Assessing European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Laundry Detergents: A Choice Experiment Approach
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Aim of the Study
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. A CE Workflow to Minimize Methodological Biases
4.2. Target Product
4.3. Attributes and Levels
4.4. Experimental Design
4.5. Questionnaire Design
4.6. Sample Selection
4.7. Result Analysis: The Conditional Logit Model
5. Results
5.1. Pilot Study Results
5.2. Final Study Results
5.2.1. Sample’s Profile Results
5.2.2. Consumer Habits and Preferences in Sustainability
5.2.3. Respondents’ Preferences for Detergent Purchasing
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
7.1. Summary of Key Fundings
7.2. Industry Implications
- Invest in eco-design by prioritizing packaging solutions that reduce material use (e.g., concentrated formats, refill systems, plastic-free or alternative materials), which consumers perceive as high-value.
- Develop and communicate environmentally friendly formulations, particularly those with bio-based and biodegradable surfactants, aligning with consumer expectations and supporting brand positioning and differentiation.
- Integrate sustainability without compromising performance. Companies should ensure that environmental gains do not come at the expense of cleaning power and that this is properly communicated to consumers. Ensuring that these innovations maintain high product performance while reducing environmental impact will be key to increasing consumer acceptance and long-term adoption.
- Develop more targeted communication and product lines that align with the values and priorities of specific consumer segments to emphasize both ecological and functional attributes. By anchoring R&D and product strategies in empirical consumer data, the industry can accelerate the transition toward scalable and competitive sustainable products.
7.3. Limitations and Future Research
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Sample | alt3.cte | SR | SSR | ST | 30T | 20T | SP | RRP | −70P | SS | RSS | −20S | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Italy | −4.58 | 0.91 | −0.91 | −1.85 | 1.05 | 0.80 | −2.56 | 1.13 | 1.43 | −3.22 | 1.32 | 1.90 | −0.62 |
Spain | −3.54 | 0.92 | −0.92 | −2.08 | 1.06 | 1.02 | −2.63 | 1.20 | 1.43 | −3.09 | 1.25 | 1.84 | −0.41 |
Germany | −3.31 | 0.59 | −0.59 | −1.61 | 0.95 | 0.66 | −2.17 | 1.10 | 1.07 | −1.36 | 0.84 | 0.52 | −0.47 |
Portugal | −5.34 | 0.77 | −0.77 | −2.24 | 1.08 | 1.16 | −2.78 | 1.19 | 1.59 | −3.29 | 1.49 | 1.80 | −0.76 |
Generation Z | −5.38 | 0.99 | −0.99 | −1.88 | 1.04 | 0.84 | −2.73 | 1.38 | 1.35 | −2.11 | 1.44 | 0.67 | −0.66 |
Millennials | −5.10 | 0.86 | −0.86 | −3.01 | 1.18 | 1.83 | −2.39 | 1.17 | 1.22 | −1.98 | 1.25 | 0.73 | −0.69 |
Generation X | −3.94 | 0.91 | −0.91 | −2.10 | 1.13 | 0.97 | −3.14 | 1.33 | 1.81 | −2.30 | 1.32 | 0.98 | −0.55 |
Boomers | −2.45 | 0.75 | −0.75 | −1.58 | 0.78 | 0.80 | −1.73 | 0.83 | 0.90 | −1.92 | 1.11 | 0.81 | −0.30 |
Employed | −4.18 | 0.84 | −0.84 | −1.99 | 1.08 | 0.91 | −2.59 | 1.17 | 1.42 | −2.17 | 1.32 | 0.85 | −0.57 |
Unemployed | −4.38 | 0.88 | −0.88 | −1.61 | 0.89 | 0.72 | −2.31 | 1.15 | 1.16 | −1.67 | 1.03 | 0.64 | −0.52 |
Diploma | −3.88 | 0.78 | −0.78 | −1.11 | 0.67 | 0.44 | −2.27 | 1.06 | 1.21 | −1.90 | 1.22 | 0.68 | −0.46 |
Bachelor | −3.67 | 0.72 | −0.72 | −1.87 | 0.95 | 0.92 | −2.43 | 1.16 | 1.27 | −1.91 | 1.19 | 0.72 | −0.50 |
Master | −5.46 | 1.05 | −1.05 | −1.86 | 1.06 | 0.80 | −2.60 | 1.30 | 1.30 | −2.00 | 1.26 | 0.74 | −0.74 |
PhD | −5.03 | 0.92 | −0.92 | −1.07 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 2.39 | −1.00 | −0.39 | −1.00 | 0.68 | 0.32 | −0.40 |
Male | −5.55 | 1.03 | −1.03 | −2.35 | 1.23 | 1.12 | −2.63 | 1.22 | 1.41 | −2.19 | 1.28 | 0.91 | 0.66 |
