Effects of Environmental Concern On Attitudes and Behavior of Female Cosmetics Buyers: An Exploratory Study

by
Karen Nelson©

Fall 1993

Submitted to the Committee on Undergraduate Honors of Baruch College of the City University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Business Administration with Honors

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Trends in Consumer Concern for the Environment

Consumer Empowerment

2. FACTORS CONSUMERS CONSIDER WHEN CHOOSING PRODUCTS THAT THEY FEEL ARE SAFER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Manufacturer reputation

Product/Packaging/Labeling

Will consumers pay more?

3. CHANGES MADE BY COSMETIC PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS

Product

• Ingredients
  
• Animal Testing
  
• Packaging

Promotions

• Advertising
  
• Public Relations

Distribution

Price

4. SURVEY OF BARUCH COLLEGE FEMALE STUDENTS

Presentation of Survey Results

Survey Conclusion

5. CONCLUSION
6. Endnotes
7. WORKS CITED
8. APPENDIX

List of Tables

Table 2.4 Buying and Using Environmentally Sound Products Will Help the Environment
Table 2.5 Avoid Excessive Packaging Because It Is Environmentally Harmful
Table 3.1 The Body Shop-Internal Principles
Table 3.2 The Body Shop-External Principles
Table 3.3 Trade-Not-Aid Programs
Table 4.1 Demographic Composition of Baruch College Survey
Table 4.2 Concern for Environmental Issues
Table 4.5 Types of Brands Purchased
Table 4.6 Factors that Influence Purchasing Decisions
Table 4.10 Awareness of Environmental Issues Surrounding Products in the Cosmetic Market

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Environmentally Sound Products Introduced from 1985-1990
Figure 2.2 Trend in Consumer Concern of Environmental Issues
Figure 2.3 Areas of Concern
Figure 2.6 Likeliness to Purchase a Product Because of Its Environmental Claims
Figure 2.7 Read Labels to Check Environmental Safety
Figure 2.8 Believe a Product Label Claiming That It Is Better for the Environment
Figure 2.9 Label Readership and Willingness to Pay More
Figure 2.10 Willingness to Pay Extra for an Environmentally Sound Product
Figure 2.11 Willingness to Pay Higher Prices So That Industry Could Better Preserve and Protect the Environment
Figure 2.12 Quality of Environmentally Sound Products Compared With Those That Are Not
Figure 4.3 Frequency of Purchases
Figure 4.4 Place of Purchase
Figure 4.7 Sources of Information
Figure 4.8 Environmental Movement is a Fad
Figure 4.9 Likeliness of Buying Products Based on Product Claims
Figure 4.11 Willingness to Pay More for Environmentally Sound Cosmetics
Figure 4.12 Awareness of Environmental Responsibility In Various Categories
Figure 4.13 Perceived Environmental Responsibility of Cosmetic Companies

Purpose of Paper

I decided to pursue honors work during the summer 1992 session, while attending market research 3600. I became very interested in learning more about how and why companies develop new products and target new markets, and about survey development and analysis. As I was planning my fall 1992 schedule I came across the marketing honors section. I thought that this would be a wonderful opportunity to further my education in market research and apply it two areas which have interested me - cosmetics and the environment.

I have been employed at Macy's since 1988, and have worked in cosmetics since 1989. I have always been fascinated by the numerous product introductions and the sales promotions to back them up. Around 1990, I began to notice more and more cosmetics products offering natural ingredients and reduced packaging. I wondered what led to this change, but never considered studying it too carefully.

An assignment I did for one of my classes required that I examine a new trend and write a brief report on it. The subject of my report was Earth Day 1990. I do not really know what led to my concern for the environment, only that seeing animals subjected to senseless testing, and watching the devastating effects of the recent oil spills on marine creatures horrified me.

In terms of an industry which has responded to increased environmental concern by consumers, the cosmetics industry is the most interesting. The manufacturers of cosmetic products who wish to improve their environmental image can do many things. For instance, they can modify their ingredients, reduce packaging, discontinue animal testing, support pro-environmental groups, etc. Other industries are limited to what they can do to help the environment, and their changes may not be as visible i.e. reducing auto emissions is not as obvious a change as promoting the use of natural ingredients or package reduction.

I developed a survey to measure Baruch College female students' attitudes, awareness, and purchasing behavior of environmentally sound cosmetic products. I focused the survey on environmentally sound cosmetic products for two reasons: I have a genuine interest in cosmetics and the environment, and I felt that Baruch College females would be more familiar and be would be more interested with cosmetic products than any other types of products.

Acknowledgments

There are many people and organizations without whose assistance this paper would not have been possible. Professor Rosen, my faculty advisor; Professor McMellon, who guided me in survey development and for teaching me how to analyze data; Professors Lee, Elam and Ducoffe, for distributing my questionnaire; Professor Sandier, who kept me motivated; In Business Magazine for waiving the conference fee for the 4th Annual In Business Magazine National Conference in October 1992; Alan Greco, President of Paul Sebastian; Susan Cohen of the Environmental Defense Fund; James Murphy, President of Research International, who provided me with crucial information; Horst Rechelbacher, President of Aveda Corporation and Judy Messig, Customer Service Training Manager for The Body Shop, for agreeing to an interview: Susan Hayward, Senior Vice President of Yankelovich/Clancy/Schulman, for providing me with information from their 1993 MONITOR report; all the patient sales people at all of The Body Shop, Origins and countless other stores I visited to study their products - thanks for the free samples guys; and Tim Stark, my boyfriend, for his love and support, and his extreme patience throughout the year.

Scope/methodology

This paper examines the change in consumer concern for the environment over the past five years, how cosmetic manufacturers have changed their products, packaging, promotion, and placement strategies in order to appeal to the environmentally conscious consumer, and examines Baruch College female students' attitudes, awareness, and purchasing behavior of environmentally sound cosmetic products.

The first two sections of the paper are based on surveys published during the past few years. It should be noted that many expels have questioned many of the survey results. They feel that surveys about the environment record only what consumers would like to do, or what they think is the socially correct answer. Therefore, it would not be prudent for the reader to draw conclusions from the survey results. Rather, the survey results should give the reader better insight into how consumers feel about the environment and how they would purchase products in order to help the environment.

Primary data was collected using surveys, personal interviews, and correspondence with manufacturers and retailers of cosmetic products. A survey of 145 Baruch College female students' was conducted during the Spring 1993 semester to ascertain their attitudes, awareness and purchasing behavior of environmentally sound cosmetic products. The sample size was established in consultation with professor McMellon.

Outline

The paper is presented in four sections. The first section introduces the paper and examines the trend in consumer concern for the environment and how consumers feel they can help. The second section examines the factors consumers consider when purchasing products they feel are better for the planet, such as company reputation, product ingredients and packaging, and whether or not consumers will pay more for products that benefit the environment. The third section examines how cosmetic manufacturers have modified their products to make them more environmentally sound by changing the product ingredients, packaging, discontinuing animal testing, promotion and placement. The final section of the paper examines Baruch College female students attitudes and awareness of changes made by the cosmetics industry and their purchasing behavior of environmentally sound cosmetic products.

The objectives of this paper are to:

1. Examine the factors consumers consider when purchasing products they feel are safer for the environment
2. To examine how cosmetic manufacturers have modified their marketing mixes to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers
3. To survey and examine Baruch College female students' attitudes, awareness and purchasing behavior of environmentally sound cosmetic products.

Introduction

The decade of *green" began with the 20th anniversary of Earth Day in April 1990 which introduced mainstream America to the environmental problems facing the planet and what they could do to help. Consumers, government officials, environmental groups, and pro-environmental companies joined together to celebrate Earth Day by providing sponsorship, speaking, or attending. It became clear after the event that consumers now were empowered by the strength of their wallets and pocketbooks to help protect the planet. Companies whose policies or practices harmed the planet were now at risk of severe consumer backlash.

