Financial Costs of Green Options: Financial Perceptions Surrounding Green Products and Purchase

The range of environmentally friendly options, commonly referred to as ‘green’ products or practices, have become increasingly available at a wider range of places and prices over the years. This paper provides insight for prevalent financial stances toward green options, particularly those which are higher priced, and recommends that social media and popular culture be examined further to help increase the purchase of green products.

Industrialization throughout the years has both caused and amplified damage to the earth’s environment. Pollution and greenhouse gases emitted through the use of fossil fuels have inflicted deterioration of the earth’s protective ozone layer, resulting in harmful consequences such as climate change and global warming, hence inspiring the creation of international research communities and organizations which aim to restore the natural equilibria of our planet [1,2]. Although the damage cannot be undone, and both technology and industrialization continue to grow, more sustainable and environmentally friendly products, such as renewable energy sources through solar and wind turbines, as well as the first all-electric sports car by Porche, are available at a much broader range and stronger level of competition to consumers [3]. Green products and practices are like any other product and service, in the sense that adoption involves unavoidable costs which may include but are not restricted to, financial monetary costs. However, green products have also been related to increased issues regarding legitimacy and fairness of the product’s production and product itself, as well as deceptive claims in its marketing, a practice commonly referred to as greenwashing [4,5]. Despite different countries’ attempts to minimize financial pressures of green adoption through strategies such as surcharge and subsides, the financial responsibility which comes with sustainable and environmentally friendly practices still exists as a strong influential factor affecting both the country and its individuals’ levels of enthusiasm and satisfaction in using green, as well as the strategies acquired to encourage their transition [6-9].
Green consumers show commonalities in demographics which include female gender, higher education levels, and a higher income [10,11]. Therefore, these more likely consumers could also be considered as more “critical and well educated” Markard [6] individuals who contain the skills to do their own research on the specific green product or service, and from their analysis, draw their own conclusions as to what the product is worth, and how much they are willing to pay. Willingness-to-pay has been another financial element which has been studied, for which it has been emphasized that income itself only influences the amount which is contributed, not the participation, and that a common objective of environmentally conscious behavior was still to save money [12,13]. However, it has been implied that further research is only executed by the individual if the perception of affordability exists, hence, personal opinions and decisions may change over time, or be influenced by future government policies such as providing a start-up incentive to support the development of green electricity, and government subsidies or tax deductions, which would assist in the overall set up costs and consumer prices, but probably only if there was an initial belief that is was achievable [14-17].
Competitive pricing is “influenced primarily by competitors’ prices” Pride [18], which is why competitive prices generally become more apparent as the number of suppliers increases. However, it may also be argued that more competition cannot be incurred without first having the consumers who have the desire to consume the product, an argument which can be approached by many angles, including that “the green energy marketer needs to create the market as well as sell the product.” Markard [6] Considering that low participation rates for green electricity, for example, has shown to generate low total revenue and therefore higher prices, it can be assumed that greater involvement may result in lower prices and higher levels of willingness-to-pay from the customers [6,18, 19-23]. Hence, as suppliers try to increase their own customer count by increasing customers’ satisfaction levels in order to ideally prevent unsatisfied customers from leaving, the increased competitors would increase consumer options, and hence, consumers’ comparative analysis of the available product options would also increase, comparing environmental as well as non-environmental options [18,24]. It is, therefore, only reasonable that the main concern toward environmentally friendly options is the assumed accompaniment of higher prices with the main factor of transition, hence, transition to environmentally friendly options were induced simply by the availability of a lower-cost supplier, which caused a realization that “some of the ‘green’ suppliers offer(ed) prices that were actually competitive with the nongreen products. Wiser [9] Especially for products requiring higher financial costs, customers would contribute more time and greater levels of consideration concerning the amount of long-term value they receive, in an attempt to attain the greatest value for their money, that is, more effort researching for the best quality results at the cheapest price, prior to purchasing the product, as well as the tangible and intangible benefits, for the self or others [21,25-28]. However, it is also these higher priced environmentally friendly products, which potential customers are least likely to personally test, experience and observe any relative advantages prior to the purchase, all of which are core elements that contribute toward the successful adoption of a product or behaviour [15].

