How Do Consumers React to

Production Waste?

HAIYUE (FELIX) XU
LISA E. BOLTON

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

Production waste, or inefficiencies in product manufacturing, is a major contributor
to environmental problems. Consider production waste in garment manufacturing
—which has been criticized for wasteful use of natural resources (e.g., using
excessive water and fabric) and wasteful disposal of resource residuals (e.g., dis-
carding excessive wastewater and fabric scraps). The present research examines
consumer reactions to production waste and its mitigation as a function of whether
it is characterized in terms of resource use versus disposal. A series of seven
studies (including field and secondary data) finds that (i) consumers are less
sensitive to wasteful resource use than disposal due to lower perceptions of envi-
ronmental harm; (ii) likewise, consumers are less sensitive to waste mitigation tar-
geting resource use than disposal due to lower perceptions of environmental ben-
efit; and (iii) these waste reaction differences are attenuated when resource
scarcity or long-term orientation is heightened (which increases consumer sensi-
tivity to resource use). Together, this research sheds light on how, why, and when
consumers are averse to production waste, while providing guidance regarding
interventions focused on fighting production waste and promoting sustainability.

Keywords: waste aversion, production waste, resource use and disposal, waste
mitigation, sustainability, interventions

“We’re running out of everything, from water to rare met-

Haiyue (Felix) Xu ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of mar-
keting at the Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of als.” (Fortune 2022)
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA. Lisa E. Bolton ([email protected]) “We’re gobbling up the Earth’s resources at an unsustain-
is a professor of marketing and the Anchel Professor of Business able rate.” (United Nations 2019)
Administration at the Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Please address correspond- “The rate at which materials are being extracted globally is
ence to Haiyue (Felix) Xu. This article is based on the first author’s disser- outpacing both population and economic growth, meaning
tation. The authors sincerely thank the editor, associate editor, and three we are using more materials and less efficiently.” (One
anonymous reviewers for their guidance, as well as the marketing faculty Planet 2022)
and doctoral students at the Smeal College of Business for their feedback
on early versions of this work. The authors also thank Robert Eversole, Production waste, or inefficiencies in product manufac-
Jordan Arthur, Erin Hafner, Michael Jenkins, as well as staff at the
Wildcat Pantry at the University of Kentucky for their help and support on
turing, is a major contributor to environmental problems
the field study. Finally, the authors would like to extend special thanks to (Behrens et al. 2007; Cooper 2005; Schandl et al. 2018).
Emily Gray and Chris Jackson from Ipsos for sharing secondary data, as For example, the manufacturing of garments has been
well as the Gatton College of Business and Economics and Smeal College criticized for production waste—both inefficient use of
of Business for financial support. Supplementary materials are included in
the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article. natural resources and inefficient disposal of resource resid-
uals (McFall-Johnsen 2020). Indeed, fashion is the second-
largest consumer of the world’s water and second-largest
Editor: Bernd H. Schmitt producer of water waste, suggesting ample scope for
improvements in production efficiency and prompting the
Associate Editor: Marco Bertini launch of a UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion (UN
Fashion Alliance 2023). Moreover, company sustainability
Advance Access publication September 22, 2023
initiatives often emphasize waste mitigation—featuring
C The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
V
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]  Vol. 51  2024
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad060

212
XU AND BOLTON 213

both reducing resource use (e.g., Outland Denim’s claim to more susceptible to the waste reaction difference and (ii)
use less water and energy in manufacturing) and disposal develop and test interventions to overcome the waste reac-
(e.g., Levi’s claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). tion difference by boosting consumer sensitivity to waste-
Given growing environmental concerns, companies, sus- ful resource use. From a policy perspective, waste
tainability experts, and policymakers increasingly appreci- disclosure and waste mitigation align with the United
ate the environmental consequences of production waste— Nations Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG12;
but what about consumers? The present research investi- United Nations 2022), as well as recommendations by the
gates consumer reactions to production waste arising from Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures
excess resource use and disposal—and to their mitigation (2022) to include “metrics on climate-related risks associ-
in sustainability initiatives. ated with water, energy, land use, and waste management.”
Addressing this question makes three key contributions. As waste-related metrics become more widely available,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

First, we demonstrate that the distinction between wasteful both in terms of voluntary disclosure among practitioners
use and disposal of resources is meaningful and important (Morris 2022; Sustainable Apparel Coalition 2022) and
to consumers, and it affects their reactions to production mandatory disclosure requirements among policymakers
waste and its mitigation. Specifically, consumers react less (SEC 2022), the question of consumer reactions becomes
negatively to wasteful resource use (vs. disposal), a novel increasingly important—a gap that the present research
effect with important consequences for consumers and begins to explore.
companies. Indeed, this waste reaction difference is robust
and emerges in a variety of important contexts, including
PRODUCTION WASTE
at the industry and company level, in both waste and waste
mitigation contexts, and in response to products and proso- Excess Use and Disposal of Resources
cial messaging. This waste reaction difference is also con-
sequential for environment and society inasmuch as Waste is ubiquitous throughout business activities: from
wasteful use of resources in production is a major contribu- material and resource extraction to product manufacturing,
tor to resource depletion and poses serious threat to the distribution, use, and disposal, waste can occur at various
environment (Behrens et al. 2007; Schandl et al. 2018). stages and take different forms (Cooper 2005). Waste is
Second, we demonstrate that the waste reaction differ- particularly problematic in the product manufacturing
ence emerges (somewhat ironically) because consumers do process (Van Ewijk and Stegemann 2016), and the present
not perceive wasteful resource use as environmentally research distinguishes between production waste arising
harmful, relative to wasteful disposal. Specifically, waste- from the excess use of resources and the excess disposal of
ful resource use is less accessible and perceived as less resource residuals. To illustrate, consider the production of
direct and more distant—therefore more difficult to appre- clothing (figure 1): various production inputs (e.g., fabric,
ciate its impact/harm than wasteful disposal, even when water) are processed by companies into products (e.g.,
resource use and disposal are otherwise equivalent (e.g., jeans), along with material byproducts/residuals (e.g., fab-
equally wasteful). This finding builds on prior behavioral ric scraps, wastewater). Production waste, or inefficiencies,
research that has demonstrated negative reactions to envi- can be characterized as arising from the excess use of
ronmental harm tied to company waste (Xie, Bagozzi, and resources (e.g., using excessive fabric and water) or from
Grønhaug 2015; Xu, Bolton, and Winterich 2021) by pro- the excess disposal of resource residuals (e.g., discarding
viding a more nuanced picture of how such reactions vary excessive fabric scraps and wastewater). Likewise, waste
depending on the nature of the production waste. Doing so mitigation efforts can also be characterized as targeting the
also expands research on waste aversion: while consumers wasteful use of resources (e.g., using less water and fabric)
are averse to creating waste (Arkes 1996; Bolton and Alba or the wasteful disposal of resource residuals (e.g., dispos-
2012), less is known about their reactions to others’ waste- ing of less wastewater and fabric scraps).
fulness, including disclosures of production waste (and its Wasteful use and disposal are dependent, linked to each
mitigation) at the company and industry level. other via production processes. For example, initiatives
Lastly, our research offers important substantive impli- that emphasize efficiencies in resource use (e.g., upgraded
cations. From a business perspective, our research provides washing equipment that uses less water in garment manu-
guidance regarding waste mitigation and sustainability ini- facturing) could have implications for resource disposal
tiatives—including what types of waste consumers will (e.g., less wastewater), while initiatives that emphasize
find most aversive, what types of sustainability initiative resource disposal (e.g., improvement in recapturing waste-
will be better received by consumers, and how to more water for reuse in manufacturing) could have implications
effectively communicate waste mitigation efforts. for resource use (e.g., less water use). Such initiatives
Moreover, our identification of theoretically and manageri- could also have implications for production output (e.g.,
ally relevant moderators—resource scarcity and long-term more jeans from less fabric due to more efficient garment-
orientation—allows us to (i) identify consumers who are cutting equipment). In practice, firms may vary in the
214 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 1

STYLIZED EXAMPLE OF CLOTHING PRODUCTION WASTE

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

FIGURE 2

RISING INTEREST ON THE TOPIC OF WASTE

extent to which their production processes (and marketing differently based on the use/disposal distinction and, if so,
communications) emphasize resource use or disposal. For how and why?
the purpose of our research, we examine how consumers Consumer awareness of production waste is undoubtedly
react to the same amount of production in/efficiency imperfect, but a Google trends analysis suggests that public
framed as either use or disposal. Because no production concern about the topic has been increasing over time (fig-
process is likely to be perfectly efficient, we adopt a bench- ure 2) and may continue to rise with voluntary disclosure
marking perspective in defining and operationalizing waste initiatives (e.g., Higg Index; Sustainable Apparel Coalition
(e.g., implicitly or explicitly comparing to past or to com- 2022). This interest is echoed among policymakers (e.g.,
petitor waste) (Leal Filho et al. 2016). This approach the SEC’s recent proposal to enhance and standardize
allows us to investigate our key research question: do con- climate-related disclosures; SEC 2022) and practitioners
sumers react to production waste and its mitigation (e.g., 40% of Fortune 500 companies engaged in climate
XU AND BOLTON 215

initiatives in 2021, up from 29% in 2020; David Gardiner 2005) and the circular economy (Reslan et al. 2022; Sauve,
and Associate 2022). Wasteful use and disposal are not just Bernard, and Sloan 2016), waste hierarchy research goes
evident in fashion (as our opening examples attest) but can further to advocate the prioritization of reducing resource
be seen more broadly across companies and industries. For use over disposal (Hultman and Corvellec 2012) and,
example, wasteful use has been targeted by Amazon in its indeed, resource efficiency is considered a key defining
drive to reduce packaging weight by 38% since 2015 (with feature of sustainable manufacturing (Liu et al. 2018;
the claim “this box is now made with less material” Machado, Winroth, and da Silva 2020). For exploratory
appearing on its shipping boxes); similarly, Kettle reduced purposes, we surveyed top sustainability experts (affiliated
the use of plastic in its packaging (tweeting “43% less plas- with a sustainability institute) regarding their views of pro-
tic than before”). Likewise, wasteful disposal has been tar- duction waste. When these experts were asked how they
geted by Subaru via its “zero-landfill production plants” would allocate waste mitigation resources between the two

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

and by Sierra Nevada’s diversion of “spent grain and sources of waste, the majority favored mitigating wasteful
yeast” to regional cattle and dairy farms. (See web appen- resource use: 56.5% of the experts allocated more resour-
dix A for additional examples.) Given this emphasis on ces to address wasteful resource use, 34.8% allocated equal
production waste and its mitigation arising out of sustain- amounts to each, and only 9.7% allocated more to disposal.
ability concerns, what does prior literature tell us about its When asked which of the two sources of waste caused
environmental impact? more environmental harm, 43.5% of the experts perceived
wasteful resource use as more harmful, 34.8% perceived
Environmental Consequences them as equally harmful, and only 21.7% perceived waste-
ful disposal as more harmful (see supplementary study 1 in
The environmental consequences of wasteful disposal web appendix B for full details). Together, these results
(e.g., landfill) are well-established and, indeed, much of indicate that experts judge wasteful resource use as equally
the waste management literature has focused on reducing or more harmful and important to mitigate than wasteful
waste disposal (Hultman and Corvellec 2012; Van Ewijk disposal.
and Stegemann 2016). Likewise, waste and environmental
impact measurements often rely heavily on disposal- Differential Consumer Reaction to Production
related indicators (Gertsakis and Lewis 2003; Price and
Waste
Joseph 2000). This emphasis on disposal waste is consis-
tent with the traditional “take-make-dispose” linear econ- Prior research and expert opinion suggest that produc-
omy model that approaches waste management by tion waste arising from excess resource use is as important,
focusing on disposal. However, wasteful use of resources if not more so, than waste arising from excess disposal.
also has harmful environmental consequences due to its Against this backdrop, we turn to the focal research ques-
contribution to natural resource depletion. As our opening tion in the present research: how do consumers react to dif-
quotations attest, natural resources are being consumed ferent types of production waste and its mitigation in
much faster than they can be replenished—leading to sustainability initiatives?
growing concerns regarding natural resource scarcity (e.g., The literature on consumer aversion to waste is silent on
water, Boretti and Rosa 2019; essential minerals, this question. One possibility is that consumers react
University of Delaware 2017) and the need to preserve equally to waste arising from excess use and disposal of
resources for future generations (Assadourian 2010; Varey resources. Prior research suggests that waste is aversive
2011). For example, it is estimated that we are using up and arises when resources (e.g., money, unused utility) are
50% more natural resources than the Earth can provide at squandered (Arkes 1996; Bolton and Alba 2012). This
the current consumption rate (Prothero et al. 2011; The work has focused on consumers’ creation of waste but, if
World Counts 2020), and production waste is a leading extended to consumer perceptions of others’ waste (includ-
contributor (Behrens et al. 2007). Ironically, despite tech- ing production waste), then consumers might exhibit an
nological advances, the manufacturing sector has become aversion to either type of waste because both wasteful use
increasingly resource inefficient over the past two decades and disposal represent the squandering of resources.1
as global production has shifted to countries with lower Another possibility is that consumers react more strongly
production efficiency (Schandl et al. 2018)—illustrating to waste arising from excess use (vs. disposal) of resources.
the growing problem of wasteful resource use in Indeed, prior research suggests that consumers perceive
production. products as less useful once they are distorted from their
Indeed, effective waste management requires both waste original form (Trudel and Argo 2013). If so, then
prevention via efficient production and waste control via
efficient disposal (Van Ewijk and Stegemann 2016). While 1 Consumers should also react equally to either type of waste if they
view excess resource use and disposal as interchangeable—but we
an emphasis on minimizing both resource use and disposal note that a frame-induced bias is typically difficult for consumers to
is consistent with research on life-cycle thinking (Cooper overcome.
216 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

