HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US

The public is deeply divided and conflicted on the issue of whether human activity is causing global climate change.  Businesses like Wal-Mart and political figures like Barack Obama and John McCain can neither ignore nor fully embrace the option of “going green” without risking alienating or being ignored by a substantial segment of the public.

When asked directly, just over a third (38%) of all consumers agree “very strongly” that human activity is causing global climate change and environmental damage.  Call them “Believers.”  An additional 39% “somewhat” agree.  Call them “Skeptics.”  Only 23% of consumers flatly deny that global climate is in progress.  Call them “Rejecters.” 

Even though a 77% majority agrees “strongly” (38%) or “somewhat” (39%) that human activity is causing global climate, fewer than 2% of the nation spontaneously name as national problems changes that may be symptomatic of global climate change, such as the disappearance of polar ice, air pollution, hurricanes, floods, rising temperatures, or other concrete signs that the global climate is changing.

The public is not experiencing the symptoms of climate change directly and vividly enough to mention them spontaneously when asked to name problems.

One national problem – the high cost of energy and dwindling natural resources – that is associated with climate change does get mentioned spontaneously by half (51%) of all the public.  It is not surprising, given pain at paying the high cost of gasoline and home heating that consumers are acting vigorously to change their behavior in order to reduce their use of gasoline and heating fuel. 

While consumers are acting to cut their use of energy, they temporize on taking the full scale actions and making the sacrifices required to reduce pollution and slow global warming. A report based on our August 2007 survey data titled “America’s Pastel ‘Green’ Revolution”  states that:

“Given parity in price, performance, safety and availability, consumers buy “green.”  Otherwise, selfish concerns govern consumer purchase decisions…

“The reward to manufacturers, retailers and service providers for going “green” is a reduction in their cost of advertising and marketing, not a license to sell inferior product for premium prices.”

(Source: Leo J. Shapiro & Associates tracking survey, based on telephone interviews with a fresh sample of 480 consumers sampled nationally each month.)

“Going green,” at minimum, reduces the cost of marketing, even when the personal benefit to the consumer is not immediately apparent.  At maximum, “going green” can deliver a substantial competitive advantage when the improved product – like the Prius – yields an immediate benefit to the customer as well as contributes to slowing global climate change.

In anticipating behavior related to global climate change, account needs be taken of differences between Believers, Skeptics and Rejecters with respect to their demographic profiles, financial situations, and political preferences.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Believers are somewhat younger than the balance of the population.  Their annual income of $54K is roughly equal to the annual incomes of Skeptics ($55K).  Rejecters have substantially higher incomes ($64K) than Believers or Skeptics.

Both Believers and Skeptics are more likely than Rejecters to feel depressed financially.  The Shapiro Consumer Affordability Index (CBI), which measures how able consumers feel they are to sustain their current level of spending, is only 77 for both Believers and Skeptics compared to 90 for Rejecters.

Rejecters are more engaged in and more bullish about the stock market than Believers or Skeptics.  The percent reporting having savings invested in stocks or in mutual funds that invest in stocks is 45% for Believers, 47% for Skeptics, and 52% for Rejecters.

The ratio of intended buyers to sellers of common stock in the event of a 10% decline in the Dow is 0.55 buyers to one seller among Believers, 1.54 buyers to one seller among Skeptics, and 3.34 buyers to one seller among Rejecters.

A higher proportion of Black consumers are included among Believers (15%) than among Skeptics (10%) or Rejecters (6%).  By contrast, the proportion of Hispanics in relatively equal between Believers (12%),Skeptics (14%) and Rejecters (12%).

View table

SPENDING 

In June 2008, Believers cut back on spending for food, clothing, and medical expenses – but not gasoline – more harshly than did Rejecters.  The Shapiro Index tracking spending for consumables was only 67 for Believers, which is somewhat lower than the 82 Index for Skeptics but substantially lower than the Index of 94 for Rejecters.

