I just saw a report out of Nielsen Business Media. ORC guideline, a part of Opinion Research Corporation, a leading global market research firm, survey finds that many Americans are willing to spend more to support eco-friendly initiatives. Some notes from the national survey (over 1000 adults in private households, May 2009):
- 77% of consumers said a product’s ‘energy footprint’ influences their purchase decisions
- 76% of consumers are willing to pay more for eco-friendly products
- 74% of US employees think organizations must take action to lead eco-friendly initiatives
- 64% of those will willing to support their business’ or organization’s green initiatives EVEN at the cost of a smaller paycheck.
“The study’s findings seem to debunk a common perception that people will go green as long as it doesn’t cost them,” said Aaron Franklin, project director at ORC Guideline. “In fact, in both the workplace and in the store, people seem to be willing to put their money where their values are.”
Although not from this study, keep in mind that over 85% of students coming out of colleges and graduate schools are looking to work for green companies.
By Debbie Deland, Director of The 10% Initiative. She works with Green Cities Florida, the Chamber of Commerce, and NetImpact.
Tags: Carbon, Foot Print, Green
I’m not sure if I would consider this ‘myth’ busted. I suspect there is a big difference between what people say they will do on a survey, and what they will actually do. How were the survey questions actually asked? That can make a big difference in results.
I think it’s clear that Americans are becoming more aware and concerned about environmental issues, but I’m skeptical that the majority are willing to make anything more than small changes (which help satisfy their desire to make a difference), unless there is clear economic incentive. Here are some additional thoughts on this topic:
http://www.design-impact.org/blog/2009/06/toxic-textbooks-externalities-and-sustainability/
James,
I probably went over the top that the myth was busted, but it is the first time I have even seen an indicator that consumers might be willing to pay more. You’re right their behavior may have to catch up with their value based answers in a survey. I have the same skepticism you do and that’s why we need strong new policies, rules and rule changes, and clear econimic incentives.
Thanks for link. I will check it out.
Debbie
James,
Just checked out site and the externalities article. Since my background is in economics, already on board. I think we have to shift some of the income tax system to a use and pollution tax system. I don’t know if there is a need for more tax revenue or not, although the article says not.
I am disgusted with where and how our governments spend a lot of our monies whether it is $400M in priniting reports, millions in private jet travel, US Congress perks, an airport with no traffic, a defense system based on fighting big wars versus the kind of battles we really face, 18 Coast Guard ships that could not be used, the pop and circumstance of Washington and State Capitol functions, fighting the drug war we aren’t winning, etc. Just the number of buildings in Washington and local governments assures me they are burning money. I have to believe common sense people not influenced by lobbyists, not having to accept pork could make major real cost reductions at the state, local and federal level. Is that realistic, probably not. I think the world of Obama, but even the size of his budget was unconscionable in good economic times and toally unacceptable in bad times. He has yet taken a stand by vetoing legislation with pork or earmarks.
With that said, I don’t think Obama or Congress have the political courage to institute meaningful, new taxes (while reducing some income tax for say those earning less than $250K)to change our behavior. But that doesn’t mean I am going to give up. I have written and keep writing my representatives for at least a $1 tax on gas that goes up $.50+/year, a carbon and water tax on businesses, and an energy and water tax on homes. I’d like to see a substantial garbage tax too. These taxes would have a big negative impact for me and my family, but it is the right thing to do to drive the right kind of behavior. The only thing I want simultaneously with these taxes is some reduction in income taxes for those making under $250,000 and the rest of the reveneue must be treated transparently, i.e., not go into the general revenue fund, and must be used for proven science and math related education improvement, deployment of renewable energies, cleaning up toxic sites, and energy and water efficiency retrofitting nationwide. Transparency really makes a difference. I want to see the revenue and see the process used to spend the money and see the interim and final results of the programs, projects, whatever the money was spent on.
Since I understand cost externalities, the Tragedy of the Commons, etc. very well, I keep noodling how do we get the President and his team, as well as Congress (and state and local governments) plus the management teams of the departments that support them, to understand better how to impact complex systems and take those actions. They are managing the most complex systems and yet I have this sense that they really don’t apply the best mental models and approaches we now have available. Maybe none of that will help unless we have major campaign finance reform and line item veto. I have studied The Natural Step exhaustively and I am impressed with the case studies of businesses that use it as their framework for sustainability. The CEOs and executive teams, as well as their employees, had major paradigm shifts and changed their mental models radically. I hope there is something that can have the same galvanizing impact on our politicians that these CEOs and their teams experienced and that have resulted in incredible results for many of these companies.
Keep pushing the economic incentives. You are spot on. I will keep pushing too.
Debbie