‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

Consumers are increasingly facing product evaluation and choice situations that include information about product sustainability, i.e., information about a pro- duct’s relative environmental and social impact. In many cases, consumers have to make decisions that involve a trade-off between product sustainability and other valued product attributes. Similarly, product and marketing man- agers need to make decisions that reflect how consumers will respond to different trade-off scenarios. In the current re- search, we study consumer responses across two different possible trade-off scenarios: one in which consumers face a trade-off between product sustainability and hedonic value, and another in which they must trade-off between product sustainability and utilitarian value. Our results suggest that, overall, consumers are more likely to trade-off hedonic value (e.g., esthetics) for sustainability than to trade-off utilitarian value (e.g., functional performance) for sustainability. In Studies 1A and 1B, we presented participants with a product choice task and also measured their anticipatory emotions as they contemplated their options. The results suggest that given a trade-off, consumers are more likely to choose a sustainable product when they have to trade-off hedonic value than when they have to trade-off utilitarian value. Further, these studies provide some insight into the emotions underlying this effect. In Study 2, we use a different & Minu Kumar [email protected] Michael G. Luchs [email protected] consumer response measure, relative purchase likelihood, and investigate the effect of trade-off type across categories that vary in the degree to which hedonic and utilitarian at- tributes are perceived to be important (referred to as ‘product type’). Our results suggest that the effect of trade-off type still holds, yet is moderated by product type such that con- sumers’ greater willingness to trade-off hedonic value (vs. utilitarian value) for sustainability is attenuated as the relative importance of hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attributes increases. In addition to building on our theoretical understanding of de- cision making given trade-offs with moral attributes, this research is also intended to support managers as they define and choose among various strategic, product development, and marketing promotion options

Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Emotion‐laden Trade‐off between Sustainability and Functional Performance

This paper investigates the trade‐off decision that consumers face when choosing between a product that is perceived to be more sustainable (i.e., more socially and environmentally responsible) and another product that instead is perceived to offer superior functional performance. Prior research has demonstrated that consumers often believe that there is a trade‐off between sustainability and performance, and in some cases, this trade‐off may be real and not just perceived. The objectives of the current research are to understand the mediators and moderators of this trade‐off choice and to illustrate one specific way in which to use this understanding to promote the consumption of relatively more sustainable products despite a perceived performance trade‐off. Two separate studies were conducted. The first employed a student‐based sample, whereas the second employed a nationally representative online sample. In both studies, participants were presented with a choice between two consumer products. One product was depicted as having superior sustainability characteristics (and average functional performance), and the other product was depicted as having superior functional performance (and average sustainability characteristics). Participants were asked to imagine that they were leaning toward choosing one product over the other, and then rated the degree to which they were feeling a set of possible emotions. Following these ratings, participants chose one of the products. The results suggest that consumers presented with such a trade‐off will tend to choose the product with superior functional performance over the product with superior sustainability characteristics, due to feelings of distress, until a minimum threshold of functional performance is achieved. The current research also shows that choice given this trade‐off depends upon the degree to which consumers value sustainability that, in turn, is mediated by consumers’ feelings of confidence and guilt. Further, based on an understanding of the emotions mediating choice in this context, the authors demonstrate how the effective use of product aesthetic design can improve the relative choice likelihood of sustainable products. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that superior aesthetic design has a disproportionately positive effect on the choice likelihood of sustainability‐advantaged (versus performance‐advantaged) products due to the effect that superior aesthetic design has on overcoming the potential lack of confidence in sustainable products. These findings highlight the specific value of aesthetic product design in the context of marketing sustainable products and suggest that it is especially important for firms interested in marketing sustainable products to also develop market‐leading product aesthetic design capabilities

The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference

Manufacturers are increasingly producing and promoting sustainable products (i.e., products that have a positive social and/or environmental impact). However, relatively little is known about how product sustainability affects consumers\u27 preferences. Theauthors propose that sustainability may not always be an asset, even if most consumers care about social and environmental issues. The degree to which sustainability enhances preference depends on the type of benefit consumers most value for theproduct category in question. In this research, the authors demonstrate that consumers associate higher product ethicality with gentleness-related attributes and lower product ethicality with strength-related attributes. As a consequence of these associations, the positive effect of product sustainability on consumer preferences is reduced when strength-related attributes are valued, sometimes even resulting in preferences for less sustainable product alternatives (i.e., the sustainability liability ). Conversely, when gentleness-related attributes are valued, sustainability enhances preference. In addition, the authors show that the potential negative impact of sustainability on product preferences can be attenuated using explicit cues about productstrength

