From MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
From recycling to reusing hotel towels, consumers who participate in a company’s “green” program are more satisfied with its service, finds a new study co-led by a Michigan State University researcher.
Doing good makes customers feel good, and that “warm glow” shapes opinion, said Tomas Hult, Byington Endowed Chair and professor of marketing in the Eli Broad College of Business. But it gets more complicated when companies throw incentives into the mix.
“Companies are increasingly adopting sustainability initiatives and ultimately these ‘green’ programs are intended to be good for the environment and also increase customers’ satisfaction,” said Hult, who is director of MSU’s International Business Center. “Our research helps strike the right balance between incentivizing customers to participate in green programs and focusing on the bottom-line performance of the company.”
Hult and researchers from Cornell University and Florida State University conducted four studies in three service settings: restaurants, hotels and online retailing. They found the types of rewards offered by companies to participate in sustainability programs could affect satisfaction.
The researchers tested two types of incentives: those that benefit solely the consumer (i.e. loyalty points) and those that benefit another organization (i.e. charitable donations).
For green program participants, rewards that benefit another organization created the highest rate of satisfaction about the business.
And for those who chose not to participate in a green program, self-benefiting rewards cast doubt about the motive of a program. That scenario offers nonparticipants an opportunity to rationalize their decision to not participate, and lack of guilt translates into feelings of satisfaction about the business, Hult said.
People will interpret incentives in whatever way best suits their egos, he said. So for both groups to be happiest, a company should allow customers to choose between a reward that benefits themselves or another organization.
Many managers, particularly in the hospitality industry, are reluctant to introduce sustainability initiatives that might negatively influence the guest experience, Hult said. But this research, one of the first of its kind, provides managers with guidance on how to best design such programs as well as best practices for “green marketing.”
###
In addition to Hult, the research team comprised Michael Giebelhausen and HaeEun Helen Chun, both assistant professors of marketing at Cornell University, and Joseph Cronin, John R. Kerr Eminent Scholar Chair in Marketing and Service Innovation at Florida State University.
The study is published in the July edition of the Journal of Marketing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I believe it’s called “virtue signalling.” People present themselves as “green” primarily to show off or because they’ve been trained to do so.
Or to avoid being stigmatized or berated by rabid envirokooks.
Since I am old enough to remember the scrap collection drives during WWII, what recycling I do is probably a habit from long ago. But we didn’t have recyclable plastics back then — at least not that I can recall.
There’s a reason you get paid for scrap metal, but recycled plastic is barely worth anything. Metal is almost always worthwhile to recycle, and it’s 100% as good as fresh. Plastic degrades chemically, and since you no longer have uniform properties, it is unsuited for any specialty application.
Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
Sorry, I’m missing the satire here.
That’s why the smug drivers of the Prius would like the name changed to “Pious.” Of all my liberal friends in “The People’s Republic of Ann Arbor” who claim to be so “green” and virtuous, not a single one has done a single thing of importance to save the planet. But oh lordy do they feel superior. Hypocritical snobs all.
Priapus.
After the things growing on their heads
That is some way to refer to your “friends”, calling them snobs.
Dan Hue: I do not hold the same values as some of my closest friends. (not “friends”). The fact that we can be good friends says something about us and perhaps some of our core values. We do have areas we don’t discuss. I have several friends who I would apply the “snob” level to for various reasons and we have even debated our “hypocritical” actions both calmly and not so calmly. Yet, we are still friends who would cross a burning river to help each other. I have friends on the far left and far right; eco-n@zis and people I tell to pick up their litter (though that latter may cover BOTH groups – hence the hypocrite label).
True friends don’t need to be homogenized.
Personally, “eco” advertising sets off alarm bells in my brain as I know it is a marketing ploy so it actually makes me distrust the product but then I am a tad on the contrary side. Often the claims are spurious though I do in fact buy certain “green” products like 7th Generation laundry soap.
