Shopper Sentiments and The Environment

RETAIL AND SHOPPER 2009
part 4 / SHOPPER EXPERIENCE
Shopper sentiments and

the environment
A cross-cultural comparison
Scott Young
Vincenzo Ciummo
INTRODUCTION
The environment has received increasing attention over
the past five to ten years, driven by mounting evidence
of global warming and of health concerns tied to
pollution in China, India and many other developing
countries. Growing environmental awareness has clearly
been reflected in marketing, as seemingly every multinational company has developed advertising or public
relations to highlight its initiatives in this arena. It has also
had a major impact in the packaging world, because
packaging is often cited as a source of waste and a
potential opportunity to simultaneously cut costs and
reduce environmental impact. This opportunity, along
with considerable pressure from retailers (most notably
Walmarts Sustainable Packaging Scorecard program),
has led nearly all suppliers to begin developing more
environmentally-friendly packaging systems.
Not surprisingly, the environmental tide has also produced
a backlash of sorts, as there are increasing reports of
shopper skepticism in the midst of environmental claims
(i.e. green-washing). Marketers have also expressed
similar doubts that environmental considerations have
been over-stated, as reflected in this recent comment by
Bart Becht, CEO of Reckitt Benckiser: At the end of the
day, its the consumers decision, and they are not doing
anything about it.
At Perception Research Services (PRS), our primary
focus is on understanding shoppers and end-users
reactions to packaging systems. Thus, in light of all this
Copyright ESOMAR 2009
activity, weve centered our effort on understanding their

perspective on packaging and the environment. On a
more micro-level, weve been working to help marketers
introduce more environmentally-friendly packaging
systems that work on the shelf (i.e. succeed in market)
and the question has been more specific: What works?
In addition, there is an intriguing cross-cultural component to this research, as weve wanted to see how
environmental awareness and perceptions varied
across regions. For example:
Would Europeans live up to their reputation and
prove more knowledgeable and environmentallyconscious than the rest of the world?
Has increased pollution in much of the developing
world impacted environmental sensitivities and has
this translated to shopping behavior?
Are there differences across cultures in perceptions
of packaging (i.e. which packages are environmentally
friendly?) and in preferences among packaging systems?
To explore these issues, PRS has conducted three
forms of primary shopper research on a global level:
1. Foundational research to understand shoppers
attitudes and claimed behaviors regarding shopping,
packaging and the environment ;
2. Exposure to unbranded packaging structures to gauge
perceptions of specific packaging systems and materials
and uncover the importance of environmental factors
in driving packaging preferences;

3. The pre-testing of new environmentally-friendly

packaging systems (i.e. on-shelf studies), to gauge
their potential sales impact and guide/optimize their
introduction.
This paper shares primary findings from all three
forms of shopper research, with a particular focus
on identifying patterns across cultures (i.e. similarities
and differences) and on outlining implications for
marketers and designers.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
A primary benefit of this foundational research is that
it was executed identically on a global level and thus
allowed for direct comparisons across countries. As
such, it revealed both commonalities and differences
in shopper perceptions and claimed behavior.
Figure 1 for example, suggests a general global consensus that shoppers should choose products with more
environmentally-friendly packaging, with 70% or more

of shoppers in all countries (except Russia) agreeing.
However, when the question is asked with a greater
emphasis on shopper responsibility (i.e. Shoppers
should be willing to pay a bit extra), figures diverge
greatly, with far higher levels of agreement in developing
markets (Brazil, China, India and Mexico) than in Europe
or the United States.
A follow-up question on perceived pricing (see figure 2)
reveals another global commonality, as it shows that
relatively few shoppers expect that environmentallyfriendly packaging will cost more (than traditional
packaging).
This is consistent with comments weve heard repeatedly
in custom studies, as shoppers have reasoned that
since environmentally-friendly packaging is re-used
it should be less expensive to make.
Figure 1
Attitudes Regarding Environmentally Friendly Packaging
Percentage of shoppers who agreed with each statement (top 2 box on a 5-point scale)

