Theoretical background and hypotheses

Perceived utility and credibility of packaging communication channels.

In the context of environmental communication, Matthes and Wonneberger (2014a) argued that individually perceived information utility can explain differences between consumers regarding skepticism about, and valuation of, advertisements. The utility of information is defined as “the degree to which information can aid individuals in making future decisions”

or the communicative value of a cue (Knobloch-Westerwick & Kleinman, 2012, p.171).

Regarding product packaging this implies, if the packaging information is perceived as useful and credible, skepticism toward the product information decreases, which consequently affects the overall product evaluation (Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014a). In the present study, we investigated the utility of environmental packaging communication channels as a

communication tool for perceived product environmental friendliness. In addition to the perceived environmental friendliness we also looked at the credibility of packaging communication channels in regard to the perceived tendency toward greenwashing.

Greenwashing refers to the consumer’s perception of whether the product attempts to conceal

Chapter 4: Study 1 33 negative environmental attributes to convey a misleadingly positive impression (Chen &

Chang, 2012; Parguel et al., 2011). Parguel et al. (2015) noted that greenwashing refers not only to verbal packaging elements but also nonverbal, executional packaging elements, such as the material and graphical communication channels.

Material communication as a product environmental friendliness cue.

In evaluating the environmental performance of packaging, consumers tend to overestimate certain environmental aspects (e.g., recyclability) and disregard other aspects—

such as transport and production impact (Steenis et al., 2017). Herbes et al. (2018) showed, for example, that in consumers’ mental models, packaging environmental friendliness is often linked to end-of-life characteristics such as being recyclable and biodegradable (Nordin &

Selke, 2010; Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008). Other studies found that renewable, fiber-based material, glass, and cardboard were rated as environmentally friendly materials by consumers, while plastic and metal scored the lowest (Lindh et al., 2016a, 2016b; Magnier &

Schoormans, 2017; Steenis et al., 2017; van Dam, 1996). Magnier et al. (2016) and Magnier and Schoormans (2017) showed a general positive effect of fiber-based materials (vs. plastic) on product environmental friendliness. Using free association and cue perception, Steenis et al. (2017) showed that consumers perceive soup in a glass and bioplastic followed by paper packaging as the most environmentally friendly and the same soup in plastic and metal packaging as the least environmentally friendly. We concluded from these studies that, for material perception, cue availability is the driving factor. In other words, the available cues, such as the environmental impression of the material, affect the evaluation of the product, and cues that are only accessible after elaboration, such as the transport routes of a material, are disregarded.

Graphical communication as a product environmental friendliness cue.

In addition to the choice of material, the graphical communication of the packaging

Chapter 4: Study 1 34 includes not only pictorial cues but also decorative elements such as the surface design as part

of the communication (van Leeuwen, 2011). This leads consumers to utilize the graphical packaging channels as indicators from which they derive impressions about product

characteristics, such as the color green (Hoogland et al., 2007; Kreil et al., 2016; Pancer et al., 2017) and the use of images (Magnier & Crié, 2015) that are associated with environmental friendliness. Karmasin (2016) and Triebel (1997) suggest that environmental friendliness can be triggered by elements of nature or elements that appear natural in their craft. In contrast to the packaging material, which has a genuine impact on the environmental performance of a product, the graphical cues are merely associative and are therefore less credible than material packaging communication.

The influence of environmental consciousness on the perception of product environmental friendliness and greenwashing tendency.

Research investigating the determinants of product environmental friendliness found no strong relationship with a particular demographic variable, but rather a relationship with shared interests and preferences of participants (Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008). More specifically, studies showed that participants’ EC is a particularly relevant factor when evaluating a product and advertising stimuli (e.g., Bickart & Ruth, 2012; Kilbourne & Pickett, 2008;

Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Mohr et al., 1998). In general, it is found that high-EC (HEC) consumers are more skeptical about misleading environmentally friendly information—that is, perceived greenwashing practices (Bickart & Ruth, 2012; Rios et al., 2006; Vermeir &

Verbeke, 2006). Shrum, Mccarty, and Lowrey (1995) observed, moreover, that HEC

consumers are also information seekers when it comes to judging false marketing messages.