The Internet has lots of examples of “marketing”: http://www.scambusters.org/greenscam.html
Nevertheless, reuse, recycle, reduce is part of my own lifestyle along with most people I know. It has become part of our culture. Big Green is just using our values to market their products but in reality there is likely little difference with a few exceptions. However the law of unintended consequences often trips them up. “The Body Shop” comes to mind. Lots of missteps. Organic soaps wrapped in plastic, then a different kind of plastic, and then paper but one wrapping may not be any better than the other except for marketing. The paper creates way more land fill waste, but I use it as fire starter so it goes up the chimney. (I store my paper and cardboard and burn it with wood for heat in the winter in a high efficiency fireplace.) Mountain Equipment Coop is another – green values, no bags provided so you bring your own or buy one of their reuseable bags – made from polypropylene. They have a very “green” image, but I would guess most of their products are completely dependent on a fossil fuel economy. Love the irony, but I still buy hiking gear there all the while chuckling at the unstated irony.
Diversity is important, or so I hear. Everyone should have some snobbish friends to remind themselves how not to be. 🙂
Just don’t get too close with the drug dealers, muggers, and CAGW alarmists.
I have no problem with things that make an actual, practical, qualitative difference to the environment–cleaning up landfills and polluted effluent, producing less waste, energy efficiency, habitat preservation.
Those are unarguable benefits to the quality of life of us all. But the CAGW crowd is demanding draconian changes under false pretenses, and that’s where their “movement” crosses the line and, in so doing, endangers the credibility of ALL environmental initiatives. That’s what gets me so peeved about all this!
I use to think that about prius drivers until I noticed that the vast majority of taxi drivers are
using them. And since I imagine that most of them would do so if it was saving them money
it has changed my opinion of hybrids. Now the irony is that as with many things you have to
be sufficiently rich to be able to afford to save money.
South Park did an episode based on the “Pious” joke in March 2006.
@Geronimo
“vast majority of taxi drivers are using” [electric cars]
Couldn’t have anything to do with the large subsidies, could it? Or the marketing factors discussed in this article rather than other economic concerns?
Cab drivers often work for a cab company, so it could be a Green-standing company policy and not an actual individual preference.
Like E-surance bragging about it’s fleet of all-hybrid vehicles in their TV spots.
How ironic that reducing the fossil CO2 output is not a “virtue” at all – quite on the contrary !!!
The so-called “carbon-pollution” is in reality a very valuable “carbon-enrichment” for agriculture and the whole biosphere of planet Earth, which is still undernourished of atmospheric CO2, as Patrick Moore demonstrated in this paper not long ago:
https://fcpp.org/positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions
So lets tell all people the truth about their allegedly “sinful” fossil carbon emissions:
COMRADES IN CARBON LIBERATION (or in short: CARLIB-COMRADES),
YOU ALL SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF EVERY SINGLE MOLECULE OF CO2 WHICH YOU LIBERATE FROM ITS FOSSIL PRISON BY DRIVING, FLYING OR ANY OTHER USE OF FOSSIL ENGERY. WITH THIS YOU HELP FEEDING MANKIND AND GREENING MOTHER EARTH FOR CO2 IS THE BASIC FOOD OF ALL LIFE !!!
Well, I admit, such a appeal may sound somewhat funny today because of the current zeitgeist, but maybe if the next glacial period would start sooner than we hope, people might understand at last, how bad a lack of CO2 will be for agriculture and food production…
..” The Greens are too yellow to admit that they are actually Red !! ” …Lord Monckton….
Bedbug prevalence is correlated with minimizing hotel laundry, dwindling economy, Third World staff and guests. Repeated fractional reduction and serial dilution is effective.
Ugh, bedbugs…I brought home a case of bedbugs from Venezuela earlier this year… It took 2 weeks of intense fumigation to get rid of the little bastards… The Missus was not amused. The paranoia level is still high where they are concerned.