Figure 2
Expected Cost of Environmentally Friendly Packaging
Fortunately, the idea of re-used packaging did not

consistently translate into quality concerns. When shoppers were asked about their reactions to hearing that
packaging was made from recycled materials, roughly
50% claimed that it would have a positive impact on
their purchase interest, as opposed to low percentages
claiming a negative impact (see figure 3).
When questioned directly about their shopping behavior
(see figure 4), nearly two-thirds of shoppers in China,
India and Brazil admit that environmental factors do
not usually have an impact on what products they buy,
a figure that drops to under one-half of shoppers in
Germany (42%) and the United States (46%).
However, even in these markets, relatively few shoppers
(under 30%) claim to check whether a package is
recycled before buying the product. This figure corresponds with that from a recent PRS study in the United
States, in which fewer than 20% of shoppers claimed
to look for the recycling symbol when shopping.
Perhaps most interestingly, China, India and Brazil had

the highest percentage of shoppers (all over 70%)
claiming to know which packages were good for the
environment (see figure 5).
Taken collectively, this foundational research leads to
two broad hypotheses.
First, environmental awareness (and perceived shopper
responsibility and knowledge) is notably high in several
major developing markets, including China, India and
Brazil. However, these attitudes do not consistently impact
shopping behavior, for a variety of reasons, which most
likely include economic considerations and/or a lack
of more environmentally-friendly options. Conversely,
Russia appears to stand out in terms of its lack of societal
consensus regarding the desirability of environmental
action.
Secondly, environmental considerations are not generally
part of the shopping experience and shoppers are
not expecting to pay more for packaging that is more
3

Figure 3
Impact of the Claim Made from Recycled Materials
Figure 4
Claimed Impact of Environmental Factors on Purchase Decisions
Top 2 box on a 5-point scale


Figure 5
Claimed Knowledge of Packaging and the Environment
Top 2 box on a 5-point scale
environmentally friendly. These findings are consistent

with the general theme weve heard from shoppers
globally, which is that it is the manufacturers responsibility to produce more environmentally-friendly packaging at no extra cost and that consumers primary
job is to recycle packaging after use, when possible.
REACTIONS TO UNBRANDED PACKAGING
STRUCTURES
The second component of our research allowed PRS
to isolate and understand the role of environmental
factors in driving packaging preferences. As well see,
this research revealed several interesting patterns and
common realities across cultures.
Within each product category, each shopper saw two
to three alternative packaging structures, which they
could hold and touch and was asked to state his/her
overall preference and the reasons why.
Across countries and packaging systems, this exercise

revealed that environmental considerations are not a
primary driver of packaging preference: In the United
States, only 26% of shoppers cited environmentallyfriendly as one of their top 3 considerations in driving
preferences among packaging options, as opposed
to approximately 40% citing functional considerations
(such as easy to open and re-sealable). In addition,
the ability to see the product (through the packaging)
emerged as a primary driver of packaging preference
in the United States, across a wide range of categories
including orange juice, cereal and bandages.
This primary trend was evident across countries, as
the percentage of shoppers citing environmental factors
as a primary driver of preference varied from 29%
(in Germany) down to 19% (China) and 16% (in the
United Kingdom).

After discussing their preferences, shoppers were

asked to evaluate the environmental friendliness of
each package on a 1-10 scale (with 10 signifying that
the package was very environmentally friendly).
These ratings revealed somewhat different perceptions
across cultures. For example, the same unbranded
carbonated soft drink packages (glass bottle, plastic
bottle and aluminum can) were shown in three different
countries, with varying results:
In the United States, the packages were rated very
comparably in perceived environmental impact, with
each package rating as about 7,
In the United Kingdom, the packages were also rated
very comparably but less generously, but with each
at or near a 6.3 on environmental friendliness.
In Germany, the glass bottle was (correctly) perceived
to be much more environmentally friendly than the other
options (at 8.2), as opposed to 4.6 (aluminum) and 5.6
(plastic).
Perhaps more telling, preferences varied by market,
as a majority of U.S. shoppers favored the aluminum
can, while U.K. shoppers favored the plastic bottle
and nearly half of German shoppers preferred the
glass bottle.
SEVERAL EXAMPLES AND MISPERCEPTIONS
A look at individual examples reveals some common
misperceptions regarding the environmental impact of
the alternative packaging systems. In the United States,
the widest gap in environmental perceptions came in the
insect repellent category, as the pump packaging was
rated as extremely environmentally friendly (7.22), most
likely due to its juxtaposition with aerosol packaging,
which received the lowest rating (4.98).
These low ratings were driven by outdated associations
of aerosols and their impact on the atmosphere (Aerosol
is bad for the environment. It kills the ozone layer.)
Despite this, however, overall preference actually leaned
towards the aerosol (54%), due to perceived functional
advantages.
In both Germany and China, a transparent shampoo bottle