Consumers are deeply committed to helping the environment as illustrated by a survey conducted by Golin/Harris Communications and the Angus Reid Group which found that 74 percent of Americans feel that environmental protection is so important that they will accept slower economic growth to help the environment (Wasik 1992). Another survey conducted by Research International in 1990, found that 66 percent of Americans would lead a less lavish lifestyle to preserve the environment (Cambridge Reports).

Marketers have caught on quickly, and are now introducing many more pro-environmental products as Figure 2.1 illustrates. The number of new environmentally sound products introduced in supermarkets from 1985 to 1990 rose from 24 in 1985 to over 300 in 1990.

The number of new pro-environmental product introductions has raised concern among government officials and environmental groups. Products claiming to be safer for the environment have come under close scrutiny. Manufacturers using ambiguous terms such as biodegradable and recyclable are misleading the public because everything eventually biodegrades and recyclable means nothing it what is supposed to be recycled can not be done in all areas. The overuse of terms like these have led to numerous attacks by government officials and pro-environmental groups. Mobil Oil was sued by the Minnesota Attorney General for claiming that Hefty garbage bags were biodegradable. The end result was a public relations disaster for Mobil who quickly had to publicly retract the claims and apologize for any confusion caused.

Figure 2.1 Environmentally Sound Products Introduced from 1985-1990. Source: "Shopping Right." Environmental Action. Nov/Dec. 1990, 20

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Consumer confusion has greatly increased. Consumers are unsure of which claims to believe and which claims not to. Consumers who wish to make a difference in the environment have to become smarter shoppers and fully examine not only product d aims, but also have to become knowledgeable about the bigger issues, such as the reputation of the companies who manufacture products. Some companies have tried to hide poor environmental performance by advertising pro-environmental activities, such as donations to pro-environmental organizations, or by modifying their operations in only one country, while continuing to harm the planet by continuing to pollute the planet in other countries.

Trends in Consumer Concern

The commitment consumers have to protecting and enhancing the environment has grown steadily over the past ten years according to the Yankelovich MONITOR. When consumers were asked if they would stop using products and services that are detrimental to the planet and/or if they would be willing to spend time, money and effort in the interests of the environment, growing numbers responded that they would. The most significant change occurred from 1986 to 1990 where concern increased 13 percentage points from 16 to 29 percent (see figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Trend in consumer concern of environmental issues Source: 1993 MONITOR, Yankelovich Partners, Page 493
* Measurement of concern about environment was discontinued with MONITOR 1986 and reinstated with MONITOR 1989

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

The increase in concern may be explained by a number of events including: the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Plant explosion which contaminated over 500,000 people: the March 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (1); concern over Ozone depletion and the use of aerosol: the medical waste washing up on the eastern seaboard; and other incidents such as Mobro, the New York City garbage barge that nobody wanted initiating the debate over landfills and other garbage disposal problems

Concern peaked in 1990. This may be attributable to the widespread media attention paid to Earth Day 1990 which introduced middle America to environmental issues for the first time, says Walter Coddington, president of Persuasion Environmental Marketing (Penzer 1990).

The downward trend from 1990 - 1992 may be attributable to over saturation of the media of environmental issues. Another factor may be the rise in environmental practices like recycling which researchers say make people feel the problems axe becoming less urgent (Daniel 1992). Furthermore, many observers have stated that the decline might reflect that concern for the environment is a fad (Wasik 1992). Others mention that recessionary pressures have been too tough on consumers and that they are unable to be concerned for much else even though surveys indicated that protecting the environment was as important as fixing the economy (Hisey 1992).

Consumers are concerned about toxic waste, solid waste, destruction of natural resources, air pollution, water pollution, global warming, and other areas including animal testing. A 1992 survey published in American Demographics sheds light on the areas causing American consumers the most concern (see figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 Areas of concern. Source: Blue Print for Green Marketing: American Demographics. April 1992, 36

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Consumer Empowerment

Consumers can help the environment: by making contributions to pro-environmental organizations, by actively recycling and reducing waste, or by purchasing products which do not harm the planet. According the 1991 Environmental Study by Readers Digest, 98 percent of Americans say they are willing to change their buying habits in order to ensure a cleaner world (Hume 1991).

As Table 2.4 illustrates, consumers feel that the single most important thing they can do to help the environment is to purchase products that are safer for the environment.

Table 2.4 Buying and using environmentally safe products is the single most important thing I can do to help the environment. Source:. The Green Revolution and the Changing American Consumer. Cambridge Reports. Research International October 1990,11.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Consumers appear to be following through with their sentiments. Eighty-two percent of Americans polled by Gerstman and Meyers said they have changed their purchasing patterns based on environmental concerns (Roach 1991). According to a survey conducted by the Michael Peters Group, 89 percent of Americans are concerned about the impact their purchases have on the environment {Gill 1990).

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Manufacturer Reputation

One of the first things consumers consider when making pro-environmental purchases is the reputation of the manufacturer. Seventy-five percent of consumers surveyed in a nation-wide Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll in August 1991, stated that environmental reputation of a manufacturer is a crucial factor to consider when deciding which products to purchase (Daniel 1992). Fogy-six percent of consumers surveyed in that same poll, stated that they buy products solely on the environmental reputation of the manufacturer. Other surveys including one conducted for Advertising Age by the Gallup Organization found that 92 percent of men and 96 percent of women are willing to make special efforts to purchase products from companies trying to protect the environment (Hume 1989).

Companies that are known as environmentally sound generally are those who have made protecting the environment a top priority. Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop, Toms of Maine, McDonalds, Lever Brothers, Proctor & Gamble all have departments which deal exclusively with the environmental issues surrounding their products. Donations to environmental groups and sponsorship of events like Earth Day and EcoFest heighten consumer awareness of companies who are concerned about the environment.

There appears to be three ways a company comes to be known by consumers as environmentally unfriendly. The most obvious way is for companies to pollute the environment through harmful industrial emissions or through the irresponsible dumping of chemicals. Dow Chemical and Union Carbide are good examples. The second way is to make deceptive or misleading product claims about the disposability or recyclability of the product and/or the packaging. The third way is a Catch-22 for manufacturers. If manufacturers promote pro-environmental aspects of a product, they run the risk of scrutiny by the government or pro-environmental groups. If they don't, they run the risk of losing market share to a competitor who promotes pro-environmental aspects. Lever Brothers quickly differentiated Wisk Detergent as the leader in environmental benefits by prominently displaying messages about the use of recycled materials in package production and by encouraging consumers to reuse and recycle plastic. Proctor & Gamble soon followed by offering refills packaged in cardboard so that consumers could reuse plastic containers thereby reducing solid waste.

Not all consumers are aware of which companies are pro-environmental. Sixty-six percent of consumers polled by the first Annual Gallup Organization "Green Marketing" Environmental Study, could not name a manufacturer which is pro-environmental (Darnel 1992).

Numerous books and magazines published recently have helped increase consumer awareness of which manufacturers are trustworthy. Books such as, The Green Consumer by, John Elkington, Julia Hailes and Joel Makower; The Green Pages by, The Bennit Information Group; Shopping For a Better Environment by, Lawrence Tasaday; NonToxic, Natural & Earthwise by, Debra Lynn Dadd and What Can I do to Make a Difference by, Richard Zimmerman and magazines such as In Business, Garbage, E Magazine, Green Market Alert and others report on products introduced that are safer for the environment as well report on companies that have poor environmental records.

Product ingredients, packaging and labeling

What exactly makes a product environmentally sound has been a source of serious debate among environmentalists, government officials, manufacturing companies and consumers. Are a products ingredients alone sufficient enough for a product to be considered environmentally sound, or does the packaging have to be safe as well? According to John Elkington, Julia Hailes and Joel Makower's book, The Green Consumer {p. 7) the following criteria should be used to determine whether or not a product is environmentally sound:

[ ] is the product dangerous to the health of people or animals?

[ ] Does the product cause damage to the environment during manufacture, use, or disposal

[ ] Does the product consume a disproportionate amount of energy and other resources during manufacture, use, or disposal

[ ] Does the product cause unnecessary waste, due either to excessive packaging or to a short useful life

[ ] Does the product involve the unnecessary use of or cruelty to animals

[ ] Does the product use materials derived from threatened species or environments

Consumers have a definite preference for products that are safer for the environment. Eighty-three percent of consumers surveyed by Gerstman and Meyers prefer environmentally sound products (Dagnoli 1991). Seventy-one percent of consumers polled by Opinion Research Corporation have switched brands in order to purchase products that are safer for the environment (Voss 1991). In addition, 56 percent of consumers surveyed by Gerstman and Meyers refused to buy products during the past year because of environmental concerns (Roach 1991). A survey taken by Research International of Cambridge, Massachusetts found that 57 percent avoid products that are not safe for environment on a regular basis (Frankel 1992).

Consumers feel that products using minimal packaging are also better for the environment. A survey taken by Research International asking consumers if they avoid products because of excessive packaging found that 57 percent do at least some of the time (see figure 2.5). Seventy-five percent of consumers surveyed by the Michael Peters Group stated they are likely to purchase products in biodegradable packaging or products packaged using recycled content {Gill 1990). Sixty-three percent of consumers surveyed by Angus Reid said that they avoid products with excessive packaging (Ottman 1992).

Table 2.5 How often do you avoid purchasing certain kinds of products because the packaging is excessive or environmentally harmful? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its Impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International September 1991: 26.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

As mentioned earlier, product labeling has come under intense scrutiny by the government, environmental organizations and consumers. Standards for environmentally sound claims have not yet been established, so consumers have had to rely on the truthfulness of pro-environmental claims made by manufacturers. A survey taken by the Hartman Group found that only 13 percent of American consumers believe that companies are trustworthy sources of information on their own product's environmental benefits (Frankel 1992).

The Federal Trade Commission has established guidelines for the usage of terms such as biodegradable and recyclable, but these guidelines only offer companies suggestions for usage and are not required. Independent organizations such as Green Cross and Green Seal have been working to establish criteria to judge and certify the pro-environmental claims made by products. Companies will pay these organizations to test their claims and certify that the products are eligible to bear their seal. One major drawback is that both of these organizations only measure and report on the claims made, and not on the whole product. That means a product can claim to have used recycled content in its packaging, and be certified with an environmental seal, while the rest of product may be harmful to the environment.

Environmental claims made on product labels seem to influence the purchase of the products. A survey in Advertising Age asked consumers, "compared to three years ago, how likely are you to purchase a product because of environmental claims?" found that 63 percent of the respondents said they are more likely (figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6 Compared to three years ago, how likely are you to purchase a product because of its environmental claims? Source: "Consumers Keen on Green but Marketers Don't Deliver. Advertising Age. 29 June 1992, 2.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

As figure 2.7 illustrates, in 1991 more consumers said that they read product labels more than they did in 1990.

Figure 2.7 In just the last week, have you really read the label on a product to find out whether or not it is better for the environment, or not? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its Impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991, 35.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Consumers have become somewhat skeptical over claims made by marketers due to recent attacks on companies who have mode deceptive claims by pro-environmental organizations. However, as figure 9.8 illustrates, consumers are more willing to believe pro-environmental claims than they are not.

Figure 2.8 When a product is labeled as environmentally friendly, do you generally believe that product really is better for the environment, or not? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its Impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991: 37.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

As figure 2.9 illustrates, labels not only inform the consumer as to the pro-environmental aspects of a product, they may even convince consumers to pay more for them Readers are more willing than non-readers to pay a premium for environmentally sound products.

Figure 2.9 Label Readership and Willingness to Pay More for Environmentally Sound Products Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its Impact on America's Consumers. Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991,33

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Will consumers pay more for environmentally sound products?

The issue of price and environmental benefits is a subject that is fiercely debated. Some argue that since many of the environmentally sound products offered are produced by small manufacturers, the savings mass produced products enjoy due to economies of scale are not possible. Additionally, large manufacturers with established or mature brands can offer discounts and coupons to induce trial purchases while smaller brands often do not have the same advantage (Ottman 1992). Others argue that marketers have abused consumers desire to protect the planet by offering products with questionable environmental benefits at an additional cost. Some consumers and experts feel that environmentally sound products should cost less due to minimal packaging - the consumer should not have to pay more for less. Many retailers have charged higher slotting lees/or environmentally sound products with the cost passed along to the consumer (Reitman 1992).

Regardless of whether or not environmentally sound products do in fact cost more, consumers feel that they do. According to a survey taken by Leo Burnett, 67 percent of Americans believe that environmentally sound products are expensive (Hume 199I).

A survey taken by GHI in conjunction with the Roper Organization found that 82 percent of Americans say they would pay more for a product perceived to be better for the environment (Voss 1991). Figure 2.10 indicates that 80 percent of those surveyed were willing to pay more in 1990 than in 1991.

Figure 2.10 If products that are environmentally friendly cost a little more than products that are not environmentally friendly, do you think you'd actually pay the added cost to purchase an environmentally sound product or not? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991: 32.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

A survey conducted by Yankelovich Partners found that 55 percent of consumers said that they would pay 10 percent more for products ii they could be sure that the product did not harm the environment (Yankelovich Partners 1992). A survey taken by The Roper Organization found that the average consumer would pay as much as 6.6 percent more for an environmentally safe product {Wasik 1992). Figure 2.11 illustrates that willingness to pay higher prices for products that benefit the environment slightly decreased from July 1986 to July 1989, but jumped 20 percent from July 89 to July 1990.

Figure 2.11 Increased efforts by business and industry to improve environmental quality could lead to higher consumer prices. Would you be willing to pay higher consumer prices so that industry could better preserve and protect the environment, or not? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991: 12.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

In terms of quality, consumers seem to feel that there is little tradeoff between pro-environmental product attributes and quality (Figure 12.12). According to professor Abhilasha Mehta at Syracuse University, Department of Advertising, "Consumers may be less concerned about buying socially prestigious brands than they were in the 80s. Only if the brand is demonstrable better in terms of quality will the consumer spend the extra money for the brand's prestigious name" (Manly 1992, p. 32).

Figure 2.12 In general, do you believe that products that are environmentally sound are higher quality, lower quality, or about the same quality as products that are not environmentally sound? Source: "Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its impact on America's Consumers." Cambridge Reports. Research International. September 1991: 34.

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Cosmetic Section

Numerous cosmetic manufacturers have made adjustments to their product, promotion and placement strategies to satisfy the demand of the environmentally conscious consumer. (2) Historically known for glitz and excessiveness, numerous new cosmetic products have changed the image of the cosmetics industry by offering consumers natural products which promote health as well as beauty.

There have been successive waves of 'natural' cosmetic products introduced since the mid-1960's. These products failed, however, as most consumers considered the products and environmental movement a tad (Brookman 1992). The trend toward natural ingredients and natural-based cosmetic products has accelerated over the past few years according to Alex Znaiden, director of R&D at Avon Skin Care Laboratories, New York (Ainsworth 1992). In 1992, health and beauty aids represented 20-30 percent of environmentally sound product introductions (Ottman 1992).

According to Allan Mottos, a cosmetics industry consultant, natural cosmetics now account for around 4 percent of the $16 billion US cosmetics market and the category is expected to grow 12 percent to 15 percent annually, about three times as fast as the industry as a whole (Chatzky 1992).

This section of the paper begins by briefly examining Aveda, The Body Shop and Estee Lauder's Origins, and then moves on to examine how marketing mixes can be altered to satisfy consumer demand for environmentally sound cosmetic products.

The Body Shop, Aveda, and Origins

Three of the biggest environmental cosmetic product companies, The Body Shop, Aveda, and Origins are all very different in structure, but basically identical in mission. Each seeks to help the environment by offering products that are safer for the environment. They all believe that educating consumers about the problems facing the environment is a top priority. A brief description of each company follows.

