Advertisement

Barriers to Acceptance of Bio-Based Substitutes: How Schema Incongruity Can Hinder the Purchase of Bio-Based Products

  • Katja Rudolph
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Bioeconomy encompasses the production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into bio-based products with less environmental impact (e.g. bioplastics). To boost the bioeconomy, it is crucial that companies not only develop these products, but also successfully market them. However, companies are often confronted with poor product acceptance by end-consumers. Depending on the product category, different barriers to acceptance seem to prevail but these are not yet fully understood. This paper seeks to contribute to understanding and overcoming these barriers by analysing product acceptance using the schema theory. It is hypothesized that if associations with the core product attributes do not match the associations with environmentally friendly products, consumers are likely to experience schema incongruity. This rather unpleasant cognitive state can, as a consequence, induce negative a product evaluation. Therefore, adding the label ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ to inappropriate products might lead to a more widely-held negative perception of bio-based products. Consequently, this lowers consumer acceptance of the products and thus impacts upon market success. To analyse this effect, people’s associations with environmentally friendly products were tested by an Implicit Association Test. Additionally, a bio-based substitute suffering from schema incongruity was identified and examined using the empirical setting of an experiment and a questionnaire. The results show that environmentally friendly products are somewhat more strongly associated with ‘gentle’ than with ‘strong’. There was also a significant effect of congruity in the product presentation on the perception of stability and environmental friendliness. Thus, to market bio-based substitutes, companies should weaken core product characteristics like strength as little as possible by emphasizing environmental friendliness. Hence, the product presentation should focus on information regarding core attributes and market sustainability as an additional product benefit.

Keywords

Acceptance barriers Bio-based substitutes Implicit association test Schema theory Barriers to sustainable consumption 