Look into, study the use of the various permethrins. There is even a commercial line of clothing with permanent permethrin incorporated – good through 100 laundries. If it’s safe for clothing, it MAY be safe for bedding.
And head lice, ants, roaches… A lot of insect pests take advantage of our carelessly reused stuff.
As an aside, leaving your bed unmade in the morning makes it a less attractive environment for bedbugs. Which would you rather live on and travel through: a smooth plain of sheets or a mountain range of piled blankets?
Izzat bedbug teleology?
Seems to me we should all be conserving whatever resources we have that are limited in nature. Water particularly, as well as the obvious fossil fuels. Even CO2 should be considered a resource rather than a pollutant, based on the latest findings in Botany.
Reuse/recycle was taught to me by parents who got through the great depression by doing so, even as the media was glorifying disposable everything to help increase commerce. In my late teens, I helped support my church youth program by picking up discarded aluminum and glass to recycle.
That set of values still drives me at 60.
Dear Pop have a look at this video excerpt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu_R3gp84TY
CO2 as a greening agent has been known to mankind over many years.
Thanks much. It’s a shame to dump things into the ground or oceans that could be burned cleanly and boost the plant world.
‘limited in nature. Water particularly’
Sir, 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water. It’s called “The Blue Planet.”
Still, “water, water everywhere! But, not a drop to drink!” sounds familiar to some folks. What is rare at the moment depends on the circumstances and the economy.
All that recycling makes little difference. None of the materials are scarce and are inert in landfill. It is just another of the greenie control mechanisms.
In fact, recycling is probably increasing the proportion of “nasties” in landfill, by removing all that inert material. Recycling of non metals is also economically and environmentally damaging. Some of the processes used are far more energy intensive than processing the virgin material.
http://listverse.com/2013/01/27/10-ways-recycling-hurts-the-environment/
I don’t think there are very many people out there that choose restaurants, hotels or other venues based on the ‘sustainability program’. this ‘study’ sounds like a bunch of horse feathers to me.
Could also be duck soup.
Duck soup is tasty…Horse feathers, not so much. 🙂
In my experience, in most hotels the staff change the towels daily even if you DON’T chuck them in the bathtub (leaving towels in the bathtub is the signal to change the towels.)
..That is the hygienically correct thing to do… !
I prefer to put the towels in my suitcase.
Fear of lawsuits, I would guess.
That’s been my experience, too.
Tom in Florida July 23, 2016 at 11:21 am
I believe that’s the definitive signal to replace the towels, Tom. Just putting them in the tub may be too subtle.
The connotation of ‘rationalize’ is that one is making up excuses. Clearly the researchers don’t think it’s possible to make a logical, informed decision that a supposedly green program may be bogus. They probably can’t even see their own bias. I wonder if they even know about greenwashing.
Every now and then when I stayed in a hotel, I accepted the greenwash premise and set the towels up indicating that they did not need to be replaced.
Invariably, they were replaced.
It appeared that the staff was either not familiar with the program or that so few people used it that the staff didn’t bother not changing the towels. I no longer even bother, The towels go in the tub.
Maybe the housekeeping staff couldn’t read the green placard.
The “warm and fuzzy” feelings is the most powerful force on Earth. It will be responsible for our own destruction, due to its ease of manipulation and propaganda value. GK
What we’re looking at is virtue-seeking in a post-religious, secular world. “Health” and “The Environment” are the new Angry Gods, who must be appeased at all costs. “Eating right,” “healthy lifestyle,” and “going green” are all ingredients in this new, secular religion. Around here, if you drive your Prius to your big, sweaty, debilitating “workout” chased with an anorexic “green smoothie,” your Righteous Progressive cred is good for the day with or without solar panels. Only trouble is, that lifestyle you’ll find is “unsustainable” when you get a little older. Still, these one-upping earnest yuppies are good for laughs! 😉
All I know is Greenies are up themselves and two faced hypocrital seemers not doers. They’ll happily Twitter away to satisfy their egos yet stage NIMBY protests if there’s a mobile phone tower going up near their place. Same with taking their electricity for granted and moaning about the dangers of transmission lines and electromagnetic radiation. They’re right in one sense about the dangers of electricity transmission lines. It’s in the deadly irony of poor people wanting them passing their homes-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/deadly-blast-hits-kabul-protest-march/ar-BBuIkcC?li=AA5249&ocid=spartanntp
I’ve got a Green rewards program in mind. You whinge about phone towers and transmission lines we set you free and cut you off. Win win.