The Body Shop

The Body Shop was founded in England by Anita Roddick in 1976 as a result of her determination to form a company that uses raw materials from third world countries to make cosmetic products (Maikin 1990). Roddick worked for the United Nations, and this is where she gained hands-on experience on how a variety of third world cultures use raw materials to produce cosmetics. The experience also gave her first-hand observation of the devastating effects industrialization was having on third world countries.

The Body Shop has grown to over 900 stores operating in over 41 countries and operates on the premise that profits and principles go hand in hand. The Body Shop's business revolves around core values: concern for human and civil rights; care for the environment; and opposition to animal exploitation. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize their principles as presented in the 1993 Annual Report.

Table 3.1 The Body Shop - Internal Principles

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Table 3.2 Body Shop External Principles

[Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

The Body Shop has campaigned against animal testing in the cosmetics industry since 1987 and plans to continue until it is abolished. The Body Shop is also committed to establishing trading relationships with indigenous peoples around the globe, and is also committed to educating consumers about the environment and what can be done to help protect the planet.

The Body Shops' "trade-not-aid" program employs people in economically depressed areas to produce products made from raw materials in each of their countries. The program offers a positive solution to economic hardship in the world by providing communities with the tools and resources needed to support themselves, Some current Trade-not-aid programs are listed in table 3.3

[Table 3.3 Trade-Not-Aid Programs
Due to copyright restrictions, this figure/table is only available in the print version in the Baruch College Library]

Aveda

Aveda was formed in 1978 by Austrian-born Horst Rechelbacher. Rechelbacher was not satisfied with petroleum-based hair, skin and beauty products that dominated the market in the 1960s, so he began formulating his own plant-based personal care products to be sold and used in his beauty salons. Aveda, which is derived from the term Ayurvedic in Sanskrit 'knowledge of nature' (Riggle 1992), was quickly recognized by those in the industry as the environmental and fashion leader in the development of plant-based products.

In addition to providing natural-based cosmetics products, Aveda has a long history of environmental responsibility through its product development, corporate practice, and charitable giving. Examples include:

• In 1989, Aveda became the first corporation to sign the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies Principles, a set of comprehensive environmental guidelines developed for businesses to follow by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies.
• In 1990, Aveda was the only beamy-cosmetic company to sponsor Earth Day, and it was among the first signatories on the Valdez Principles, a set of environmental guidelines aimed at companies worldwide.
• Aveda US Environmental Film Festival
• Donations to the Earth Foundation which researches and supports many crucial environmental and charitable organizations.

Aveda has a Corporate Environmental Plan that includes waste reduction and recycling. Aveda's corporate facility reflects the commitment to the environment by featuring an organic caleteria, an on-site child care center, exercise rooms, and 65 acres of protected un-developed grounds.

Aveda products are currently offered in over 3,000 health and beauty boutiques, and has five stand alone stores named Esthetique.

Origins

Origins was founded in 1990 and is the first major United States beauty company to bring natural, non-arum al tested products packaged in recyclable containers into department stores (Sloan 1990).

"The philosophy of Origins is a concept that goes beyond cosmetics and skin care into a whole realm of total well-being,' says Daria Myers, executive director of marketing for Origins. 'We are trying to rewrite the book on how a cosmetics company operates and thinks in the 21st Century," said William Lauder, Origins president and founder (Freeman 1991, p. 62).

Not to be categorized with other companies that have jumped on the environmental bandwagon, Lauder recognized that a company which is truly environmentally responsible must have a special sensitivity that shows itself in every aspect of the company ("Public Relations, Tie-Ins Launch Green Cosmetics Line" 1991). Lauder's dedication toward protecting natural resources can be seen m all Origin's products. For instance, plant extracts are used instead of animal-derived ingredients, even in makeup brushes. There are no unnecessary additives in Origins products: no added color in skin care products: no petroleum, alcohol, aerosols or fragrances. Printed materials are printed on recycled paper saving thousands of pounds of lumber and water ("Public Relations, Tie-Ins Launch Green Cosmetics Line" 1991).

Origins beauty advisors are called guides, underscoring the philosophy that the customer should be given the right information and helped to make a decision, not told what to do and buy (Born 1990). This encourages consumers to make small changes m their daily behavior that will eventually become part of everyday practice.

"The line's dedication to the environmental movement is a test case, not just for the Lauder companies but for the cosmetics industry as a whole", according to Public Relations executive Rebecca McGreevy ("Public Relations, Tie-Ins Launch Green Cosmetics Line" 1991).

CHANGES TO THE MARKETING MIX

This section examines how the product, promotion and placement, can be changed to satisfy consumer demand for environmentally sound cosmetic products. The section will first begin by discussing product aspects such as natural ingredients, animal testing, and product packaging. It will then discuss promotional aspects such as advertising and sales promotion. The placement of products will be the third aspect discussed and the section will conclude with a brief discussion on price.

PRODUCT

There are three things that can be done to make a cosmetic product more environmentally friendly: use of natural ingredients instead of synthetics, discontinuance of animal testing, and reduction of wasteful packaging.

Ingredients

According to Nontoxic, Natural & Earthwise, most ingredients used in cosmetics products are synthetic. Those most commonly used are: aerosol propellants, alcohol, ammonia, BHA and BHT, EDTA, ethanol, fluoride, formaldehyde, fragrance, glycerol, hexachlorophene, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, nylon, paraffin, and phenol (Dadd 1990). These ingredients are derived from nonrenewable petrochemicals that can be harmful to use and create toxic waste when they are manufactured.

The use of natural ingredients in cosmetic products have become more prevalent in recent years. Cosmetic product companies such as The Body Shop, Aveda, Origins, and Bath and Body Works all use natural-based ingredients in all of their products. Synthetic ingredients are used sparingly and serve only to help preserve products.

Gabriel Lauro, president of La Monde Ltd. Placenta, California, defines natural ingredients as an ingredient that is derived from an agricultural or biological source, and is extracted without chemical modification {Wilson 1991). Horst Rechelbacher defines natural as being derived primarily from plant materials grown without chemicals, pesticides or fertilizers, and manufactured in the most ecologically safe way (interview).

Nontoxic, Natural & Earthwise defines a natural product as one that is safe to use, made from natural, renewable ingredients (which may have residues of petrochemical ingredients) and axe biodegradable (Dadd 1990, p. 176).

Consumers seem to equate natural with mildness and safety. Many in the industry believe that the natural issue is more consumer perception than anything else. Quest chief perfumer, Thom DiGiacomo points to what he indicates is a 'misconception' by many consumers that 'natural' ensures that a product or fragrance will automatically be safe for use by themselves and the environment (Roach 1991).

The use of natural ingredients and safety has some concerned especially since cosmetics axe not legally required to be tested for safety. Nature does not grow itself according to specification. The less controlled a production process is, the more you might expect to have problems (Ainsworth 1992). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can take action only after a cosmetic is on the market and enough evidence exists to prove in court that it is hazardous, after which the FDA may halt the production and sale. As a result, marry natural ingredients have been removed from use due to potential safety concerns.

The Body Shop bases all of its products on natural ingredients. However, synthetics axe used to help preserve the products, and artificial colors and fragrances axe used when there are no alternatives. The Body Shop will not use any synthetic ingredients that cause harm to animals.

Aveda uses mostly natural ingredients as well. Aveda prefers to use natural ingredients in products made from flower and plant essences because they do not exacerbate environmental problems and they can actually reduce stress in the body, according to Rechelbacher (interview). More than 500 different species of plants are used in Aveda products.

Aveda is campaigning to eliminate the use of petrochemicals and synthetics from consumer goods. Rechelbacher feels that although petroleum is natural, it is a nonrenewable resource that leaves the planet depleted, and its distillation process is responsible/or air, water, and soil pollution (interview). Rechelbacher said elsewhere, "We are committed to increasing consumer awareness of the devastating effects synthetic ingredients have on our environment. Today, more than 90 percent of ingredients used in consumer products are made from chemically-produced synthetic petroleum derivatives which contribute to ozone depletion, acid rain, cancer and birth defects" (Alaimo 1991, p. 18).