production processes might serve to distort the utility evaluate and therefore downplaying its impact (Carmi and
inherent in resources and lead consumers to infer greater Bartal 2014; Hsee 1996; Hsee and Zhang 2010; Strathman
value and, in turn, aversion, to wasteful resource use than et al. 1994). Together, this line of reasoning resembles an
disposal (consistent with the aforementioned sustainability evaluability account (i.e., “the extent to which a person has
experts). Yet a third possibility is that consumers react relevant reference information to gauge the desirability of
more strongly to waste arising from excess disposal (vs. target values and map them onto evaluation”; Hsee and
use) of resources. For this prediction, we theorize that con- Zhang 2010, 345)—the environmental impact of wasteful
sumers will perceive both excess use and disposal of resource use may be inherently less evaluable than waste-
resources as wasteful—but that environmental harm per- ful disposal.
ceptions will differ. Specifically (and in contrast to the sus- Accordingly, we predict that consumers will perceive
tainability experts), consumers will perceive wasteful use wasteful resource use as causing less environmental harm

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

of resources as less environmentally harmful than wasteful than wasteful disposal. In turn, these environmental harm
disposal and, as a result, react less negatively to wasteful perceptions will have downstream effects on consumers’
resource use. Our reasoning for this waste reaction differ- attitudes and behavior (e.g., product choice, advertising
ence entails several strands of inter-related arguments as response). A similar set of arguments applies to waste miti-
follows. gation: just as wasteful use is seen as less harmful than
First, wasteful use of resources (vs. disposal) may be wasteful disposal, consumers will perceive reductions in
less accessible to consumers. For example, there is a lack
wasteful resource use (vs. disposal) as less environmentally
of regulations and media coverage on resource use versus
beneficial, resulting in less positive downstream attitudes
disposal by business (Gertsakis and Lewis 2003; Price and
and behavior due to such waste mitigation initiatives.
Joseph 2000). As a result, consumers may judge the occur-
Formally:
rence of wasteful resource use (vs. disposal) by companies
and industries as less frequent and therefore perceive its H1: Consumers’ downstream reactions (e.g., attitudes,
environmental impact as less important (Menon, Raghubir, behavior) will be less sensitive to wasteful resource use ver-
and Schwarz 1995). The lack of experience with wasteful sus disposal in production. That is, consumers will (i) react
use (vs. disposal) may also make it more difficult for con- less negatively to wasteful resource use (vs. disposal) and
sumers to evaluate its impact and therefore judge it as less (ii) react less positively to mitigation of wasteful resource
harmful (Hsee 1996; Hsee and Zhang 2010). Second, the use (vs. disposal).
environmental consequences of wasteful use of resources H2: Consumers’ environmental harm perceptions will be
(vs. disposal) may seem less concrete and tangible and less sensitive to wasteful resource use versus disposal in
therefore perceived as less direct. Wasteful use is often production. That is, consumers will (i) judge wasteful
expressed in abstract and intangible terms (e.g., low resource use (vs. disposal) as less environmentally harmful
resource efficiency indicators in environmental reports), and (ii) judge mitigation of wasteful resource use (vs. dis-
whereas wasteful disposal is often associated with concrete posal) as less environmentally beneficial.
and tangible imagery (e.g., discarded materials in landfill). H3: The waste reaction difference in hypothesis 1 is medi-
In contrast to wasteful resource use, wasteful disposal may ated by environmental harm/benefit perceptions.
therefore create a direct connection to its environmental
consequences, making it easier for consumers to evaluate Together, hypotheses 1–3 hypothesize a waste reaction dif-
its impact and in turn increasing its aversiveness (Duan, ference that will manifest in response to both production
Takahashi, and Zwickle 2019; Hsee 1996; Hsee and Zhang waste and its mitigation. Across our studies, we utilize
2010; Royzman and Baron 2002).2 Third, the environmen- both contexts for robustness purposes.
tal consequences of wasteful use of resources (vs. disposal)
may seem more future-oriented to consumers. For exam- Attenuating the Waste Reaction Difference
ple, resource depletion is a serious environmental problem Our theorizing thus far raises an important sustainability
but is often discussed as a threat for future generations concern: wasteful use of resources is a major contributor to
(Behrens et al. 2007). As a result, consumers may perceive worsening resource depletion and environmental harm
the environmental impact of wasteful use (vs. disposal) as (Behrens et al. 2007; Schandl et al. 2018)—yet consumers
more temporally distant, making it more ambiguous to tend to underestimate its environmental impact. This begs
two important questions: (i) are all consumers susceptible
2 Reasoning by analogy to the literature on perceptions of naturalness
in food and medicine, wasteful resource disposal may also seem more to the waste reaction difference (i.e., heterogeneity across
potent due to its additive nature (i.e., adding residuals to the environ- consumers)? and (ii) how can we increase consumer sensi-
ment) compared to the subtractive nature of wasteful resource use tivity to wasteful use of resources (i.e., interventions to
(i.e., subtracting resources from the environment) (Rozin, Fischler,
and Shields-Argelès 2009). We thank an anonymous reviewer for this alleviate the waste reaction difference)? We explore
perspective. these questions by examining two theoretically and
XU AND BOLTON 217

pragmatically relevant moderators: resource scarcity and tend to prefer public transportation over cars (Joireman,
long-term orientation. Van Lange, and Van Vugt 2004). Our view is more
Resource Scarcity. Given that production waste nuanced inasmuch as we argue that the effect of long-term
involves the use and disposal of resources, a natural ques- orientation will depend upon the type of waste.
tion arises: how does scarcity of such resources affect con- Specifically, under a long-term orientation, consumers will
sumers’ reactions to production waste? Feelings of scarcity attach higher value to future consequences and therefore
occur when there is real or perceived lack of certain resour- discount future outcomes to a lesser extent. If so, then a
ces to satisfy necessary needs (Hamilton et al. 2019), and heightened long-term orientation should make it easier for
this scarcity mindset can make people value the scarce consumers to appreciate the future-oriented consequences
resource more and therefore use it more wisely (Cannon, arising from wasteful use and judge its impact as more
Goldsmith, and Roux 2019; Cialdini 1993; Mullainathan harmful. In contrast, a long-term orientation should have

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

and Shafir 2013; Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir 2012). less effect on how consumers appreciate the immediate
Research on commodity theory also suggests that consum- consequences arising from wasteful disposal, especially
ers’ valuation of products increases as the products become given that the detrimental consequences of wasteful dis-
more scarce (Brock 1968; Inman, Peter, and Raghubir posal are already apparent. Accordingly, the waste reaction
1997; Zhu and Ratner 2015); likewise, scarcity cues often difference will be attenuated under a long-term orientation.
enhance consumers’ valuation of products (Cialdini 1993). Together, this line of reasoning predicts that consumers
In the present context, we focus on natural resource scar- will become increasingly sensitive to the environmental
city, given its relevance to production waste. Whereas prior impact of wasteful resource use in production when either
work suggests that natural resource scarcity can increase resource scarcity or long-term orientation is heightened,
consumer sustainable behaviors (Sachdeva and Zhao but neither should boost reactions to wasteful disposal to
2021), we argue that the effect of resource scarcity will the same extent. Formally:
depend upon the type of waste. Making natural resource
H4: The waste reaction difference in hypotheses 1–3 will be
scarcity salient should increase consumers’ appreciation of
attenuated when resource scarcity is heightened.
natural resources, and therefore, the impact of excess
resource use should feel more concrete and direct when H5: The waste reaction difference in hypotheses 1–3 will be
attenuated under a long-term orientation.
resources are lacking to satisfy necessary needs (Hamilton
et al. 2019). As a result (linking to the second strand of our Our theorizing and hypotheses apply to both waste and
argument for hypotheses 1–3), heightening resource scar- waste mitigation. In a waste context, we predict that (i)
city should make it easier for consumers to appreciate the consumers will react less negatively to wasteful use of
impact of wasteful resource use and therefore increase con- resources (vs. disposal) due to reduced perceptions of envi-
sumer perceptions of environmental harm. In contrast, ronmental harm and (ii) resource scarcity and long-term
even though resource scarcity also emphasizes the value of orientation will boost consumer sensitivity to wasteful
the resource being discarded, the detrimental consequences resource use, heightening harm perceptions and thereby
of wasteful disposal are already apparent to consumers and attenuating the waste reaction difference. Likewise, in a
resource scarcity should therefore have less effect. waste mitigation context, we predict that (i) consumers
Accordingly, the waste reaction difference will be attenu- will react less positively to sustainability initiatives
ated when resource scarcity is salient. focused on reducing wasteful resource use (vs. disposal)
Long-Term Orientation. We theorize that the environ- due to reduced perceptions of environmental benefit and
mental impact of wasteful resource use (vs. disposal) feels (ii) resource scarcity and long-term orientation will boost
more distant in the future and therefore tends to be seen as consumer sensitivity to mitigation efforts focused on
less harmful due to people’s tendency to discount distant reducing wasteful resource use, heightening environmental
outcomes (following the third strand of our argument for benefit perceptions and thereby attenuating the use/dis-
hypotheses 1–3) (Rachlin, Brown, and Cross 2000; Soman posal difference. Subsequent studies will investigate our
et al. 2005). However, the tendency to take into account theorizing in both waste and waste mitigation contexts for
temporally distant considerations (i.e., long-term orienta- evidence of generalizability.
tion; Strathman et al. 1994) varies situationally and across
individuals. Indeed, prior research suggests that long-term EMPIRICAL OVERVIEW
orientation increases pro-environmental attitudes and
behavior: for example, more future-oriented individuals We test our theorizing in a series of seven studies
tend to perceive greater environmental threats and exhibit (including field and secondary data) that examine con-
stronger pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral inten- sumer reactions to production waste and its mitigation.
tions (Arnocky, Milfont, and Nicol 2014; Carmi and Bartal Figure 3 provides an organizing framework, and the appen-
2014); likewise, those with a strong long-term orientation dix contains a summary of the empirical results. We
218 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 3

ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

organize our empirics around the phenomenon and its con- consequences (e.g., product choice, advertising response,
sequences in the field, the underlying process, and modera- coupon redemption, donation behavior). Together, these
tors as follows: empirics provide a nuanced understanding of how, why,
•
and when consumers react to production waste and its miti-
Studies 1A–1C provide evidence for the phenomenon in the field,
gation while providing guidance regarding effective inter-
including consumer clickthrough response to sustainability messaging
about production waste (1A) and its mitigation (1B) and consumer
ventions and sustainability initiatives.
coupon redemption response in a field experiment with a retailer (1C).
• Study 2 provides evidence for the underlying mechanism with a conse- STUDY 1: EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD
quential dependent variable (i.e., testing hypotheses 1–3). Several sup-
plementary studies in web appendix B replicate and extend these The objective of the first set of studies is to provide evi-
findings in several ways (e.g., ruling out alternative explanations). dence for our theorizing in several field settings.
• Studies 3A–3C examine resource scarcity and long-term orientation as Production waste is ubiquitous and can become salient in
theoretically and pragmatically relevant moderators (i.e., testing sustainability messaging at the industry level about waste
hypotheses 4 and 5)3 by examining heterogeneity across consumers (study 1A), as well as at the company/brand level about
(and consequences for actual donation behavior; 3A), by testing inter- waste mitigation (studies 1B–1C). Per hypothesis 1, we
ventions that boost consumer sensitivity to resource use (and conse- predict that consumers will be less sensitive to waste aris-
quences for incentive-aligned product choice; 3B), and by examining ing from excess use (vs. disposal) of resources.
country-level secondary data (3C).

