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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. . .
10 Total
May 16, 2008 at 2:46am
Paul MaioranaIt 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.
May 9, 2008 at 12:45pm
Jeff BakerNo, 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 5, 2008 at 4:10pm
Jennifer StentzYes unless I believed it to be of poorer quality.
May 2, 2008 at 2:29am
Bhargav Vishalyes i would
April 30, 2008 at 8:34pm
Ray GardnerGood 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.
April 30, 2008 at 12:00pm
Victor PapThe 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 27, 2008 at 3:24pm
jim pontarelliIn 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 27, 2008 at 10:27am
Greg Palusano.
April 27, 2008 at 9:57am
Kim SchlossbergYes, 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 25, 2008 at 11:20pm
Ray GardnerThe 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. . .
Share your ideas