I would pay more, but probably not 10% more unless the original price was pretty low to begin with. So I may pay 10% more for a bottle of lundry detergent, but not necessarily for a much higher-ticket item.
The other determining factor, for me, would be how much "more green" the alternative was. So if I felt the extra expenditure was making a huge difference I would be more inclined to pay more.
I pay more for my power through a green program with my electric company. I'll pay slightly more to buy locally grown produce from the greenmarket instead of commercial produce from the supermarket. So, yes, if I thought it was really making a difference.
I would, like most innovation the cost will come down as the production goes up so I would like to see more green practices used so I will put my money where my mouth is.
I would absolutely pay more if I knew that the manufacturer really adhered to green practices and wasn't just packaged in a manner to mislead me and make me beleive they were green. Much like certified organic products, or certified fair trade products, there is a process that has to be followed in order for a product to meet the certification. Green, although very much needed, just seems to be the new marketing ploy of many manufacturers today. So pay more? Yes but prove that you really are green.
Even when people say they would pay more, we know from prior experience that an overwhelming majority of consumers will not pay more for abstract additions to price.
Add to this the mounting evidence against anthropogenic global warming, a company actually risks their credibility if they hinge too much of their business plan on what is panning out as something more political than scientific.
I believe I would. Investment of public interest, money (consumer, investment, even government) as well as time into the Green Market will benefit us in the long run and possibly the short term in multiple ways. It is a good step in the right direction of how we use our natural resources as well as a fiscally wise decision. That being said, I do think that at a significant price difference, they may price themselves out of certain markets. Especially when the product is much more expensive to other alternatives. The goal would be to see products, Green or otherwise, on a level playing field. Overall, I believe it to be a wise investment into our future in many different ways.
The failed efforts of economic paternalism are innumerable.
In the end, the only consumers who will pay more for a product with no added functionality will be the trendy segment of the upper middle class. A demographic that is notoriously lacking in brand loyalty (hence the adjective "trendy").
Bob the average consumer doesn't have the financial or ideological incentive to pay more for an abstract and highly dubious sense of secular moralism.
The eventual argument for green products then will involve government mandates, and heavy restrictions in our daily economic life.
It is interesting to note the difference in responses by gender. Most men are saying no, most of the women are saying yes. My question is who really makes the decision at the supermarket for most of these new green products? Ladies, I think most of use like to feel good about our purchases and paying $0.30 more on a box of coffee filters that are "green" for example does not require me to be upper middle class or affluent by any stretch.
The point about who will consistently buy such abstract notions of value is that without real value added to the bottom line product, and thus the user, the product will not be viable in the overall, overall market.
The trendy upper middle class who can afford to pay more for what is essentially less end-use product might support a niche market, but average Bob at Walmart isn't going to buy green simply because it's green.
This isn't really even a controversial subject; such attempts at economic manipulation are as old as markets themselves, and they never succeed in the overall market.
It's just a simple matter of incentives.
SUV sales are alive and well, and polls tell us voters are not the least bit concerned about global warming; or at least not as it applies to presidential campaigns.
Just the facts ma'am, sorry. . .
Yes, I'd absolutely pay 10% more for products manufactured in an environmentally responsible way. We all pay in the long run for the social, environmental, and health damages of the old, irresponsible, unsustainable methods - and I'm sure the long-term costs will be much much higher than 10%. As if money were the only way of measuring consequences.
In some cases, yes. I voluntarily pay ~$20.00 per month on my electricity bill to ensure that a share of power equivalent to my consumption comes from wind, solar, or hydro.
The discussion really should be about "green" as marketing spin and "sustainability" as a business/economic model.
If done right "green" is about using less to achieve the same effect. This should mean a cost reduction to the manufacturer which the consumer does not see in a price increase. A good example is packaging; less packaging costs less and also creates less waste (green) but no consumer would (or should) pay 10% more for a package that he or she would trash or recycle the minute they get home.
It seems to me "green" is now being used in the same way "design" has been used to justify a higher price. The reality is that someone will have to design almost any product so an up-charge for that development cost is as crazy as paying for "green" (BTW, I'm a product designer). Good design should be expected and, sustainable (or green if you must use the term) products will soon be an economic necessity.
A good example of this “green” craziness is the power generation premium that others have talked about. Power companies are charging consumers more for wind, solar and other "alternatives" but the costs to implement these technologies have already been determined to be good money-making ventures by the utility (federal subsidies, etc.). The "green" premium is allowing these power producers to recoup their development costs faster. From their perspective new power generation is a business decision not an altruistic mission and I'll bet if no consumer signs up for wind power the utility would still make a profit on installing a wind farm.