Across our studies, we vary our operationalizations of pro- STUDY 1A: SUSTAINABILITY
duction waste (studies 1A, 2, 3A, and 3C) and waste miti- MESSAGING ABOUT PRODUCTION
gation (studies 1B, 1C, and 3B) to provide evidence of WASTE
robustness; likewise, we examine a variety of real-behavior
Will the type of production waste affect advertising
3 Our research also addresses a third potential moderator: how does response? Study 1A is a field experiment using Facebook
environmental consciousness or making environmental concern salient Ad Manager’s A/B testing (split test) to compare ads fea-
affect the waste reaction difference? On the one hand, consumers who
are concerned about the environment tend to exhibit pro- turing either wasteful use or disposal of water at the indus-
environmental behaviors (Kaiser, Wölfing, and Fuhrer 1999), engage try level, holding all other factors constant (Mookerjee,
in green consumption (Haws, Winterich, and Naylor 2014; Cornil, and Hoegg 2021; Paharia and Swaminathan 2019).
Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, and Diamantopoulos 1996), have a lifestyle
with lower ecological impact (Kropfeld, Nepomuceno, and Dantas
Specifically, we predict that an ad featuring wasteful use of
2018), and are familiar with green products (Lin and Chang 2012) and resources will be less effective (i.e., lower clickthrough
therefore may appreciate how excess resource use harms the environ- rates) than an equivalent ad featuring wasteful disposal.
ment. On the other hand, environmental consciousness may not neces-
sarily indicate sufficiently high levels of environmental knowledge
(Lin and Niu 2018; Ramsey and Rickson 1976) to include an apprecia- Method
tion of how resource use impacts the environment. Given this two-
tailed prediction, we do not make a formal hypothesis but instead will The study was a two-group (wasteful use vs. disposal)
explore these possibilities in our studies. between-subjects design. We created a sustainability
XU AND BOLTON 219

FIGURE 4

FACEBOOK FIELD STUDY STIMULI (STUDY 1A)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— (A) Use and (B) disposal.

message to raise public awareness of production waste in (CTRuse ¼ 0.38% vs. CTRdisposal ¼ 0.59%; b ¼ 0.21, SE
the fashion industry, featuring either wasteful use or dis- ¼ 0.09, v2(1) ¼ 5.22, p ¼ .022, odds ratio ¼ 0.81). (This
posal of water. The ad was placed on Facebook as a spon- range of CTRs is comparable to prior research using the
sored news post about waste in the fashion industry (we Facebook advertising platform; Castelo et al. 2019; Paharia
created a business page called Business News to make the and Swaminathan 2019.) Please see web appendix C for
post look more realistic) and the waste manipulation was additional analyses and descriptive details.
embedded in the headline and image of the ad (all other This finding supports hypothesis 1: in a field study, con-
aspects of stimuli held constant; figure 4). We budgeted sumers were less responsive to an ad featuring wasteful use
$100 for each ad and delivered the ads for 1 week. We tar- (vs. disposal) of resources at the industry level. That is,
geted US participants, with the ads restricted to desktop sustainability messaging about production waste is less
applications and newsfeed (to minimize variance due to impactful when it emphasizes excess resource use rather
device, platform, or ad format). Please see web appendix C than disposal. Of course, advertising can instead emphasize
for additional technical specifications. waste mitigation initiatives (rather than highlighting waste
Facebook records impressions (number of times an ad itself) at the company/brand level—which serves as the
was displayed) and clicks for each ad. Following practices context for our next study.
in prior literature and digital advertising (Castelo, Schmitt,
and Sarvary 2019; Matz et al. 2017; Paharia and
STUDY 1B: SUSTAINABILITY
Swaminathan 2019), we calculated clickthrough rates (i.e.,
CTR; number of clicks on an ad divided by number of MESSAGING ABOUT WASTE
impressions) as the focal dependent variable, with higher MITIGATION
CTR indicating better ad performance.
Will the type of waste mitigation initiative affect adver-
tising response? As in study 1A, we used Facebook Ad
Results Manager’s A/B testing (split test) to compare ads featuring
A logistic regression revealed that CTR was significantly either waste mitigation initiatives focused on reducing
lower when the ad featured wasteful use versus disposal resource use or disposal, holding all other factors constant
220 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 5

FACEBOOK FIELD STUDY STIMULI (STUDY 1B)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— (A) Use and (B) disposal.

(Mookerjee et al. 2021; Paharia and Swaminathan 2019). for each ad delivered for one week, and CTR as the focal
For robustness purposes, we also manipulated the inclusion dependent variable. Please see web appendix C for addi-
of explicit magnitude cues to (i) rule out differences in tional technical specifications.
waste magnitude as an alternative explanation and (ii)
assess robustness to this tactic, given its use in real-world
sustainability communications. Based on our theorizing, Results
we predict that a waste mitigation ad featuring resource A logistic regression on CTR revealed a main effect of
use will be less effective (i.e., lower clickthrough rates) use/disposal (b ¼ 0.13, SE ¼ 0.05, v2(1) ¼ 7.39, p ¼
than an equivalent ad featuring disposal. .007); the main effect of explicit magnitude cue and the
two-way interaction were NS (b ¼ 0.03, SE ¼ 0.05, v2(1)
Method ¼ 0.51, p ¼ .474; b ¼ 0.03, SE ¼ 0.05, v2(1) ¼ 0.37, p ¼
The study was a 2 (sustainability initiative: use vs. dis- .545), indicating robustness. As expected, CTR was signifi-
posal)  2 (waste magnitude: control vs. explicit cue) cantly lower when the ad featured sustainability initiatives
between-subjects design. We created ads for Outland focused on reducing resource use versus disposal (CTRuse
Denim based on their actual sustainability initiatives fea- ¼ 1.18% vs. CTRdisposal ¼1.52%; b ¼ 0.13, SE ¼ 0.05,
turing either resource use or disposal. For robustness pur- v2(1) ¼ 7.39, p ¼ .007, odds ratio ¼ 0.88). Please see web
poses, we manipulated the presence/absence of explicit appendix C for additional analyses and descriptive details.4
magnitude cues (e.g., “We use less water” vs. “We use up
to 50% less water”). Figure 5 shows the use and disposal 4 We sought to provide substantive evidence with strong external val-
idity but we acknowledge that Facebook A/B testing has limitations
versions of the ad, with the magnitude cue shown in a that may threaten its internal validity (e.g., divergent delivery due to
dashed box (not part of the actual stimuli). The ad was targeting algorithm; Braun and Schwartz 2021). To address this con-
placed on Facebook as a sponsored ad about Outland cern, we conducted conceptual replications of studies 1A and 1B in
Denim’s sustainability initiatives. The ad setup followed a the lab, and the results are consistent with findings in the field studies.
Moreover, we also assessed mediation via environmental harm (bene-
similar approach as in study 1A: creation of a business fit) and found support for hypotheses 2 and 3 (details omitted for brev-
page to make the post look more realistic, a $150 budget ity; available upon request).
XU AND BOLTON 221

This finding is consistent with hypothesis 1: in a field we compare the redemption rate for promotional coupons
study, consumers were less responsive to a company’s featuring waste mitigation focused on reducing resource use
waste mitigation message featuring resource use (vs. dis- or disposal, holding all other factors constant. Hypothesis 1
posal). That is, sustainability messaging is less impactful predicts that consumers will react less positively to mitiga-
when it emphasizes mitigating waste arising from resource tion of wasteful resource use (vs. disposal), which in turn
use rather than disposal. Given the evidence for our theo- should lower the redemption rate for such coupons.
rizing in digital marketing contexts, we now turn to a field
study examining product purchase in a retail setting. Method
The study was a two-group (sustainability initiative: use
STUDY 1C: PRODUCT PROMOTION vs. disposal) between-subjects design. We designed coupons

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

WITH WASTE MITIGATION MESSAGING for Frito-Lay’s potato chips: the coupons featured the prod-
uct and the promotional offer ($1 off), held constant, and
Will the type of waste mitigation initiative move the nee- manipulated whether information about Frito-Lay’s actual
dle on product purchase? Study 1C is a field experiment waste mitigation initiatives emphasized resource use or dis-
conducted in collaboration with a local retailer. Specifically, posal (figure 6). In collaboration with a local retailer

FIGURE 6

COUPON STIMULI (STUDY 1C)

NOTE.— (A) Use and (B) disposal.

222 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

(campus grocery store), 1,000 coupons were distributed win one of four $25 gift cards (see the appendix for sample
across the university campus (500 per condition). The demographics for all studies).
retailer honored the redeemed coupons and, following the
Procedure. Participants read about a company that
expiry period, we used store-provided data to calculate each
sells phone accessories. The control group read as follows:
coupon version’s redemption rate (number of coupons
redeemed divided by number distributed) as the focal Company X is a medium-sized company known for produc-
dependent variable. ing a range of phone accessories (mostly known for its
phone cases). The company sells its products directly to
Results consumers via its website. It manufactures phone cases that
fit the vast majority of phones and receive high ratings (4.7
In total, 48 people redeemed the coupon, constituting a stars) for quality. In general, Company X’s phone cases are

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

4.8% redemption rate (comparable to typical coupon well-liked by customers.
redemption rates in the real world; Statista 2023). More
importantly, a logistic regression revealed that the coupon In the waste conditions, the last sentence of this informa-
redemption rate was significantly lower when the coupon tion was replaced with a manipulation of production waste
featured resource use versus disposal (Muse ¼ 3.40% vs. as follows (pre-tested for equivalence; web appendix C)5:
Mdisposal ¼ 6.20%; b ¼ 0.32, SE ¼ 0.15, v2(1) ¼ 4.17,
Use: While its phone cases are generally well-liked by cus-
p ¼ .041, odds ratio ¼ 0.73). tomers, Company X has been criticized for being wasteful
This finding is consistent with hypothesis 1: in a field in its use of raw materials and other resources (e.g., plastic,
study, consumers were less sensitive to a company’s waste metal, and water) during its manufacturing. For example, to
mitigation message featuring reducing resource use (vs. make a batch of phone cases of equivalent design and qual-
disposal). That is, sustainability messaging is less impact- ity, the company uses more raw materials (e.g., plastic and
ful when it emphasizes mitigating waste arising from metal) and other resources (e.g., water) than competitors.
resource use rather than disposal. Disposal: While its phone cases are generally well-liked by
customers, Company X has been criticized for being waste-
Discussion ful in its disposal of material and other resource residuals
Studies 1A–1C provide field evidence in support of (e.g., plastic and metal scraps, and water) during its manu-
hypothesis 1: consumers are less sensitive to wasteful use facturing. For example, to make a batch of phone cases of
(vs. disposal). Study 1A examined production waste while equivalent design and quality, the company discards more
studies 1B–1C examined the corresponding implications material and other resource residuals (e.g., plastic and metal
for waste mitigation. That is, sustainability messaging scraps, and water) than competitors.
about waste or its mitigation is less impactful when it To provide incentive alignment, participants were
emphasizes resource use (vs. disposal). informed that they had a chance to win a gift card to the
company of their choice—they could either choose to
STUDY 2: THE ROLE OF receive a $25 gift card to the company they just read about,
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM PERCEPTIONS or a $20 gift card to an unspecified competitor company,
both offering phone cases and accessories of similar qual-
The objective of study 2 is to provide evidence for the ity and price. Participants then also indicated their attitudes
underlying mechanism. Specifically, we predict that con- and intentions toward the company. Attitudes were meas-
sumers are less averse to waste arising from excess use of ured with a three-item 7-point scale (“1 ¼ bad/unfavorable/
resources because they perceive it as less environmentally negative, 7 ¼ good/favorable/positive”; a ¼ 0.97), and pur-
harmful than equivalent waste arising from excess disposal chase intentions were measured with a two-item 7-point
(i.e., testing hypotheses 1–3). In addition, this study adopts scale (“1 ¼ very unlikely/low interest, 7 ¼ very likely/high
a consequential choice based on incentive alignment interest”; r ¼ 0.92). For ease of reporting, attitudes and
(Ding, Grewal, and Liechty 2005) and a control group intentions were averaged to create a composite score (r ¼
where waste information is absent (as an additional com- 0.82; identical results were observed in separate univariate
parison group providing a no-waste baseline). analyses on attitudes and intentions). Afterward,