was perceived to be better for the environment than an
opaque structure. This finding appeared to be driven by
mistaken confidence that clear plastic could be recycled
and the perception that it used less material than the
larger opaque bottle. Interestingly, stronger environmental
perceptions correlated highly with purchase preference
in Germany (74% favored clear plastic), but not in China
(where there was no clear preference between clear
and opaque).
Across countries and examples, this research suggests
three realities regarding shoppers and their perceptions
of environmentally-friendly packaging:
First, they suggest that the opportunity associated with
more environmentally-friendly packaging is far more
pronounced in some categories than others. Specifically,
they point to higher sensitivity to environmental considerations in categories with single-serve packaging (such
as bottled water and beverages) and in categories
associated with larger safety concerns (such as insect
repellent and cleaning products). Thus, it is logical that
companies such as Clorox and Poland Spring have been
among the most aggressive in introducing and promoting
environmentally friendly brands/products (such as green
works) and packaging systems.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these
examples point to a major gap in shoppers knowledge of
which packaging systems are best for the environment.
Without the benefit of pack claims/copy explicitly touting
environmental benefits, shoppers do not consistently
recognize which systems are better for the environment.
Moreover, weve seen that environmental perceptions
may be driven by long-outdated associations and they
are often simply wrong. For marketers, the implication is
that they cant simply put a more environmentally friendly
package on the shelves and assume that shoppers
will recognize and appreciate the change. If the goal is to
drive preference or justify a price premium, the environmental benefit needs to be conveyed.
Finally, this form of research appears to confirm a
primary finding from the foundational research, which
is that environmental considerations are not a primary
6

factor in the shopping experience. Indeed, across

countries and product categories, we did not find a
consistent, direct linkage between perceived environmental friendliness and overall packaging preference.
PRE-TESTING OF NEW ENVIRONMENTALLYFRIENDLY PACKAGING SYSTEMS
The final component (on-shelf testing) has varied the
most widely across studies, as it has necessarily involved
customization (of packaging, of shelf context, etc.) for
each brand and market. However, these studies have
also allowed us to explore several issues that could not
be addressed in the other research: On-Pack Environmental Messaging, Shelf Presence and Impact on
Brand Perceptions.
Across studies, weve seen that environmental messaging involves two considerable challenges: Conveying
claims in a clear, compelling manner and ensuring their
consideration within a brief shopping experience.
In terms of the former, weve identified a profound
terminology gap between marketers and shoppers,
starting at the most basic level with the term sustainable.

When shoppers were asked about their awareness of
the term sustainable packaging, only 35% in Germany
and China claimed to know what the term means and
this figure was far lower in the United States (24%) and
the United Kingdom (14%) (see figure 6). Whats more,
there is reason to believe that these figures are inflated:
When shoppers were probed further, we found that fully
half mistakenly interpreted sustainable to mean durable.
As one woman mistakenly put it, sustainable means
the package is not bio-degradable and stays with us
forever. Thus, while marketers, designers and engineers
may think and speak of sustainability, it is important to
remember that this is not consumer language in Beijing,
Birmingham, Bonn or Boston.
From this starting point, weve found a myriad of related
sources of confusion, including:
Widespread misunderstanding of the recycling symbol
commonly used in the United States. A recent study found
that only 26% of shoppers correctly understood the
symbol to refer to different forms of plastic, as opposed
Figure 6
Claimed Understanding of the Term Sustainable Packaging