Perhaps customers using natural common sense is misunderstood by the surveyors as a ‘green’ action, & subsequently used by the latter to justify their existence.
?
The greenies I know are mainly seeking forgiveness for the [imaginary] guilty deeds they have been told they have committed in the past.
It’s all very similar to guilt I am supposed to feel over the behavior of the slave owners with whom I have not the slightest connection.
the marketers make money selling marketing so they are always touting this or that.
when it comes to spending my money, if i see a company that’s spending their profits on things that don’t improve the business – frivolous virtue signalling for example – i make an effort to find an alternative where the profits (obviously excessive, since the profits pay for such frivolity) are used to improve the product or reward the producer of the product.
i buy a product – not a philosophy.
if the operator of a ‘business’ tries to make it into a church, i’ll look for a real business.
the marketers are just another church.
product price and product quality are all i care about.
not dead babies in aftrica; not green stamps, not tribal identity.
good product and good price are the only things that matter.
if a business displays some belief that things are otherwise, they lost the focus and darwin’s business award is on the way.
Sustainability is not an exclusive characteristic of the green movement. Nobody and no organization regards waste as desirable.
In my case I do it for the green, as in MONEY. I can keep my house warm in winter and cool in summer with half the cost that is money in my pocket. Same with water for the toilets. As long as the excrement is gone I’m happy. If I can achieve that and save money I’m happier. You’ve got to shop for bargains and take advantage of “green refunds” from governments because they are giving you some of your own money back which is a lot better than what they usually do with it. Stuff like insulation, water efficient toilets, etc pay off pretty quick but windows take forever so unless you need to replace them hold off.
A penny saved is not a penny earned. Depending on what your tax bracket is a penny saved could be 1.25 to 1.5 pennies earned TAX FREE. The gov will tax you when you make it and spend it but if you just spend less and get the same benefit then you win. You have more disposable income to do with what you want not what the gov decides for you.
TRM
Double plus shedloads.
I’ve moved into three houses, now. Some Brits don’t move much, like me.
Each time, first thing, I’ve added another layer of insulation to the immersion heater, normally by the Saturday lunch-time.
Lofts, too – we’re over 51 N, here, so a good saving in those 11.6 months that are officially ‘not summer’ here in London.
Windows – yes, when needed.
Water, still, can be a flat rate, although metering is spreading. So – the brick stays out of the cistern, for now.
And if I lived on a flood plain [Why do Planning Committees wilfully misunderstand those two words? What part of FLOOD Plain is too difficult for them?] I’d get Flood-Kit in, and get tooled up.
And here, if I may paraphrase: –
Depending on what your tax bracket is a pound saved could be 1.25 to 1.75 pounds earned TAX FREE.
Auto – halfway up a hill
Speaking of which how about an update from Mr Watts about his solar electric adventure? In my area the sun isn’t hot enough, long enough to pay back in my lifetime but I’m still curious how his experiment is going. Being a bit of a geek I’m sure he has a spreadsheet with all the data 🙂
It is not where Sir Watts lives. Aside from having lived in near his area, I know because no where on the planet earth is solar more economical or green than coal.
First the environmental impact of coal has been greatly exaggerated. I love when California school children talk about ‘dirty’ coal plants. Something they have never seen. I saw down town growing up. It has been closed for 40 years.
Second solar does not work, at least when you need it. Unless PV is a hobby, Watts got scammed.