Method 5 To enhance experimental control, we held resources and product

constant; doing so is not essential to the phenomenon but is useful for
Participants and Design. The study was a three-group experimental purposes to help ensure equivalence across both types of
(waste: use, disposal, control) between-subjects design. waste and to minimize alternative explanations (for a detailed discus-
The sample comprised 254 undergraduate business stu- sion, see web appendix D). We also acknowledge that detailed produc-
tion waste information is not always available to consumers at the
dents from a large university in the USA who voluntarily company or product level, although this situation is changing with
participated in exchange for extra credit and a chance to increasing environmental concern and regulatory initiatives.
XU AND BOLTON 223

participants rated the extent to which they perceived the 4.21, p ¼ .040, odds ratio ¼ 1.89). That is, any waste is
company as environmentally harmful (“1 ¼ not at all envi- aversive but wasteful use of resources is less so (vs. dis-
ronmentally harmful/irresponsible, 7 ¼ very environmen- posal), resulting in a shift in choice share of 16% (figure 7).
tally harmful/irresponsible”; r ¼ 0.90). As a manipulation A similar pattern emerges on consumer attitudes/intentions
check, participants were asked to recall the criticism they (F(2, 251) ¼ 73.87, p < .001) such that attitudes declined
read about the company. Finally, participants provided in the wasteful use versus control condition (Muse ¼ 4.08,
background information. After the study was completed, SD ¼ 1.29 vs. Mcontrol ¼ 5.79, SD ¼ 1.05; t(251) ¼ 8.86,
four participants were randomly selected and all received a p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.35) but less so compared with the waste-
$25 gift card regardless of their choice. ful disposal condition (Muse ¼ 4.08, SD ¼ 1.29 vs. Mdisposal
¼ 3.52, SD ¼ 1.41; t(251) ¼ 2.92, p ¼ .004, g2 ¼ 0.04).
Results Again, any waste is aversive but wasteful use is less so

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

Manipulation Check. The majority of participants cor- than wasteful disposal.
rectly recalled the type of waste (90.8% in the use condi- Environmental Harm. ANOVA revealed a correspond-
tion, 90.5% in the disposal condition, and 92.8% in the ing pattern for environmental harm (F(2, 251) ¼ 64.09,
no-waste control condition). In subsequent studies, a simi- p < .001) (figure 7): (i) participants perceived the focal
lar set of manipulation checks was supportive and will not company as causing more environmental harm in the
be discussed further for brevity. wasteful use versus control condition (Muse ¼ 4.75,
Consumer Response. A logistic regression on con- SD ¼ 1.42 vs. Mcontrol ¼ 3.04, SD ¼ 1.20; t(251) ¼ 8.52, p
sumer choice as a function of waste manipulation revealed < .001; g2 ¼ 0.30), and (ii) more importantly, participants
that (i) unsurprisingly, participants were less likely to perceived the focal company as causing less environmental
choose the gift card from the focal company in the wasteful harm when its waste took the form of excess resource use
use versus no-waste control condition (Muse ¼ 58.6% vs. versus disposal (Muse ¼ 4.75, SD ¼ 1.42 vs. Mdisposal ¼
Mcontrol ¼ 94.0%; b ¼ 2.40, SE ¼ 0.51, v2(1) ¼ 22.12, 5.22, SD ¼ 1.29; t(251) ¼ 2.33, p ¼ .020; g2 ¼ 0.03).
p < .001, odds ratio ¼ 0.09), and (ii) more importantly, Mediation analyses (model 4; Hayes 2022) showed support
participants were more likely to choose the focal company for mediation of wasteful use/disposal on consumer
in the wasteful use versus disposal condition (Muse ¼ response via environmental harm for both product choice
58.6% vs. Mdisposal ¼ 42.9%; b ¼ 0.64, SE ¼ 0.31, v2(1) ¼ (indirect effect ¼ 0.34, SE ¼ 0.18, 95% CI ¼ 0.05, 0.75)

FIGURE 7

CONSUMER CHOICE (A) AND ENVIRONMENTAL HARM (B) AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCTION WASTE

NOTE.— (A) Consumer choice and (B) environmental harm. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
224 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

and attitudes/intentions (indirect effect ¼ 0.20, SE ¼ 0.10, supplementary studies 2–4 in web appendix B). Given this
95% CI ¼ 0.03, 0.41). evidence, we now turn to an investigation of theoretically
and pragmatically relevant moderators—including
Discussion resource scarcity (testing hypothesis 4) and long-term ori-
entation (testing hypothesis 5). We test this theorizing in
These results support hypotheses 1–3: in an incentive-
studies that examine consumer-level heterogeneity (study
aligned product choice, consumers are less averse to waste
3A) and firm-level interventions (study 3B), as well as in
arising from excess use of resources because they perceive
country-level secondary data (study 3C).
it as less environmentally harmful than equivalent waste
arising from excess disposal. This study provides initial
support for the underlying mechanism of environmental STUDY 3A: CONSUMER
HETEROGENEITY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

harm.
Which consumers will exhibit differential reactions to
REPLICATION/EXTENSION STUDIES use/disposal waste? Hypotheses 4 and 5 predict that the
We also conducted several replication studies as evi- waste reaction difference should be attenuated among con-
dence of robustness for hypotheses 1–3 and to extend our sumers who (i) appreciate resource scarcity or (ii) adopt a
findings in several ways. In brief: long-term orientation (due to heightened perceptions of
environmental harm). For exploratory purposes, we also
• First, we replicated and extended study 2 in a waste mitigation context: examine another consumer characteristic—environmental
consumers react less favorably to a waste mitigation initiative focused consciousness—to assess robustness of the phenomenon
on resource use (vs. disposal), mediated by environmental benefit per-
across varying levels of concern for the environment.
ceptions (i.e., the flip side of environmental harm), and this effect can-
In addition, study 3 tests hypotheses 1–3 within the con-
not be explained by price, quality, warmth, or competence perceptions.
text of prosocial messaging about sustainability and uses a
See supplementary study 2 in web appendix B for details.
• Second, we manipulated waste within-subject and examined whether
different consequential dependent variable: donations to an
explicit waste magnitude information attenuates the waste reaction dif-
environmental organization. Specifically, we predict that
ference: even when we confront consumers with both types of waste messaging about wasteful use (vs. disposal) will lead to
and include explicit waste magnitude information to equate both types lower environmental harm perceptions and, in turn, lower
of waste, they react less negatively to wasteful use (vs. disposal) due donations to an environmental charity addressing produc-
to lower environmental harm perceptions. See supplementary study 3 tion waste—but this waste reaction difference will be atte-
in web appendix B for details. nuated among consumers who appreciate resource scarcity
• Finally, we conducted a study that asked consumers to generate their or adopt a long-term orientation.
own exemplars of production waste to provide evidence that the use/
disposal distinction is real to consumers and predicts their environmen- Method
tal harm perceptions. As expected, results show that (i) consumers nat-
urally encounter and can generate examples of both types of waste and Participants and Design. The study was a two-group
(ii) they perceived wasteful use exemplars as less environmentally (wasteful use vs. disposal) between-subjects design, with
harmful than wasteful disposal exemplars. See supplementary study 4 individual differences as measured covariates. The sample
in web appendix B for details. comprised 801 US participants recruited from Prolific who
completed the study for financial compensation.
In addition to providing further support for the underlying
mechanism, these studies demonstrate robustness of the Procedure. Participants were shown a prosocial mes-
phenomenon—across type of resource (e.g., water, fabrics, sage about fashion waste with an embedded waste manipu-
metal, plastic) and product (e.g., jeans, electronics), as well lation, either featuring wasteful use or disposal (e.g., “the
as across operationalization of waste (e.g., self-generated fashion industry consumes an excess amount of natural
exemplars, benchmarking against the industry average, resources” vs. “the fashion industry generates an excess
when magnitude is made explicit). amount of resource residuals”; figure 8).
Participants then indicated environmental harm percep-
STUDY 3: MODERATORS AND tions of the fashion industry (same as in study 2; r ¼ 0.84).
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Next, participants received an extra 50-cent bonus for their
research participation and were offered the opportunity to
Thus far, our studies have provided evidence that con- donate a portion or all of the bonus compensation to an
sumers are less sensitive to wasteful resource use versus environmental nonprofit with initiatives addressing waste
disposal in production—with evidence from the field (stud- in the fashion industry. Participants received the rest of the
ies 1A–1C) and with controlled experiments supporting the 50 cents (i.e., the amount they chose not to donate) as a
role of environmental harm perceptions (study 2 and bonus payment on Prolific, and we donated the amount
XU AND BOLTON 225

FIGURE 8

PROSOCIAL MESSAGE STIMULI (STUDY 3A)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— (A) Use and (B) disposal.

they indicated to the environmental charity. Lastly, partici- use (vs. disposal) in fashion, which in turn led to lower
pants completed a 6-item scale measuring consumer green donations to the environmental charity.
consumption value (Haws et al. 2014; a ¼ 0.94), a 6-item Environmental Harm. To test hypotheses 4 and 5, we
scale measuring consumer belief about resource scarcity analyzed environmental harm perceptions as a function of
(adapted from Gu et al. 2020; a ¼ 0.91), and a 12-item wasteful use/disposal, the focal covariate, and the two-way
scale measuring long-term orientation (Strathman et al. interaction.6 With scarcity belief as the covariate,
1994; a ¼ 0.91), in randomized order. ANCOVA revealed main effects of waste (b ¼ 0.23, SE ¼
0.04, t(797) ¼ 5.77, p < .001) and scarcity belief (b ¼
Results 0.50, SE ¼ 0.03, t(797) ¼ 16.12, p < .001), qualified by
Before testing hypotheses 4 and 5, we first examined the expected two-way interaction (b ¼ 0.13, SE ¼ 0.03,
evidence for hypotheses 1–3 (i.e., without covariates). t(797) ¼ 4.20, p < .001). In floodlight analysis (figure 9),
ANOVA revealed a main effect of wasteful use/disposal environmental harm perceptions were lower when the mes-
on environmental harm perceptions (Muse ¼ 5.44, sage emphasized use (vs. disposal) among participants
SD ¼ 1.47 vs. Mdisposal ¼ 5.92, SD ¼ 1.15; F(1, 799) ¼ with scarcity belief lower than 6.22 (about 78.9% of the
25.99, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.03) and on actual donations (Muse sample). With long-term orientation as the covariate,
¼ 16.33, SD ¼ 18.89 vs. Mdisposal ¼ 20.74, SD ¼ 20.68; ANCOVA revealed main effects of waste (b ¼ 0.84, SE ¼
F(1, 799) ¼ 9.90, p ¼ .002, g2 ¼ 0.01), and a bootstrap- 0.21, t(797) ¼ 3.95, p < .001) and long-term orientation (b
ping analysis supports mediation (indirect effect ¼ 0.98,
SE ¼ 0.22, 95% CI ¼ 0.56, 1.42). That is, participants per- 6 Our findings also hold if, rather than running each covariate analy-
sis separately, we utilize a model containing all three covariates and
ceived the fashion industry as less environmentally harmful their interactions with wasteful use/disposal (see web appendix C for
when the prosocial message emphasized wasteful resource details).
226 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 9

ENVIRONMENTAL HARM (A) AND DONATION AMOUNT (B) AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCTION WASTE AND RESOURCE SCARCITY
AND LONG-TERM ORIENTATION

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— (A) Environmental harm and (B) donation amount.