In conclusion, despite the spread of environmentally friendly options and competition, the competitive prices of these suppliers for less triable products, are difficult to bring into general attention, especially if initial impressions exist. Hence, despite the loathe environmentalist critics are known to bare toward media and popular culture, it is recommended that social media and popular culture be considered as an effective method for spreading new beliefs about the affordability and benefits of environmentally friendly products which are less triable and currently less popular [29]. Social networking sites have already been effective in using medical social influencers to contribute toward healthier living, and already have millennials trending green products and practices, with research showing that effectiveness of social media use is mainly due to factors of trust and positive word of mouth, reaching a wide audience for a small cost [30-33]. Specifically how this could be executed for this type of green product, as well as its effectiveness, could be examined for future studies.

1. Aydin MBS, Çukur D (2012) Maintaining the carbon-oxygen balance in residential areas: A method proposal for land use planning. Urban forestry & urban greening 11(1): 87-94.
2. Lodeiro C, Capelo-Martínez JL, Santos HM, Oliveira E (2020) Impacts of environmental issues on health and well-being: A global pollution challenge. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
3. Schmidt B (2020) Porsche announces Taycan electric sportscar pricing and specifications.
4. Laufer WS (2003) Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of business ethics 43(3): 253-261.
5. Smith NC, Palazzo G, Bhattacharya C (2010) Marketing's consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Business Ethics Quarterly 20(4): 617-641.
6. Markard J (1997) Green pricing: Potentials and limitations. IEEE Power Engineering Review 17(12): 20-21.
7. Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy 78(4): 453-463.
8. Roe B, Teisl MF, Levy A, Russell M (2001) US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29(11): 917-925.
9. Wiser RH (1998) Green power marketing: Increasing customer demand for renewable energy. Utilities Policy 7(2): 107-119.
10. McMillan EE, Wright T, Beazley K (2004) Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’ values. The Journal of Environmental Education 35(3): 19-27.
11. Shrum LJ, McCarty JA, Lowrey TM (1995) Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising 24(2): 71.
12. Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2007) Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53(1): 1-16.
13. Roberts JA (1996) Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of business research 36(3): 217-231.
14. Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards green electricity: The case of swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33(13): 1677-1689.
15. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5^th edn), Free Press, New York, USA.
16. Sardianou E, Genoudi P (2013) Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies?. Renewable Energy 57: 1-4.
17. Wustenhagen R (2003) Sustainability and competitiveness in the renewable energy sector: The case of vestas wind systems. Greener Management International 44:105-115.
18. Pride WM, Ferrell OC, Lukas BA, Schembri S, Niininen O (2015) Marketing principles, (2^nd edn), Asia-Pacific, Cengage Learning, South Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
19. Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6(1): 37-46.
20. Grove-White R (1996) Environmental knowledge and public policy needs: On humanising the research agenda. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds.), risk, environment and modernity towards a new ecology, SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 269-286.
21. Hartmann P, Apaolaza-Ibanez V (2012) Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research 65(9): 1254-1263.
22. Jamison A (1996) The shaping of the global environmental agenda: The role of non-governmental organizations. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity towards a new ecology, SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 224-245.
23. Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds), Risk, environment and modernity towards a new ecology, SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 44-83.
24. Blackwell RD (2006) Consumer behaviour: An Asia Pacific approach, Thomson Learning Australia, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
25. Berger IE, Corbin RM (1992) Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11(2): 79-90.
26. Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A, Garling T (2008) The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(1): 1-9.
27. Kinnear TC, Taylor JR, Ahmed SA (1974) Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they?. Journal of Marketing 38(2): 20-24.
28. Straughan RD, Roberts JA (1999) Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16(6): 558-575.
29. Parham J (2015) Green media and popular culture: An introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education, London, UK.
30. Barreda AA, Bilgihan A, Kageyama Y (2015) The role of trust in creating positive word of mouth and behavioral intentions: The case of online social networks. Journal of Relationship Marketing 14(1): 16-36.
31. Bedard SAN, Tolmie CR (2018) Millennials green consumption behaviour: Exploring the role of social media. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25(6): 1388-1396.
32. Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F, Gummadi PK (2010) Measuring user influence in twitter: The million-follower fallacy. Icwsm 10(10-17): 30.
33. Ngai CSB, Singh RG, Lu W (2020) Exploring drivers for public engagement in social media communication with medical social influencers in China. PloS one 15(10): e0240303.