You are on page 1of 15

Environmentally friendly parenting:

are cloth nappies a step too far?


Louise F. Pendry, Avril J. Mewse and Carole B. Burgoyne

Louise F. Pendry is Senior Abstract


Lecturer at and Avril J. Purpose The present research aims to investigate parental attitudes towards using either cloth or
Mewse and Carole B. disposable nappies, to better understand whether and how pro-cloth initiatives might impact parental
Burgoyne are also based at decisions.
the College of Life and Design/methodology/approach Focus groups were conducted with both cloth and disposable
Environmental Sciences, nappy users to gain a better understanding of the factors that underlie their choice. Interviews were
University of Exeter, Exeter, analyzed using thematic analysis.
UK. Findings The paper finds that parents using disposable nappies believed they were marketed as
offering a popular, efficient, healthy, good value system. They acknowledged the environmental impact
but rationalised this by referring to the equivocal nature of these consequences, and the ability to off-set
this by engaging in other pro-environment behaviours. Parents choosing cloth nappies did so initially
because they were more environment-friendly and cost-effective and disposables were disliked. Once
using cloth, parents noted additional benefits: performance, fashion, formation of bonds with other
users, and getting a buzz out of using them. This reinforced their reasons for continued use.
Practical implications Cloth nappies are unlikely to gain mass appeal, but findings suggest a bigger
take up if parents are better informed, and subsidies are provided to reduce set-up and laundering costs
to tackle the ease of use barrier. The positive aspects of cloth nappies should be better promoted.
Social implications Marketing initiatives need to buy into the current designer parents trend and
play to the aspirational, fashionable aspects of cloth nappies.
Originality/value This paper, the first to report on parental attitudes and decisions regarding both
nappy types, could inform public policy and marketing decisions.
Keywords Parental attitudes, Parents, Consumer behaviour, Public policy, Marketing,
Young consumers, Environmentally friendly
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
First-time parents can feel overwhelmed while preparing for their new baby. New parents are
bombarded with marketing messages that foster the acquisition of a great deal of
baby-related stuff, all marketed as products to make them better, happier parents (and by
association, raising better, happier children; Paul, 2008). Parents are certainly spending on
such items. In 2008, UK parents spent 23 million a week on baby equipment, baby toiletries
and prams/pushchairs (Office for National Statistics, 2009).
Among this confusing array of choices, the baby market boasts an array of products for
environmentally concerned parents such as organic bedding, food and formula (Paul,
2008). With so much to consider, it is unclear whether environmental concerns greatly
impact on parents purchasing decisions. Although entire books are devoted to the topic of
green parenting, their appeal is less widespread in comparison to more general parenting
Received: June 2011
Revised: June 2011
books (based on Amazon sales and popularity). If they do dwell on such issues, parents may
Accepted: October 2011 find themselves in an environmental impasse, seeking to leave a positive environmental

DOI 10.1108/17473611211203902 VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012, pp. 5-19, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 5
legacy to their children, yet aware that the very act of having children carries an
environmental cost.
One environmental factor to consider is whether to use cloth or disposable nappies. This is
also an issue for local councils considering whether and how it may be feasible to reduce
landfill by promoting greater use of cloth nappies. In the present research, we investigate
parents knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding both types to better understand the
reasons that underlie their decisions.

1.1 Disposable nappies


Disposable nappies are discarded after use with the household waste, while cloth nappies are
laundered and re-used. They are convenient, do not need laundering, are readily available
and can be purchased as required, avoiding financial outlay (as is usually the case with cloth
nappies; Uzzell and Leach, 2003). Modern manufacturing techniques also ensure that
disposable nappies are slim, dry and comfortable (Nappy Information Service, n.d.). Parents
may also choose disposables because of their visible media presence, especially from larger
manufacturers. In addition to high profile TV campaigns, other marketing methods are
employed (e.g. free samples, articles by child experts). This, coupled with the fact that so
many parents use them (e.g. recent estimates suggest 96.4 percent market penetration for
disposable nappies; Aumonier et al., 2008) makes disposables the obvious choice.
The major disadvantage of using disposable nappies is their environmental impact. Around
three billion disposable nappies are thrown away every year in the UK (Lee, 2005). Analysis
of UK landfill suggests that disposable nappies still occupy 4 percent of the contents of
household landfill waste (Uzzell and Leach, 2003). Where there is a baby in a family, up to
half of the household rubbish may be nappies. It is not yet known how long disposable
nappies take to decompose in landfill: A minimum estimate suggests up to 200 years
(Poyzer, 2005). The disposal of nappies can account for up to a million pounds of an
average-sized local authority UK budget. New alternatives are being seriously considered
(Stratford, 2010). Other methods of nappy disposal, such as nappy recycling plants, are not
yet widely available in the UK (Aumonier et al., 2008).

1.2 Cloth nappies


Are cloth nappies a serious contender in this fight to reduce landfill? For most people, cloth
nappies conjure up images of bulky towelling squares soaking in buckets of smelly
chemicals, rubber pants, and endless laundering. In fact, cloth nappies have evolved
significantly in recent years, in terms of design, function and variety. They are now slimmer,
easier to care for and more absorbent. Cloth aficionados argue that the benefits of such
nappies include reliability, long-term financial savings, health benefits, enhanced comfort,
environmental gains, and potential for earlier toilet training (Hall, 2008).
Cloth nappies do not contribute to landfill, can be reused for multiple children and thereafter
become cleaning cloths, ultimately saving money. If washing at home, the average cost of
using cloth nappies is generally cheaper than using disposables (Hall, 2008; Poyzer, 2005).
Commercial nappy laundering services may be considered, too, offering delivery of clean
nappies and laundering of used nappies at a similar price to that of using disposables (Hall,
2008).
The disadvantages of using cloth nappies focus on inconvenience, resources consumed in
laundering them, and initial cost. Most cloth nappies take longer to change and may be less
practical when out and about. Also, it is generally necessary to change cloth nappies slightly
more often than disposables (Uzzell and Leach, 2003). Parents may be put off by the
financial outlay, and as there is limited High Street availability, most of the nappy shopping is
done on-line which may seem risky.