¼ 0.50, SE ¼ 0.04, t(797) ¼ 11.64, p < .001), qualified by support hypotheses 4 and 5: the waste reaction difference
the expected two-way interaction (b ¼ 0.13, SE ¼ 0.04, in environmental harm perceptions is attenuated among
t(797) ¼ 3.04, p ¼ .002). In floodlight analysis (figure 9), consumers who appreciate resource scarcity or adopt a
environmental harm perceptions were lower when the mes- long-term orientation (while it is robust to environmental
sage emphasized wasteful use (vs. disposal) among partici- consciousness).
pants with long-term orientation lower than 5.63 (about
77.5% of the sample). With green consumption value as Donation Behavior. A similar set of analyses was also
the covariate, ANCOVA revealed main effects of waste (b run for donation behavior. With scarcity belief as the cova-
¼ 0.24, SE ¼ 0.04, t(797) ¼ 5.52, p < .001) and green con- riate, ANCOVA revealed main effects of waste (b ¼ 2.16,
sumption value (b ¼ 0.37, SE ¼ 0.04, t(797) ¼ 10.48, p < SE ¼ 0.68, t(797) ¼ 3.17, p ¼ .002) and scarcity belief
.001); the two-way interaction was NS (b ¼ 0.05, SE ¼ (b ¼ 3.31, SE ¼ 0.53, t(797) ¼ 6.23, p < .001), qualified
0.04, t(797) ¼ 1.28, p ¼ .200). That is, environmental by the expected two-way interaction (b ¼ 1.45, SE ¼
harm perceptions were lower when the message empha- 0.53, t(797) ¼ 2.73, p ¼ .007). Floodlight analysis (fig-
sized wasteful use (vs. disposal), a waste reaction differ- ure 9) revealed that donations were lower for use (vs. dis-
ence that was unaffected by green consumption value. posal) among participants with scarcity belief lower than
Together, the results on environmental harm perceptions 5.72 (about 60.5% of the sample). With long-term
XU AND BOLTON 227

orientation as the covariate, ANCOVA revealed main Discussion

effects of waste (b ¼ 1.93, SE ¼ 0.68, t(797) ¼ 2.82, p ¼
Study 3A provides evidence for two theoretically
.005) and long-term orientation (b ¼ 4.33, SE ¼ 0.69,
derived consumer characteristics that moderate the waste
t(797) ¼ 6.31, p < .001); unexpectedly, the two-way inter-
reaction difference: resource scarcity and long-term orien-
action was NS (b ¼ 0.14, SE ¼ 0.69, t(797) ¼ 0.20, p
tation. Consumers perceive less environmental harm from
¼ .842). That is, donations were lower for wasteful use (vs.
wasteful use (vs. disposal), which in turn lowers donations
disposal), regardless of long-term orientation. With green
to an environmental charity—a waste reaction difference
consumption value as the covariate, ANCOVA revealed
that is attenuated among consumers who appreciate
main effects of waste (b ¼ 2.24, SE ¼ 0.67, t(797) ¼ 3.33,
resource scarcity or adopt a long-term orientation. In con-
p < .001) and green consumption value (b ¼ 4.44, SE ¼
trast, environmental consciousness does not moderate—
0.55, t(797) ¼ 8.05, p < .001); the two-way interaction

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

even consumers concerned about the environment exhibit
was NS (b ¼ 0.08, SE ¼ 0.55, t(797) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .891).
the waste reaction difference. In addition, study 3A pro-
That is, donations were lower for wasteful use (vs. dis-
vides additional evidence that the waste reaction difference
posal), regardless of green consumption value. Together,
is consequential—affecting actual donation behavior.
the results on actual donation behavior partially support
hypotheses 4 and 5: the waste reaction difference in dona-
tion behavior is attenuated among consumers who appreci- STUDY 3B: INTERVENTIONS
ate resource scarcity (although not among consumers who
adopt a long-term orientation), and it is robust to environ- Can interventions attenuate the waste reaction difference
mental consciousness. in hypotheses 1–3? Study 3B follows the logic of study
3A, examining how resource scarcity and long-term orien-
tation affect consumer reactions to wasteful use versus dis-
Moderated Mediation. To further test our theorizing, posal, but with three key differences. First, we test this
we also conducted moderated mediation analyses using theorizing within the context of company sustainability
each covariate. Bootstrapping analyses were conducted messaging about waste mitigation (building on studies 1B–
(model 8; Hayes 2022) with wasteful use/disposal as the 1C) and we use incentive-aligned product choice as a con-
independent variable, environmental harm perceptions as sequential dependent variable (similar to the approach of
the mediator, donation behavior as the dependent variable, study 2). Second, we develop and test interventions to
and each covariate as the moderator. As expected, moder- heighten (i) resource scarcity and (ii) long-term orientation
ated mediation received support with scarcity belief as the (rather than relying upon individual difference measures as
moderator (index effect ¼ 0.40, SE ¼ 0.14, 95% in study 3A). Third, we also develop and test interventions
CI ¼ 0.71 to 0.16): environmental harm perceptions to heighten (iii) environmental concern and (iv) disposal
mediated the waste reaction difference when scarcity belief harm to serve as conservative control groups for compari-
was low (1 SD; effect ¼ 1.23, SE ¼ 0.32, 95% CI ¼ 0.39 son purposes. These interventions are of interest, given
to 1.94) but not high (þ1 SD: effect ¼ 0.19, SE ¼ 0.16, their use in practice—but neither is expected to attenuate
95% CI ¼ 0.11 to 0.52). Also, as expected, moderated the waste reaction difference because consumers do not
mediation received support with long-term orientation as readily connect resource use to disposal (as the waste reac-
the moderator (index effect ¼ 0.44, SE ¼ 0.17, 95% tion difference itself attests) or to environmental concern
CI ¼ 0.80 to 0.13): environmental harm perceptions (as the results for environmental consciousness in study 3A
mediated the waste reaction difference when long-term ori- attest).
entation was low (1 SD; effect ¼ 1.14, SE ¼ 0.30, 95% Accordingly, hypotheses 4 and 5 predict that consumers
CI ¼ 0.62 to 1.76) but not high (þ1 SD: effect ¼ 0.25, SE will react less favorably to sustainability initiatives focused
¼ 0.20, 95% CI ¼ 0.12 to 0.66). And lastly, as expected, on mitigating wasteful use (vs. disposal) of resources—and
moderated mediation was not supported with green con- this difference will be attenuated when interventions
sumption value as the moderator (index CI contains zero enhance appreciation of resource scarcity or prompt a
and environmental harm mediated the waste reaction dif- long-term orientation (but not when interventions enhance
ference across the range of green consumption value)— environmental concern or disposal harm). If supported,
consistent with the null interactions for this covariate. these findings will not only provide deeper insight into
Together, these results support hypotheses 4 and 5: the when and why consumers will become more sensitive to
waste reaction difference in environmental harm percep- resource use—but also point the way to potentially useful
tions and, in turn, donation behavior, is attenuated among and readily implementable communication interventions to
consumers who appreciate resource scarcity or adopt a enhance consumer response to company sustainability ini-
long-term orientation. tiatives aimed at waste mitigation.
228 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Method p ¼ .726, odds ratio ¼ 1.06). The planned contrast of

resource scarcity and long-term orientation interventions
Participants and Design. The study was a 2 (sustain-
against the other three conditions (i.e., no intervention,
ability initiative: use vs. disposal)  5 (intervention:
environmental concern, and disposal harm) revealed a sig-
resource scarcity, long-term orientation, environmental
nificant interaction with the sustainability initiative (use/
concern, disposal harm, no-intervention control) between-
disposal) (v2(1) ¼ 5.96, p ¼ .015), supporting hypotheses
subjects design. The sample comprised 1,000 US partici-
4 and 5. A similar pattern also emerged for attitudes/inten-
pants from Prolific who completed the study for financial
tions (see web appendix C for details). As expected, the
compensation and a chance to win 1 of 20 $25 gift cards.
waste reaction difference was attenuated by resource scar-
Procedure. First, participants read about the sustain- city and long-term orientation interventions (but not by
ability efforts of an apparel company. (They were told that environmental concern or disposal harm interventions).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

the materials were drawn from the sustainability page of
the company’s website and that the company name was Discussion
masked to comply with university regulations.) The inter-
Study 3B provides evidence, using incentive-aligned
vention consisted of images and a caption that emphasized
choice as a consequential dependent variable, for two inter-
either (i) resource scarcity, (ii) long-term orientation, (iii)
ventions that moderate the waste reaction difference:
environmental concern, (iv) disposal harm, or (v) a no-
resource scarcity and long-term orientation. Consumers
intervention control, followed by information describing
react less favorably to waste mitigation efforts emphasiz-
the sustainability initiative aimed at either reducing waste-
ing resource use (vs. disposal)—a difference that is attenu-
ful use or disposal of resources (similar to the manipulation
ated when accompanied by either a resource scarcity or
in study 1B). For details of the manipulations, see
long-term orientation intervention. These findings parallel
figure 10.
the results of study 3A examining consumer variation in
Participants then indicated their attitudes (a ¼ 0.98) and
resource scarcity belief and long-term orientation.
intentions (r ¼ 0.92) (composite dependent variable, r ¼
In comparison, interventions that enhance environmental
0.85; same as in study 2) toward the company. To provide
concern or emphasize disposal harm are not expected to
incentive alignment, participants were informed that they
attenuate the waste reaction difference because, as our pre-
had a chance to win a gift card to the company of their
vious studies attest, consumers do not readily connect
choice—they could either choose to receive a $20 gift card
resource use to either disposal or to environmental concern.
to the company they just read about, or a $25 gift card to
The latter interventions are evident in practice and serve as
an unspecified competitor company, both offering products
conservative control groups that help rule out demand (i.e.,
of similar design, quality, and price (similar as in study 2).
only interventions of a specific nature are effective).
After the study was completed, 20 participants were ran-
Hence, study 3B not only provides insight into when and
domly selected and all received a $25 gift card regardless
why consumers will become more sensitive to sustainabil-
of their choice.
ity initiatives focused on resource use—but also points the
way to potentially useful and readily implementable com-
Results munication interventions based on scarcity or long-term
Consumer Choice. Figure 11 illustrates the results, orientation that promote sustainability. That is, making
with the waste reaction difference indicated by lower resource scarcity salient or prompting long-term orienta-
choice share of the gift card from the focal company when tion can increase consumer appreciation of firm sustain-
its sustainability initiative focused on resource use versus ability initiatives focused on conserving natural resources,
disposal. As the patterns indicate, the waste reaction differ- whereas—in striking contrast—consumers already appreci-
ence was evident following no intervention (i.e., control) ate firm sustainability initiatives focused on mitigating dis-
(Muse ¼ 57.6% vs. Mdisposal ¼ 72.8%; b ¼ 0.34, SE ¼ posal waste.
0.15, v2(1) ¼ 5.11, p ¼ .024, odds ratio ¼ 0.71), the envi-
ronmental concern intervention (Muse ¼ 53.6% vs. Mdisposal STUDY 3C: COUNTRY-LEVEL
¼ 67.3%; b ¼ 0.29, SE ¼ 0.15, v2(1) ¼ 3.87, p ¼ .049, SECONDARY DATA
odds ratio ¼ 0.75), and the disposal harm intervention
(Muse ¼ 57.8% vs. Mdisposal ¼ 70.5%; b ¼ 0.28, SE ¼ Study 3C seeks to provide further support for hypotheses
0.15, v2(1) ¼ 3.40, p ¼ .065, odds ratio ¼ 0.76). However, 4 and 5 via secondary data. Specifically, we combine three
this difference was attenuated following the resource scar- sets of data: (i) a country-level resource scarcity index
city intervention (Muse ¼ 69.4% vs. Mdisposal ¼ 68.6%; b ¼ (Ecological Threat Register 2020), (ii) country-level long-
0.02, SE ¼ 0.15, v2(1) ¼ 0.01, p ¼ .908, odds ratio ¼ 1.02) term orientation scores (Globe 2020), and (iii) country-
and the long-term orientation intervention (Muse ¼ 70.9% level survey data regarding concern about environmental
vs. Mdisposal ¼ 68.6%; b ¼ 0.05, SE ¼ 0.15, v2(1) ¼ 0.12, harm arising from resource use and disposal (Ipsos 2020).
XU AND BOLTON 229