PV on the roof is a waste of natural resources and good way to set fire to your house.
Easy living in California makes otherwise intelligent people stupid.
Sustainability is not an exclusive characteristic of the green movement. Nobody and no organization condones waste.
Shame that the present administration has wasted so much of our money and third world lives because of the green movement distracting and distorting ecological policy.
Some of these programs also drive scientific illiteracy. Restaurants and food producers that boast using non-GMO products, or even “organic” products are luddites who fail to understand that there is no advantage to eating such products, and they cost a lot more than plain old food. Any individual or organization that is worried about its CO2 footprint is betraying sound science for profit (no surprise there.) And I have just heard Panera’s bragging about its new “clean food” program. Was all that stuff I ate in their restaurants in the past dirty, I wonder? Sadly, extremism and ignorance in the environmental movement has made dummies of many of us.
Panera serves the smallest portion for the price in the area where I live. Dukes Bakery makes better pastries.
But they’re often angry, righteous dummies looking for someone to lecture or punish. Useful idiots.
You know, if the “hipsters” in Brooklyn all moved away and got real jobs, this “movement” would be dead within 6 months.
David, beg to differ on organic costing more
theres good organic weed killers available
they cost around $11 Au a litre so thats close or maybe cheaper than roundup..with ALL the benefits of NOT killing my soil organisms or worms or the remnant chem absorbing into my crops.
because the synergists are NOT listed and can be any of many chem.
derris dust or some copper sulphate if things get serious bug n fungals wise
and /or let the chooks go in the paddock 😉
so are my crops going to cost me more to produce?
no, quite a bit less!
even rockdust is cheaper than chemical waste sold as fertiliser and needs applying only 3 yearly at most.
if some idiot wants to pay 2 or 3x the standard for my time and care to produce..then by american enterprise so oft stated.. I should charge accordingly??
my free roaming hens eggs could sell for $12 a dozen..which is insane but people happily pay that.
now if I was also stupid enough to join the Organic mob in aus for a pile of grief paperwork and crap dumped on me to get a sticker approving me..at a not insignificant cost and privacy invasion…then yeah I would be upping prices to cover their greentard charges TO me.
as it is
i am UNcertified BUT fully Organic and will stay that way thanks:-)
forced by law in many cases.
So a “green program” is a “sustainability program”? I don’t even know what these terms mean anymore. But I’ve practiced efficiency for well over 40 years for both my own economic benefit and for maintaining and improving the capital worth of already existing things like structures, tools, and even a proud, and proudly CO2-generating 1990 GMC Suburban at 15 mpg, with a new engine after 300,000 miles on the old one,which still ran very well but was somehow guzzling too much oil to efficiently keep up with. [Given also that you’d like to drive an indestructible bath tub.]
My “ego” also translates my thinking into an Ethical motive for me in that it respects and revers the efforts of past individuals who have made America what it is today – starting with the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution itself! I love that kind of thing. It makes me feel good. I want to be like them!
On the other hand I’m also quite happy with myself for not supporting any “green” or “sustainable” program which smells like PC or just another “subsidize me” scam, or contributes to the desires of would-be Totalitarians and their Perfect Totalitarian Fodder “Progressives”. I’m pretty sure I’ve done more to help the Idealistic goals implied by such “programs” than the efforts of any 10,000 “green-sustainable” Econuts put together into their very special kind of giant Beetle Nut. But I want to sustain myself, family, etc., and immediate environment first. If you can’t do that, forget about “saving” anybody or anything else! That just never turns out well.
It’s lip-service: I spend about 150 nights in hotels each year (yes really!) and nearly all of then have these green programmes about water etc telling you what to do if you are happy to use the same towel etc. I often do as it says but they have never, NEVER left the used towels, they always take them and replace them.
Yes, the help likes to be tipped. Sometimes they even do towel art figures to get tips on a multi-night stay.
