lerner, J.S. and Tetlock, P.E. (1999) ‘Accounting for the effects of accountability’, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp.255–275.
Lewis, S.L., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Sonke, B., Affum-Baffoe, K., Baker, T.R., Ojo, L.O.,
Phillips, O.L., Reitsma, J.M., White, L., Comiskey, J.A., Djuikouo, M.N., Ewango, C.E.N.,
Feldpausch, T.R., Hamilton, A.C., Gloor, M., Hart, T., Hladik1, A., Lloyd, J., Lovett, J.C.,
Makana, J-R., Malhi, Y., Mbago, F.M., Ndangalasi, H.J., Peacock, J., Peh1, K.S-H., Sheil, D.,
Sunderland, T., Swaine, M.D., Taplin, J., Taylor, D., Thomas, S.C., Votere, R. and Wöll, H.
(2009) ‘Increasing carbon storage in intact african tropical forests’, Nature, Vol. 457,
No. 7232, pp.1003–1006.
Marsden, C. (2000) ‘The new corporate citizenship of big business: part of the solution to
sustainability?’, Business and Society Review, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp.8–25.
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005) ‘Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.166–179.
Mintel Corporation (2011) ‘Consumer interest in ‘green’ services doubled from 2008–10’, Mintel
Oxygen Reports: Mintel Corporation [online] http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/press-
releases/675/consumer-interest-in-green-services-doubled-from-2008-10 (accessed 5/3/12).
Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001) ‘Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior’, Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.45–72.
Pahlke, J., Strasser, S. and Vieider, F.M. (2012) ‘Risk-taking for others under accountability’,
Economics Letters, Vol. 114, No. 1, pp.102–105.
PAS 2050 (2008) PAS 2050 [online] http://www.bsi-global.com/en/ (accessed 10 April 2009.
Passyn, K. and Sujan, M. (2006) ‘Self-accountability emotions and fear appeals: motivating
behavior’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.583–589.
Peloza, J., White, K. and Shang, J. (2013), ‘Good and guilt free the role of self-accountability in
influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77,
No. 1, pp.104–119.
Pisarski, A., Ashworth, P. and Gardner, J. (2011) Three Theories and a Process: Engaging
Community, British Academy of Management, Aston University, UK.
Reynolds, T.W., Bostrom, A., Read, D. and Morgan, M.G. (2010) ‘Now what do people know
about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 30,
No. 10, pp.1520–1538.
Rosenthal, E. (2009) ‘Paying more for flights eases guilt, not emissions’, The New York Times.
Rozelle, R.M. and Baxter, J.C. (1981) ‘Influence of role pressures on the perceiver: judgments of
videotaped interviews varying judge accountability and responsibility’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp.437–441.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. (1993) ‘Reason-based choice’, Cognition, Vol. 49, No. 1,
pp.11–36.
Solomon, S., Plattner, G-K., Knutti, R. and Friedlingstein, P. (2009) ‘Irreversible climate change
due to carbon dioxide emissions’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106,
No. 6, pp.1704–1709.
Steenhaut, S. and van Kenhove, P. (2006) ‘The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’
ethical decision-making’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp.269–288.
Tesco (2008) Tesco Trials Carbon Trust Label on 20 Own-Brand Products [online]
http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=17&newsid=581 (accessed 5/3/12).
Tetlock, P.E. (1985) ‘Accountability: a social check on the fundamental attribution error’, Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp.227–236.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992) ‘The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social
contingency model’, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York.
Tetlock, P.E. and Boettger, r. (1994) ‘Acocuntability amplifies the status quo effect’, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.1–23.
The Carbon Trust (2009) Accelerating the Move to a Low Carbon Economy [online]
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/default.ct (accessed 1 March 2009).
The New York Times (2008) Capitalism to the Rescue, in Gertner, J. (Ed.), NY.
The New York Times (2009) How Green Is My Orange?, in Martin, A. (Ed.), NY.
The New York Times (2011a) Carbon Trading May Be Ready for Its Next Act [online]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/business/energy-environment/carbon-trading-may-be-
ready-for-its-next-act.html?scp=2&sq=carbon%20law%20australia&st=cse (accessed 20
November 2011).
The New York Times (2011b) Companies Get New Tools for Calculating Emissions, in
Kaufman, L. (Ed.), New York, NY.
The Wall Street Journal (2008) GE Aims to Cut Global Water Usage, in Sechler, B. (Ed.), NY.
The Wall Street Journal (2009a) Hot Job: Calculating Products’ Pollution, in Campoy, A. (Ed.),
NY.
The Wall Street Journal (2009b) Wal-Mart to Assign New ‘Green’ Ratings, in Bustillo, M. (Ed.)
NY.
The Wall Street Journal (2012) Which Outfit Is Greenest? A New Rating Tool, in The East Coast
(Ed.)
Todd, J. and Josephson, B. (1996) ‘The design of living technologies for waste treatment’,
Ecological Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.109–136.
Todd, J. and Todd, N.J. (1995) ‘Living machines’, in Capra, F. and Pauli, G. (Eds.): Steering
Business Toward Sustainability, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Trautmann, S., Vieider, F. and Wakker, P. (2008) ‘Causes of ambiguity aversion: known versus
unknown preferences’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.225–243.
Vieider, F.M. (2009) ‘The effect of accountability on loss aversion’, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 132,
No. 1, pp.96–101.
Walkers (2009) Walkers Carbon Footprint [online]
http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk/walkers_carbon_footprint.html (accessed 5/3/12).
Wansink, B. and Chandon, P. (2006) ‘Can ‘low-fat’ nutrition labels lead to obesity?’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.605–617.
Weber, C.L., Jaramillo, P., Marriott, J. and Samaras, C. (2010) ‘Life cycle assessment and grid
electricity: what do we know and what can we know?’, Environmental Science & Technology,
Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.1895–1901.
Appendix A
Figure A1 Tesco carbon footprint label (see online version for colours)
Source: http://www.sondrak.com/archive/skpics2/carbon_label.jpg
Figure A2 GM Chevrolet sonic environmental label (see online version for colours)
Source: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2012/01/2012-chevy-sonic-
wheres-our-ecologic-environmental-label.html
Figure A3 Timberland footprint
Source: http://www.timberland.com/shop/ad4.jsp
Figure A4 Sapporo breweries (see online version for colours)
Source: http://www.carboncounted.com/?p=225
Appendix B
Glossary sheet
Please read the following definitions and examples (listed in alphabetical order). Use this
sheet when answering the questions on the next two pages.
• Carbon emissions: the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted during one of the
four stages of a product’s life-cycle. The higher the carbon emission amount the
worse effect it has on the earth’s environment.
• Carbon footprint: the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. A larger carbon footprint
implies a larger amount of carbon emissions.
• Carbon sink: a method of offsetting carbon consumption, such as planting trees that
absorb carbon dioxide.
• Corporate social responsibility (CSR): an organisation’s status and activities with
respect to its perceived societal obligations.
Examples:
1 whether the firm has women or minorities in management
2 outstanding employee work benefits
3 level of charitable giving
4 level of chemical use.
• Four stages of a product’s life-cycle: manufacture, transportation, usage and
disposal.
• Living machine: an organism that consumes material adverse to the health of the
earth, such as arsenic.
• Net emissions: emissions created during the product’s four life-cycle stages –
Emissions removed from atmosphere through offsets.
• Offsets: methods of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that are
independent from the products that a firm creates.
• Sustainability: meet present needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs. Resources must not be used faster than they can be
replaced.
Appendix C
Introduction to each experiment