FIGURE 10

EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI (STUDY 3B)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— The stimuli consisted of one of the five interventions followed by either use or disposal information. We drew inspiration for these stimuli from company web-
sites and advertising related to sustainability. For example, the stimulus header was drawn from Levi’s (“We’re on a mission to change the clothing industry. For
good.”) and our interventions were likewise inspired by various company communications (e.g., Patagonia incorporates imagery related to disposal waste whereas
Levi’s incorporates imagery related to the future). See additional examples in web appendix A.
230 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 11

CONSUMER CHOICE AS A FUNCTION OF SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE AND INTERVENTION

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

NOTE.— *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Extending hypotheses 4 and 5 and the results of studies 3A country-level long-term orientation, we used future orien-
and 3B, we predict that natural resource scarcity and long- tation scores (scored from 1 to 7) drawn from GLOBE
term orientation will predict environmental concern related (Globe 2020), which assesses tendencies to plan, invest in
to resource use (but not disposal) at the country level. the future, and engage in other future-oriented behaviors
(in four cases, we imputed missing values from adjacent
Method countries based on Country Similarity Index from
Objective Lists 2020). Combined, the sample comprises
Our dependent variables were drawn from an Ipsos sur-
29 countries.
vey of 20,590 adult citizens from 29 countries regarding
their views on the “most important environmental issues
facing [country] today?” (Ipsos 2020). The report pro- Results
vided summative data regarding the percentage of con- Overall, consumers endorsed disposal waste more fre-
sumers in each country who selected either “Depletion of quently than resource use as a top environmental issue
natural resources” or “Dealing with the amount of waste (Muse ¼ 19.5% vs. Mdisposal ¼ 32.3%; v2(1) ¼ 618.95, p <
we generate” as a top environmental issue. We utilized .001, U ¼ 0.15)—consistent with our theorizing that con-
these measures as proxies for environmental harm percep- sumers are less sensitive to environmental harm arising
tions arising from wasteful resource use and disposal, from resource use (vs. disposal).
respectively. Next, we examined the relationship of our predictors—
Our predictor variables were drawn from two sources. resource scarcity and long-term orientation—with these
First, as a country-level measure of resource scarcity, we environmental harm concerns. Consistent with our theoriz-
utilized the resource depletion score for each country ing, resource scarcity was correlated with concern about
from the Ecological Threat Register (Ecological Threat resource use (r ¼ 0.35, p ¼ .059) but not disposal
Register 2020). This index (scored from 0 to 3) is based (r ¼ 0.18, p ¼ .337). Likewise, long-term orientation was
on country-level indicators related to water stress, food correlated with concern about resource use (r ¼ 0.35, p ¼
scarcity, and population growth. Second, as a measure of .062) but not disposal (r ¼ 0.07, p ¼ .717). That is,
XU AND BOLTON 231

resource scarcity and long-term orientation are associated resource use (vs. disposal)—a novel effect with important
with consumer concern about the environmental conse- implications for consumers and companies. Notably, the
quences of resource use (but not disposal)—consistent with waste reaction difference is robust and emerges (i) in both
our theorizing in hypotheses 4 and 5. waste and waste mitigation contexts; (ii) at the product,
company, and industry level; (iii) with a variety of waste
Discussion operationalizations (e.g., industries, types of resources);
and (iv) with multiple real-behavior consequences (e.g.,
Using country-level secondary datasets, we find that: (i) product choice, advertising response, coupon redemption,
consumers report less environmental concern about use of donation behavior). The waste reaction difference is also
resources than disposal waste and (ii) resource scarcity and consequential for environment and society inasmuch as
long-term orientation are associated with consumer con- wasteful use of resources in product manufacturing is a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

cern about resource use (but not disposal). Although we major contributor to resource depletion and environmental
acknowledge that our sample is relatively small and our harm (Behrens et al. 2007; Schandl et al. 2018).
measures are far from perfect, these findings provide con- Second, we demonstrate that the waste reaction differ-
verging evidence at the country level for our theorizing. As ence emerges (somewhat ironically) because consumers do
additional evidence, we also obtained country-level secon- not perceive wasteful resource use as environmentally
dary data from a separate Ipsos survey regarding consumer harmful, relative to wasteful disposal. This finding builds
support for taxing products using scarce natural resour- upon prior literature in several ways: (i) while prior
ces—consistent with hypotheses 4 and 5, we find that research has shown that consumers are averse to creating
resource scarcity and long-term orientation are associated waste (Arkes 1996; Bolton and Alba 2012), we demon-
with consumer support (see web appendix C for details). strate that consumers are sensitive to others’ waste, includ-
ing disclosures of production waste (and its mitigation) at
GENERAL DISCUSSION the company and industry level; and (ii) while prior
research has examined consumer reactions to companies
Production waste, or inefficiencies in product manufac- that cause environmental harm (Xie et al. 2015; Xu et al.
turing, is a major contributor to various environmental 2021), we provide a more nuanced picture of how such
problems (Behrens et al. 2007; Cooper 2005; Schandl et al. reactions depend upon the nature of production waste.
2018). While companies, sustainability experts, and policy- Furthermore, our theorizing and empirics establish
makers increasingly recognize the environmental implica- resource scarcity and long-term orientation as theoretically
tions of production waste, less is known about consumer and managerially relevant moderators that alter consumer
reactions—a gap that the present research aims to address. reactions to production waste. These findings build upon
A series of seven studies (including field and secondary prior literature demonstrating largely positive effects of
data) provides convergent evidence that consumers are less resource scarcity and long-term orientation in an environ-
sensitive to production waste in the form of excess use of mental context (Arnocky et al. 2014; Carmi and Bartal
resources (vs. equivalent waste in the form of disposal). 2014; Gu et al. 2020; Sachdeva and Zhao 2021; White,
We find that the waste reaction difference emerges because Habib, and Hardisty 2019) by showing that their impact
consumers perceive the impact of wasteful resource use depends upon the type of production waste.
(vs. disposal) as less environmentally harmful, and we fur- Lastly, our research offers important substantive impli-
ther identify resource scarcity and long-term orientation as cations for sustainability. From a waste management and
theoretically and managerially relevant moderators that policy perspective, our research provides the first evidence
alter consumer sensitivity to resource use and alleviate the (to our knowledge) regarding how the disclosure of waste-
waste reaction difference. Together, the current research related information affects consumers. Such disclosures
provides a nuanced understanding of how, why, and when seek to encourage the adoption of more sustainable manu-
consumers react to production waste and its mitigation, facturing, but we identify the waste reaction difference as a
while providing guidance to practitioners and policymakers potential challenge. Despite the serious problem of
regarding effective interventions and sustainability resource depletion (accentuated by decreasing resource
initiatives. efficiency in the manufacturing sector over the past two
decades, Schandl et al. 2018), consumers appear relatively
insensitive to production waste arising from inefficient use
Theoretical and Substantive Contributions
of resources. This waste reaction difference could poten-
First and foremost, we demonstrate that the distinction tially discourage companies from adopting more sustain-
between wasteful resource use versus disposal is real, able production (e.g., customer expectations are the top
meaningful, and important to consumers and it affects con- motivator for practitioners to adopt sustainable manufac-
sumer reactions to production waste and its mitigation. turing, Morris 2022). Relatedly, the waste reaction differ-
Specifically, consumers react less negatively to wasteful ence may also undermine support for environmental
232 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

charities (see, e.g., study 3A) and, more broadly, public Coalition; web appendix A) and regulatory initiatives
policy initiatives focused on resource use. For example, the (e.g., the new climate disclosure proposal; SEC 2022).
Better Cotton Initiative (2023) helps promote more sustain- Second, our theorizing focused on environmental harm/
able cotton production—but consumers may not react as benefit perceptions but we acknowledge that waste reac-
favorably to initiatives emphasizing more efficient water tions are unlikely to be singly determined. We utilize
usage compared to wastewater disposal. Having said that, both measurement and moderation-of-process designs as
we do identify some consumer segments that will react well as incorporating assessment of multiple alternative
favorably—and such initiatives would benefit from target- mechanisms to yield insight into the underlying psycho-
ing more future-oriented consumers or consumers for logical process (see studies 2 and 3A and 3B, and sup-
whom resource scarcity is salient. For example, environ- plementary studies 2–4 in web appendix B). Having said
mental charities focused on resource use are encouraged to that, the mechanisms underlying the waste reaction dif-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

deploy their messaging alongside media coverage of ference merit further exploration and could lead to addi-
resource scarcity (e.g., droughts in the western USA, scarce tional important moderators and boundary conditions.
supplies of rare earth minerals) to enhance consumer Indeed, the present research opens up several interesting
receptiveness. avenues for future research as follows.
From a corporate perspective, our results attest that con- First, production waste is ubiquitous throughout business
sumers are sensitive to production waste and that compa- activities and can occur both within and outside of product
nies can benefit from waste mitigation efforts and obtain manufacturing processes (Cooper 2005). Future research is
competitive advantage (Kang, Germann, and Grewal 2016; encouraged to explore other forms of production waste,
Luo and Bhattacharya 2006). Indeed, companies are and the question of the relationship between companies’
increasingly adopting sustainability initiatives to reduce wasteful resource use and disposal strikes us as particularly
waste, aiming to cut excess resource use and disposal (as interesting. According to the circular economy model
our many examples attest). However, our results indicate (Sauve et al. 2016), resource use and disposal are inher-
that consumers are less sensitive to firm sustainability ini- ently connected. For example, excess use of resources may
tiatives focused on conserving natural resources—and our contribute to excess resource residuals at disposal stages
research points to managerially implementable interven- (Ayres and Kneese 1969); likewise, disposal waste, if prop-
tions to increase consumer appreciation of such environ- erly recycled, can be reused as resource inputs to reduce
mental initiatives. For example, Outland Denim (2022) the amount of virgin material and resource consumption.
claims to use “up to 86% less water” in its wash and finish- Do consumers understand the interconnection between
ing facilities but may benefit further from emphasizing resource use and disposal? Our research suggests that they
water as a scarce natural resource and/or priming a long- do not; otherwise we would not observe the waste reaction
term orientation. Successfully implementing such interven- difference because consumers would be able to overcome
tions may lead to a win–win situation for society and firms, the use/disposal frame in our studies. In a follow-up study,
with firms benefiting through increased consumer appreci- we find that the waste reaction difference is attenuated
ation of their sustainability initiatives and society benefit- when the relationship between resource use and disposal is
ing from greater conservation of natural resources. made explicitly salient; interestingly, if prompted, consum-
ers more readily appreciate the connection from resource
Limitations and Future Research use to disposal than vice versa (i.e., a knock-on effect con-
sistent with the flow of resources through production).7
The current research has several limitations that we See supplementary study 5 in web appendix B for details.
acknowledge and have tried to address. First, some of Future research would be helpful to better understand con-
our studies (e.g., study 2) manipulated production waste sumer lay beliefs about production waste, their perceptions
at company or product level to demonstrate the basic of waste generated throughout business activities, and the
phenomenon while controlling for potential alternative impact of various approaches to waste disclosure (e.g.,
explanations (e.g., product quality and price), and we indices).
acknowledge that such detailed waste information may A second avenue of research that we find promising is to
not always be available to consumers at company or move beyond the environmental perspective that is the
product level. We address this issue by diversifying the focus of the present research. While our findings demon-
empirical contexts in our studies to include production strate that consumers perceive production waste as harmful
waste at the industry level (in prosocial messaging) and to the environment, can companies justify their wasteful-
waste mitigation at the company/brand level (in sustain- ness and alter such perceptions? Consider, for example,
ability initiatives). Additionally, we note various initia- waste in the fashion industry arising from unsold inven-
tives are underway to increase the availability of waste- tory: if such waste arises from inadvertent market forecast
related information, including voluntary developments
(e.g., the Higg Index adopted by the Sustainable Apparel 7 We thank the Associate Editor for suggesting this line of enquiry.
XU AND BOLTON 233

error (e.g., due to COVID-19) rather than systematic and while others may choose to consume products with lower
recurring overproduction, will consumers attribute less environmental impact (e.g., green consumption; Haws
blame (Weiner 2000)? As another example, consider waste et al. 2014). Indeed, “waste not, want not” may take on dif-
arising from a strong product focus (e.g., luxury brands ferent meanings across consumers and contexts—with,
destroying products to maintain exclusivity; Paton 2018): unfortunately, enormous scope for future research, given
will consumers be more forgiving or punishing of waste in the ubiquity of waste in the marketplace.
the pursuit of product excellence? We encourage future
research to investigate how production waste might offer
different or even mixed signals to consumers.
DATA COLLECTION STATEMENT
A third direction would move beyond the context of pro- The first author managed data collection for all studies
duction waste to understand waste throughout the con- as follows: study 1A (fall 2020) and study 1B (summer