1.3 The environmental evidence


Some have argued that cloth nappies are a more environmentally friendly option. However,
this is a debatable issue. An initial Environment Agency (EA) lifecycle analysis (LCA)

j j
PAGE 6 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
concluded that there was no difference between the green credentials of cloth and
disposables once one considered production and laundering (Aumonier and Collins, 2005).
The criticism this report provoked led to an updated LCA being commissioned which better
accounted for modern laundering methods (Aumonier et al., 2008). This latter report
concluded that the environmental impact of cloth nappies was dependent on how they are
laundered. In contrast to disposable nappies, impact could be substantially reduced.
Judicious laundering practices (line drying where possible, avoiding tumble drying,
choosing A rated appliances, not washing above 60 degrees, using fuller loads and
reusing nappies on subsequent children) significantly reduced environmental impact.
Combining just three of these practices reduced global impact by 40 percent from the
baseline scenario[1]
So, the most recent evidence suggests parents can reduce global impact by using cloth
nappies, but to do so effectively, they must engage in certain practices that may not be
convenient, feasible or affordable. For example, line drying outside may be impossible
without access to a garden, and those in confined living quarters may feel further
compromised by drying nappies indoors. Purchasing an energy efficient washing machine
may be too expensive for those with limited budgets. Realistically, then, this more recent
evidence suggests in many cases there is no environmental gain for using cloth, at least not
without a concomitant degree of pain (be this time, effort, cost or sacrifice in space). It may
not be suit everyone, even if they consider themselves pro-environment.
It is perhaps understandable, then, that most parents are motivated to change some
behaviours to help the environment, but not the type of nappy they use. For example, the
proportion of recycled household waste per person in the UK increased from 6 percent in
1995/1996 to 34 percent in 2007/2008 (Defra, 2008). It is difficult to get precise figures for
use of cloth nappies, but although a modestly growing trend, it is not showing the same
proportional increase (steady rates of around 5 percent nationwide; Nappy Information
Service, n.d.). Is it realistic to expect this to change in future?
Inspection of the extant literature within environmental psychology would suggest such
realism may be justified. A number of researchers have suggested, for example, that the
theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) can be usefully applied to environmental
attitudes and behaviour to help explain why they do not always correspond. Specifically, one
factor that may be very important in determining whether an environmentally-linked
behaviour is carried out is perceived behavioural control (PBC; Balderjahn, 1988; Barr and
Gilg, 2007; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991). If, logistically, a
behaviour is perceived to be problematic (e.g. too much time or effort of cost required) then
it is significantly less likely to be enacted. This might be relevant in the present context where
the prevailing viewpoint is that cloth nappies are rather more labour intensive to use.
Other theoretical approaches may also be applicable. Factors such as differences in ones
intrinsic motives for doing environmental good (De Young, 1986), the perception that one
believes ones behaviour will actually impact tangibly on the environment (response
efficacy; see Roberts, 1996), the perceived threat if one does not act responsibly towards
the environment (Baldassare and Katz, 1992), the role of social influence in determining
environmental behaviours (Lam, 1999) and the degree to which a person feels obligated to
take personal responsibility for addressing environmental concerns (Nancarrow et al.,
1996-7) all seem potentially applicable theoretical approaches which may inform the present
topic. Such factors may prove helpful in understanding the pattern of data that emerges.
However, given the qualitative nature of this research in a new environmental domain, it
would be imprudent to allow such research to influence the exploratory manner in which data
are collected.
The present research. There has been little prior academic research in this precise area, and
to our knowledge, none that has involved established cloth nappy users. Uzzell and Leach
(2003) investigated cloth nappy uptake at a hospital maternity unit and their continued use
by participants at home. They concluded that several factors might promote greater use of
cloth nappies:

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 7
B cloth demonstrations at antenatal classes;
B promoting the convenience of modern cloth nappies;
B providing alternatives to disposables in hospital;
B valuing small changes, such as using cloth occasionally;
B developing incentive schemes, to help with initial outlay;
B designing campaigns to show the impact of just one baby in disposables on landfill;
B improving information sources.
However, this work highlighted the need for further research on perceived barriers and how
these might be overcome.
This is the focus for the present research. Gaining an insight into the factors promoting or
inhibiting the uptake of cloth nappies will provide valuable information, not least to
policy-makers, regarding the viability of reducing landfill in this way. By including parents
using cloth nappies as well as disposables, the present research seeks to better understand
what such barriers are, and to realistically assess the viability of overcoming them. Thematic
analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) will be used to gain a holistic insight into the factors
influencing the decision to use disposable or cloth nappies.

2. Method
2.1 Participants
Participants were all female, aged between 26 and 40 years, and were sourced via toddler
groups, friends, local National Childbirth Trust (NCT) groups, midwives, word of mouth at
various locations within the South West of England and via online baby discussion forums.
Educational status ranged from GCSE standard (school examinations taken at age 16) to
degree level. Disposable nappy users (n 19) had at least one child under the age of three.
Cloth nappy users (n 16) either had at least one child already under the age of three
(n 13) or were pregnant with their first child (n 3).