This can be explained as HEC consumers being concerned about the environmental impact of a product to fulfill their consumption preferences (Matthes et al., 2014a). Evidence regarding the credibility and expected greenwashing intentions of advertising and product claims

Chapter 4: Study 1 35 already have been provided, taking consumers’ EC into account (expert knowledge): HEC

consumers perceive verbal eco-statements to be more credible and less greenwashed than low EC (LEC) consumers (Bickart & Ruth, 2012; Chang, 2011; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).

However, research on nonverbal, environmental communication channels is still in its infancy and insight on how EC influences the assessment of greenwashing practices is still scarce (Parguel et al., 2015). In light of our study, we concluded that HEC consumers might derive less information utility from nonverbal environmental packaging communication channels, leading to lower product environmental friendliness perceptions and generally less credibility, resulting in increased greenwashing tendencies. We hypothesized that in a situation where a product is evaluated on the basis of its packaging, participants with higher individual EC will have lower perceptions of product environmental friendliness (H1) and higher perceptions of attributed greenwashing tendency (H2).

Matthes et al. (2014b) explored the impact of three types of environmental ads and found that EC moderated the effect only if the advertisement contained verbal environmental product messages but not if the advertisement was based on nature images. The authors reasoned that, according to the ELM, a higher cognitive elaboration is necessary to process a verbal packaging stimulus. However, only consumers with HEC are motivated to do so, as they would like to fulfill their consumption wishes. Compared to LEC consumers, they relied less on the peripheral cues (Hutchinson & Alba, 1991), which resulted in lower nonverbal, executional greenwashing tendencies. Despite this, they also concluded that, in the absence of rational arguments, HEC consumers could also use nonverbal, executional communication channels as indicators. However, differences in how HEC and LEC consumers react to material and graphical environmental communication channels remain unclear.

We suggested that differences between HEC and LEC in product environmental friendliness and greenwashing tendency may be explained by differences between HEC and

Chapter 4: Study 1 36 LEC in the perceived credibility and, hence, information utility between graphical and

material environmental packaging channels. For example, Schahn and Holzer (1990) have shown that HEC consumers pay significantly more attention to waste separation and recycling aspects in product assessments than do LEC consumers. Likewise, we assumed that

packaging material plays an important role for HEC consumers in implicitly cueing product environmental friendliness, as it has a direct impact on environmental compatibility. For this reason, the credibility value of environmental packaging material is higher compared to a graphical packaging element, which leads to a lower greenwashing tendency and higher product environmental friendliness. Since the graphical surface design has no direct impact on the environmental performance of the product, the credibility might be low for HEC

consumers, resulting in higher perceived greenwashing tendencies and lower perceived product environmental friendliness.

With regard to LEC consumers, we, like Parguel et al. (2015), assumed that graphical cues are easy, peripheral, and implicitly perceptible. Since the motivation and involvement of these consumers is low, we believed that they would make less effort to examine the

packaging material and base their assessment of product environmental friendliness on the first visual impression, the graphical channel. Since LEC consumers have no environmentally friendly consumer preferences and a misinterpretation of the product’s environmental

friendliness has no negative impact for them, we believed that they were generally less skeptical; that is, they perceive fewer greenwashing tendencies. This implied that LEC consumers will not distinguish between the credibility of the packaging communication channels. In their case, the perceived utility of environmental packaging channels depends more on the perceived credibility than on cue availability.

In sum, we hypothesized that the perception of product environmental friendliness (H3) and greenwashing practices (H4), triggered by material and graphical packaging

Chapter 4: Study 1 37 communication channels varies depending on participants’ EC level. LEC consumers use

graphical communication channels as a driver for product environmental friendliness while disregarding material communication channels (H3a). HEC consumers use material

communication channels as a driver for product environmental friendliness while disregarding graphical communication channels (H3b). HEC consumers perceive greenwashing tendencies in graphical packaging communication channels, but not in material (H4a). No such effects are expected for LEC consumers.

4.1.2 Material and methods