Literature_Research

docx

School

The University of Sydney *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

BUSS1000

Subject

Medicine

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CommodoreSteel707

Laundry detergents containing fragrance, deodorants containing aluminum and plastic bottles containing Bisphenol A are examples of consumer products likely to have negative health impacts. Informing consumers about health effects will influence the demand and, eventually, the supply of safe products (Chrysochou and Grunert 2014). In this article, we explore the case of fragrance in laundry detergents and show which income groups benefit from health information. Fragrance is used in many consumer products (e.g., laundry, clothes and beauty care), even though it can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. Contact allergy to fragrances is quite common; according to a literature review from 2009, between 1.1% and 2.3% of the general population in Europe is affected (Thyssen et al. 2009). A test of more than 50,000 Europeans revealed that between 1.7% and 6.9% of the population reacts allergically to fragrances (Frosch et al. 2015). A long-term study found that from 1985 to 1998, the fragrance allergy of the Danish population doubled from 4.1% to 9.9% (Johansen et al. 2000). Data specific to fragrance sensitivity in laundry detergents are available from the US. According to a telephone survey, 10.7% of the general population and 21.2% of respondents with asthma are sensitive to detergent fragrances (Caress and Steinemann 2009). In contrast to exposure on the skin (including through airborne material), inhalation of fragrance sensitizers does not represent a health risk with respect to allergy (Basketter and Kimber 2015). Due to the complexity of formulations and protections on ingredient disclosure, relatively little is known about the influence of the composition of fragrance on allergic reaction (Caress and Steinemann 2009). Additionally, the use of genetically modified enzymes has accelerated the availability of new fragrance varieties. This increased number of fragrance varieties might increase health issues in the future (Budnik et al. 2017). Not surprisingly, contact allergy caused by fragrance materials reduces quality of life substantially (Heisterberg, Menné, and Johansen 2014). The more frequent the exposure to fragrance, the more likely a person is to develop an allergy. Based on a sample of 23,824 British patients, Buckley et al. (2003) found support for the hypothesis that allergy to fragrance results from a combination of repeated exposure and agerelated susceptibility factors. Women are most susceptible in their 60s, whereas men are most susceptible in their 70s. Once a person has developed an allergy, it is a lifelong condition, and the only treatment is avoiding contact

with fragrance. Reducing exposure to fragrance may be one way of reducing fragrance allergies in the population. To the best of our knowledge , fragrance-free detergents have not been discussed in the economic literature . One recent study on WTP for green detergents found a significant increase in WTP for detergents with reduced skin irritation potential among Korean consumers (Jo and Shin 2017). In an article on eco-labels for detergents, Siwayanan et al. (2015) found that more than 90% of Malaysian consumers prefer palm oil-based over petrochemical-based detergents. Our article is the first to discuss consumer surplus of health information in relation to consumer income. We consider how different income groups benefit depending on the availability in shops. We discuss this issue for Austria, where only two fragrancefree detergents are available in supermarkets. Supply of fragrance-free detergents The international laundry detergent market is characterized by a limited number of firms, each offering differentiated laundry detergent products. Among the largest firms worldwide are Procter & Gamble, Unilever and Henkel (European Union 2011). Their detergents differ by format (liquid or powder), purpose (washing temperature, color and material of textiles), packaging, fragrance, health and environment-related characteristics, price and cleanliness of washed laundry. These characteristics are used for horizontal and vertical product differentiation . Horizontal differentiation occurs if consumers have heterogeneous preferences for a characteristic (e.g., format 2454 E. I. FINDRIK AND U. B. MORAWETZ or packaging). In this case, if two products have the same price and differ only in this one characteristic, both products have a positive demand (Lancaster 1979; chap. 2; Dos Santos Ferreira and Thisse 1996). Vertical differentiation occurs if consumers have homogenous preferences for a characteristic (e.g., cleanliness of washed laundry). In this case, if two products have the same price and differ only in this one characteristic, one of the products is preferred by all consumers. In the case of detergents, horizontal differentiation occurs regarding packaging, physical state or fragrance because consumers have heterogeneous preferences with respect to these characteristics. Vertical differentiation occurs regarding cleanliness because almost all consumers want their laundry to be clean after washing. Cleanliness of laundry, however, is not observed by consumers (even after using the detergent, it is not easily assessed). According to economic theory, vertical product differentiation will still occur in the case of imperfect competition and higher production costs for higher-quality products (Daughety and Reinganum 2008). Information about the production costs of detergents is typically not disclosed, but cleanliness at lower washing temperatures depends on the enzymes used. The production costs of enzymes differ due to differences in the costs of the growth medium (Joo and Chang 2006). Thus, following the theory of Daughety and Reinganum (2008), for unobservable cleanliness, the price can be expected to be used as a signal for higher quality products (holding observable characteristics constant) . The decision of a multiproduct firm to offer a fragrance-free detergent is driven by strategic considerations (Lancaster 1990). Similarly, the supermarket strategically selects which of the available products are placed on the shelves. Informing consumers about the health effects of fragrance will increase the