2.2 Procedure
Focus groups were chosen rather than individual interviews because in groups participants
can provide checks on each other to weed out extreme information (Patton, 2002). Group
interviews also stimulate the respondents to broaden the topic and correspond well to how
opinions are expressed and exchanged in everyday life (Flick, 2006). It was not felt that the
present research topic (nappy type) would cause participants discomfort in a group setting.
Following an initial willingness to participate (as expressed via e-mail), participants were
contacted via e-mail to arrange times for the focus group discussions. After obtaining
informed consent, six focus groups took place in a local Church hall (ns between three and
four participants; all were disposable users), two took place in the participants homes
(ns one and two; all were disposable users), two (cloth nappy users/advocates) took
place online (using Meebo interactive software; ns eight and five; three were pregnant),
and one (cloth nappy users; n three) took place at a local field studies centre. With the
exception of one participant who was interviewed alone (since other members of the group
failed to turn up), groups ranged in size from two to eight participants.
The face-to-face focus groups each lasted for about an hour and a half, with a 15 minute break
midway. The discussions were recorded using a tape recorder and microphone. General
introductory questions were asked initially, to make participants comfortable prior to the group
discussion. A semi-structured topic guide was employed, which covered the following themes:
B experience of using disposable/cloth nappies;
B economic factors;
B health factors;

j j
PAGE 8 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
B knowledge of alternatives;
B situational factors;
B being green; and
B identity.
Such an approach is flexible enough to allow the researcher to explore participants answers
and thus provide a solid foundation for this type of interpretive inquiry (Charmaz, 2006).
The on-line focus group sessions lasted for about an hour and a half. The data were
collected by one of the researchers who acted as the focus group moderator and an
assistant whose duty it was to copy and save the data. The same semi-structured
questioning format was adopted.

2.3 Using thematic analysis


Thematic analysis (TA) was the chosen research tool. TA is a qualitative method that enables
the researcher to identify, analyse and report patterns (themes) within a data set and
organize/describe the data in some detail (Braun and Clarke, 2006). TA can be . . .an
essentialist or realist method, which reports experiences, meanings and the reality of
participants, or . . . a constructionist method, which examines the ways in which events,
realities, meanings, experiences and so on are the effects of a range of discourses operating
within society (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 81). The essentialist/realist method is well-suited
to the present broad research topic because we are not interested in the structure of
arguments and discourse but rather how participants made choices and how their
expectancies and experiences informed their decisions.

2.4 Analysis
Data from the face-to-face sessions were transcribed prior to analysis and were comparable
in transcription terms with data from the online focus groups. The latter did not require
transcription as the full text was available immediately after the sessions. All material was
analysed using TA. This involved the following phases: familiarising oneself with the data;
generating initial codes (Boyatzis, 1998); searching for themes (collating codes into
potential themes); reviewing themes; defining and naming themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
The coding process was data driven rather than theory driven since (as is typical in this
type of exploratory qualitative research) we had no a priori theoretical questions to drive the
coding process (see Kidd, 2002). Coding was over-inclusive initially, to ensure potentially
interesting data were not lost early on. To arrive at suitable themes, consideration was given
to the way codes/themes could relate to each other, and the extent to which there were
broader, overarching themes that captured larger amounts of the data (Braun and Clarke,
2006). At this stage marginal themes were rejected and others were collapsed into one
unifying theme to better account for their overall contribution.
Closer analysis of the types of themes emerging within each group type (e.g. cloth or
disposable nappy advocates) and within groups containing either users or users and
pregnant mothers suggested that the core differences that emerged were a function of cloth
nappy preference as opposed to whether participants were currently or about to use a
particular type of nappy. While we acknowledge it is very different having idealised ideas
versus actual experience of using nappies after the birth, we feel confident that this was not
an issue in the present data set. This is evidenced by the fact that participants using or about
to use a particular nappy type generated broadly similar themes.
With regards possible differences between data collected online and offline, it was important
also to establish if one could merge the data from both sources successfully. We note that
online methods have certain issues surrounding loss of face-to-face-dynamics, lack of
non-verbal inputs, technical issues and so on that fully interacting focus groups may not (for
a full discussion see Hughes and Lang, 2004). Certainly the online groups contributed
shorter comments (see Schneider et al., 2002) but as noted by other researchers, the data
were nonetheless very rich and the overlap in terms of themes generated was very high (see

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 9
also Hughes and Lang, 2004). Given these observations, and the emergence of several core
themes common to both users, then, the decision was made to combine the data into one
thematic map which accurately represented the meanings that arose and appropriately
highlighted the tensions within themes.

3. Results
The thematic map displayed in Figure 1 represents the dominant themes that emerged.
These comprised: Cloth push factors (reasons that led people to decide against using
cloth); cloth pull factors (reasons that led people to consider using cloth); cloth stay
factors (a category that applied only to the cloth users and encompassed their reasons for
staying with cloth nappies after trying them initially; and cloth push/pull/stay factors. This last
theme reflects the existence of arguments or factors that could be deployed to support
either side (that is, factors that could work as push or pull factors, and sometimes also stay
factors). Participants are identified as cloth or disposable advocates by either C or D
appearing after their names, and in addition, by P if pregnant.

3.1 Cloth push factors


These included such issues as convenience, perceived health benefits, marketing, and the
difficulties of sourcing cloth nappies. Disposable users wanted a nappy that was efficient
and easy to use. Disposables fit the bill, whereas cloth nappies were thought to require more
time and planning, for example for laundry runs and trips out. Disposables were more
convenient, for example, Terri (D) noted:
Today I just grabbed a couple of nappies and that was basically it, just up and go. But with the
cloth you have to remember absolutely everything.

These pragmatic considerations seemed to trump even the concerns of participants like
Claire (D) who ideally wanted to use cloth, but said that the time involved had put her off.
Other factors included various types of hassle such as having to tell others how to use
them when mothers were already physically and psychologically worn out (Terri; D), and
the unwillingness of day care staff to change them (e.g. Jessica said that her local nursery
regarded cloth nappies as a pain; D).