to nearly 50% who admitted to having no idea what the

numbers mean. Moreover, nearly 70% of U.S. shoppers
believe that all forms of plastic are recyclable, although
this is certainly not the case.
Persistent confusion/blending in shoppers minds between
good for you vs. good for the planet. Given the growing
clutter of environmental messaging, weve found that
many shoppers mistakenly assume that good for
you products and claims (healthy, organic, etc.) imply
more environmentally-friendly packages and products.
Similarly, weve seen that good for planet messages
(including references to sources, fair trade, etc.) are
typically grouped mentally with the environment.
Which forms of environmental messaging have tended
to resonate? Across cultures, weve found that claims
linking to tangible impacts (i.e. one-third less plastic, one
million saved trees, etc.) are far more compelling than
more abstract references (to post-consumer materials,
sustainability, etc.). Importantly, weve also found that
references to recycling are indeed critical and that
shoppers do not typically make a distinction between
can be recycled and made from recycled material,
although the two factors are often mutually exclusive.
Importantly, even if marketers have the right environmental message, it is unlikely that most shoppers will see
this message in the brief time they make their purchase
decisions. Across brands and cultures, PRS Eye-Tracking
of package viewing patterns has shown that secondary
packaging messages (including most claims that are not
directly linked to the branding or main visual) are actively
considered by only one-third of shoppers (see PRS
Eye-Tracking pack example). In addition, weve found that
adding extra packaging messages does not lead to extra
viewing time: Instead, the shoppers attention (typically
three to five seconds) simply gets divided among more
elements. Given this reality, environmental messaging
can not be incremental (i.e. an extra message on the
pack). Instead, the most effective approach is to make
the environmental claim the message on pack or
the reason-for-being of the brand itself.
On a broader level, weve found that approximately
50% of the new, or environmentally-friendly packaging
systems that weve tested quantitatively have projected

to have a negative impact in market. When new systems
have performed poorly, there have been three consistent
drivers:
The new packaging systems have reduced shelf
visibility or created confusion at the shelf.
The new packaging systems have turned-off
shoppers on a visceral level and detracted from product
perceptions and brand imagery (i.e. they have simply
looked inappropriate or cheap).
The new packaging systems have involved significant
trade-offs on one or more functional dimensions (such
as product protection).
Certainly, our research suggests that marketers need
to consider the shelf impact on fundamental changes in
packaging structure or delivery system. These visuals
of the laundry detergent category in the United States
before and after the transition to more concentrated
packaging illustrate the impact of new structures on
shelf. In this case, PRS Eye-Tracking revealed that two
leading brands had significant declines in shelf visibility
(% Noting) in the concentrated scenario. In addition,
weve encountered numerous other situations in which
shoppers have encountered a new packaging structure
on shelf and mistakenly assumed that it was a different
variety (i.e. a new form) or possibly a change in the
product itself. These are both important considerations,
as validation studies have continually shown that shelf
presence (visibility and shop-ability) are primary drivers
of sales.
Beyond the shelf, a primary danger is that new packaging will detract from gut level reactions and/or
perceived packaging functionality. This was the case with
more environmentally-friendly bedding packaging, which
drove significant declines (relative to Current) on overall
appeal and perceived functionality (hard to close, not
re-sealable, etc.) and importantly, deprived shoppers
of the opportunity to touch the product. These declines,
in turn, drove drop in perceived product delivery, brand
imagery, price/value perception and purchase interest.
Across categories, the fundamental finding is that if the
package doesnt look right or raises concerns regarding
8