demand for fragrance free products and will eventually result in production and availability in the supermarkets. With a differentiated product market, there will be an incentive to produce a fragrance-free variant for many of the differentiated products. Thus, if the average production costs of fragrance-free detergents are sufficiently small, fragrance-free variants will be offered in all price ranges given sufficient consumer demand. Detergents in Austria are available mainly from supermarkets and drugstore chains. These supermarkets also offer eco-labeled detergents, but none of them is fragrance-free. Among all major shops in Austria, only one drugstore chain currently offers fragrance-free detergents (in addition to some specialized shops). In this drugstore chain, there were 61 liquid and 25 powder detergents available in October 2017. One of the fragrance free detergents is liquid for colored laundry, and the other is a powder for white laundry. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the prices per load for colored and white laundry detergents available in the web-shop of the drugstore chain. The fragrance-free detergents are priced in the middle of the price ranges. Neither fragrance-free detergent is primarily advertised as fragrance free but rather as detergent for baby clothes. We would expect that when information about health effects spreads, more fragrance-free detergents will become available on the market. In the online appendix, we illustrate the case of aluminum-salt free deodorants, for which this seems to have occurred.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

How to buy the best laundry detergent | CHOICE How much laundry detergent should you use? Depending on which laundry detergent you choose, you may be able to use half (yes, half!) the recommended dose and still get a great wash, saving yourself money and giving the environment a bit of a break. In the past we've tested top performing laundry detergents and they performed just as well on all stains at half the recommended dose, while others performed well at half the dose on several types of stains. While we can't test every dose variation, treat the dosing scoop or cap more like a polite suggestion and experiment with your detergent – you may find you can use a lot less than you think and still get a wash you are happy with. Is powder or liquid laundry detergent better? See laundry detergents review This really depends on the type of stain you're dealing with, your type of washing machine and personal preference. Powder laundry detergents Our testing indicates that powder detergents generally perform better in top loader washing machines. Top loaders have a faster wash cycle which may favour the chemical performance of detergents. In this case, powder detergents have an advantage in that they usually have higher alkalinity which works quickly in the wash cycle. Powders are usually the best for general soil and stain-removal performance. We found that powders perform best on fresher stains, which are what you'll usually be dealing with in your own laundry, but they generally work very well on the tough, ground-in stains of our test materials. Powders can sometimes leave a white, powdery residue on clothes, particularly if you're a little heavy handed with dosing. At a pinch, you can also turn a laundry