Figure 1 Thematic map for cloth and disposable nappy users

j j
PAGE 10 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
Cloth nappy users (e.g. Mary; C) also noted that it was a challenge when away from home,
especially on holidays or if staying with people without children, and doing laundry could just
be another hassle:
I think there are days when you have no sleep and you know you are completely knackered and
for whatever one reason or another you havent had the chance to get the washing done or there
are days when you cant get them dry, there are days when your last resort is to use disposables.
(Mary; C)

In addition, those using disposables expressed concern that their newborn babies needed a
soft nappy. One participant (Hannah; D) felt that line drying would make the fabric so
rough but that one could not use conditioner as this would reduce the nappys absorbency.
Disposable users also thought that cloth nappies would cause nappy rash, due to the wet
fabric touching the skin, though they seemed unconcerned about the chemical content of
disposable nappies, placing their trust in manufacturers safety checks:
I just think well they wouldnt be allowed to do them. . .if there was anything harmful in them.
(Jessica; D)

This trusting attitude was especially noteworthy with reference to the leading brands. The
market leader was seen as the optimal choice. This made such brands very influential, as
first time parents wanted to do their very best:
Ive gone for brands like (two market leaders) as well knowing that theyre good for her. (Hannah; D)

The heavy media presence and marketing methods of well-known brands were frequently
mentioned as hooking participants from the outset via free samples given to new mothers
in hospital. Thereafter, the campaign was maintained via money-off vouchers through the
post and e-mail newsletters. In stark contrast to this prominent marketing, such deals were
not apparent for cloth nappies. There was no standardised provision of information
regarding cloth nappies and no obvious attempts at marketing. Facts such as whether the
local council provided financial incentives for using cloth nappies, or the availability of nappy
laundering services were not widely known. Most participants had received some
information either from antenatal classes, the NCT, breastfeeding groups or a cloth nappy
agent, but, as Rachel (D) said:
. . . with terry nappies you have to actually make the effort to phone a terry nappy rep to come and
give you a demonstration of them.

Additionally, there was a perceived lack of information about how cloth nappies have
improved. Cloth nappy participants observed that there is not enough information to guide
new starters, making the process daunting. As Jane (CP) noted: Youre making a bit of a
blind decision in some ways which makes it such a big decision. This also highlights the
perceived risk of engaging in a potentially large outlay for cloth nappies when the
advantages of using them are uncertain. Participants claimed they accessed information
from three sources: family, internet and local councils.
Given the lack of information and marketing efforts for cloth nappies it is perhaps
unsurprising that cloth nappy participants had encountered misconceptions, such as the
amount of work involved:
. . . my friends . . . keep on telling me Why on earth are you doing this?, Im making work for
myself and of course youre going to think like that if your experience of cloth nappies is having to
boil them up and washing them at these high temperatures all of which you dont have to do
(Heather; C).

Some cloth users also noted a widespread belief that using a more environmentally friendly
product inevitably involved spending more money with less efficient results, yet Danni (C)
had found cloth nappies cheaper, efficient and environmentally friendly.
Some of the misconceptions about cloth nappies were partially fuelled by their relative
invisibility on the high street, which meant that most were purchased online. This excludes
those who do not use the internet, do not make on-line purchases, or do not know about cloth
nappy web sites. Also there was concern from cloth nappy participants that the limited

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 11
varieties stocked by high street stores were not always the best, creating the impression that
cloth nappies are inferior. One cloth user, Danni (C), felt that many mothers were unaware of
the array of choice of cloth nappies on the internet. She knew people who had bought from
the high street stores but they didnt work so they stopped using them and turned to
disposables. In addition, after-sales care and support from high street retailers was less
evident compared to that received from cloth nappy agents.
Overall, then, factors that push parents away from cloth nappies included inconvenience,
time and effort, availability, others reactions, and misconceptions about the perceived
disadvantages. These, combined with the promotion of disposables and a lack of clear
alternatives made disposable nappies the obvious option. So why did some parents choose
differently? We turn next to the cloth pull factors.

3.2 Cloth pull factors


There were several additional cloth pull factors raised by the cloth nappy users
(e.g. environmental concerns and value for money) that are not included under this heading
as these arguments were also deployed to support the use of disposable nappies. We
discuss these issues in the cloth push/pull/stay factors section. Indeed, while there were
several distinct factors that seem to push parents away from using cloth nappies, the only
overall distinct pull factor to emerge was a dislike of disposables.
This dislike related to several perceived disadvantages of disposables. First, disposable
nappies were regarded by cloth nappy users as unattractive, and full of chemicals:, e.g. Holly
(C): The chemicals in disposables exposure to them and the smell! Although most cloth
users had used disposables, either before moving on to cloth ones, or while on holiday, their
experiences were negative. Complaints ranged from excrement explosions to more frequent
nappy rash. Such experiences had been instrumental in getting them to consider cloth.
Cloth push/pull/stay factors. In this section we find arguments about cost and environmental
impact of nappy choices being used to support both types of nappy. We also discuss the
impact of perceived social norms, social support, and the burden of choice.
First is the issue of cost. Many disposable users were deterred from using cloth due to the initial
costs. As noted, participants thought that the large outlay was too risky if they might decide later
they did not like them, e.g. Fiona (D): Youre not going to spend all that money on something
that you dont know. The perceived cost of washing was also off-putting, as Terri (D) pointed
out: its not just the terry towels, its the cleaning fluid and buckets and all those things which you
dont even think of. On the other hand, the cloth nappy users felt that they could work out
cheaper long term. This view was also noted (if not acted on) by some of the disposable users
who acknowledged that disposables were expensive. Most cloth nappy participants mentioned
the poor value of disposables as being an important factor. For example, Cherie (C) argued that
cloth nappies were excellent value for money. In a similar vein, Joanne (C) said I guess my
current collection has saved me about 300 versus disposables.
Consideration of the environment took a number of forms. Common among disposable users
was a sense of environmental ambivalence. However, the norm was so overwhelmingly in the
direction of using disposable nappies that as Terri (D) said What difference am I really
going to make if I dont use them? Some, such as Jenny (D), also argued that there was not
actually that much difference between the two anyway after washing and tumble drying.
Among those who did feel guilty, some felt there were easier ways to offset their carbon
footprint (e.g. recycling) and that local council initiatives to improve kerbside recycling
facilities reduced the imperative to use cloth nappies. Rachel (D) felt it was not so big an
issue now as it used to be before kerbside recycling. Helen (D) had an alternative way of
off-setting her environmental footprint:
Ive started buying free-range chicken to help the environment and organic farmers so I dont feel
quite so bad using disposables now.