Oooo… Towel art figures… That is always the high point of my stay in a hotel:)) (I spend 150+ nights a year in hotels also)
SMC
I used to travel – mostly on ships, but probably 25 – 30 nights in hotels a year – some were like arrive at 0300, leave at 0730, and hope the ship will do breakfast.
Life is a little less frantic now, happily.
Some are quite good.
Last week – on holiday – the used (once) towels were hung up straight, but not taken away, for example.
The ‘Windermere Hotel’ in the town from which it took its name
Auto
Time to market fossil fuels as just “recycling” dead dinosaurs and plants. Who could argue with that?
ShrNfr July 23, 2016 at 10:11 am
I have no idea why, long ago, the gasoline sellers didn’t put green food coloring in their gasoline and call it Green Gasoline. They could have charged 10-15 cents more per gallon. My neighbor would have bought it.
Damn, you should patent that idea, just for laughs if nothing else. 😀
If I am considering buying anything and the item is tied to some cause (‘save’ this, that, or the other critter; ‘fight’ hunger, poverty, psoriasis), I do not purchase the item unless it’s clearance priced.
I had a conversation with a neighbor who told me that he made it a point to buy products that are ‘green.’ Green generally means nothing regarding product. I believe ‘sustainable’ is also implied when marketers use ‘green’ on a label. He felt good about himself. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that marketers know that ‘green’ is the buzzword these days so ‘green’ will sell to the gullible and there is usually nothing changed or changed for the better in green products besides the label.
P.S. I know all the places in stores where clearance-priced goods are located and I do admit to the pride of being a scavenger. I also know when the ‘clearance price’ of 50% of is actually the normal price the retailers wanted in the first place and have the good sense to wait until there’s an additional 50-70% off the clearance price before buying. I guess I’m concerned about ‘green’ ($$$$$$$$$) after all.
CO2 = The New Green
This should apply to Renewable Energy.
If you want more renewables and it makes you feel good, then you should pay “extra” to enjoy your feelings about more expensive and less reliable renewable energy.
Most of the original wind power programs were based on people paying 15% more than the average to support the program. They were actually quite popular and were over-subscribed in many cases. Corporate buyers and ordinary consumers participated in these programs.
Let’s go back to that and hand out “green energy purchaser” bumper stickers and lawn signs and let those that want it determine how much green energy there is. It is supposed to have such great support among the populace that it should work very well. 15% – 25% premium is all it would take.
Much. much more efficient market solution compared to Carbon taxes.
An electric utility once did a survey to see how many would pay more for “green” energy. Lo and behold over 15% of the customers surveyed said they would participate. So the utility dutifully initiated a green program and found out when it came to actually paying more for the power, only 0.5% signed up. Some customers actually asked how much they would save by signing up.
I came to two conclusions from this:
1) People will tell pollsters what they think people should say (the Wilder Effect)
2) As long as it doesn’t cost anything (recycling, reusing towels in a hotel, etc.) many are willing to do it. But the ranks are thinned considerably when it comes with parting with one’s own long green.
It is old research but green power programs target those with post grad degrees in art history.
“you should pay “extra” to enjoy your feelings”
I suspect that forcing others to pay is a good chunk of the appeal for many “environmentalists”. There is not a small amount of disguised authoritarianism and glee of compelling those unlike oneself to submit.
Canadian Energy Law
An overview of Cap-and-trade. Cap-and trade between Ontario, Quebec and California is scheduled to begin January 2017.
A series of articles beginning June 3, 2016 and other articles dating back several years.
In the first article scroll down to: Transportation sector
“The proposals intend to alter the fundamental structure of the Ontario economy …”
http://www.canadianenergylaw.com/tags/cap-and-trade
Intention of California to alter the fundamental structure of their economy as well?
It may fundamentally alter the employment status of some politicians.
ie They will be tossed out of office onto their fundaments.
I shun anything green, eco, enviro or organic.
The Polish Solidarity movement stole one of Communists best buzzwords.
Green oil. I feel better already