powder into a liquid by dissolving some in a little warm water, giving you the best of both worlds. It's best to stick to top-performing powders for heavier soiling and whites, and using a top-performing powder will also help prevent your whites from going grey or yellow over time. Liquid laundry detergents According to our results, liquid laundry detergents tend to perform better in front loader washing machines. Front loaders have a much longer wash cycle and favour low foaming products. In liquid detergents, manufacturers tend to use more enzymes with lower foaming surfactants. This may be advantageous in front loader washing machines because it gives the detergent a lot longer to have an effect. Liquid detergents have less impact on the environment, with some getting good ratings for recycling and greywater reuse . Many eco-friendly liquids will do a good job of freshening up lightly soiled and coloured clothes, so if your clothes don't get too dirty or if you use a greywater system then an eco-friendly liquid detergent is the way to go. However, if you rewash or use a pre-wash or in-wash product for stain removal, you're negating the liquid's low environmental impact. If you have a high-efficiency washing machine that uses very little water or tend to use your machine's eco program then a good liquid detergent is the best way to avoid white powdery patches being left on your clothes. What about laundry detergent pods? Laundry detergent pods, packs, flings, discs or laundry balls are individual use capsules of liquid laundry detergent concentrate in a dissolvable plastic wrapper that you drop straight into your washing machine. They're much like a dishwashing tablet, only for your washing machine. Depending on the brand and type, laundry pods may also contain fabric softener or other ingredients. They're convenient – with no measuring, just drop in a disc with your dirty dungarees and you're done – and they avoid the risk of spills and mess associated with powders and liquids, so they're a good option for people with some accessibility issues. However, this convenience comes at a cost – you can't easily adjust your dose to the size of your load like you can with loose detergent and they can be considerably more expensive per wash than the equivalent loose laundry detergent, so the clothes you're washing better come with deep pockets. Of more concern, their shape and bright colouring can make them particularly enticing to young children who can mistake them for lollies. There've been several reports of children ingesting laundry pods, so make sure you store them well out of reach of curious little fingers. Which laundry detergent is cheapest in the long run? Cost per wash unit pricing (usually per 100g) is a great way to compare costs, but it's not entirely accurate for laundry detergents because of the vastly different dose recommendations between brands – use our cost-per-wash figures in our free laundry detergent reviews instead for a better comparison. Unlike chocolate (which you're no doubt trying to wash out of your clothes), more isn't necessarily better when it comes to your laundry detergent – most will still

get your clothes clean with just a fraction of their recommended dose so experiment with using less. You'll get your clothes white and clean AND keep your wallet full of green. Speaking of green, using less detergent is better for the environment as well. Which kind of laundry detergent is best for sensitive skin? No one is ever itching to do the laundry, but if you suffer from sensitive skin then using the wrong laundry detergent can leave you feeling very itchy indeed. There's a wide range of low-irritant laundry detergents available that claim to be suitable for people with sensitive skin. These detergents generally substitute ingredients that are likely to cause irritation or omit them altogether. Perfumes and colourings in regular detergents don't make a difference to cleaning and they're pretty much guaranteed to be banished from the box or bottle of a sensitive-formula product. However, like an annoying relative at a wedding, other potential irritants sometimes still make the cut because it's harder to achieve the same performance without them. If you suffer from sensitive skin but want worry-free washing then avoid this laundry list of likely suspects lurking in the detergent aisle next time you shop. Enzymes A common ingredient in many laundry detergents, enzymes are biological catalysts which speed up the dirt removal process. Manufacturers include various enzymes to target different types of stains, such as protein, starch or biological- based stains like grass or blood. One thing all enzymes have in common though is that they can potentially cause irritation, so avoid them if you suffer from skin irritation. Optical brighteners Another known irritant, optical brighteners bathe your washing in fluorescers – chemicals that absorb ultraviolet light and re-emit it as blue light, making your clothes seem whiter and brighter even though they don't actually remove any dirt. Products with brighteners are best avoided if you have sensitive skin. Rinse rigorously and repeat So now you've found a low-irritant detergent you like, but that's not the end of the story – you also need to ensure your clothes are thoroughly rinsed. Inadequate rinsing can leave traces of detergent behind and that's a big no-no if you have sensitive skin. If you notice detergent residue on your clothes or building up in your machine then adding an additional rinse cycle to your wash program may help (if your machine has that option). You should also try to reduce the amount of detergent you use – both your skin and the environment will thank you. You can check our washing machine reviews and find one that has a high rinse score – the higher the rinse score the more detergent removed from the wash. Remember, everyone's skin is different. It may take some trial and error to find a detergent that works for you.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Are laundry detergents bad for the environment? Most laundry detergents use phosphates, which contain phosphorus, to help soften the water and keep extracted dirt in suspension. But high levels of phosphorus going down your drain can lead to excessive growth of blue green algae in our inland waterways. Low phosphate laundry detergents are better for the environment so you should look for these unless the water in your area is particularly hard (you can check this with your state water authority). Check your laundry detergent's packaging for a 'P' meaning low phosphorus (<7.8 g/wash) or better yet, 'NP' meaning no, or less than 0.5%, phosphorus. Choosing an environmentally friendly laundry detergent also means you can safely use the rinse water from your washing machine (greywater) on your garden, and at the same time, make a big difference to the cost of treating water so that it can be recycled. The GreySmart rating determines which detergents are best for the environment. Aside from the impact of the detergent itself, there's also packaging to consider. The more washes per pack you can get, the less package waste, so the better for the environment. Buying larger packs or when on special will usually be more cost-effective, but transfer bulk purchases to an airtight container to maintain performance. Should you wash your clothes in cold, warm or hot water? In the past we've retested the highest- and lowest-performing detergents for both top and front-loader variants to see whether a warm wash (40°C) would produce a great difference in results. Generally, there's an overall benefit to washing in warm water, but only by a couple of percent, and it really depends on the type of stains you're trying to remove. Some detergents are also designed for and perform better in cold water. There's more info in our free laundry detergents test . Can you use top loader detergent in a front loader or high- efficiency top loader? These days a majority of detergents are designed to be used in both front and top loader, so most of the time you'll be safe using it in both. In the few cases you've bought a detergent that specifically says it's designed for one type of machine, it's best to stick to that machine type. Front-loading machines generally use less water and more mechanical action (turning) than top loaders, so front-loading detergents contain anti-foaming ingredients to stop too many suds from developing. Using top-loading detergents in your front loader can cause too many suds to build up in the machine, which can overflow and fill your laundry with foam (to comedic effect). More seriously it can also cause 'suds lock' – a condition where foam builds up between the inner and outer drums of your washer, creating suction issues which can cause the motor to burn out. The combination of excess suds and low water usage also means your rinse performance (how well the detergent is washed away) will plummet, leaving detergent residue on your clothes.

If you've grabbed the wrong box or bottle when doing the shopping or you've just bought a front loader and still have heaps of top loader detergent left, at a pinch you can use it up in your front loader but you'll need to use a lot less – around a half to a quarter – than you would in a top loader. Which laundry detergent smells the best? There are fragrance free detergents available in the market place, but most tend to have a fragrance of some description, if anything just to let the manufacturer sell more product by putting different fragrances into the same basic formula. Assessing fragrance is very subjective, so take a good whiff before you buy, as some smells can be quite grating for some, but smell like nothing at all to another. If you find scented detergents really on the nose then consider laundry detergents for sensitive skin as these generally don't contain fragrances or colourings. Do laundry balls and soap nuts work? Occasionally we see products that are claimed to have a low ecological impact when it comes to washing your laundry. These are generally called 'laundry balls' – a plastic ball, usually filled with pebbles – or 'soap nuts' which, confusingly, are actually a type of berry. They claim to be eco-friendly compared to your average detergent, and they're reusable, so they cut down on the cost of detergent. Sounds good, right? But do they work? Not really. Before you go out and spend your money – upwards of $80 for some brands – see how they fared in our laundry ball and soap nut test compared to laundry detergents. DIY detergents – can you make your own laundry detergent at home? At CHOICE we pride ourselves on helping you make better informed decisions by giving you unbiased information on how products perform. Over the years we've uncovered a number of shonky commercially made products which don't perform any better than cheaper all-natural alternatives, like this well-known brand's carpet cleaner with the same powerful dirt-removal capabilities as tap water. Which brings us to the topic of homemade laundry detergents. A few minutes with a popular search engine will bring up any number of recipes for homemade laundry detergents, typically containing ingredients such as borax, grated soap, citric acid (lemon juice), bicarbonate of soda, washing powder and/or essential oils. DIY your detergent and you're not forking over your hard-earned cash to big laundry so it can save you money, and as you can leave out phosphates, perfumes and other chemicals, your DIY detergent is likely to be better for the environment and people with sensitive skin than its commercial cousins. However, as there are as many detergent recipes as there are missing socks at the end of a wash cycle, it's not practical for us to include them in our tests, so we can't tell you how a homemade laundry detergent will perform or, by extension, how they compare to their store-bought brethren. DIYing your laundry detergent is relatively cheap and easy though, so if it's something you're interested in exploring then there's really very little reason not to grab a bucket, roll up your sleeves and give it a try. We'd love to hear how you get on.

How ethical is your laundry detergent? This is a question that's getting asked more and more frequently these days. CHOICE doesn't have an in house ethical investigator, so we partnered with Shop Ethical who already do a lot of work in this area on detergents, and many other consumer products. We put their ratings into our laundry detergents review (which you can access for free) so you can filter the results based on their findings. Laundry Detergent Reviews | Best Rated by CHOICE Review and Compare | CHOICE OMO has over 30 products.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Best and worst laundry detergents revealed in our lab test | CHOICE Here are the top performers for front loaders:  Coles Ultra Concentrate Laundry Capsules (85%)  Dynamo Professional Discs capsules (85%)  Dynamo Professional 7 Actions in 1 Wash Liquid (84%)  Aldi Trimat Advanced Concentrated Laundry Liquid (83%)  Omo Laundry Detergent Triple Capsules (83%)  Dynamo Professional Free & Clear Liquid (82%)  Dynamo Professional Our Best Stain Removal Oxi Plus Liquid (81%)  Coles Ion Laundry Liquid Concentrate Original (81%)  Coles Ion Laundry Liquid Concentrate Colours (81%)  Dynamo Professional Deep Clean with Odour Eliminating Technology (80%) Worst detergents in our test for front loaders

If you're using one of the products below, you might want to rethink your next purchase. Especially when you consider that washing with water alone scored 51% in our front loader test – not much worse than many of these products! Here are the detergents to avoid:  Coles Lemon Fresh Laundry Liquid Hot and Cold Wash (52%)  Tru Earth Eco-Strips Laundry Detergent Fresh Linen (53%)  Woolworths Essentials Clean Wash Apple Liquid (54%)  Aldi Laundrite Laundry Liquid (54%)  Bosistos Sensitive Laundry Liquid (57%) These are the top performers in our top loader detergents:  Coles Lemon Fresh Laundry Powder Hot and Cold Wash (61%)  Cold Power Clean and Fresh Powder (59%)  Aldi Laundrite Laundry Powder (57%)  Omo Laundry Detergent Ultimate (57%) Worst detergents in our test for top loaders Our testing revealed plenty of dud detergents rating below 50%, including some big name brands. Here are the bottom scorers in our top loader test:  Tru Earth Eco-Strips Fresh Linen (40%)  Euca Soft Wash Premium Laundry Detergent(42%)  Omo Laundry Detergent Dual Capsules Sensitive (44%)  Omo Laundry Detergent Dual Capsules (44%)  Bosistos Sensitive Laundry Liquid (44%)  Woolworths Essentials Laundry Liquid Clean Wash Apple Fragrance (44%)  Aldi Laundrite Laundry Liquid (44%)