Female | −3.76 | 0.78 | −0.78 | −1.66 | 0.93 | 0.73 | −2.45 | 1.15 | 1.30 | −2.93 | 1.20 | 1.73 | −0.51 |
EUR < 20,000 | −4.71 | 0.58 | −0.58 | −1.57 | 0.76 | 0.81 | −2.09 | 1.07 | 1.02 | −1.75 | 1.03 | 0.72 | −0.59 |
EUR 20,000–EUR 40,000 | −4.58 | 0.84 | −0.84 | −1.71 | 1.06 | 0.65 | −3.35 | 1.10 | 1.25 | −1.92 | 1.17 | 0.75 | −0.60 |
EUR 40,000–EUR 60,000 | −4.33 | 0.93 | −0.93 | −1.57 | 0.82 | 0.75 | −2.62 | 1.24 | 1.38 | −2.06 | 1.30 | 0.76 | −0.51 |
EUR 60,000–EUR 80,000 | −3.64 | 1.02 | −1.02 | −2.82 | 1.46 | 1.36 | −3.46 | 1.37 | 2.09 | −3.08 | 1.92 | 1.16 | −0.48 |
EUR > 80,000 | −3.65 | 0.96 | −0.96 | −2.50 | 1.25 | 1.25 | −2.73 | 1.29 | 1.44 | −2.00 | 1.23 | 0.77 | −0.56 |
References
- Ivanova, D.; Stadler, K.; Steen-Olsen, K.; Wood, R.; Vita, G.; Tukker, A.; Hertwich, E.G. Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golsteijn, L.; Menkveld, R.; King, H.; Schneider, C.; Schowanek, D.; Nissen, S. A compilation of life cycle studies for six household detergent product categories in Europe: The basis for product-specific A.I.S.E. Charter Advanced Sustainability Profiles. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2015, 27, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Moura, I.E.M.O.; Neto, J.M.M.; Da Silva, E.A. Environmental performance of a household laundry cycle. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 1765–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortez, D.M.; Bekke, M.T.; Liang, Z.; Stamminger, R. The impact of detergent performance on sustainable consumer laundry behavior: A socio-technical challenge. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2024, 61, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, N.; Sekhri, S. Impact of Laundry Detergents on Environment—A Review. J. Asian Reg. Assoc. Home Econ. 2014, 21, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
- Mousavi, S.A.; Khodadoost, F. Effects of detergents on natural ecosystems and wastewater treatment processes: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 26439–26448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahmohammadi, S.; Steinmann, Z.; Clavreul, J.; Hendrickx, H.; King, H.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Quantifying drivers of variability in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of consumer products—A case study on laundry washing in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1940–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eberle, U.; Lange, A.; Dewaele, J.; Schowanek, D. LCA Study and Environmental Benefits for Low Temperature Disinfection Process in Commercial Laundry (12 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakula, C.; Stamminger, R. Energy and water savings potential in automatic laundry washing processes. Energy Effic. 2015, 8, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, C.; Park, S.; Ryu, H. Sustainability of Textile Products based on Washing Conditions: Focusing on the washing temperature and washing time. Fam. Environ. Res. 2018, 56, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomšič, B.; Ofentavšek, L.; Fink, R. Toward sustainable household laundry. Washing quality vs. environmental impacts. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2024, 34, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winterich, K.P.; Reczek, R.W.; Bollinger, B. Reducing Emissions across the Consumption Cycle and an Agenda for Future Research on Consumers and Climate Change: Introduction to the Special Issue on Climate Change. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2023, 8, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Average Premium Consumers Paid More for a Sustainable Product Worldwide in 2020 and 2023, by Range. Statista 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1454999/premium-consumers-paid-more-for-a-sustainable-product/ (accessed on 8 January 2025).
- Ogiemwonyi, O.; Alam, M.N.; Alshareef, R.; Alsolamy, M.; Azizan, N.A.; Mat, N. Environmental factors affecting green purchase behaviors of the consumers: Mediating role of environmental attitude. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2023, 10, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogiemwonyi, O.; Jan, M.T. The correlative influence of consumer ethical beliefs, environmental ethics, and moral obligation on green consumption behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2023, 19, 200171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Canio, F. Consumer willingness to pay more for pro-environmental packages: The moderating role of familiarity. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 339, 117828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Recent Study Reveals More Than a Third of Global Consumers Are Willing to Pay More for Sustainability as Demand Grows for Environmentally-Friendly Alternatives. Business Wire. Available online: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211014005090/en/%20Recent- (accessed on 9 January 2025).
- Home & Laundry Care: Market Data Analysis & Forecast. Statista 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/study/55498/home-and-laundry-care-market-data-and-analysis/ (accessed on 20 January 2025).
- Organic Laundry Detergent Market Research Report 2023–2032. Market Research Future. Available online: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/organic-laundry-detergent-market-24448 (accessed on 22 January 2025).
- European Commission; Joint Research Centre; Oakdene Hollins and Pre Consultants. Revision of the European Ecolabel Criteria for Laundry Detergents and Industrial and Institutional Laundry Detergents: Preliminary Report; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2015; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/0171 (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- Ferri, A.; Osset, M.; Abeliotis, K.; Amberg, C.; Candan, C.; Owens, J.; Stamminger, R. Laundry Performance: Effect of Detergent and Additives on Consumer Satisfaction. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2016, 53, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilling, M.A. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kamwendo, A.R.; Maharaj, M. The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2022, 12, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandru, M.N. A Study on Consumers Perception & Preference Towards the Sales Promotion of Wash-ing Soaps & Detergents with Reference to Coimbatore City. Int. J. Creat. Res. Thoughts 2023, 11, c994–c998. [Google Scholar]
- Nwamara, C.A. Advertising and Buying Decision of Laundry Detergents among Users in Owerri Metropolis of Imo State, Nigeria. Ebonyi State Univ. J. Mass Commun. 2019, 6, 199–207. [Google Scholar]
- Whitson, D.; Ozkaya, H.E.; Roxas, J. Changes in consumer segments and preferences to green labelling. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siwayanan, P.; Bakar, N.A.; Aziz, R.; Chelliapan, S. Exploring Malaysian Household Consumers Acceptance towards Eco-friendly Laundry Detergent Powders. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geetha, D.; Tyagi, R. Consumer Behavior and Fascinating Challenges on Household Laundry and Dishwashing. Tenside Surfactants Deterg. 2016, 53, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramesh, M.; Samudhra Rajakumar, C. Determinants of Online Purchase Decision of Green Products. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 9, 1477–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijekoon, R.; Sabri, M.F. Determinants That Influence Green Product Purchase Intention and Behavior: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariffin, S.; Yusof, J.M.; Putit, L.; Shah, M.I.A. Factors Influencing Perceived Quality and Repurchase Intention Towards Green Products. Procedia Econ. Finance 2016, 37, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choshaly, S.H. Consumer Perception of Green Issues and Intention to Purchase Green Products. Int. J. Manag. Account. Econ. 2017, 4, 66–79. [Google Scholar]
- Chose, A.; Chandra, B. Models for Predicting Sustainable Durable Products Consumption Behaviour: A Review Article. Vision 2020, 24, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fixsen, D.; Blase, K.; Metz, A.; Van Dyke, M. Implementation Science. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snowball, J.D. The Choice Experiment Method and Use. Measuring the Value of Culture 2008, 7, 177–215. [Google Scholar]