The Shapiro Index tracking active shopping for housing and other major goods was lowest at 70 for Believers, compared to an Index of Index of 78 for Skeptics and 98 for Rejecters..  Active shopping for major goods includes reading ads, checking prices, and visiting dealers in an effort to purchase housing, new cars, furniture, and a basket of seven other major goods.

View table

 

While the Index tracking overall active shopping for major goods was lower for Believers than Rejecters, a higher proportion of Believers than Rejecters reported that they shopped actively for housing and used cars.

POLITICS

Believers are substantially more likely to lean Democratic than Republican (61% to 17%).  Rejecters are more likely to lean Republican than Democratic (63% to 21%).  Skeptics are more likely to lean Democrat (48%) than Republican (26%).

When asked, “If your candidate for President teams up with your choice of a running mate, who would you most likely vote for?” More than twice as many Believers announced they would vote for Barack Obama than for John McCain (31% to 12%).  Rejecters by large a margin announced they would vote for McCain over Obama (41% versus 4%).  Skeptics divided 21% to 15% in favor of Obama over McCain.

Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain currently has enough support from members of their own party to win in the general election.  Both need to attract votes from members of their own party if they are to win in 2008.

Currently, the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns differ sharply in the programs they offer to solve the problem of the high cost of energy and lack of natural resources, which is named spontaneously as a major problem facing the nation by 57% of Believers, 52% of Rejecters and 47% of Skeptics.

Barack Obama opposes and John McCain favors opening offshore field for exploration and drilling for oil and gas.    

View table

WAL-MART VERSUS TARGET

Wal-Mart has launched a cause-related brand-building effort aimed at communicating its corporate commitment to serve society by acting vigorously to protect the environment and slow global warming.  Target aims to communicate that it can be trusted to serve the needs of the community.

In contrast, the focus of Target’s cause-related marketing is its charitable contributions – its commitment to return 5% of its profits to charities serving the communities in which it does business. 

The June survey relates each company’s reputation for protecting the environment and slowing global warming to the company’s reputation for trustworthiness and the quality of its stores. 

Only consumers who claim to be familiar with a company are asked to rate it.  The survey finds that consumers are somewhat more likely to say they are familiar with Wal-Mart than say they are familiar with Target. 

Wal-Mart’s aggressive promotion of its efforts to protect the environment appears to be having an impact on its reputation for green, specifically, Wal-Mart’s rating of 6.17 on a nine-point scale for protecting the environment is significantly better than Target’s rating of 5.83.

Target has a marginally better mean rating than Wal-Mart for trustworthiness. The two chains have virtually identical ratings for their stores.

View table

…Spillover effect of “green”

The higher a chain’s rating for “green” the higher that chain’s rating is for trustworthiness and for stores.

Among consumers who give Wal-Mart and Target a rating of “9” for “green”, Wal-Mart rates higher than Target for stores. Otherwise Target rates higher than Wal-mart for stores.

Regardless of ratings for “green” Target rates higher than Wal-Mart for trustworthiness.

View table

…Spillover effect of “trustworthiness.”

Trustworthiness is the key to brand appeal in that it signals that the brand will fulfill its promises.

Among consumers who rate Target and Wal-Mart equally for trustworthiness, Wal-Mart’s reputation for “green” and for “stores’ is superior to Target’s.

View table

RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

8Sages conducts tracking research on “green” continuously but reports findings only periodically.  Those interested in more frequent and more detailed reports on the findings of “green” research should click here to secure free updates. 

Currently available via email is a report comparing the reputation ratings for Bank of America and JP Morgan for “green”, “trustworthiness” and quality of services.

Click here to request cross-tabulations of data presented in this report or to be kept informed of additional data that is being developed on “green.” 

To be kept informed about further findings from ongoing research on this topic, contact 8SAGES.com.

ALSO SEE THE TWO PRIOR GREEN ARTICLES

Brazil Leads Way to Save Energy March 27, 2008

Can Consumer Preference for "Green" Products Help the Environment March 27, 2008

HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US
Copyright 2008 SAGE Survival and Growth Enterprise LLC. All Rights Reserved.