Promoting products for ‘green’ people has become an important strategy to encourage sustainable consumption. We test the effectiveness of the green identity labelling technique, which encourages pro-environmental purchases by associating them with an eco-friendly image. We conducted four experiments (online, laboratory and two field experiments) in which individuals could purchase green products that, in the treatment groups, were accompanied by a green identity label (for example, ‘this product is for green shoppers’). We find that the green identity labelling technique increases purchase of environmentally friendly products across the consumer settings examined in our experiments. We also examine factors that can moderate this effect. Green identity labels increase sales only if no price discount on the green product is advertised, and they have a bigger impact on people with demographics associated with pro-environmental values.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Journal of Business Ethics Open Access 26 May 2021
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All the data used in studies 1, 2 and 3 and the Stata codes for all studies are available from the corresponding author upon request. Because of a non-disclosure agreement, sample data for study 4 would require authorization by the company.
Kauflin, J. The World’s Most Sustainable Companies 2017 (Forbes, 2017); https://go.nature.com/2L2hAl3
Hutter, L., Capozucca, P. & Nayyar, S. A roadmap for sustainable consumption. Deloitte Rev. 7, 47–58 (2010).
Sustainable Shoppers Buy the Change They Wish to See in the World (Nielsen, 2018).
Sunstein, C. R. Behaviorally Informed Policy: A Brisk Progress Report (SSRN, 2019).
Allcott, H. & Taubinsky, D. Evaluating behaviorally motivated policy: experimental evidence from the lightbulb market. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 2501–2538 (2015).
Vanclay, J. K. et al. Customer response to carbon labelling of groceries. J. Consum. Policy 34, 153–160 (2011).
Vandenbroele, J., Vermeir, I., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H. & Van Kerckhove, A. Nudging to get our food choices on a sustainable track. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 79, 133–146 (2020).
Bem, D. Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6, 1–62 (1972).
Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W. & Steg, L. Why acting environmentally-friendly feels good: exploring the role of self-image. Front. Psychol. 7, 1846 (2016).
Wells, R. E. & Iyengar, S. S. Positive illusions of preference consistency: when remaining eluded by one’s preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 98, 66–87 (2005).
Kraut, R. E. Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9, 551–562 (1973).
Eby, B., Carrico, A. R. & Truelove, H. B. The influence of environmental identity labeling on the uptake of pro-environmental behaviors. Clim. Change 155, 563–580 (2019).
Cornelissen, G., Dewitte, S., Warlop, L. & Yzerbyt, V. Whatever people say I am, that’s what I am: social labeling as a social marketing tool. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24, 278–288 (2007).
Allen, C. T. Self-Perception based strategies for stimulating energy conservation. J. Consum. Res. 8, 381–390 (1982).
Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Prentice-Hall, 1980).
Schwartz, D., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B. & Lave, L. Advertising energy saving programs: the potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21, 158–166 (2015).
Frey, B. S. Motivation crowding theory. J. Econ. Surv. 15, 589–611 (2001).
Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 1652–1678 (2006).
Frey, B. S. & Oberholzer-Gee, F. The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87, 746–755 (1997).
Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Q. J. Econ. 115, 791–810 (2000).
Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K. & Postmes, T. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 413–416 (2012).
Drake, B. Protecting the Environment Ranks in the Middle of Public’s Priorities for 2013 (Pew Research Center, 2013).
Bemporad, R. Brand Purpose in Divided Times: Four Strategies for Brand Leadership (BBMG, 2017).
Prothero, A. et al. Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 30, 31–38 (2011).
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. & Rayp, G. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J. Consum. Aff. 39, 363–385 (2005).
Carrigan, M. & Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer—do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum. Mark. 18, 560–578 (2001).
Rokka, J. & Uusitalo, L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices—do consumers care? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 32, 516–525 (2008).
Bonini, S. & Oppenheim, J. Cultivating the green consumer. Stanford Soc. Innov. Rev. 6, 56–61 (2008).
Tiefenbeck, V. et al. Overcoming salience bias: How real-time feedback fosters resource conservation. Manage. Sci. 64, 1458–1476 (2018).
Allcott, H. & Rogers, T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3003–3037 (2014).
Tiefenbeck, V., Wörner, A., Schöb, S., Fleisch, E. & Staake, T. Real-time feedback promotes energy conservation in the absence of volunteer selection bias and monetary incentives. Nat. Energy 4, 35–41 (2019).
Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H. & Larrick, R. P. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9314–9319 (2013).
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S. & Gal, D. Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J. Consum. Res. 43, 567–582 (2016).
Li, T., Kauffman, R. J., van Heck, E., Vervest, P. & Dellaert, B. G. C. Consumer informedness and firm information strategy. Inf. Syst. Res. 25, 345–363 (2014).
Panzone, L., Hilton, D., Sale, L. & Cohen, D. Socio-demographics, implicit attitudes, explicit attitudes, and sustainable consumption in supermarket shopping. J. Econ. Psychol. 55, 77–95 (2016).
Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 116, 108–121 (2015).
Franzen, A. & Vogl, D. Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1001–1008 (2013).
Franzen, A. & Meyer, R. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26, 219–234 (2010).
Gelissen, J. Explaining popular support for environmental protection. Environ. Behav. 39, 392–415 (2007).
Trayectoria del Desarrollo Humano en la Comunas de Chile 1994–2003 (PNUD, 2005).
Gordon, B. R., Zettelmeyer, F., Bhargava, N. & Chapsky, D. A comparison of approaches to advertising measurement: evidence from big field experiments at facebook. Mark. Sci. 38, 193–225 (2019).
Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10415–10420 (2011).
Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).
Benartzi, S. et al. Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychol. Sci. 28, 1041–1055 (2017).
Loewenstein, G. & Chater, N. Putting nudges in perspective. Behav. Public Policy 1, 26–53 (2017).
Schwartz, D., Milfont, T. L. & Hilton, D. in A Research Agenda for Economic Psychology (eds Kirchler, E. & Gangl, K.) Ch. 7 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019).
Galizzi, M. M. & Navarro-Martinez, D. On the external validity of social preference games: a systematic lab–field study. Manag. Sci. 65, 976–1002 (2019).
Schwartz, D., Keenan, E. A., Imas, A. & Gneezy, A. Opting-in to prosocial incentives. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OBHDP.2019.01.003 (2019).
Tuomi, H. Paper or plastic? A comparison of the carbon emissions of grocery bags. In Undergraduate Research Symposium 2017 (Univ. Minnesota Morris Digital Well, 2017); https://go.nature.com/2A7lW8c
Elijošiutė, E., Balciukevičiūtė, J. & Denafas, G. Life cycle assessment of compact fluorescent and incandescent lamps: comparative analysis. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 61, 65–72 (2012).
Paolacci, G., Jesse, C. & Ipeirotis, P. G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S. & Kuntze, R. J. Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: theory and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 26, 85–98 (1999).
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442 (2000).
Rick, S. I., Cryder, C. E. & Loewenstein, G. Tightwads and spendthrifts. J. Consum. Res. 34, 767–782 (2008).
Ayres, I., Raseman, S. & Shih, A. Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. J. Law Econ. Organ. 29, 992–1022 (2012).
Myers, E. & Souza, M. Social Comparison Nudges without Monetary Incentives: Evidence from Home Energy Reports Working Paper 041 (E2e, 2018).
Inman, J. J., McAlister, L. & Hoyer, W. D. Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? J. Consum. Res. 17, 74–81 (1990).
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R. & Yuan, H. A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. J. Retail. 78, 101–118 (2002).
Segunda Encuesta Nacional de Medio Ambiente (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, 2016).
Rubin, K. The ultimate list of email SPAM trigger words. HubSpot https://go.nature.com/3fqrwCJ (2017).
Myles, S. Email Open Rate Woes: Why Not to be Fooled by Email Open Rate (Calameo, 2011).
Drèze, X. & Hussherr, F.-X. Internet advertising: is anybody watching? J. Interact. Mark. 17, 8–23 (2003).
We thank U. Simonsohn and seminar participants at ESADE, Universitat Ramon Lull, participants in the management seminar series at Pompeu Fabra University, and seminar participants at the SDS Department, Carnegie Mellon University, for helpful feedback on this project. We also thank J. Joo and J. Gonzalez for their collaboration in the implementation in the field studies. D.S. was supported by the ANID FONDECYT 1191745 and by the Complex Engineering Systems Institute (ANID APOYO/BASAL AFB180003).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Schwartz, D., Loewenstein, G. & Agüero-Gaete, L. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour through green identity labelling. Nat Sustain 3, 746–752 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0543-4
This article is cited by
Journal of Business Ethics (2022)