Abstract:
Understanding the motivation behind consumers’ packaging choices is crucial to providing insights for achieving environmental sustainability outcomes. Here, we examined the influence of product attributes (packaging type, packaging claim, product claim, and price) and consumers factors (e.g., diet type, demographic information) driving orange juice selection. Participants residing in the USA (n = 847) responded to an online survey including: (1) a check-all-that-apply (CATA) to valued beverage characteristics question; (2) a choice-based conjoint task with packaging type, packaging claim, product claim, and price as the attributes; (3) a question tasking respondents to rank packaging material from their perception of the least to most sustainable; and (4) demographic questions. The conjoint analysis revealed that price was the most important attribute, particularly the lowest price. This study revealed that the most ideal orange juice option was packaged in glass, labelled as 100% recyclable, locally produced, and priced at $1.10 per 12 fl. oz. Not only was glass the most preferred packaging type, but it was also incorrectly perceived as the most sustainable. The intention to purchase sustainable packaging was the most important predictor of attribute relative importance (RI) and packaging utilities, followed by effectiveness perception, which only predicted the RI of price. Thus, for consumers to make more sustainable choices, education initiatives need to direct consumers to more sustainable, yet affordable, choices, while considering that purchase intention and effectiveness perception are key attitudinal drivers.
Description:
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT :
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : TABLE S1: Attitudes towards sustainable packaging, factors (sustainability attitudes), and their statements [21]; FIGURE S1: Scatter plot matrix of the influence of age on the relative importance of packaging type, product claim, and price; FIGURE S2: Effect of gender on the relative importance of packaging type and price; FIGURE S3: Effect of gender on the value placed on glass and aluminium as packaging; FIGURE S4: Effect of education level on the relative importance of packaging type; FIGURE S5: Effect of education level on the value placed on aluminium as a packaging type; and FIGURE S6: Effect of income level on the relative importance of product claims.