Some disposable users acknowledged the landfill issues associated with using disposables,
especially when putting out the rubbish: I knew that probably a good bag full was just of

j j
PAGE 12 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
nappies and it does play on your mind (Frances; D). But even those who thought that cloth
nappies might be more environmentally friendly felt that this was not sufficient to stop them
using disposables which were undeniably convenient. As Helen (D) pointed out: at the end of
the day Im too busy having three children to look after to worry about that.
Among cloth users, though, the environment was a significant motivation for their decision.
Shocked by the huge bin bags full of nappies that Jane (C) saw at friends houses she
thought there was no way I was going to use disposables when I had my baby. For her, the
initial decision to use cloth was tied to her general attitude towards recycling: I try to recycle
whenever I can, you know I like all my actions to impact positively on the environment in all
areas.
One of the key factors influencing the choice of nappy was the perceived norms of groups
with whom participants identified. Thus, some participants were motivated to use
disposable nappies because they felt reassured by using what most other modern day
mothers appeared to have chosen:
Most people nowadays do use disposables so it must show something about how good they are
(Maria; D)

Equally, disposable nappy users felt they had little in common with cloth nappy users, who
were seen as something of an outgroup. They tended to be stereotyped as hippy, National
Childbirth Trust members who were highly ethical and advocated prolonged breastfeeding.
For example, Claire (D) mentioned a friend who used cloth: she was that type of person, into
the environment, had an Aga. . .grew their own vegetables and organic type of people.
Disposable users were influenced by friends and family. Most knew of at least one other
friend/family member who used cloth nappies, and they considered their opinions, even if
they themselves eventually chose disposables. Cloth nappy users were also supported by
friends or other cloth users. In Janes (C) case it was her sister-in-law that got me into using
cloth nappies. In fact, few cloth users made their decision unilaterally. A significant other
was consulted and their support (or lack of) was important to their decision. For example,
Danni (C) said she had seen three people give up using cloth nappies:
. . . and in all cases its been because their partners have not been supportive and its not just been
that theyve not been supportive, but theyve been actively discouraging the use of these cloth
nappies.

Among cloth nappy users, support was found online in discussion fora, and via advice from
nappy related web sites. This was important for Joanne (C), who said she would not have
been able to get support in the real world as she knew so few other users face-to-face. In
areas of the country where cloth uptake is higher (as was the case for some of the focus
groups in this sample) support in the local community was noted as helpful. As Mary (C)
commented:
We happen to live in an area where cloth nappies are not unusual to use, youre not particularly alone.

Another factor was deciding what nappy to use. Cloth nappies come in many varieties, and
this could serve as a potential barrier. For Alison (D), the huge choice available on the
internet left her bewildered so she ended up using disposables. However, although the
huge variety could be daunting at first, many cloth users agreed that the wide range could
be a benefit, allowing them to customise style, colour and fit in a way that was not possible
with disposables. Mary (C) was especially enthusiastic:
I think they are fantastic, absolutely brilliant. . .I just find cloth nappies ideal, you know some less
absorbent ones during the day and some heavy absorbent ones during the night.

3.3 Cloth stay factors


There were several factors that tended to make cloth users stay with their choice. For many,
the performance of cloth nappies had exceeded their initial expectations. Cloth users had
not necessarily expected superior reliability and efficiency, but found them just as efficient, if
not more so, than disposables.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 13
Another factor was fashion. Some cloth users were hooked by this and felt it was a major
reason why people stay with cloth. The fashion aspect of cloth nappies was a decided
selling point, and participants noted that it could even overtake the other plus factors
given the trend towards fashionable clothing for babies. Jane (C) commented that most
people dont know about the fact that some cloth nappy designs are quite trendy. Several
noted that cloth nappies were no longer just a utilitarian product but more of a fashion item,
for example, Mary (C):
Now you can get matching dresses to match the nappy and you can get sets of accessories and
they are all matching, its become a consumer, you know, commodity.

We have already noted the social support that both cloth and disposable nappy users received
from the groups with whom they interacted or identified. For the cloth users, especially those
involved in the on-line fora, the social bonds could become quite strong. Perhaps as a result of
misconceptions about cloth and the negative stereotype of cloth nappy users, participants
suggested that they often turn to each other for support and information. This desire to meet
other cloth nappy users, either online or (rarely) in the local community (at cloth nappy events
known as Nappucinos) appeared to make the bonds even stronger. For example, Harriet (C)
said she felt passionate about it in a way only another clothie can understand.
Indeed, some participants even described themselves as addicted to cloth nappies. The
kind of addiction referred to here concerns a process by which cloth nappy use, in certain
individuals, seemed to have evolved into an almost compulsive pattern of cloth
nappy-seeking and purchase consumption. Some participants expressed a burning need
to buy a particular nappy or to talk to others about their nappy collection. Some referred to
the buzz they experienced when undertaking these behaviours. The buzz was akin to that
derived from more conventional retail therapy. Danni (C) summed it up as follows:
I love them because they are beautiful and the icing on the cake is that Im saving hundreds and
hundreds of pounds and so yeah, rightly I do feel quite smug and I think thats why I love them,
thats why I get a buzz out of them. (Danni)

4. Discussion
4.1 Cloth push factors: can they realistically be overcome?
Although one must be careful generalising from our sample (in terms of size and age range),
the findings highlight several issues. Some tie in well with prior research in the environmental
domain, and where this is the case, the links will be clearly drawn. Among our disposable
users, many of the reasons advanced for their decision are understandable. A change in
behaviour seems unlikely. Although cloth nappies have moved on, disposables were
considered to be more efficient, convenient and healthy (see Uzzell and Leach, 2003). The
war on landfill waste, it seems, may not be easily won via a mass conversion to cloth nappies.
If councils are still keen to pursue this route, there are several lessons that may be learned
from the present data.
First, many parents-to-be are confused about cloth nappies and misconceptions abound.
Attempts to routinely provide unbiased information as part of the antenatal education
process are recommended. Even cloth nappy users admitted that they struggled to get
impartial information. Such information might include accurate data on: environmental
issues; ease of use; health aspects; ways of spreading/reducing the cost and home/nappy
laundering service options. In this way, parents can make informed decisions.
Councils need also to recognise that enthusiastic claims about cloth nappies now being
easier cut little ice with todays parent. Cloth nappies may be easier, but they are still less
convenient than disposables. So, what can be done? The theory of planned behaviour (TBP;
Ajzen, 1991) suggests that behaviour is determined by the intention to engage in the
behaviour, which includes ones perceived behavioural control (PBC). PBC refers to the
extent to which an individual considers that performing a particular behaviour is under
volitional control. This factor appears especially relevant with regards using cloth nappies.
The hassle of laundering cloth nappies was a turn-off for many. Although home laundering is

j j
PAGE 14 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
easier, the burden of extra nappy washing is a major issue for busy parents. This may be
complicated further by childcare providers preferring disposables (Uzzell and Leach, 2003).
High PBC is a significant predictor of other parenting decisions (e.g. intentions to
breastfeed; McMillan et al., 2009). Similarly, environmental decisions are closely related to
the ease/convenience/availability of relevant facilities (Balderjahn, 1988; Barr, 2004; Barr
and Gilg, 2007; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991). A perception
that one is simply not able to use cloth nappies (because of time constraints, lifestyle, or
childcare options for example) may equate to low PBC and act as a barrier to engaging in
such behaviour. Eliminating this barrier is difficult, since lifestyle commitments do not often
diminish post-natally. A more fruitful approach may be better promotion of, and local council
subsidies for, nappy laundering services. However, such services may be limited to urban
postcodes, and may be expensive to implement (though this may be offset somewhat by
reduced landfill bills). It has yet to be demonstrated, too, that nappy laundering services are
an environmentally sound alternative.
PBC may also be relevant in the context of getting support for using cloth. Cloth nappy users
noted that it was difficult to find good cloth nappies (and support) offline, which can create a
barrier. To counteract this, efforts to widen the range of cloth nappies available on the high
street, and ensure staff are fully trained, are recommended. This might increase PBC by
affording prospective and current users of cloth nappies opportunities for real life support
and information. Better promotion of local cloth nappy agents (who can aid in nappy
selection and provide after sales support) and Nappucinos (meetings for cloth users) are
also recommended.
The disposable brand leaders engage in heavy marketing of their products, and this was a
cloth push factor (see also Short and Harvey, 2008). Incentives that provided free samples
and money off disposables helped sway participants. Similar information and incentives for
cloth nappies were not available. Learning from this, one might increase the availability of
free samples/reduced prices for cloth nappy kits. Where cloth nappy retailers have trialled a
free sample option, the resultant increase in sales and exposure have more than offset the
costs. The initiative is cheaper than equivalent advertising in parenting magazines
(V.Scordellis, personal communication, May 28, 2009; see also Bawa and Shoemaker,
2004). It also provides hands-on experience with cloth nappies as well as a cheaper mode of
reaching large numbers of people.

4.2 Push/pull/stay factors: understandable ambivalence


Several factors seemed to work variously as cloth push, pull or stay factors. Importantly, this
was most evident for factors cloth nappy users considered to be unambiguously pull factors
(e.g. environment and cost). For cloth users, the environment was a key reason for using cloth,
and was a subject about which they were well-informed. This ties in with Uzzell and Leachs
(2003) findings that when waste is deemed an important issue, and there is good
understanding of landfill issues, such factors are strongly predictive of cloth nappy use.
Additionally, there was evidence of a strong affective connectivity with environmental issues,
a strong environmental identity and concomitant positive environmental attitudes. Recent
research has demonstrated that these factors, both independently and in concert, have
important explanatory power within environmental psychology (Hinds and Sparks, 2008;
Kals and Maes, 2002; Stets and Biga, 2003). The decision to use cloth seemed entirely
bound up with cloth nappy users feelings towards and identity with the environment.
However, such pro-environmental feelings/identities encompass only a minority of parents.
What of the majority of parents who acknowledge that the environment matters but do not live
their lives by these principles?
For disposable users, tensions were observed about the environmental value-action gap.
This tension is pervasive within research on environmental attitudes and behaviour (Barr,
2004, 2006; Kristiansen and Hotte, 1996; Peattie, 2001; Peattie, 2010). The present data sit
well with research that has suggested that people may be disinclined to act out
environmentally-friendly behaviours because they feel their small contribution will make little