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

sumer journey. Consumer waste is prevalent and, similar to 2022) through Facebook; study 1C (spring 2023) in the
production waste, can take various forms: for example, field (via the Wildcat Pantry at the University of
consumers can be wasteful during product acquisition Kentucky); study 2 (fall 2021) and supplementary study 2
(e.g., purchase products that go unused), consumption
(spring 2021) through the behavioral lab at the Penn State
(e.g., overconsumption, using products inefficiently), and
University; studies 3A and 3B (summer 2022), supplemen-
disposal (e.g., trash rather than recycle/donate functional
tary study 3 (summer 2022), and supplementary study 5
products). Will consumer aversion to waste differ through-
out the consumer journey? One possibility is that consum- (summer 2023) via Prolific Academic; supplementary
ers will be more averse to waste arising from product study 4 (Spring 2020) through Amazon Mechanical Turk;
disposal due to environmental concerns (a line of argument the expert survey/supplementary study 1 (summer and fall
similar to the present research); another possibility is that 2021) through the Sustainability Institute at the Penn State
consumers will be more averse to waste during acquisition University; and compiled secondary data for study 3C
due to concerns about squandered money or unused utility. (spring 2023). The first author analyzed data for all studies.
Also of interest is to better understand how waste aversion All data were discussed and results were reviewed on mul-
manifests itself as a function of these concerns: for exam- tiple occasions by both authors. The data are currently
ple, some consumers may choose to reduce overall con- archived in a project directory on the Open Science
sumption (e.g., voluntary simplicity, Alexander and Ussher Framework.
2012; consumer minimalism, Wilson and Bellezza 2022),

APPENDIX: OVERVIEW OF STUDIES

Study Sample (N) Female %, median age Study design Main findings
S1A Facebook (n ¼ 24,870) 41.1%, 55–64 Two-group (waste: use vs. Facebook users were less responsive to sus-
disposal), consequential tainability messaging featuring wasteful use
DV (vs. disposal)—evidenced by ad click-
through behavior in a field experiment.
Hypothesis 1
S1B Facebook (n ¼ 33,826) 40.1%, 55–64 2 (sustainability initiative: Facebook users were less responsive to firm
use vs. disposal)  2 sustainability initiatives featuring mitigating
(waste magnitude: con- wasteful use (vs. disposal)—evidenced by
trol vs. explicit cue), ad clickthrough behavior in a field experi-
consequential DV ment. This pattern holds even in the pres-
ence of waste magnitude cue. Hypothesis
1
S1C Field (n ¼ 1,000) – Two-group (sustainability Consumers were less responsive to firm pro-
initiative: use vs. dis- motional messaging with sustainability initia-
posal), consequential tives focused on reducing resource use (vs.
DV disposal)—evidenced by coupon redemp-
tion behavior in the field. Hypothesis 1
S2 Student (n ¼ 254) 53.5%, 19 Three-group (waste: no- Participants reacted less negatively to waste-
waste, use, and dis- ful use than disposal (vs. no-waste)—evi-
posal), consequential denced by consequential gift card choice
DV and mediated by environmental harm per-
ceptions. Hypotheses 1–3
234 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE (CONTINUED)
Study Sample (N) Female %, median age Study design Main findings
S3A Prolific (n ¼ 801) 56.4%, 34 Two-group (waste: use vs. Participants reacted less negatively to waste-
disposal), with individual ful use (vs. disposal)—evidenced by conse-
differences as covari- quential donation behavior and mediated by
ates, consequential DV environmental harm perceptions.
Hypotheses 1–3
The waste reaction difference was attenuated
among those who appreciate resource scar-
city or adopt a long-term orientation but was
unaffected by environmental consciousness.
Hypotheses 4 and 5
S3B Prolific (n ¼ 1,000) 51.8%, 35 2 (sustainability initiative: Participants reacted less favorably to sustain-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

use vs. disposal)  5 ability initiatives focused on wasteful use (vs.
(interventions: resource disposal) following the control, environmen-
scarcity, long-term ori- tal concern, and disposal harm interven-
entation, environmental tions—evidenced by consequential gift card
concern, disposal harm, choice. Hypotheses 1–3
and control), conse- The waste reaction difference was attenuated
quential DV following resource scarcity and long-term ori-
entation interventions. Hypotheses 4 and 5
S3C Ipsos (n ¼ 20,590) – Secondary data Consumers reported less environmental con-
cern about resource use than disposal
waste. Hypothesis 2
Resource scarcity and long-term orientation
are associated with heightened consumer
concern about resource use (but not dis-
posal) at the country level. Hypotheses 4
and 5
SS1 Expert (n ¼ 23) 30.4%, 45–54 Survey Most experts believe wasteful use is as impor-
tant, if not more so, than wasteful disposal—
evidenced by resource allocation decisions
and environmental harm perceptions—con-
trary to the waste reaction difference
observed among lay consumers.
SS2 Student (n ¼ 100) 58.0%, 19 Two-group (sustainability Participants reacted less positively to com-
initiative: use vs. pany sustainability initiatives focused on
disposal) reducing resource use (vs. disposal), medi-
ated by environmental benefit perceptions.
(Ruled out alternative explanations of qual-
ity, price, competence, and warmth percep-
tions.) Hypotheses 1–3
SS3 Prolific (n ¼ 200) 50.8%, 39 2 (waste: use vs. disposal, Participants perceived wasteful use (vs. dis-
within-subject)  2 posal) as less environmentally harmful.
(waste magnitude: con- Accordingly, participants reacted less nega-
trol vs. explicit cue, tively to wasteful use (vs. disposal). This
between-subjects), pattern holds even in the presence of an
mixed design explicit cue of equivalent waste magnitude.
(Ruled out the alternative explanation of
waste magnitude perceptions.) Hypotheses
1–3
SS4 Mturk (n ¼ 100) 40.0%, 34 Survey Participants recalled fewer examples of waste-
ful use (vs. disposal), and rated examples of
wasteful use as less environmentally harm-
ful than examples of wasteful disposal.
Hypothesis 2 
SS5 Prolific (n ¼ 402) 42.8%, 35 2 (waste mitigation: use Participants reacted less positively to waste
vs. disposal)  2 (rela- mitigation emphasizing resource use (vs.
tionship cue: control vs. disposal) in the control condition, mediated
explicit cue) by environmental benefit perceptions.
Hypotheses 1–3
The waste reaction difference was attenuated
when the relationship between resource use
and disposal was made explicitly salient.

Note: S refers to studies in the main text and SS refers to supplementary studies in web appendix B.
XU AND BOLTON 235

REFERENCES Ding, Min, Rajdeep Grewal, and John Liechty (2005), “Incentive
Aligned Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research,
Alexander, Samuel and Simon Ussher (2012), “The Voluntary 42 (1), 67–82.
Simplicity Movement: A Multi-National Survey Analysis in Duan, Ran, Bruno Takahashi, and Adam Zwickle (2019),
Theoretical Context,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 12 (1), “Abstract or Concrete? The Effect of Climate Change Images
66–86. on People’s Estimation of Egocentric Psychological
Arkes, H. R. (1996), “The Psychology of Waste,” Journal of Distance,” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol,
Behavioral Decision Making, 9 (3), 213–24. England), 28 (7), 828–44.
Arnocky, Steven, Taciano L. Milfont, and Jeffrey R. Nicol (2014), Ecological Threat Register (2020), “Ecological Threat Register
“Time Perspective and Sustainable Behaviour: Evidence for 2020,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://ecological-
the Distinction between Consideration of Immediate and threatregister.org/.
Future Consequences,” Environment and Behavior, 46 (5), Fortune (2022), “We’re Running Out of Everything, From Water

