Relative willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products and its relation with eco-certification
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research investigated the relationship between eco-certification and the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly branded products. The research was originated in Canada, where Essoussi and Linton (2010) compared products with an recycled component and tested what the impact was for different product groups on consumers’ WTP. This research is an important part of a widely international investigation to environmentally friendly products. The main reason for it is that there is a significant increase of interest in natural environment because legislation in many countries aims at diverting disposed product from waste dumps to consumers. The main aim of this research was to see if an interest in environmentally friendly products concerns appears to lead to the feeling that environmental certification is important. This was done by asking respondents the maximum price they would pay for a branded and recycled products. The same question was asked about branded and recycled products with an eco-certificate, so that those two variables can be compared. 230 students from the University of Twente were asked to fill in a questionnaire about environmentally friendly products. The participant were first year bachelor students from four different bachelor programs: Business Administration, International Business Administration, Civil Engineering and Industrial Design. The surveys were conducted in January and February 2011. Results indicated that people are WTP more for branded and recycled products with an eco-certificate vs. non-certificated branded and recycled products. This counts for five of the six product groups. Only for Xerox white paper, respondents would not pay a price premium for an eco-certificate. Another result, which is similar to the study of Essoussi and Linton (2010), is that the consumers’ WTP price premium for recycled products with an eco-certificate is product specific. Also the level of functional risk of recycled products with an eco-certificate has statistically proven that it is of influence on WTP. This means that products perceived with a low level of risk, like for example white paper (relatively low cost, no harm for the customer) are statistically different compared to products containing a high level of risk, like for example a car tire. This project has taken an initial step to see if environmental interest leads to the feeling that environmental certification is important. It can be concluded that eco-certification plays a significant role on the six tested product groups. Still, the main reasons or argumentation for buying eco-certificated products over regular recycled products needs to be further investigated, not only by asking the respondents the maximum price premium they want to pay, but also look for motivation why they want to pay more for a certificated product. Also psychological related items needs to be further understand, and at the same time companies must be convinced what kind of contribution and advantage eco-certification can produce towards environmentally friendly products.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».