I live in Oregon and I can tell you that between Portland and the Snake River they can’t build these farms fast enough. I see turbine props and towers floating up the Columbia and on trucks on I-84 all the time. Portland General Electric knows they are going to make money when they install a wind farm with or without me signing up for “green” energy and if it means that they use less coal or can tear-down an aging dam to let salmon run then the green marketing spin is, well, priceless.
Good point. Less is ultimately the friendlier for the environment.
Witness the external costs of recycling.
I would try to support a company that was genuinely behind an effort of conservation i.e. weyerhaeuser or the like, but anyone touting "green" or any kind of global warming as scientific fact immediately puts the "huckster" antennae up.
No, Why should the consumer pay more for the product to support good business practice. Business should practice the double-bottom line. What was once a standard practice of doing business, has now become new revenue streams for business.Consumers are much more informed and will require more from the business world as result.
First we would have to practice Economic Conservation in order to be so generous in our giving practices. My dealings with government activities from a close observer perspective has demonstrated to me that for the sake of political prowess an intersection will be built and rebuilt 4 times without ever getting to the root cause of it's failure. As people, We should practice improving our lives collectively and not rely so heavily on committees designing and deciding what products we want while the PR, insurance and litigation staff allow us to go to the edges of the laws and rules of the land for the sake of business ethics without true morality.
27 Total
April 24, 2008 at 8:56am by Mark Rostien
I would pay more, but probably not 10% more unless the original price was pretty low to begin with. So I may pay 10% more for a bottle of lundry detergent, but not necessarily for a much higher-ticket item.
The other determining factor, for me, would be how much "more green" the alternative was. So if I felt the extra expenditure was making a huge difference I would be more inclined to pay more.
April 24, 2008 at 9:42am by
Depends on the product and the availability of that and competing products. Gun to my head? Yes I would.
April 24, 2008 at 10:22am by Tony Chen
i guess it all depends on how impactful those "green practices" are. but potentially, yes.
April 24, 2008 at 11:21am by Karen McGrane
I pay more for my power through a green program with my electric company. I'll pay slightly more to buy locally grown produce from the greenmarket instead of commercial produce from the supermarket. So, yes, if I thought it was really making a difference.
April 24, 2008 at 11:23am by Joe Luna
No. I shouldn't have to pay for companies to be responsible.
April 24, 2008 at 1:36pm by Kathleen Fitzpatrick
I think I would, but of course it depends upon the nature of the consumer product and the ease of obtaining the green version.
April 24, 2008 at 1:40pm by Joshua Heidkamp
I would, like most innovation the cost will come down as the production goes up so I would like to see more green practices used so I will put my money where my mouth is.
April 24, 2008 at 4:31pm by Erin Smith
not 10%... but maybe 2%
April 24, 2008 at 5:56pm by Thomas Weber
NO. I could care less. I would however pay 10% more if the consumer products were American made.
April 24, 2008 at 5:58pm by Ray Gardner
No.
April 24, 2008 at 6:59pm by Lisa Larter
I would absolutely pay more if I knew that the manufacturer really adhered to green practices and wasn't just packaged in a manner to mislead me and make me beleive they were green. Much like certified organic products, or certified fair trade products, there is a process that has to be followed in order for a product to meet the certification. Green, although very much needed, just seems to be the new marketing ploy of many manufacturers today. So pay more? Yes but prove that you really are green.
April 24, 2008 at 7:27pm by Ray Gardner
Even when people say they would pay more, we know from prior experience that an overwhelming majority of consumers will not pay more for abstract additions to price.
Add to this the mounting evidence against anthropogenic global warming, a company actually risks their credibility if they hinge too much of their business plan on what is panning out as something more political than scientific.
April 24, 2008 at 8:35pm by Mary E. Rossow
YES...YES...and.....YES! Mary E. Rossow
April 24, 2008 at 11:12pm by Cassandra B
I believe I would. Investment of public interest, money (consumer, investment, even government) as well as time into the Green Market will benefit us in the long run and possibly the short term in multiple ways. It is a good step in the right direction of how we use our natural resources as well as a fiscally wise decision. That being said, I do think that at a significant price difference, they may price themselves out of certain markets. Especially when the product is much more expensive to other alternatives. The goal would be to see products, Green or otherwise, on a level playing field. Overall, I believe it to be a wise investment into our future in many different ways.
April 25, 2008 at 1:21am by Ray Gardner
The failed efforts of economic paternalism are innumerable.
In the end, the only consumers who will pay more for a product with no added functionality will be the trendy segment of the upper middle class. A demographic that is notoriously lacking in brand loyalty (hence the adjective "trendy").
Bob the average consumer doesn't have the financial or ideological incentive to pay more for an abstract and highly dubious sense of secular moralism.
The eventual argument for green products then will involve government mandates, and heavy restrictions in our daily economic life.