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 15
difference on a bigger scale (Roberts, 1996), or because they are not sufficiently clear or
convinced about the perceived threat of climate change to make changes within their own
lifestyle (Baldassare and Katz, 1992).
However, although many disposable users felt the environmental issue was unclear, others
experienced guilt about landfill. Uzzell and Leach (2003) found that parents in their sample
dabbled in certain waste reduction behaviours but not others. In the present research, there
was evidence that parents used these other types of behaviours (e.g. recycling) to assuage
feelings of guilt and offset their decision to use disposables.
This action fits with Steeles (1988) self-affirmation theory, which proposes that engaging in
undesirable behaviour (e.g. actions that increase landfill such as using disposables) results in
threats to the self, and that people are motivated to restore self-worth via affirming alternative
sources of their self-integrity. By demonstrating their commitment to other environmental
aspects, people realise that their self-worth does not hinge on the evaluative implications of
using disposables alone. As a result, the self-threat is diminished, and the impetus to continue
the behaviour persists. Rather than self-affirmation perpetuating disposable nappy use, one
might consider ways of harnessing peoples desires to self-affirm to increase cloth nappy use.
For example, one message worth promoting is that using a blend of disposable and cloth
nappies can work well and would help reduce landfill waste (Uzzell and Leach, 2003).
Perceived subjective norms were an important reason for using disposables. Although several
disposable users said they knew of others who used cloth, such examples conformed to
prevailing stereotypes about cloth nappy users as hippy types. These were not role models
they felt they could identify with. The cloth nappy community is likely more diverse. Many use
cloth for environmental reasons, others may be more concerned about cost, perceived health
benefits or the fashion aspect. Council marketing initiatives that provide more diverse role
models with whom parents can identify (i.e. credible in-group members; Turner, 1991) and
who are similar to them (Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio, 1992) may be more influential.
Allied to subjective norms, disposable users mostly took the view that there was safety in
numbers: the high proportion of disposable users provided reassurance that disposables
are probably a safe and sensible option. Hence the role of social influence in determining
environmental behaviours was also a factor emerging in our data (see also Lam, 1999)
The value for money factor revealed differing viewpoints. Cloth nappies were deemed risky
because of upfront outlay with no guarantees about suitability. To alleviate this uncertainty,
there could be more opportunities for parents to sample cloth nappy trial kits (as offered by
some local councils), on maternity wards (Uzzell and Leach, 2003) or to attend
demonstrations (as offered by some antenatal classes). Such initiatives would enable
parents to make more informed choices (Uzzell and Leach, 2003).

4.3 Stay factors: selling the benefits


Perhaps the most surprising findings relate to cloth nappy users experiences of using cloth.
Most used cloth because they disliked disposables, in terms of performance and environmental
impact. However, the cloth stay factors provide some insights into positive aspects of cloth
nappy use which could be disseminated more widely. To the surprise of many, the performance
of cloth nappies generally exceeded their expectations, often working better than disposables.
The variety, which could be a barrier initially, was a selling point as users became familiar with
different options and realised that they could customise fit, absorbency, colour and style.
With the increase in marketing initiatives geared at the new parents market (Betts, 2006;
Paul, 2008) it may be timely to better publicise these aspects. Cloth nappy literature tends to
emphasise environmental benefits (e.g. use of bamboo as a sustainable fabric). As noted,
though, the stereotype of cloth nappy users as eco-friendly hippies proved alienating to the
disposable users, who were often ambivalent about environmental impact. Similarly,
messages that reiterate environmental benefits may be ineffectual. There is a potentially new
market which values looks, style and designer labels. Recognising that people may be
attracted to using cloth nappies because of such factors, local councils might investigate
ways of promoting the fashion aspect of cloth nappies, to broaden their appeal. Celebrity

j j
PAGE 16 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
endorsement may bear fruit, as such initiatives lead to an associated sales spike (Childrens
Business Magazine, 2005; see also Atkin and Block, 1983; Petty and Cacioppo, 1983).

4.4 Conclusions
In conclusion, the present research has highlighted that the issues surrounding
cloth/disposable nappy use are complex. However unpalatable it may be to green
consumers, cloth nappies offer genuine environmental benefits only if used in accordance
with recommended usage practices that may be beyond the reach of some parents, whether
for reasons of cost, time, space or convenience. Unless steps are taken to challenge some or
all of these barriers, this situation is unlikely to change. At the same time, though, councils still
need to reduce landfill if they are to avoid rising costs in the future. On this count, cloth nappies
could certainly contribute. For cloth nappy uptake to increase, parents need to be better
informed, subsidies need to be provided to ensure nappies are cheaper up front and to assist
with costs of using laundering services to tackle the ease of use barrier, and the positive
aspects of cloth nappies should be promoted. While these steps might encourage some
parents to choose cloth nappies, on their own they are unlikely to achieve significant landfill
reductions. One ought also to consider other ways to tackle the disposables/landfill issue.
One option may be increased local authority use of nappy recycling plants. Plans to have
five such plants operational across the UK by 2012 would result in a 13 percent reduction in
disposable nappies in landfill (letsrecycle.com, 2009). The 2008 LCA found that the main
environmental impact for disposable nappies were raw material production and conversion
into disposable nappy components (Aumonier et al., 2008). Such initiatives would clearly not
halt the destruction of trees and use of crude oil involved in disposable nappy manufacture.
Even if recycled after use, there would still be environmental consequences.
However, the present data suggest that while it may be possible to reduce (somewhat) the
number of disposables in landfill by targeting the individuals responsible for using them
(parents) and encouraging use of alternatives, it is unrealistic to expect a mass conversion to
cloth nappies. There is no easy answer. More global level initiatives would be a useful
approach that may suit public demand. A recent survey conducted by a popular UK
parenting magazine revealed that 95 percent of parents would like nappy recycling as part
of their standard household waste collection. While the environmental impact of recycling
plants has yet to be established in tandem with increased cloth nappy use, such methods
could achieve a significant reduction in landfill in the future.