Other natural ingredient cosmetic products include Avon's Daily Revival, Revlon's New Age Naturals, the Limited's Bath and Body Works, H20 Plus, Peppers, and Goodebodies.

Animal Testing

The second product aspect that can be changed to make cosmetic products that appeal to the environmentally conscious is the discontinuance of animal testing. Throughout the world, there has been growing concern about the use of animals in the safety testing of all types of products. Most new or improved cosmetic products go through a battery of animal tests to make sure they are safe for human use (Elkington et al. 1990).

According to animal-rights groups, each year some 14 million animals suffer and die as a result of testing for cosmetic and personal care products (Banashek 1990). Animal use in cosmetics has been particularly controversial because cosmetics are considered nonessential products.

Animals serve two main functions for the mainstream cosmetics industry. They provide raw ingredients for formulations and perfumes, and they are submitted to laboratory testing in the names of innovation and human safety. Test animals are routinely burned, injected with poisonous substances, artificially stressed, infected with disease and administered electric shocks.

Recently, consumers have become outraged at the use of animals for cosmetic product testing. Numerous animal rights organizations have taken steps to enlighten the public about companies that use animals to

To address this increased concern, a growing number of companies have produced what have come to be called "cruelty-free products-those that do not involve animal testing. In Debra Lynn Dadd's book, Nontoxic, Natural & Earthwise, cruelty-free products are described as products that have not been tested on animals, though they may contain ingredients such as artificial colors, laurel sulfate, and methyl and propyl paraben-all of which have had animal tests in the past. As a result of pressure from animal-rights groups, most cosmetic companies say they have stopped or never have performed animal testing. This doesn't guarantee that the substances in these products were never animal-tested, however. Joseph Gubernick, senior vice president of technology for Estee Lander's Origins explains that there is no synthetic cosmetic ingredient that hasn't been tested on animals at some point (Banashek 1990). Even if a cosmetic company says a final formula has not been tested on animals, there's a chance that somewhere down the line its ingredients were animal tested by one of their suppliers or by someone else in the industry.

Some have asked why the government does not outlaw the use of animals in product testing, but just as was seen with deceptive labeling and the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines for responsible labeling, there is not much government can do besides offer guidelines. The use of animals in testing product ingredients is one of the only ways to determine whether or not ingredients will harm humans. The FDA has been very reluctant to offer broad guidelines for the use of animals according to Martin Stephens, director of laboratory animals for the Humane Society of the United States (Banashek 1990). Another reason may be that the laboratory animal community has a strong lobby in Washington, D.C. which pre-empts any possible legislation or rule-making against animal testing.

The FDA feels that draize eye irritancy test, used in the cosmetic industry to measure the irritancy of potential new products to the human eye, is the only accurate way to determine the safety of ingredients. The test involves putting albino rabbits in restraining devices, then administering a few drops of the test substance into their eyes. Judy Messig, Customer Service Training Manager for The Body Shop sees that changing in the future. She says the draize eye irritancy test is expensive, and not nearly as accurate as alternative, simulated tests (interview). One alternative is Eyetex, which simulates protein cell structures of the eye. The ingredient in question is dropped into a culture dish and any amount of cloudiness that appears reflects an irritancy factor, the ingredient is then taken back and reformulated. Other tests include Neutral Red Release and Test Skin. Another way around this delicate issue is to rely on natural ingredients and on formulations already tested and approved.

The Body Shop is totally against animal testing in the cosmetics industry and prides itself on social activism, saying it "insists that the manufactures and suppliers of our ingredients provide regular written confirmation that they have not carried out any animal testing-nor has any testing taken place on their behalf- on those materials during the previous five years" (Ainswotth 1992, p, 44). The Body Shop only uses the following in their products:

• ingredients with a long history of safe human use
• raw materials which are micro-biologically tested
• alternative testing methods include Eyetex, Neutral Red Release and Test Skin
• scientifically controlled group of human volunteers

Estee Lauder's Origins also only uses ingredients which have not been tested on animals. Every ingredient used by Origins has what is called a "known human safety level", according to Rebecca McGreevy, vice-president for Estee Lauder Cosmetics (Public Relations, Tie-Ins Launch Green Cosmetics Line" 1991). All additives and preservatives necessary to the life of the products have a documented history of use that demonstrates their safety and extremely low allergy rate. To further provide for consumer safety, a computerized system evaluates Origins product ingredient safety. Like The Body Shop, extensive product tests are conducted on human volunteers under the scrutiny of an ophthalmologist and or dermatologist, and eye products receive further testing on cell cultures.

InVitro Intemational, a company that produces proprietary alternative tests that do not use animais, has consistently demonstrated the ability to accurately predict ocular and dermal irritancy, with an error rate of only 7 percent to 10 percent, according to InVitro. "The Draize tests, which use live rabbits, have an error rate as high as 40 percent and are considered too costly and time consuming to use for optimizing product formulations," adds InVitro (Ainsworth 1992, p. 44).

Even companies that engage in animal testing are becoming sensitized; Cosmair which markets L'oreal, Lancome and Biotherm says they feel very strongly about the question of human safety, but are a compassionate company and have made great efforts to reduce animal testing according to James Nixon, the company's executive-vice-president. "We look forward to the day when we can say we have ended all animal testing, and we are supplying money and resources towards that end," Nixon said (Banashek 1990, p. 78).

If nothing else, the animal testing issue has made companies think harder about when testing on animals is really necessary-for both humanitarian and economic reasons. There was a time when animal testing was done without a second thought, but recently the industry has scaled back animal testing as much as possible. Michael Gransky, a sales manager for Huls American says that companies will animal test only if they absolutely need to validate other test modes. "Many companies are doing away with in-house animal testing. The expense and hassle of animal testing has forced many companies to stay with their existing menu of raw materials and launch a new product only if it will yield immediate benefits for the company," Gransky adds (Aimsworth 1992, p. 44). The movement away from animal testing is growing quickly. Companies wishing to continue selling their cosmetic products to consumers concerned about the impact their purchases have on the environment will have to join the growing number of companies that promote "cruelty -free" products.

Packaging

The third product aspect that can be changed or modified to meet consumer demand for environmentally sound products is to reduce product packaging.

Excess packaging may be one of the most troublesome dilemmas facing cosmetic companies that are truly interested in the environment. Package design gives a product instant recognition (Banashek 1990). A key element of a brand's image of quality has been wrapped up in its packaging. Often the container conveys as much about the quality of the product as the product itself. Layers of cardboard and cellophane also ensure that an item hasn't been tampered with. According to The Green Consumer by John Elkington, Julia Hailes and Joel Makower, "The creators of cosmetics and health products are masters" of over-packaging (217).

One way cosmetic companies have tried to minimize the harm their packaging causes the environment is to offer refills. For example, in Britain, The Body Shop refills empties for customers; American branches of the store cannot (though they attempt to turn empties over to recyclers). In the United States, refilling containers at the point of purchase is often prohibited by local health regulations. There is also lack of quick, affordable sterilization systems. Refilling "may be an option in the future, but for now we are concentrating on developing minimal packaging that can be easily recycled," says John Murphy, Ph.D., vice-president for research and development and quality assurance for Matrix Essentials, makers or hair-care and skin care products (Banashek 1990, p. 60).

Origins "Empties" is a recycling program established to help customers recycle their product packages. At each Origins location there's a bin, made of recycled board, that has four compartments designed for different types of recyclable materials used in product packages. Materials, such as glass, and others that are less easily recyclable are returned to Origins headquarters where independent recyclers take care of them.

Origins also uses recycled materials in their packaging and shipping materials.

The Body Shop uses no cellophane outer wrappings/cardboard boxes, and all products are shipped in recycled shredded paper, thereby conserving resources, reducing waste and saving customers money.

Instead of recycling or using biodegradable materials, companies like Charles of the Ritz are instituting pared-down outer packaging. Cartons have been revised to eliminate inner flaps and tabs. "We hope to persuade customers to buy our products based on product performance, not just packaging, says Holly Mercer, vice-president of marketing (Banashek 1990, p. 60).

Leading marketers such as Estee Lauder and Revlon have scaled back and simplified their packaging-especially as more natural makeup lines are introduced. In doing so they have appealed to a whole new segment of makeup consumers.

PROMOTION

The deceptive advertising that surrounded Earth Day 1990 led marketers to promote environmentally sound cosmetic products in a more responsible way. While advertising is an important way to reach consumers, many companies are using public relations to extend the credibility and impact of their message.

Advertising

The use of advertising has been an area debated by many in the environmental world. Companies such as The Body Shop, Paul Sabastian Inc., and others feel that advertising distorts the message they want to communicate to consumers. The Body Shop feels that it is important for consumers to come to the stores or read through their catalogs to learn about both the product's benefits and how the products help solve environmental issues. Also, with all of the confusion caused by deceptive advertising, many companies feel that any attempt to advertise the pro-environmental aspects of products will be perceived as lacking credibility.

The Body Shop places cards on every counter to inform customers about the ingredients and history of some of the lotions, and leaflets offer tips about skin and hair care, T-shirts worn by staff, and window displays based on a certain environmental issue such as recycling. A manual of product information is available in each store and pamphlets are located throughout the store detailing the company's recycling efforts, use of natural ingredients and opposition to animal testing.

The Body Shop uses the direct channel and has made it an environmentally sound form of promotion. Each year, The Body Shop produces two catalogs of all of their products. The catalogs are produced using un-coated, recyclable paper using soy ink - an easily degradable product.

At Aveda Corporation, education is considered an essential aspect of its marketing program. At Aveda headquarters in Minneapolis, Aveda sponsors 132 free, three-day sessions each year for hair stylists and salon operators to educate them of Aveda products' environmental purity (Gupta 1992). The sessions are not intended to sell Aveda products or to demonstrate how to use them but rather to discuss what natural means and the issue of environmental responsibility.

Origins uses both in-store promotion and advertising to inform consumers about their product. Their advertising can be found in less traditional media such as The Village Voice, and The New York Times Magazine.

Public Relations

Many companies have replaced, or supported their advertising efforts through the use of public relations. The Body Shop actively supports pro-environmental causes and works closely with under developed third world countries to help them raise their standard of living. Many companies have tied their products closely to the interests of nonprofit organizations to improve the/r/mage. This type of "cause-related marketing program" (Cramer 1991) has been the norm for companies such as The Body Shop which donates money to environmental and social issues such as work in the rain forests and supporting nurseries in Romania.

Recently, charitable donations by Christian Dior, who launched its newest fragrance, Dune amounted to over $1,050 million all of which will be given over a three year period to The Nature Conservancy, an environmental group that preserves the nation's wilderness and coastline. Regain Kulik, Director of PR for Christian Dior Perfumes, said, "The idea evolved from a new corporate philosophy" (interview). In the words of Robert Cankes, US president and CEO, Kulik continued, "Corporations must respond to our planets and its citizens' concerns. The donation is Christian Dior's contribution to the preservation of the pure and natural environment that inspired our newest fragrance, Dune". She said focus groups conducted after the decision was made found that consumers love the idea.

Estee Lauder's Origins was launched without advertising or promotional support. Instead, they used a public relations campaign revolving around a marathon in Santa Barbara California in October 1990 called "Run for the Earth." A five dollar entrance fee was collected which was used to repair the damage from the 1990 Painted Cave fire in Santa Barbara which destroyed thousands of acres of forest land. Each race entrant received a T-shirt and an invitation to return to the Origin's counter for a special gift. On March 23, 1991 Origins held a tree planting ceremony to rebuild the forest.

DISTRIBUTION

The distribution of cosmetic products can also be altered to respond to those consumers seeking environmentally sound products. Traditionally sold at glitzy counters in large department stores, many companies are now seeking alternative distribution strategies. Companies now feel that in order to effectively communicate to the environmentally conscious consumer, they have to have more control over the environment in which they shop.

Increasing numbers of companies have shunned the department stores for smaller outlets. "There seem to be at least one or two of these stores in each market', says Jacquelyn Ottman, an environmental marketing consultant (Freeman 1991, p. 62).

Lauder has altered the traditional channel of distribution for mainstream cosmetic companies which has been through department stores. Lauder has established three free-standing stores-that create an atmosphere of a simpler lifestyle, in Cambridge Massachusetts, Boston's Harvard Square and SOHO, New York City. The free-standing, or stand-alone stores, allow customers to experience a complete, pro-environmental lifestyle where products and concepts are explained, rather than pushed on consumers. This encourages consumers to make small changes in their daily behavior that will eventually become part of everyday practice.

In an increasingly crowded market, small companies are discovering that "natural, alone wonk sell," says Jerome Goldstein, publishers of In Business, "they have to establish a special niche and satisfy real needs in order to succeed" (Gupta1992, p. Bi). Origins, The Body Shop, Aveda, and others offer products as well including household items and books.

Small companies are discovering that an altruistic image helps sell products. Many take actions that big corporations cannot or will not take to portray themselves as being more concerned with the planet than with profits. Some donate 5 percent or more of their earnings to charities. And most underwrite grass-roots educational campaigns that play up their concern about the environment and their customers' health.

PRICE

Environmentally sound products in general are perceived to be higher priced than other products as was seen in section 2. However, because of economies of scale and/or more expensive ingredients, environmentally sound products cost more than alternatives (Ottman 1992). "They're more expensive because of the ways they are harvested and extracted," explains John Murphey, vice president for research and development and quality assurance for Matrix Essentials, makers of hair care and skin care products (Banashek 1990). There is some truth that some cosmetic manufacturers have entered the environmental safe category only to charge more for their products. This unfortunately has led consumers to generalize that all environmentally sound cosmetic products cost more. The Body Shop, Aveda and Origins do not try to compete on price. They feel that consumers who really care about the environment will pay for the benefits these products offer. When asked, all of the people interviewed for this paper were uncomfortable discussing price and seemed to go back to the pro-environmental aspects of the products.

Baruch College Female Student Survey

This section of the paper presents the results of the Baruch College Female Student (BCFSs) survey conducted during the Spring 1993 semester. The purpose of the survey was to measure whether or not BCFSs have changed their purchasing patterns of cosmetic products in response to increased concern for the environment. The survey also examined how aware and knowledgeable BCFSs are about the cosmetic products they are currently using and their attitudes of the environmental movement and environmentally sound cosmetic products.

I choose to focus the survey on the cosmetics industry for two reasons: my interest in the industry and because I felt that BCFSs would have more knowledge about the purchase of cosmetic products than other types of products. In addition, the cosmetics industry captures all of the elements mentioned earlier in the paper on how companies can make changes to become more environmentally sound i.e. company reputation, product ingredients and packaging, promotion, and distribution.

By conducting the survey I hoped to learn how effective cosmetic companies have been in increasing awareness of environmental issues and whether or not BGFSs actually purchase environmentally sound cosmetic products. In addition, I wanted to conduct a survey and analyze the results in order to increase my understanding of the data gathering process and market research techniques. I would like to again thank Professor Charles McMellon for his generous assistance with developing the sample size and for helping me with the SPSS program used to tabulate the data.

Survey Scope and Methodology

Presentation of Survey Results

Table 4.1 Demographic composition of sample for BCFSs

More than half of BCFSs are concerned with some of the major issues facing the environment as table 4.2 illustrates. Unfortunately, landfill closings, the area of highest concern to the New York Metropolitan area, does not concern as many BCFSs. In fact, 20 percent of BCFSs indicate that they are not familiar with this issue.

Table 4.2 Concern for Environmental Issues

The majority of BCFSs, 45.5 percent, purchase cosmetic products every two months, 2:>.8 percent purchase cosmetic products twice a month, and 26.9 percent twice a year, as illustrated in figure 4.3. Only 4.1 percent claimed to purchase cosmetic products once a week.

Figure 4.3 How often do you purchase cosmetics?

go to larger image

BCFSs purchase cosmetic products most frequently in drug stores (40 percent), and department stores (40 percent), as figure 4.4 illustrates. Department stores have remained traditional about the products they offer; they do not offer the large variety of environmentally sound cosmetics offered by eco-retailers. Recently, large cosmetic manufacturers have begun offering natural-ingredient cosmetics and fragrances such as Origins, Tribu from Bermeton and Sung Spa, and are selling these products both in department stores and in boutiques.

Figure 4.4 Where do you most frequenty shop for cosmetics?

go to larger image

Table 4.5 illustrates the brands purchased most frequently by BCFSs. The table indicates that 18.6 percent choose Revlon, 8.3 percent buy Lancome, 7.6 percent buy Maybelline, 6.9 percent buy Estee Lauder, and 6.9 percent buy Covergirl. Only 0.7 percent selected The Body Shop and 1.4 percent Perscriptives, the only products that would classify as being environmentally sound (natural ingredients, minimal packaging, non-animal tested).

Table 4.5 Brands Purchased by BCFS

Table 4.6 illustrates the factors that influence the purchase of cosmetics by BCFSs. As can be seen, BCFSs claim that natural ingredients strongly influence their purchases, but they do not actually purchase these types of products as figure 4.5 illustrated.

Table 4.6 Factors Influencing Purchase

The majority of BCFSs feel natural ingredients are safer than synthetic ingredients. 2)9 percent strongly agree, 33.1 percent somewhat agree, 32.4 percent are neutral, 2.1 percent somewhat disagree, and only .7 percent disagree when asked it they felt that natural ingredients were safer than chemical ingredients. However, as was seen in table 4.5, only .7 percent and 1.4 percent responded that they use natural ingredient cosmetic products -The Body Shop and Perscriptives. 18.6 percent reported using Revlon, a cosmetic line that is not traditionally natural but one that has discontinued animal testing, and has reduced packaging.

Figure 4.7 indicates where BCFSs are most likely to get their information on environmental issues. The most popular sources are television (35.9 percent), magazines (33.8 percent), and newspapers (14.5 percent).

Figure 4.7 Where do you get most of your information on environmental issues?

go to larger image

When asked if they are more concerned now than they were two years ago 75.8 percent agree that they are more concerned today compared to two years ago. 9.7 percent felt that they were more concerned two years ago, and 12.4 saw no difference in the way they feel. Seventy-six percent said that they are more likely to purchase cosmetic products claiming to better for environment today than they were two years ago. Only 2.1 percent said that they would not.

Figure 4.8 illustrates that the 40.7 percent of BCFSs believe that the environmental movement is or will become a part of everyday life. Only 3.4 percent believe that it is another passing fad.

Figure 4.8 The environmental movement is a fad.

go to larger image

BCFSs do not know whether they believe pro-environmental claims made on labels or not. Forty-one percent say that they are different to product labels, perhaps indicating their lack of attention to them 6.9 percent do not believe product label claims while 6.2 percent say they do.

Figure 4.9 shows how often environmental product claims influence the decision to purchase products by BCFSs. 51.7 percent say that claims have some effect, 28.3 percent say that claims affect their purchases most of the time, and 6.9 percent say that claims always affect their purchases. 11.7 percent say that claims never affect their purchases.

Figure 4.9 How often do claims that a product is safe for the environment influence your decision to buy a product?

go to larger image

When asked whether or not the products they were using were tested on animals, an overwhelming majority say they 'don't know', yet when asked earlier in tables 4.2 and 4.6, 653 percent indicated they were highly concerned about the effects of animal testing and 51 percent responded that a non-animal tested product strongly influenced their purchasing decision. Thirty-two percent say they would not feel any less safe it the cosmetic products they used were not animal tested, 6.2 percent said they would feel safer knowing their products are tested on animals, and 8.3 percent stated that they are neutral.

Thirty-eight percent of BCFSs see no difference in quality between environmentally sound and synthetic cosmetics, 11.7 percent perceive environmentally sound cosmetics to be of higher quality, and 4.8 percent feel environmentally sound cosmetics are lower quality. The majority, 44.1 percent, have no opinion.

Table 4.10 contains four statements that examine the level of awareness BCFSs have toward environmentally sound cosmetic products. The first statement, "Natural cosmetics cost more than do other cosmetics because of their environmental benefit," is a perceptual question because there is no real answer. Some in the industry feel manufacturers of environmentally sound cosmetics cannot achieve economies of scale and therefore must charge a higher price than cosmetics that are mass manufactured. Others feel, prices will come down as competition intensifies. The three other statements are based on facts and are intended to question the knowledge BCFSs have about the issues. Statement 2, "The FDA considers animal testing to be the only meaningful and reliable method for evaluating the safety of a substance," is a true statement which 33.1 percent answered correctly. Statement 3, 'Cosmetic manufacturers are legally required to test products for safety,' is a false statement. Only color additives are required to be tested for safety. Only 13.8 percent knew the statement was false. Statement 4, "Animal testing conducted to ensure human safety has an error rate as high as 40 percent," is a true statement. 46.9 percent correctly knew the statement was true.

Table 4.10 Which of the following is true?

When asked if they feel that their product purchases can benefit the environment, 59 percent said that their purchase made some difference. Seventeen percent said their purchase made a lot of difference, whereas only 4 percent said their purchase make no difference.

Figure 4.11 illustrates whether or not BCFSs would pay higher prices for environmentally sound cosmetic products. A large number indicate they are neutral about paying higher prices for environmentally sound cosmetics, however, in Table 4,6, 80.7 percent indicated that price strongly influenced purchasing decisions.

Figure 4.11 I would pay more for cosmetic products that are safer for the environment.

go to larger image

When asked if the reputation of a company has an impact on product purchases, 10 percent of BCFSs said that they are very likely to purchase products from a company with a good environmental reputation. The majority of the respondents responded that they are neutral, possibly indicating that they are unaware of the reputations of the companies they purchase from.

Figure 4.12 illustrates the awareness BCFSs have about environmental improvements made in five product categories: beverage, laundry, automobiles, cosmetics and fast-food. In general, there is not a high level of awareness considering only 11 percent correctly identified Coke for the beverage category; 14.5 percent identified Tide and 16.6 percent Downy for laundry products; in the auto category 2.8 percent correctly identified Ford; in the cosmetic category 7.6 percent identified The Body Shop and 2.8 percent named Origins; 57.2 percent named McDonalds in the fast food category.

Figure 4.12 In each of the following categories, please name one company that comes to mind as having or improved their environment record.

go to larger image

Figure 4.13 illustrates which cosmetic companies BCFSs feel are the most environmentally responsible. 53.1 percent could not name any companies, 9-1.4 percent named The Body Shop which is environmentally responsible, and 6.9 percent identified Almay which is not environmentally responsible.

Figure 4.13 What one cosmetic company comes to mind as being the most environmentally responsible?

go to larger image

When asked whether or not they would return empty bottles/or refills, 40 percent say they would bring back bottles/or refills if given the chance. Of the 40 percent who said they would bring back bottles, 78.6 percent could not identify one company that had established a refill program Only 15.9 percent named The Body Shop correctly and .7 percent named both Origins and Body Works.

Survey Conclusion

The survey indicated that BCFSs are concerned about the effects their cosmetic purchases have on the environment, however, they have not altered their purchases to help make a difference as was illustrated in table 4.5. When asked to name cosmetic companies that were environmentally responsible, 53 percent stated that they could not name a company. Twenty-one percent correctly named The Body Shop, and 7 percent incorrectly named Almay, a cosmetic company which is not proactively changing its marketing mix in favor of the environment. This is similar to what was reported in section two, where 66 percent of Americans could not name a company that is environmentally responsible (Daniel, 1999).

BCFSs indicated that products using minimal, attractive, and disposable packaging would strongly influence their purchase decision, as would the use of natural ingredients. This was seen in national surveys as well.

When it comes to claims made on package labels, BCFSs indicate that they are more inclined to purchase products molting pro-environmental claims on packaging. On the national level, American consumers are not as trusting of environmental claims mode on product labels

An area causing BCFSs contusion is animal testing. Sixty-six percent indicated that they were highly concerned about the effects of animal testing, and 51 percent said that animal testing was a key factor when making purchases. Yet, when BCFSs purchase cosmetics, very few products they purchase are non-animal tested. The cosmetics industry has jumped all over animal testing. Most products claim not to animal test, but it their suppliers do, the abuse still continues. As was mentioned in the cosmetic section, very few companies, The Body Shop, Aveda and a few others, do not test on animals and require that their suppliers do not as well.

The survey seems to confirm the beliefs of many market research experts; surveys questioning the feelings consumers have for the environment will largely reflect what the respondent considers to be the correct answer, and not what they actually do when making purchase decisions.

Conclusion

Almost every recent survey taken indicates that consumer concern for the environment remains a hot topic. More products are being introduced every day to help satisfy the demand for environmentally sound products. However, marketers are seeing results similar to those found in the Baruch College female student survey - consumers may indicate that they want to help the environment, but they do not follow through with their purchases. There may be many reasons for this. First, as has been noted earlier, research experts contend that surveys on the environment reflect what consumers would like to do, and not what they actually do. Second, many environmentally sound products do in tact cost more than other types of products, and in a continued weak economy, consumers may have little choice but to purchase the least expensive brands. Large manufacturers are aware of this, and have offered discounts and coupons inducing the trial, and continued purchase of brands that do not otter environmental benefits.

Companies moving towards more environmentally sound products benefit in a number of ways. Even though many consumers do not purchase what they say they will, consumers who do purchase based on pro-environmental benefits will be more loyal to the brand, and not be as easily swayed by changes in price. In addition, companies who change their entire operations to become more environmentally sound benefit because they maximize the use of natural resources by reducing product packaging, and using recycled materials. Less is more in this case.

Because consumers may not be following through with their sentiments, government needs to take a larger role. Regulations need to be established for use of recycled content in product packaging, stricter control over pro-environmental claims, and stiffer penalties for those companies that harm the environment.

Companies wishing to help the environment, need to take a total approach. It is not good enough to modify only an aspect of a product. Companies need to reorganize their operations so environmental issues are as important as shareholder profitability. The planet is a stakeholder in every company, and should be considered when making production decisions. If companies continue to ignore the effects their operations have on the environment, they may not only have to fear governmental regulations, consumer backlash, and increased expense for the handling of hazardous waste, they may in fact be harvesting off their consumers as well. The earth will survive the abuse, but will mankind? The effects on the planet are serious enough that our own health may be in question. Who knows what effects continued ozone depletion will have on living creatures. Man may find a way around the havoc caused to the environment, but what about the other eco-systems that cannot protect themselves?

Endnotes

1 Susan Hayward, director of Yankelovich Claucey Shulman notes that the 28 percent reading in 1989 was taken before the spill indicating that additional factors have led to increased environmental awareness.

2. NOTE Most manufacturers mentioned in this section are privately held companies and therefore refused to disclose financial and marketing information.

Works Cited

Alaimo, Dan. "Product's Performance, Clarity of Claims Crucial in Green Arena" Supermarket News 11 March 1991: 18.

Ainsworth, Susan J. "Cosmetics Suppliers Rally to Meet Consumer Concerns." Chemical & Engineering News 20 April 1992: 31-52.

Banashek, Mary Ellen. "Back to the Garden." Health. October 1990: 58-60.

Born, Pete. "Lauder Readies Origins Brand, First in Decade." Women's Wear Daily 13 July 1990: 1-3.

Brookman, Faye. "Terra Verde: NYC Store Features Eco-friendly Merchandise." Stores. Jan. 1992: 126-128.

Chatzky, Jean Sherman. "Changing the World." Forbes 2 March 1992: 83-85.

Conant, Jennet. "Natural Balance." Harper's Bazaar. October. 1990: 200-205.

Cramer, Jerome. "The Selling Of the Green." Time 16 September 1991: 48.

Dadd, Debra Lynn. Nontoxic, Natural & Earthwise. Los Angeles: Tarchef, 1990.

Dagnoli, Judahn. "Consciously Green; Consumers Question Marketers." Advertising Age 16 September 1991: 14.

Darnel, Joseph, et al. 1992 Earth Journal. Colorado: BuzzwormBooks, 1992.

Davis, Donald A. "The 'Green' Movement Comes to Cosmetics." Drug & Cosmetic Industry. June 1990: 40-43.

Elkington, John, Julia Hailes and Joel Makower. The Green Consumer. New York. Penguin, 1990.

Frankel, Carl. "Blueprint for Green Marketing." American Demographics. April 1992: 34-36.

Freeman, Laurie. "Personal Care Products Fill Specialty Niche." Stores. May 1991: 60-62.

Gill, Penny. "Simple Facts to Save the Environment." Stores. October 1990: 71.

Gupta, Udayan. "Natural Products Makers Discover Power of an Image." The Wall Street Journal 23 June 1992: B2.

Hisey, Pete. "Speak Softly, and Carry a Green Stick." Discount Store News 20 Jan. 1999: 41.

Hume, Scott. "Consumer Doubletalk Makes Companies Wary." Advertising Age 28 October 1991: GR4-GR16.

Hume, Scott and Patticia Strnad. "Consumers Go 'Green'." Advertising Age 25 September 1989: 3.

Kulik, Regain. Telephone Interview. 8 March 1993.

Maikin, Nina. "Manhattan Purists." Harper's Bazaar. January 1990: 34.

Manly, Lotne."It Doesn't Pay To Go Green When Consumers Are Seeing Red." Adweek 23 March 1992: 32-33.

Marketing Review Panel. "The Impact of Environmental Issues on Marketing." Marketing Review. October 1992: 17-28.

Messig, Judy. Telephone Interview. 15 June 1993.

Miller, Gyndee. "Marketing Approach Say's 'Color Me Green.'" Marketing News 10 June 1990: 2.

Ottman, Jacquelyn. "Sometimes Consumers Will Pay More To Go Green." Marketing News 6 July 1992: 16.

Penzer, Etika. "Turning 'Green'." Incentive 19 July 1990: 26-28.

"Public Relations, Store Tie-Ins Launch 'Green' Cosmetics Line." Public Relations Journal. April 1991: 24-25.

Rechelbacher, Horst. Personal Interview. 19 Oct. 1992.

Reitman, Valetie. "Green Product Sales Seem to Be Wilting." Wall Street Journal 18 May 1992: B1.

"Reporting the Trends: A New Study Summarizes American Fragrance and Cosmetics Market." Soap/Cosmetics/Chemical Specialties. February 1991: 50-52.

Research International. The Green Revolution and the Changing American Consumer. Cambridge: Research International, 1990.

Research International. Green Consumerism Update: Environmentalism and its Impact on American Consumers. Cambridge: Research International, 1991.

Riggle, David. "Blending Business With Social Responsibility." In Business. July/Aug. 1992: 22-24.

Roach, Virgird. "Green Is Beautiful." Drug and Cosmetic Industry. February 1991: 21-22.

Sloan, Pat. "Cosmetics: Color it Green; Lauder to roll out natural Origins line." Advertising Age 23 July 1990: 1.

Tasaday, Lawrence. Shopping for a Better Environment. New York: Simon, 1991. "Top Ten." In Business. Nov./Dec. 1992: 32-35.

Voss, Bristol. "The Green Marketplace." Sales and Marketing Management. July 1991: 74-76.

Wasik, John. "Market Is Confusing, but Patience Will Pay Off." Marketing News 12 October 1992: 16.

Wilson, Robert. "Natural Colors." Drug and Cosmetic Industry. October 1991: 30-34.

Yankelovich Partners Inc. The Yankelovich Monitor 1992. Westport: Yankelovich Partners, 1992.

Appendix

go to larger image	go to larger image
go to larger image	go to larger image
go to larger image

© Copyright to this work is retained by the author[s]. Permission is granted for the noncommercial reproduction of the complete work for educational or research purposes.

[back to main]