The Editors

Luxury industry and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activates are generally considered as incompatible concepts by consumers. This because luxury is generally related to hedonism, excess, and ostentation, while CSR is generally based on sobriety, moderation and ethics. However, nowadays more and more luxury companies seem highly committed toward sustainability. For example, Tiffany started certifying its diamonds as “conflict free”, Chanel incorporated “earthy materials” in its 2016 collection, and Bulgari has recently funded restoration of Rome's Spanish Steps. Therefore, it seems plausible the presence of a certain compatibility degree between luxury and CSR activities. However, this issue has received very limited empirical investigation from marketing literature. As a consequence, the present research aims to empirically test whether and under what conditions consumers react to different kinds of luxury companies’ CSR initiatives. Using the Carroll’s four dimensions model of internal vs. external CSR, we argue and demonstrated that luxury companies’ internal (versus external) CSR initiatives increase willingness to buy luxury products, but mainly for those customers who buy luxury for internal motivations and not for status ostentation, as for example individual style and personal taste

Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2)

Objective- To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods- This randomized, 20-month, multicenter, masked, parallel-group, phase 3 trial enrolled 528 patients with OAG or OHT and an open iridocorneal angle inferiorly in the study eye. Study eyes were administered 10 or 15 µg bimatoprost implant on day 1, week 16, and week 32, or twice-daily topical timolol maleate 0.5%. Primary endpoints were IOP and IOP change from baseline through week 12. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and corneal endothelial cell density (CECD). Results- Both 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint of noninferiority to timolol in IOP lowering through 12 weeks. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 6.2–7.4, 6.5–7.8, and 6.1–6.7 mmHg through week 12 in the 10 µg implant, 15 µg implant, and timolol groups, respectively. IOP lowering was similar after the second and third implant administrations. Probabilities of requiring no IOP-lowering treatment for 1 year after the third administration were 77.5% (10 µg implant) and 79.0% (15 µg implant). The most common TEAE was conjunctival hyperemia, typically temporally associated with the administration procedure. Corneal TEAEs of interest (primarily corneal endothelial cell loss, corneal edema, and corneal touch) were more frequent with the 15 than the 10 µg implant and generally were reported after repeated administrations. Loss in mean CECD from baseline to month 20 was ~ 5% in 10 µg implant-treated eyes and ~ 1% in topical timolol-treated eyes. Visual field progression (change in the mean deviation from baseline) was reduced in the 10 µg implant group compared with the timolol group. Conclusions- The results corroborated the previous phase 3 study of the bimatoprost implant. The bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint and effectively lowered IOP. The majority of patients required no additional treatment for 12 months after the third administration. The benefit-risk assessment favored the 10 over the 15 µg implant. Studies evaluating other administration regimens with reduced risk of corneal events are ongoing. The bimatoprost implant has the potential to improve adherence and reduce treatment burden in glaucoma

Understanding the Inherent Complexity of Sustainable Consumption: A Social Cognitive Framework

This article explores the potential of a theoretical framework, based on social cognitive theory (SCT), to inspire future research into sustainable consumption. The SCT framework provides a dynamic perspective on sustainable consumption through exploring the interactive nature of personal, environmental and behavioral factors of consumption. The SCT framework, which builds on prior theoretical models of sustainable consumption, incorporates the concept of reciprocal determinism, wherein personal, environmental and behavioral factors create a feedback loop to influence each other. Two examples, toy sharing in New Zealand and water conservation in Australia, illustrate the dynamic nature of sustainable consumption and the potential of an SCT based framework to provide a more nuanced view of behavioral change in this context. From these two examples, several ideas for future research emerge to help illustrate the potential of SCT to inform and inspire the next wave of research on sustainable consumption