Green Claims vs. Green Purchases: Unpacking the Consumer Paradox in Personal Care
In the bustling market of personal care, products touting environmental and social responsibility have become ubiquitous. Yet, despite widespread consumer claims of desiring a sustainable lifestyle, a recent study reveals a surprising disconnect between stated intentions and actual buying behaviour. This research, conducted by Yewon Kim, an assistant professor of marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Kristina Brecko, PhD ’17, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Rochester, sheds light on the complex dynamics of sustainable consumerism and corporate strategy in an unregulated landscape.
The Gap Between Talk and Transactions
The study, which analysed six terabytes of sales data from 30,000 personal care products sold in the U.S. between 2012 and 2019, uncovered a significant trend: while over three-quarters of respondents in a 2022 survey expressed a desire for a sustainable lifestyle, their in-store purchases told a different story.
"It turns out that package size, ingredients, and brand name are much bigger drivers of purchases than sustainability," notes Kristina Brecko. The researchers also observed that sustainable products were often less expensive than comparable alternatives, suggesting that their eco-friendly claims weren't the primary motivator for purchase. This challenges the common assumption that consumer demand alone will drive widespread sustainable practices among large brands.
Decoding "Sustainable" Claims on Shelves
The analysis of product packaging revealed that approximately one-third of personal care items made at least one environmental or social claim. Specifically:
Nearly 29% were labelled "cruelty-free".
About 14% highlighted eco-friendly packaging.
Less than 3% mentioned broader environmental sustainability (e.g., reduced greenhouse emissions) or social responsibility (e.g., fair-trade certification).
This prevalence of certain claims over others points to an industry catering to more immediately visible or easily verifiable attributes, often without stringent governmental oversight.
Small Brands Leading the Green Charge
A fascinating finding from the study is the contrasting approach of large versus small brands. The research indicates that larger, established brands tend to offer fewer sustainable options. Even within a single company, "large manufacturers provide sustainable options through their smaller brands rather than adding them to their established brands," explains Yewon Kim.
There are two primary reasons for this strategic differentiation:
Cost of Adaptation: Modifying existing product lines to meet sustainability standards can be expensive, and large manufacturers often perceive a lack of strong consumer concern for sustainability among their loyal customer base.
Greenwashing Suspicion: Consumers tend to be more wary of large corporations engaging in "greenwashing"—making misleading claims about their products' environmental benefits. Smaller, "fringe" brands are often perceived as more authentic in their sustainability commitments.
Consequently, major players like Unilever (owning Schmidt's Deodorant Company), Colgate-Palmolive (owning Tom's of Maine), and Clorox (owning Burt's Bees) have strategically acquired or launched smaller, mission-driven brands to introduce sustainable products to the market. This strategy has proven effective, as sustainable products from small brands saw their market share in personal care surge from under 5% in 2012 to 20% by 2019. Consumers, it seems, are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products from brands they perceive as genuinely committed to their eco-friendly mission.
The Role of Regulation in Driving Change
The study suggests that genuine, widespread investment in sustainable practices by large brands will likely require more than just consumer preference. "Based on consumer purchases alone, large brands with high brand equity have little incentive to widely incorporate these sustainability features," Kim emphasises.
However, a shift in regulatory landscapes is beginning to emerge. The European Union, for instance, has more stringent rules, requiring companies to substantiate environmental claims with evidence of reduced environmental impact. Brecko highlights that new EU regulations prevent companies from using "green-sounding" words without concrete proof of sustainability standards.
In the United States, there's a growing push for stronger regulation in the personal care sector, spurred by concerns over toxic chemicals. The Modernisation of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a significant expansion of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) oversight authority since 1938. Simultaneously, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is increasing its prosecution of deceptive environmental claims. States are also enacting their own mandates; California's 2020 ban on animal-tested cosmetics has since been followed by 11 other states.
Kim and Brecko are currently researching the impact of these recent laws on the personal care industry. They anticipate that even local mandates, particularly from large states like California, could compel national brands to adjust their entire product lines to ensure compliance, signalling a future where regulation, rather than consumer intent alone, becomes a primary driver for sustainable transformation.
Disclaimer: This article synthesises findings from a study by Yewon Kim and Kristina Brecko and incorporates insights from relevant research. The personal care industry and its regulatory environment are continuously evolving, and the information presented here reflects the state of understanding at the time of publication. Consumers and businesses are encouraged to consult official sources and expert advice for the most current information and guidance.