Broward Craig, National Sovereignty at High Altl- tudes, Ibid,, pâgina

The adverse environmental impact of conventional products is generally perceived and understood by the majority of the population. However, consumers state that

“expense” and “cost” are significant factors preventing the purchase of greener alternatives. In general, green products are more expensive or costly because producers charge higher prices (Gupta & Odgen, 2009; Pettit & Sheppard, 1992;

Sexton & Sexton, 2011). This pricing strategy is based on research that has reported that consumers are willing to pay premium prices for environmentally-friendly products (Gupta & Odgen, 2009; Pettit & Sheppard, 1992; Sexton & Sexton, 2011).

However, this evidence is based on self-reported quantitative surveys, whereby

Stephanie Hooper 168 consumers have been known to inflate their pro-environmental attitudes and their willingness to pay for green attributes. Consumers may inflate their pro-environmental attitudes due to the social desirability of “green” and their desire to be perceived as a “good person” (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Gupta & Odgen, 2009;

Sexton & Sexton, 2011) or an “environmental citizen” (Seyfang, 2003; Stern, et al., 1999).

Fundamental flaws in quantitative research design have contributed to pre-conceived notions about the cost of green products. The perception that green product producers charge premium prices has led to a widespread pre-conception that “green” is more expensive than conventional products. Some green products (e.g., solar panels and reusable nappies) are often more cost-effective than conventional products in the long-term but require a comparatively large upfront cost. The large up-front cost or premium price of green products prevents many “mainstream” (i.e., not-so-green) consumers from buying green. Only a niche group of “green” consumers are prepared to pay high up-front costs and premium prices for green products.

This pre-conception of green product prices relates to “temporal discounting theory”

(Green, Fristoe, & Myerson, 1994; Zauberman, Kim, Malkoc, & Bettman, 2008), which suggests that when the value of green products cannot be judged because the attributes are not tangible or observable (i.e., green attributes), people tend to focus on short-term gains (i.e., conventional attributes). Western consumer culture is driven by materialism (McCracken, 1983, 1990), impulsivity and instant gratification (Kacen &

Lee, 2002). As a result, most “mainstream” (i.e., not-so-green) consumers do not conceive the long-term environmental implications and the “true-cost” of their consumption behaviour. These perceptions lead many “mainstream” (i.e., not-so-green) consumers to disregard green products in the decision-making process, regardless of whether or not they are premium priced, once again limiting the potential growth and expansion of the green industry.

Stephanie Hooper 169 5.2.6. Green tradeoffs

The findings reveal “green tradeoffs” - a new concept developed by this study, which relates to the idea of green product alternatives being traded off against one another.

Perceptions about the importance of various environmental issues has led some consumers to practice certain types of green consumption behaviour that inadvertently contribute to other environmental issues. In addition, sometimes the personal relevance or prevalence of certain environmental issues in the media and social environment, may guide consumers to choose a product alternative with more severe environmental consequences. In these cases, a consumer may select a product where the environmental cost can be readily perceived, compared to the alternative where the environmental impact is much greater but cannot be observed in the product.

The media, social interactions and experiences shape consumers‟ perceptions about the importance of various green attributes. In this study, consumers who encountered green tradeoff decisions were torn between the environmental packaging of a product and its origin. Annette and Bridget experienced two very similar situations, with regard to purchasing food. In both situations, the participants prioritised environmental packaging over origin. It is evident that green tradeoffs are especially common in the food and produce category, as green characteristics are more observable and there are often several green attributes that compete for preference in a purchase decision.

It is also evident that “origin” or “locality” is not prioritised highly by consumers, and is generally not perceived as an important green attribute. While non-recyclable packaging is wasteful, rationally the origin of the product should be perceived as equally if not more important because food transport contributes to food-miles and global warming (Edward-Jones, Canals, Hounsome, Truninger, & Koerber, 2008;

Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). From an exporting perspective, this finding is favourable and indicates that overseas consumers are willing to purchase a product if it satisfies other green attributes. However, local producers need to deliver other green attributes in addition to locality, which are truly valued and readily perceived by consumers.

Stephanie Hooper 170 Other quantitative studies have shown that consumers are more likely to base decisions on environmental costs that can be readily perceived (Hormuth, 1999). The emphasis placed on certain green consumption behaviour (i.e., recycling, composting and environmental packaging) in the social environment and media, persuades consumers to prioritise these environmental issues and related green consumption behaviour. For example the prevalence of waste and the negative implications of plastic in the media and social environment, promote the adoption of effective recycling and composting systems. Because of this, consumers in this study tended to minimise rubbish waste through increased recycling and reduce the purchase of over-packaged and non-recyclable packaging, and overlook other environmental issues not directly related to their own lives.