basic functional expectations, nothing else (including

environmental benefits) matters from the shoppers
perspective.
Which environmentally-driven approaches have worked?
Several in-market success stories convey valuable
lessons:
Green Works. Clorox just celebrated the first anniversary
of its Green Works product line, a brand that is defined
by its environmental benefits, in which eco-friendly
packaging is part of the larger proposition. A staggering
success, Green Works is now the number one natural
cleaning brand in the United States, with a 42% share of
the market. Since the launch of the Green Works line,
the natural cleaning product category has experienced
meteoric expansion, having grown more than 100%.
Unilever Concentrated Laundry Detergent. In Indias
dry southern states, where there is a scarcity of water,
Unilever has leveraged its concentrated laundry detergent to boost sales. Consumers use half as much water
as traditional brands when using Unilevers Surf Excel
Quick Wash, saving approximately 14 billion liters per
year and sales have increased 27% in the first half of
2008 alone. Clearly, the primary consumer benefit is
an economic one, as is also the case with Cold Water
detergent products. However, the environmental benefit
of the concentrated detergent packaging is also substantial: 55% less plastic is consumed, saving 150 million
pounds of plastic each year. The smaller package also
allows the retailers to stock more on the shelves and
reduces the costs and carbon footprint associated with
transporting the detergent to market.
Kraft Salad Dressing. A third example comes from Kraft,
which recently introduced salad dressing in new clear
bottles that reduced the amount of plastic used (by 19%),
improved transportation efficiency by 18% (via more
bottles per truckload) and is expected to save over three
million pounds of PET annually. Whats most notable, however, is that the new packaging simultaneously improved
the brands shelf visibility, by creating visual contrast
with the product category and better delivered against
consumers underlying desire to see the product. Thus,
the result has been increased sales and reduced costs.
CROSS-CULTURAL LEARNING AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR RETAIL MARKETING
On a cross-cultural level, this research has revealed
both commonalities and disparities across countries.
On one level, there appear to be some nearlyuniversal global findings, including:
The fact that environmental factors are generally a
secondary consideration within the shopping process
and they are not a leading driver of packaging
preferences.
The fact that shoppers dont expect to pay more
for environmentally-friendly packaging and are
generally unwilling to trade-off other factors, most
notably functionality (i.e. durability, ease of use, etc.)
for environmental benefits.
The fact that most shoppers do not intuitively know
which packaging systems are better for the environment, may be operating under misperceptions regarding
packaging materials and remain unfamiliar with
commonly-used industry terms, such as sustainability.
The fact that environmental messaging and claims
are very likely to be missed, unless they are strongly
prioritized on pack.
Conversely, weve uncovered several interesting
differences across countries, including:
The heightened environmental awareness in several
developing countries (most notably China, India and
Brazil), which stands in marked contrast to shopper
sentiments and attitudes in Russia and represents a
potential opportunity.
The reality that both perceptions and preferences among
packaging systems vary widely by market. In other words,
weve seen that the same exact package can be perceived
very differently, in terms of both environmental impact
and overall desirability, across cultures.
Finally, this research offers several clear implications to
guide the development and marketing of environmentallyfriendly packaging.
First and foremost, environmentally-friendly packaging
systems cant involve fundamental trade-offs. Instead,
9

they must meet shoppers higher-level functional needs,

work on shelf and support brand and product imagery.
Fortunately, these twin goals of reducing environmental
impact and serving primary needs are not mutually
exclusive, as evidenced by the Kraft Salad dressing
example, among many others.
Secondly, along with the development of sustainable
packaging systems, a parallel effort needs to go into
conveying environmental benefits on pack (and at the
shelf) in a clear and compelling manner. In fact, evidence
suggests that the most successful efforts have made
environmental factors the brand message (rather
than an extra claim) and/or emphasized the financial
benefits of a more environmentally-friendly offering.
Finally, our research illustrates the many challenges and
potential pitfalls facing new packaging systems and
highlights the need to assess more environmentally
friendly systems holistically, from the shelf through the
shopping and usage experience.
Certainly, weve found that marketers have a long way
to go, in terms of educating shoppers about packaging
and the environment and elevating the importance
of environmental considerations within the shopping
experience. However, there are also grounds for
optimism, rooted in shoppers nearly universal desire
to do the right thing in terms of buying products
with more environmentally friendly packaging and in
numerous success stories. Therefore, marketers that
adopt more earth-friendly solutions, and invest in understanding the shoppers perspective and in learning to
convey environmental benefits effectively are likely
to be well-rewarded at the shelf.
The Authors
Scott Young, Perception Research Services, United States.
Vincenzo Ciummo, Perception Research Services, United States.
10

Shopper Sentiments and The Environment

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

Shopper Sentiments and The Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RETAIL AND SHOPPER 2009

part 4 / SHOPPER EXPERIENCE