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

556–82. to Rare Metals. Here are 10 Shocking Insights from a New
Assadourian, Erik (2010), “Transforming Cultures: From Report,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://fortune.
Consumerism to Sustainability,” Journal of Macromarketing, com/2022/03/01/resource-scarcity-new-report-bank-of-amer-
30 (2), 186–91. ica/.
Ayres, Robert U. and Allen V. Kneese (1969), “Production, Gertsakis, John and Helen Lewis (2003), “Sustainability and the
Consumption, and Externalities,” The American Economic Waste Management Hierarchy,” discussion paper,
Review, 59 (3), 282–97. EcoRecycle Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Behrens, Arno, Stefan Giljum, Jan Kovanda, and Samuel Niza Globe (2020), “Globe Project,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023.
(2007), “The Material Basis of the Global Economy: https://www.globeproject.com/.
Worldwide Patterns of Natural Resource Extraction and Gu, Dian, Jiang Jiang, Yue Zhang, Ying Sun, Wen Jiang, and
Their Implications for Sustainable Resource Use Policies,” Xiaopeng Du (2020), “Concern for the Future and Saving the
Ecological Economics, 64 (2), 444–53. Earth: When Does Ecological Resource Scarcity Promote
Better Cotton Initiative (2023), Last Accessed August 19, 2023. Pro-Environmental Behavior?,” Journal of Environmental
https://bettercotton.org/. Psychology, 72, 101501.
Bolton, Lisa E. and Joseph W. Alba (2012), “When Less Is More: Hamilton, Rebecca, Debora Thompson, Sterling Bone, Lan
Consumer Aversion to Unused Utility,” Journal of Consumer Nguyen Chaplin, Vladas Griskevicius, Kelly Goldsmith,
Psychology, 22 (3), 369–83. Ronald Hill, Deborah Roedder John, Chiraag Mittal, Thomas
Boretti, Alberto and Lorenzo Rosa (2019), “Reassessing the O’Guinn, Paul Piff, Caroline Roux, Anuj Shah, and Meng
Projections of the World Water Development Report,” npj Zhu (2019), “The Effects of Scarcity on Consumer Decision
Clean Water, 2 (1), 1–6. Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47
Braun, Michael and Eric M. Schwartz (2021), “The A/B Test (3), 532–50.
Deception: Divergent Delivery, Response Heterogeneity, and Haws, Kelly L., Karen Page Winterich, and Rebecca Walker
Erroneous Inferences in Online Advertising Field Naylor (2014), “Seeing the World through GREEN-Tinted
Experiments,” SMU Cox School of Business Research Paper, Glasses: Green Consumption Values and Responses to
21–10. Environmentally Friendly Products,” Journal of Consumer
Brock, T. C. (1968), “Implications of Commodity Theory for Psychology, 24 (3), 336–54.
Value Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, Hayes, Andrew F. (2022), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
ed. A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom, NY: and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Academic, 243–76. Approach, NY: Guilford Press.
Cannon, Christopher, Kelly Goldsmith, and Caroline Roux Hsee, Christopher K. (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An
(2019), “A Self-Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity,” Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (1), 104–27. Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational
Carmi, N. and E. Bartal (2014), “Perception of Environmental Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 247–57.
Threat in the Shadow of War: The Effect of Future Hsee, Christopher K. and Jiao Zhang (2010), “General
Orientation,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An Evaluability Theory,” Perspectives on Psychological
International Journal, 20 (3), 872–86. Science, 5 (4), 343–55.
Castelo, Noah, Bernd Schmitt, and Miklos Sarvary (2019), Hultman, Johan and Herve Corvellec (2012), “The European
“Human or Robot? Consumer Responses to Radical Waste Hierarchy: From the Sociomateriality of Waste to a
Cognitive Enhancement Products,” Journal of the Politics of Consumption,” Environment and Planning A:
Association for Consumer Research, 4 (3), 217–30. Economy and Space, 44 (10), 2413–27.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Inman, J. Jeffrey, Anil C. Peter, and Priya Raghubir (1997),
New York: HarperCollins. “Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating
Cooper, Tim (2005), “Slower Consumption Reflections on Deal Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 68–79.
Product Life Spans and the Throwaway Society,” Journal of Ipsos (2020), “Earth Day 2020: How Does the World View our
Industrial Ecology, 9 (1-2), 51–67. Changing Cliamte?,” data obtained from authors at Ipsos.
David Gardiner and Associate (2022), “40% of the Fortune 500 Joireman, Jeffrey A., Paul A. M. Van Lange, and Mark Van Vugt
Active in Climate Based Initiatives,” Last Accessed August (2004), “Who Cares about the Environmental Impact of
19, 2023. https://www.dgardiner.com/fortune-500-participa- Cars? Those with an Eye toward the Future,” Environment
tion-in-climate-based-initiatives-continues-to-rise/. and Behavior, 36 (2), 187–206.
236 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Kaiser, Florian G., Sybille Wölfing, and Urs Fuhrer (1999), One Planet (2022), “Natural-Resource Use and Environmental
“Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behaviour,” Journal Impacts,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://www.one-
of Environmental Psychology, 19 (1), 1–19. planetnetwork.org/SDG-12/natural-resource-use-environ-
Kang, Charles, Frank Germann, and Rajdeep Grewal (2016), mental-impacts.
“Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Outland Denim (2022), “Our Story,” Last Accessed November 7,
Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance,” 2022. https://www.outlanddenim.com/pages/our-story.
Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 59–79. Paharia, Neeru and Vanitha Swaminathan (2019), “Who Is Wary
Kropfeld, Maren Ingrid, Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno, and Danilo of User Design? The Role of Power-Distance Beliefs in
C. Dantas (2018), “The Ecological Impact of Preference for User-Designed Products,” Journal of
Anticonsumption Lifestyles and Environmental Concern,” Marketing, 83 (3), 91–107.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 37 (2), 245–59. Paton, Elizabeth (2018), “Burberry to Stop Burning Clothing and
Leal Filho, Walter, Luciana Brandli, Harri Moora, Jolita Other Goods It Can’t Sell,” The New York Times, Last
Kruopien_e, and Åsa Stenmarck (2016), “Benchmarking Accessed August 19, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

Approaches and Methods in the Field of Urban Waste 09/06/business/burberry-burning-unsold-stock.html.
Management,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, Price, Jane L. and Jeremy B. Joseph (2000), “Demand
4377–86. Management—A Basis for Waste Policy: A Critical Review
Lin, Ying-Ching and Chiu-chi Angela Chang (2012), “Double of the Applicability of the Waste Hierarchy in Terms of
Standard: The Role of Environmental Consciousness in Achieving Sustainable Waste Management,” Sustainable
Green Product Usage,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 125–34. Development, 8 (2), 96–105.
Lin, Szu-Tung and Han-Jen Niu (2018), “Green Consumption: Prothero, Andrea, Susan Dobscha, Jim Freund, William E
Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Consciousness, Kilbourne, Michael G. Luchs, Lucie K. Ozanne, and John
Social Norms, and Purchasing Behavior,” Business Strategy Thøgersen (2011), “Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities
and the Environment, 27 (8), 1679–88. for Consumer Research and Public Policy,” Journal of Public
Liu, Conghu, Wei Cai, Shun Jia, Mingyu Zhang, Huanyin Guo, Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 31–8.
Luoke Hu, and Zhigang Jiang (2018), “Emergy-Based Rachlin, Howard, Jay Brown, and David Cross (2000),
Evaluation and Improvement for Sustainable Manufacturing “Discounting in Judgments of Delay and Probability,”
Systems Considering Resource Efficiency and Environment Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (2), 145–59.
Performance,” Energy Conversion and Management, 177, Ramsey, Charles E. and Roy E. Rickson (1976), “Environmental
176–89. Knowledge and Attitudes,” The Journal of Environmental
Luo, Xueming and Chitra Bhanu Bhattacharya (2006), “Corporate Education, 8 (1), 10–8.
Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Reslan, Maya, Noah Last, Nehika Mathur, K. C. Morris, and
Value,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 1–18. Vincenzo Ferrero (2022), “Circular Economy: A Product
Machado, Carla Gonçalves, Mats Peter Winroth, and Elias Hans Life Cycle Perspective on Engineering and Manufacturing
Dener Ribeiro da Silva (2020), “Sustainable Manufacturing Practices,” Procedia CIRP, 105, 851–8.
in Industry 4.0: An Emerging Research Agenda,” Royzman, Edward B. and Jonathan Baron (2002), “The Preference
International Journal of Production Research, 58 (5), for Indirect Harm,” Social Justice Research, 15 (2), 165–84.
1462–84. Rozin, Paul, Claude Fischler, and Christy Shields-Argelès (2009),
Matz, Sandra, Michael Kosinski, Gideon Nave, and David “Additivity Dominance: Additives Are More Potent and
Stillwell (2017), “Psychological Targeting as an Effective More Often Lexicalized across Languages than Are
Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion,” Proceedings of the “Subtractives,” Judgment and Decision Making, 4 (6),
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 475–8.
America, 114 (48), 12714–9. Sachdeva, Sonya and Jiaying Zhao (2021), “Distinct Impacts of
Menon, Geeta, Priya Raghubir, and Norbert Schwarz (1995), Financial Scarcity and Natural Resource Scarcity on
“Behavioral Frequency Judgments: An Accessibility- Sustainable Choices and Motivations,” Journal of Consumer
Diagnosticity Framework,” Journal of Consumer Research, Behaviour, 20 (2), 203–17.
22 (2), 212–28. Sauve, Sebastien, Sophie Bernard, and Pamela Sloan (2016),
McFall-Johnsen, Morgan (2020), “These Facts Show How “Environmental Sciences, Sustainable Development and
Unsustainable the Fashion Industry Is,” World Economic Circular Economy: Alternative Concepts for Trans-
Forum, Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://www.wefo- Disciplinary Research,” Environmental Development, 17,
rum.org/agenda/2020/01/fashion-industry-carbon-unsustain- 48–56.
able-environment-pollution/. Schandl, Heinz, Marina Fischer-Kowalski, James West, Stefan
Mookerjee, Siddhanth Sid, Yann Cornil, and JoAndrea Hoegg Giljum, Monika Dittrich, Nina Eisenmenger, Arne Geschke,
(2021), “From Waste to Taste: How” Ugly” Labels Can Mirko Lieber, Hanspeter Wieland, Anke Schaffartzik,
Increase Purchase of Unattractive Produce,” Journal of Fridolin Krausmann, Sylvia Gierlinger, Karin Hosking,
Marketing, 85 (3), 62–77. Manfred Lenzen, Hiroki Tanikawa, Alessio Miatto, and
Morris, K. C. (2022), “Directions for Sustainable Manufacturing Tomer Fishman (2018), “Global Material Flows and
Standards: Towards the Circular Economy,” paper presented Resource Productivity: Forty Years of Evidence,” Journal of
at the 7th International Forum on Sustainable Manufacturing, Industrial Ecology, 22 (4), 827–38.
Lexington, KY. Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., Greg M. Bohlen, and Adamantios
Mullainathan, S. and Eldar Shafir (2013), Scarcity: Why Having Diamantopoulos (1996), “The Link between Green
Too Little Means So Much, NY: Henry Holt. Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental
Objective Lists (2020), “Country Similarity Index,” Last Accessed Consciousness,” European Journal of Marketing, 30 (5),
August 19, 2023. https://objectivelists.com/. 35–55.
XU AND BOLTON 237

Securities and Exchange Commission (2022), “SEC Proposes —— (2022), “Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production
Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Patterns,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://sdgs.un.
Disclosures for Investors,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. org/goals/goal12.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46. UN Fashion Alliance (2023), “UN Alliance for Sustainable
Shah, Anuj K., Sendhil Mullainathan, and Eldar Shafir (2012), Fashion,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://unfashio-
“Some Consequences of Having Too Little,” Science (New nalliance.org/.
York, N.Y.), 338 (6107), 682–5. University of Delaware (2017), “Warning of Shortage of Essential
Soman, Dilip, George Ainslie, Shane Frederick, Xiuping Li, John Minerals for Laptops, Cellphones, Wiring,” Last Accessed
Lynch, Page Moreau, Andrew Mitchell, Daniel Read, Alan August 19, 2023. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
Sawyer, Yaacov Trope, Klaus Wertenbroch, and Gal 2017/03/170320110042.htm.
Zauberman (2005), “The Psychology of Intertemporal Van Ewijk, S. and J. A. Stegemann (2016), “Limitations of the
Discounting: Why Are Distant Events Valued Differently Waste Hierarchy for Achieving Absolute Reductions in
from Proximal Ones?,” Marketing Letters, 16 (3-4), 347–60. Material Throughput,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 132,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/51/2/212/7280704 by Jnls Cust Serv on 31 July 2024

Statista (2023), “U.S. Coupon Market Trends – Statistics & 122–8.
Facts,” Last Accessed June 9, 2023. https://www.statista. Varey, Richard J. (2011), “A Sustainable Society Logic for
com/topics/1156/coupon-market-trends-in-the-united-states/ Marketing,” Social Business, 1 (1), 69–83.
#topicOverview. Weiner, Bernard (2000), “Attributional Thoughts about Consumer
Strathman, Alan, Faith Gleicher, David S. Boninger, and C. Scott Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 382–7.
Edwards (1994), “The Consideration of Future White, Katherine, Rishad Habib, and David J Hardisty (2019),
Consequences: Weighing Immediate and Distant Outcomes “How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to Be More
of Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework,”
66 (4), 742–52. Journal of Marketing, 83 (3), 22–49.
Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2022), “The Higg Index,” Last Wilson, Anne V. and Silvia Bellezza (2022), “Consumer
Accessed August 19, 2023. https://apparelcoalition.org/the- Minimalism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 48 (5),
higg-index/. 796–816.
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (2022), Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug (2015),
“Metrics and Targets,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. “The Role of Moral Emotions and Individual Differences in
https://www.tcfdhub.org/metrics-and-targets/. Consumer Responses to Corporate Green and Non-Green
The World Counts (2020), “Are We Destroying Our Actions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43
Environment?” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. https://www. (3), 333–56.
theworldcounts.com/stories/environmental-degradation- Xu, Haiyue (Felix), Lisa E. Bolton, and Karen Page Winterich
facts. (2021), “How Do Consumers React to Company Moral
Trudel, Remi and Jennifer J. Argo (2013), “The Effect of Product Transgressions? The Role of Power Distance Belief and
Size and Form Distortion on Consumer Recycling Behavior,” Empathy for Victims,” Journal of Consumer Research, 48
Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 632–43. (1), 77–101.
United Nations (2019), “We’re Gobbling up the Earth’s Resources Zhu, Meng and Rebecca K. Ratner (2015), “Scarcity Polarizes
at an Unsustainable Rate,” Last Accessed August 19, 2023. Preferences: The Impact on Choice among Multiple Items in
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/were-gobbling- a Product Class,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1),
earths-resources-unsustainable-rate. 13–26.
© 2024 Journal of Consumer Research Inc. Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the
property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.