Study identifies harmful paradox behind well-meaning green efforts

When hotels replace single-use toiletries with refillable dispensers, or companies strip unnecessary items from product bundles to cut waste, they may expect consumers to welcome these changes as environmentally responsible. 

However, a new study has identified what the authors call ‘sustainable additive bias’ – a tendency for consumers to view businesses as more sustainable when they add eco-friendly items rather than remove them. This holds true even when removal leads to lower waste and a smaller environmental footprint. 

“People often assume that the more eco-friendly products a company provides, the more sustainable it must be,” notes Dr Diletta Acuti of the University of Bath School of Management in the UK. 

“But sustainability is not necessarily about adding more. It is often about reducing what we produce, conserving resources and avoiding things that people do not really need. An extra product does not become sustainable simply because it carries an eco-friendly label.” 

Published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the research by the University of Bath and several other academic institutions drew on nine studies covering hotels, consumer products, conferences, festivals and trade shows, and a field study involving hotel guests. 

Little credit for reduced or removed products 

The researchers found that people consistently rewarded visible eco-friendly additions such as reusable bottles, organic toiletries and sustainable gift items. But they gave little credit to businesses that reduced or removed products.  

In one hotel experiment involving 302 guests, rooms stocked with a larger selection of eco-friendly amenities were rated as more sustainable than rooms with a minimal set. 

“The problem is that adding something is visible, while removing something is not. Consumers can see the bamboo accessory, reusable bottle or eco-friendly hotel toiletry, and may interpret it as evidence that a company is making an effort. When a business removes unnecessary products to save resources, customers cannot see what is no longer there, so that action may receive much less recognition,” Acuti explains. 

The researchers say they’re encouraged that the study shows the ‘sustainability additive bias’ can be reduced by clearly communicating the environmental effort behind removing products, and by retaining highly recognisable sustainability signals, such as refillable bottles or reusable products. 

“Our findings highlight the urgent need for businesses, policymakers and consumers alike to rethink the assumption that sustainability always means adding more environmentally friendly products,” Acuti states.  

“Business should explain when items have been removed to save resources or prevent waste. They could also make reduction more visible, for example by replacing several miniature toiletry bottles with one clearly labelled refillable dispenser.” 

Acuti believes businesses should explain when items have been removed to save resources or prevent waste. They could also make reduction more visible, for example by replacing several miniature toiletry bottles with one clearly labelled refillable dispenser. 

“A hotel may look greener when a room is filled with eco-labelled toiletries and other sustainable-looking products, but providing more items can also mean more production, packaging and waste,” she says. 

You can read the research paper here.