April 25, 2008 at 9:17pm by Lisa Larter
It is interesting to note the difference in responses by gender. Most men are saying no, most of the women are saying yes. My question is who really makes the decision at the supermarket for most of these new green products? Ladies, I think most of use like to feel good about our purchases and paying $0.30 more on a box of coffee filters that are "green" for example does not require me to be upper middle class or affluent by any stretch.
April 25, 2008 at 11:20pm by Ray Gardner
The point about who will consistently buy such abstract notions of value is that without real value added to the bottom line product, and thus the user, the product will not be viable in the overall, overall market.
The trendy upper middle class who can afford to pay more for what is essentially less end-use product might support a niche market, but average Bob at Walmart isn't going to buy green simply because it's green.
This isn't really even a controversial subject; such attempts at economic manipulation are as old as markets themselves, and they never succeed in the overall market.
It's just a simple matter of incentives.
SUV sales are alive and well, and polls tell us voters are not the least bit concerned about global warming; or at least not as it applies to presidential campaigns.
Just the facts ma'am, sorry. . .
April 27, 2008 at 9:57am by Kim Schlossberg
Yes, I'd absolutely pay 10% more for products manufactured in an environmentally responsible way. We all pay in the long run for the social, environmental, and health damages of the old, irresponsible, unsustainable methods - and I'm sure the long-term costs will be much much higher than 10%. As if money were the only way of measuring consequences.
April 27, 2008 at 10:27am by Greg Palusa
no.
April 27, 2008 at 3:24pm by jim pontarelli
In some cases, yes. I voluntarily pay ~$20.00 per month on my electricity bill to ensure that a share of power equivalent to my consumption comes from wind, solar, or hydro.
April 30, 2008 at 12:00pm by Victor Pap
The discussion really should be about "green" as marketing spin and "sustainability" as a business/economic model.
If done right "green" is about using less to achieve the same effect. This should mean a cost reduction to the manufacturer which the consumer does not see in a price increase. A good example is packaging; less packaging costs less and also creates less waste (green) but no consumer would (or should) pay 10% more for a package that he or she would trash or recycle the minute they get home.
It seems to me "green" is now being used in the same way "design" has been used to justify a higher price. The reality is that someone will have to design almost any product so an up-charge for that development cost is as crazy as paying for "green" (BTW, I'm a product designer). Good design should be expected and, sustainable (or green if you must use the term) products will soon be an economic necessity.
A good example of this “green” craziness is the power generation premium that others have talked about. Power companies are charging consumers more for wind, solar and other "alternatives" but the costs to implement these technologies have already been determined to be good money-making ventures by the utility (federal subsidies, etc.). The "green" premium is allowing these power producers to recoup their development costs faster. From their perspective new power generation is a business decision not an altruistic mission and I'll bet if no consumer signs up for wind power the utility would still make a profit on installing a wind farm.
I live in Oregon and I can tell you that between Portland and the Snake River they can’t build these farms fast enough. I see turbine props and towers floating up the Columbia and on trucks on I-84 all the time. Portland General Electric knows they are going to make money when they install a wind farm with or without me signing up for “green” energy and if it means that they use less coal or can tear-down an aging dam to let salmon run then the green marketing spin is, well, priceless.
April 30, 2008 at 8:34pm by Ray Gardner
Good point. Less is ultimately the friendlier for the environment.
Witness the external costs of recycling.
I would try to support a company that was genuinely behind an effort of conservation i.e. weyerhaeuser or the like, but anyone touting "green" or any kind of global warming as scientific fact immediately puts the "huckster" antennae up.
May 2, 2008 at 2:29am by Bhargav Vishal
yes i would
May 5, 2008 at 4:10pm by Jennifer Stentz
Yes unless I believed it to be of poorer quality.
May 9, 2008 at 12:45pm by Jeff Baker
No, Why should the consumer pay more for the product to support good business practice. Business should practice the double-bottom line. What was once a standard practice of doing business, has now become new revenue streams for business.Consumers are much more informed and will require more from the business world as result.
May 16, 2008 at 2:46am by Paul Maiorana
It depends on the cost of the product, of course. I'd be more likely to pay a 10% premium on low cost goods like paper towels, than, say, a new car.
June 1, 2008 at 5:16am by Allen Knoll
First we would have to practice Economic Conservation in order to be so generous in our giving practices. My dealings with government activities from a close observer perspective has demonstrated to me that for the sake of political prowess an intersection will be built and rebuilt 4 times without ever getting to the root cause of it's failure. As people, We should practice improving our lives collectively and not rely so heavily on committees designing and deciding what products we want while the PR, insurance and litigation staff allow us to go to the edges of the laws and rules of the land for the sake of business ethics without true morality.