Note
1. For the purposes of this study, the baseline scenario for cloth nappies was based on the following
assumptions: nappies were used on only one child, they were dry pailed, washed in an average rating
energy efficient washing machine, or average energy efficient washer-drier; the baseline scenario
further assumed that three quarters of cloth nappies would be line dried, one quarter tumble dried (in
an average rating energy efficient tumble drier), and wash temperature would be 60 degrees C.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983), Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 57-61.
Aumonier, S. and Collins, M. (2005), Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Nappies in the
UK, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Aumonier, S., Collins, M. and Garrett, P. (2008), An Updated Lifecycle Assessment Study for Disposable
and Reusable Nappies, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Baldassare, M. and Katz, C. (1992), The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of
environmental practices, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 602-16.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 17
Balderjahn, I. (1988), Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically
responsible consumption patterns, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 51-6.

Barr, S. (2004), Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental decision
making, Geoforum, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 231-49.

Barr, S. (2006), Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: a UK case study of
household waste management, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 435-73.

Barr, S. and Gilg, A.W. (2007), A conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing attitudes
towards environmental behaviour, Geografiska Annaller, Vol. 89B No. 4, pp. 361-79.

Bawa, K.M. and Shoemaker, R. (2004), The effects of free sample promotions on incremental brand
sales, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345-63.

Betts, K. (2006), High style for small people, Time, p. 107.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development,
Sage, London.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.

Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory, Sage, London.

Childrens Business Magazine (2005), Celebrity babymania is booming, Childrens Business


Magazine, p. 20.

Defra (2008), Key facts about: waste and recycling, available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
statistics/waste/kf/wrkf04.htm

De Young, R. (1986), Some psychological aspects of recycling, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 435-49.

Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage, London.

Hall, S.J. (2008), Ecobaby, Green Books, Totnes.

Hinds, J. and Sparks, P. (2008), Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection
and identity, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 109-20.

Hughes, J. and Lang, K.R. (2004), Issues in online focus groups: lessons learned from an empirical
study of peer-to-peer filesharing system users, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 95-110.

Kals, E. and Maes, J. (2002), Sustainable development and emotions, in Schmuck, P. and Schultz, W.P.
(Eds), Psychology of Sustainable Development, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 97-122.

Kidd, S.A. (2002), The role of qualitative research in psychological journals, Psychological Methods,
Vol. 7, pp. 126-38.

Kristiansen, C.M. and Hotte, A.M. (1996), Morality and the self: implications for the when and how of
value-attitude-behaviour relations, in Seligman, C., Olson, J.M. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), The Psychology
of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 77-105.

Lam, S-P. (1999), Predicting intentions to conserve water from the Theory of Planned Behavior,
perceived moral obligation, and perceived water right, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 1058-71.

Lee, M. (2005), Reusable nappies, Ecologist, available at: www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/


clothing/268752/reusable_nappies.html

letsrecycle.com (2009), Green light for UKs first nappy recycling plant, 23 February, available at:
www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid 37&listcatid 364&listitemid 11055

McMillan, B., Conner, M., Green, J., Dyson, L., Renfrew, M. and Woolridge, M. (2009), Using an extended
theory of planned behaviour to inform interventions aimed at increasing breastfeeding uptake in primiparas
experiencing maternal deprivation, British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 379-403.

Nancarrow, B.E., Smith, L.M. and Syme, G.J. (1996-7), The ways people think about water, Journal of
Environmental Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 15-27.

Nappy Information Service (n.d.), available at: www.nappyinformationservice.co.uk/life.htm

j j
PAGE 18 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012
Office for National Statistics (2009), Family spending: a report on the 2008 living costs and food
survey, available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Family-Spending-2008/
FamilySpending2009.pdf

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Paul, P. (2008), Parenting Inc., Times Books, New York, NY.
Peattie, K. (2001), Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer, Bus Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 187-99.
Peattie, K. (2010), Green consumption, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 35 No. 8,
pp. 1-34.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: application to
advertising, in Percy, L. and Woodside, A. (Eds), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Poyzer, P. (2005), No Waste Like Home, Virgin, London.
Roberts, J.A. (1996), Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-31.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. and Fazio, R.H. (1992), On the orienting value of attitudes: attitude accessibility
as a determinant of an objects attraction of visual attention, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 198-211.
Schneider, S.J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J. and Vivari, B. (2002), Characteristics of the discussion in
online and face-to-face focus groups, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Schwepker, C.H. and Cornwell, T.B. (1991), An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and
their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Short, T. and Harvey, J. (2008), Lightbulbs and nappies: sustainable development and customer
perceptions, International Journal of Sustainable Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992), Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: the role of
identification with green consumerism, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 388-99.
Steele, C.M. (1988), The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self, in Berkowitz,
L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 261-302.
Stets, J.E. and Biga, C.F. (2003), Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology, Sociological
Theory, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 398-423.

Stratford, H. (2010), Pollution issues: landfill and nappies, August, available at: www.pollutionissues.
co.uk/landfill-nappies.html
Turner, J.C. (1991), Social Influence, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Uzzell, D. and Leach, R. (2003), The implementation and evaluation of cotton nappy provision at East
Surrey Hospital Maternity Unit, evaluating maternity unit policy change, available at: www.surrey.ac.uk/
Psychology/EPRG/files/Nappy%20Study.pdf

Corresponding author
Louise F. Pendry can be contacted at: l.f.pendry@ex.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2012 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 19

You might also like