Please read the following text taken from various sources regarding population
expansion:
World population would not be a problem if there were unlimited land, unlimited
water, unlimited resources. Unfortunately, with overpopulation, there is the problem of
sharing the same sized pie with smaller and smaller portions. People in developed
countries who have been accustomed to a better quality of life are reluctant to give it up.
In many cases, more efficient use of resources has come along hand-in-hand with
improved quality of life.
The recent rapid increase in human population over the past two centuries has raised
concerns that humans are beginning to overpopulate the Earth and that the planet may not
be able to sustain present or larger numbers of inhabitants. The UN defines mitigation in
the context of climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance
the sinks of greenhouse/carbon gases. Examples include using fossil fuels more
efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable
energy (solar energy or wind power), improving the insulation of buildings and
expanding forests and other ‘sinks’ to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most significant among the heat-trapping greenhouse
gases that human beings are adding to the atmosphere and approximately 80–85% of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions stem from the combustion of fossil fuels-coal, oil and
natural gas.
A country’s rapid population growth can contribute to high national emissions later,
when population growth may have slowed or stopped altogether and per capita emissions
continue to rise. This pattern is typical of industrialised countries and it is likely to apply
in the future to the rapidly growing, low-emitting nations of today such as China and
India.
View publication stats

IJEPDM2015GroeningInmanandRoss PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IJEPDM2015GroeningInmanandRoss PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase decisions

Article · January 2015

Christopher John Groening J. Jeffrey Inman

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Reward vs. Restriction Frames in Promotional Offers View project

Shopper-Facing Retail Technology: An Adoption Decision Framework View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase

William T. Ross Jr.

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

of customer satisfaction and corporate social responsibility. His publications

The consumer market is transitioning from a focus on eco-efficiency to an era of

2 Background and literature review

2.1 Carbon footprint labelling

2.2 Carbon emission label used in the studies

Figure 1 Carbon label

2.3 Product choice influencer in a sustainability context: accountability

3.1 Overview of studies

Study Method Questions

Table 1 Overview of studies (continued)

Study Method Questions

Table 1 Overview of studies (continued)

Study Method Questions

3.2 Data collection

to a minimum. To introduce a consequence for participants’ choices, participants were

4.1 Studies 1A–1D: carbon emissions effect on consumer choice

4.2 Study 1A: consumers’ concern with carbon emissions

4.7 Study 2A: allocation of accountability for carbon emissions

Std Displayed: row – column and significance level

carbon emissions at this stage, 7 = I am accountable for the carbon emissions at

Std Displayed: row – column and significance level

Std Displayed: row – column and significance level

Product A Product B Results

2 0 30 60 60 30 0 39% 61% ** Is lower manufacture valued more than

4.9 Study 2C: comparison of carbon emissions dispersion between stages –

4.10 Study 2D: the usage stage compared to other stages

Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3 Comparison 4 Comparison 5 Comparison 6 Comparison 7

4.12 Study 3A: the value of recycling compared to other offsets

Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3

4.13 Study 3B: company administered offset programmes compared to

Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Comparison 3

4.14 Study 3C: beliefs regarding offset abilities

emissions first-hand by reducing those emissions through recycling. A similar

Figure A3 Timberland footprint

Figure A4 Sapporo breweries (see online version for colours)

Introduction to each experiment

View publication stats

You might also like