References

  1. Anderson JR (2015) Cognitive psychology and its implications, 8th edn. Worth, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Balderjahn I, Buerke A, Kirchgeorg M, Peyer M, Seegebarth B, Wiedmann K-P (2013) Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review 3(4):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beise M, Rennings K (2005) Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecol Econ 52(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belz F-M, Peattie K (2009) Sustainability marketing: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K., Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  5. Belz F-M, Schmidt-Riediger B (2009) Marketing strategies in the age of sustainable development: evidence from the food industry. Bus Strategy Environ 19(7):401–416Google Scholar
  6. Binsack M (2003) Akzeptanz neuer Produkte: Vorwissen als Determinante des Innovationserfolgs, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft Forschungsgruppe Konsum und Verhalten, 1st edn. Dt. Univ.-Verl, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bioökonomierat (2015) Auf dem Weg zur biobasierten Wirtschaft. Available at: http://www.biooekonomierat.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Sonstige/Der_Biooekonomierat.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2015
  8. Bruhn M, Kirchgeorg M (2007) Marktorientierte Führung im Wandel von Umweltbewusstsein und ökologischen Rahmenbedingungen. In: Bruhn M, Kirchgeorg M, Meier J (eds) Marktorientierte Führung im wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Wandel. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 83–114Google Scholar
  9. Brunner CB (2014) Corporate Social Responsibility in der Markenkommunikation nutzen. In: Esch F-R, Tomczak T, Kernstock J, Langner T, Redler J (eds) Corporate brand management. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 345–370Google Scholar
  10. Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ (2010) Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J Bus Ethics 97(1):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang C (2011) Feeling ambivalent about going green. J Advert 40(4):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egloff B, Schwerdtfeger A, Schmukle SC (2005) Temporal stability of the implicit association test-anxiety. J Pers Assess 84(1):82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esch F-R, Brunner CB (2009) “Schein und Sein”, Wirtschaftswoche, pp 40–42Google Scholar
  14. Esch F-R, Brunner CB (2010) “Mehr als nur leere Worte?”, absatzwirtschaft, No. 4, pp 75–77Google Scholar
  15. Faltins R (2010) Bio-Lebensmittel in Deutschland: Kaufbarrieren und Vermarktung, Reihe Nachhaltigkeit, vol 31. Diplomica-Verl, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiedler K, Messner C, Bluemke M (2006) Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”. A logical and psychometric critique of the implicit association test (IAT). European Rev Soc Psychol 17(1):74–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske ST, Linville PW (1980) What does the schema concept buy us? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 6(4):543–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleim MR, Smith JS, Andrews D, Cronin JJ (2013) Against the green: a multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J Retail 89(1):44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstein EB (2011) Cognitive psychology, 3. ed., international student ed., special ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CalifGoogle Scholar
  20. Gourville JT (2006) Wann Kunden neue Produkte kaufen. Harvard Bus Manag 28(8):44–57Google Scholar
  21. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6):1464–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(2):197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haws KL, Winterich KP, Naylor RW (2014) Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J Consum Psychol 24(3):336–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jansson J (2011) Consumer eco-innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics. Bus Strategy Environ 20(3):192–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A (2010) Green consumer behavior: determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J Consum Market 27(4):358–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jhang JH, Grant SJ, Campbell MC (2012) Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. J Mark Res 49(2):247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalafatis SP, Pollard M, East R, Tsogas MH (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. J Consum Market 16(5):441–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kotler P (2011) Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. J Market 75(4):132–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kroeber-Riel W, Gröppel-Klein A (2013) Konsumentenverhalten, 10th edn. Vahlen, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  30. Luchs MG, Naylor RW, Irwin JR, Raghunathan R (2010) The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J Market 74(5):18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mandler G (1982) The structure of value: accounting for taste. In: Clark MS, Fiske ST (eds) Affect and cognition: the 17th annual Carnegie symposium. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 3–36Google Scholar
  32. Meyers-Levy J, Tybout AM (1989) Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. J Consum Res 16(1):39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nabih M, Bloem SG, Poisez TBC (1997) Conceptual issue in the study of innovation adoption behavior. Adv Consum Res 24(1):190–196Google Scholar
  34. Ottman JA (1998) Green marketing: opportunity for innovation, 2nd edn. NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IllGoogle Scholar
  35. Ozaki R (2011) Adopting sustainable innovation: what makes consumers sign up to green electricity? Bus Strategy Environ 20(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickett-Baker J, Ozaki R (2008) Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. J Consum Market 25(5):281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prothero A, Dobscha S, Freund J, Kilbourne WE, Luchs MG, Ozanne LK, Thøgersen J (2011) Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J Public Policy Market 30(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ram S, Sheth JN (1989) Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. J Consum Market 6(2):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rehfeld K-M, Rennings K, Ziegler A (2007) Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 61(1):91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robertson TS (1971) Innovative behavior and communication, Editors’ series in marketing. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Segal ZV (1988) Appraisal of the self-schema construct in cognitive models of depression. Psychol Bull 103(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith KT, Brower TR (2012) Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence Millennials. J Strateg Market 20(6):535–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smits M, Wald D, Vismans D, Huet E (2014) When social responsibility leads to growth No. 6, BostonGoogle Scholar
  45. Sujan M (1985) Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. J Consum Res 12(1):31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tanner C, Wölfing Kast S (2003) Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol Market 20(10):883–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tate K, Stewart AJ, Daly M (2014) Influencing green behaviour through environmental goal priming: the mediating role of automatic evaluation. J Environ Psychol 38:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teige S, Schnabel K, Banse R, Asendorpf JB (2004) Assessment of multiple implicit self-concept dimensions using the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task(EAST). Eur J Pers 18(6):495–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thøgersen J (1999) The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. J Consum Policy 22(4):439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thorndyke PW, Yekovich FR (1980) A critique of schema-based theories of human story memory. Poetics 9(1–3):23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Umweltbundesamt (2013) Green products in Germany 2014. Status Quo and Trends. Available at: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/uba_green_in_germany_2014.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2015
  52. van Doorn J, Verhoef PC (2011) Willingness to pay for organic products: differences between virtue and vice foods. Int J Res Mark 28(3):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vantomme D, Geuens M, DeHouwer J, DePelsmacker P (2006) Explicit and implicit determinants of fair-trade buying behaviour. Adv Consum Res 33:699–703Google Scholar
  54. Weiber R, Rosendahl T (1997) Anwendungsprobleme der Conjoint-Analyse. Die Eignung conjointanalytischer Untersuchungsansätze zur Abbildung realer Entscheidungsprozesse. Mark ZFP 19(2):107–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SVI-Endowed Chair of Marketing, esp. E-Commerce and Cross-Media ManagementHHL Leipzig Graduate School of ManagementLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations