Does all the R&D and financial investment in sustainable packaging really matter to consumers?
That question stems from the results of Perception Research Services' (PRS) recent shopper research on environmentally friendly packaging. Last year, fewer shoppers (38%) agreed that consumers should be responsible for recycling packaging than in 2009 (42%), and fewer reported a willingness to pay for “green”-packaged products than in 2008.
Jonathan Asher, PRS' senior vp said, “It's becoming clear that while consumers may voice concern for the environment, most appear unwilling—at the moment—to make any major sacrifices to make a difference. They'd rather rely on manufacturers to provide products and packaging that they can feel good about, without changing their behavior, giving up performance, or paying more.”
What message does that send to the makers of pharmaceutical/healthcare/medical devices? Should these companies simply cross off sustainable packaging as a concern? Not so fast.
Asher provided this perspective: “Manufacturers have had the impression that they needed to be in synch with consumers' environmental concerns and fit with the emerging lifestyle of 'going green.' Our findings suggest that rather than follow consumers' lead, manufacturers must actually be at the forefront, making it easier for shoppers to buy the products they prefer while also feeling good about the environmental impact, and making as little sacrifice as possible. It's a tall order, but if delivered, will be highly rewarded.”
The most measurable benefits of sustainable packaging may be the potential economic savings from package source reduction, energy-efficient plants, and packaging machinery operating at peak overall equipment effectiveness. Will those benefits serve as the spoonful of sugar that helps the PRS survey “medicine” go down? Time will tell.
-By Jim Butschli, Editor
That question stems from the results of Perception Research Services' (PRS) recent shopper research on environmentally friendly packaging. Last year, fewer shoppers (38%) agreed that consumers should be responsible for recycling packaging than in 2009 (42%), and fewer reported a willingness to pay for “green”-packaged products than in 2008.
Jonathan Asher, PRS' senior vp said, “It's becoming clear that while consumers may voice concern for the environment, most appear unwilling—at the moment—to make any major sacrifices to make a difference. They'd rather rely on manufacturers to provide products and packaging that they can feel good about, without changing their behavior, giving up performance, or paying more.”
What message does that send to the makers of pharmaceutical/healthcare/medical devices? Should these companies simply cross off sustainable packaging as a concern? Not so fast.
Asher provided this perspective: “Manufacturers have had the impression that they needed to be in synch with consumers' environmental concerns and fit with the emerging lifestyle of 'going green.' Our findings suggest that rather than follow consumers' lead, manufacturers must actually be at the forefront, making it easier for shoppers to buy the products they prefer while also feeling good about the environmental impact, and making as little sacrifice as possible. It's a tall order, but if delivered, will be highly rewarded.”
The most measurable benefits of sustainable packaging may be the potential economic savings from package source reduction, energy-efficient plants, and packaging machinery operating at peak overall equipment effectiveness. Will those benefits serve as the spoonful of sugar that helps the PRS survey “medicine” go down? Time will tell.
-By Jim Butschli, Editor