Introduction Packaging is subject to life cycle impacts associated with the extraction of raw materials and with manufacturing, transportation, and post-consumption disposal. Furthermore, the growth of consumption has increased the environmental impacts caused by packaging production, which generates solid wastes, industrial effluents, atmospheric emissions, noise, and vibrations (Riegel et al., 2012). We define sustainable packaging after the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) as that which: A. Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and communities throughout its life cycle. B. Meets market criteria for performance and cost. C. Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled using renewable energy. D. Optimizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials. E. Is manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices. F. Is made from materials healthy throughout the life cycle. G. Is physically designed to optimize materials and energy Benefits of a packaging redesign Research findings in academic literature suggest that waste reduction in the food and drinks industry can make significant contributions to company profitability by improving yields per unit output and by reducing costs associated with waste disposal (Hyde et al., 2001). A packaging design that supports a decrease in food losses can help to increase consumer satisfaction and, at the same time, reduce the environmental impact of the food-packaging system (Williams et al., 2008). Similarly, packaging that prevents food waste can help to reduce the total environmental impact, even if there is an increase related to the impact of the packaging itself (Williams and Wikstrom, 2011 € ). Packaging solutions that minimize the generation of wastes in the consumers’ households as well as in distribution and retail can lead to the most efficient reduction of environmental impacts in the product-packaging chain. Therefore, it is important to design packages that adequately protect the food and allow the consumer to completely use the packed product (Silvenius et al., 2014)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Requirements beyond the corporate boundaries The consumers’ perceptions, behaviors and habits should be considered in redesigning packaging; it is pivotal to a better understanding of consumers’ perceptions about the social dimension of packaging sustainability (Nordin and Selke, 2010). According to Williams et al. (2012), around 20e25% of household food wastes could be related to its packaging. These authors highlight packages that the consumer noted as being too big; packages that were difficult to empty; and wasted packages because of expiry of “best before date”. The consumer behavior in households should be considered in the packaging design, since it brings indirect environmental impacts. The amount of food waste caused by package size or attributes, and the recyclability of these materials, demand considerable attention (Wikstrom et al., 2016 € ). In India, the motivation for ecofriendly purchasing is significantly influenced by personal norms, attitudes, environmental concerns and willingness to pay, which brings consequences for package design (Prakash and Pathak, 2017). In Norway, ready-to-eat meals are sold in large packages, therefore, reducing the size of packages can reduce transport costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions (Hanssen et al., 2017). Attention to the supply chain is also required, therefore dialogue among producers, retailers and consumers to promote changes in primary and secondary food packaging is recommended (Hyde et al., 2001). Leppelt et al. (2013) found that the scope of corporate environmental strategies shifted from improving internal environmental performance to reducing the environmental footprint of the product chain in collaboration with actors along the supply chain. More specifically, the connection between packaging design and food waste should be acknowledged and valued by relevant stakeholders, such as: food producers; manufacturers; brand owners; retailers; and consumers, and also in packaging regulations (Wikstrom et al., 2014 € ). In this context, the companies seem to invest in supplier relationship management practices aiming to manage sustainability beyond their corporate boundaries (Thongplew et al., 2014). A set of criteria should be observed when packaging redesign needs to involve several actors. The management practices that trigger waste in food networks are related to the transparency of J.U. Gustavo Jr. et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 18e28 19 demand information, quality management, process controls, shelflife management and packaging design; thus, they provide insight into the actions required to mitigate the environmental impact of food production (Mena et al., 2014). Regardless of the effectiveness of cooperative activities such as supplier development and supplier integration, supplier monitoring does not seem to positively influence supplier performance (Akamp and Müller, 2013). The packaging industry faces barriers like the lack of adequate training and progress monitoring, poor consumer awareness, and absence of pressure for a widespread adoption of green supply chain management (Wang et al., 2016). A wider adoption of zero packaging would depend on: influencing consumer behavior, convincing suppliers to change their packaging practices; and solving the dependency of food logistics on packaging (BeitzenHeineke et al., 2017)

Abstract: Chemical household products are a common cause of accidents in the domestic sphere. Despite such products being associated with certain risks in the event of swallowing or contact with the skin or eyes, they are used in nearly every household worldwide for hygiene purposes. In most European countries, chemical household products feature warnings of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) as well as other warnings. In this eyetracking study (N = 147), which was conducted in a virtual environment, we examined (i) whether consumers use such warnings when choosing a laundry detergent, (ii) whether they consider information irrelevant to risk assessment and (iii) whether they make use of this information for their final product choice. For this, the participants were split randomly into three experimental groups (a risk priming group, an effectiveness priming group, and a control group) that each received different tasks while purchasing a laundry detergent. The results indicate that the warnings found on laundry detergents are effective when they are used, although the majority of consumers do not look at the warnings. Therefore, we suggest that the alternative placement of warnings or the use of simplified warnings should be considered to improve consumers’ awareness of potential risks. Conclusion The results of the present study show that, when consumers are not prompted regarding the risks of frequently used chemical household products such as laundry detergent, they rarely look at the warnings found on such products. Therefore, we conclude that the warnings do not serve as a reliable way to remind the consumers about risks, meaning that the warnings cannot be particularly effective in terms of preventing accidents involving frequently used chemical household products. However, when consumers are prompted with regard to risks through warnings that are immediately visible to them (e.g. on the front of the packaging or on the display shelf), then such warnings prove effective in relation to guiding them to make a safer product choice. In conclusion, manufacturers and regulators should identify effective ways to prompt consumers regarding the risks of chemical household products and aim to increase the noticeability of warnings.

Abstract This paper analyses businesses' initiatives to influence consumption carbon emissions in home laundering, principally by persuading consumers to wash clothes at lower temperatures . A number of voluntary business initiatives have sought to change consumer practices, coming from detergent manufacturers, their industry association and retailers. This paper analyses their impact at system level, by assessing the coevolutionary interactions between ‘Supply’, from consumer-facing firms, whose principle business is to sell products to consumers, both manufacturing and retailing, and ‘Demand’ from consumers, whose interactions with the businesses arise from shopping, using and receiving consumer messages from the firms. The research analyses the interactions between the business case drivers for presentation of consumer messages to reduce laundry emissions and the drivers of changes in consumer laundry practices. This enables inductive inference of the causal relationships over time between businesses’strategies to communicate with consumers and changes in users’ laundry temperatures. The paper concludes that, in spite of considerable efforts and resources, these business initiatives have not resulted in the intended level of change in consumer practice that would deliver significant emissions reductions. Consumption emissions from households are a result of interdependent systems of provision, technologies and infrastructure, so stronger actions by business to influence consumer practices as well as further regulatory drivers are likely to be needed to deliver stricter emission reduction targets. This research contributes to the field of sustainable consumption through bringing together a coevolutionary framework with theories of business model innovation and social practices, in order to analyse whole systems of competing businesses’ strategies in context with technologies, institutions and ecosystems. Introduction A series of voluntary business initiatives have been undertaken in Western Europe since 1996 to persuade consumers to wash clothes in cooler water, from leading detergent manufacturers, such as Procter and Gamble (Mylan, 2017), Unilever

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

(Kingsbury et al., 2012), their industry association (A.I.S.E., 2013a) and retailers, such as Marks and Spencer (Morgan, 2015). These would contribute to reducing carbon emissions, as well as saving money for consumers, but these initiatives have had limited success. This paper analyses their impact, by assessing the coevolutionary interactions between ‘Supply’ and ‘Demand’ systems (Murmann, 2013). ‘Supply’ is from consumer-facing firms, whose principle business is to sell products to consumers, both manufacturing and retailing. ‘Demand’ arises from consumers, whose interactions with the businesses arise from shopping, using and receiving consumer messages from the firms. The research analyses the factors that have led to the presentation of consumer messages to reduce laundry emissions, using a business model innovation lens (Schaltegger et al., 2012) and the drivers of changes in consumer laundry behaviours, from a social practice perspective (Spaargaren, 2011). This enables inductive inference of the causal relationships over time between businesses’ strategies to communicate with consumers and changes in users’ laundry temperatures.