- Mariel, P.; Hoyos, D.; Meyerhoff, J.; Czajkowski, M.; Dekker, T.; Glenk, K.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Liebe, U.; Olsen, S.B.; Sagebiel, J.; et al. Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments: Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis; In Springer Briefs in Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saija, M.E.; Daniotti, S.; Bosco, D.; Re, I. A Choice Experiment Model for Sustainable Consumer Goods: A Systematic Literature Review and Workflow Design. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchmüller, K.; Xu, C.; Bearth, A.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ decision-making process when choosing potentially risky, frequently used chemical household products: The case of laundry detergents. Environ. Res. 2022, 209, 112894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Findrik, E.I.; Morawetz, U.B. Who would pay more for a fragrance-free laundry detergent? How health information affects valuation. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 2453–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Towhidul, I.; Jordan, J.L. The stability of aggregate-level preferences in longitudinal discrete choice experiments. In Handbook of Choice Modelling; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, M.; Shin, J. Market strategy for promoting green consumption: Consumer preference and policy implications for laundry detergent. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kholod, M.; Mokrenko, N.; Celani, A.; Puglisi, V. Choice Modeling of Laundry Detergent Data for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traets, F.; Sanchez, D.G.; Vandebroek, M. Generating optimal designs for discrete choice experiments in R: The idefix package. J. Stat. Softw. 2020, 96, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Troncoso, D. A step-by-step guide to design, implement, and analyze a discrete choice experiment. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2009.11235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barriviera, A.; Bosco, D.; Daniotti, S.; Pozzi, C.M.; Saija, M.E.; Re, I. Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Adopting Sustainable Corn Traits: A Choice Experiment in Italy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaihanchanchai, P. Encouraging Green Product Purchase: Green Value and Environmental Knowledge as Moderators of Attitude and Behavior Relationship Literature. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2023, 32, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, A.P. Consumers’ Purchase Behaviour and Green Marketing: A Synthesis, Review and Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, 1217–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebbing, T. Pricing of Consumer Innovations; Logos Verlag Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Brand, B.M.; Rausch, T.M.; Brandel, J. The Importance of Sustainability Aspects When Purchasing Online: Comparing Generation X and Generation Z. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nichols, B.S.; Holt, J.W. A comparison of sustainability attitudes and intentions across generations and gender: A perspective from U.S. consumers. Cuad. Gest. 2023, 23, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.L.; Huynh, M.K.; Ho, N.N.; Le, T.G.B.; Doan, N.D.H. Factors Affecting of Environmental Consciousness on Green Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study of Generation Z in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2022, 9, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plavsic, S. An Investigation of Gender Differences in Pro-environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Honors Scholar Thesis, University of Connecticu, Storrs, CT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tien, Y.-H.; Huang, J. Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions, Environmental Values, Tolerance of Environmental Protection Cost, and Confidence in Citizen Participation in Environmental Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 32, 4813–4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Wang, B.; Saechang, O. Is Female a More Pro-Environmental Gender? Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 8002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Attribute | Level | Acronym | No. of Levels |
---|---|---|---|
Efficacy in stain removal | Standard removal | SR | 2 |
Stubborn stain removal | SSR | ||
Recommended washing temperature | Standard temperature (40–60 °C) | ST | 3 |
Save energy (30 °C) | 30T | ||
Maximum energy saving (20 °C) | 20T | ||
Packaging | Standard packaging | SP | 2 |
Recycled and recyclable plastic | RRP | ||
−70% of plastic * | −70P | ||
Surfactants | Standard use | SS | 3 |
Renewable and sustainable surfactants | RSS | ||
−20% surfactants * | −20S | ||
Price | 3 € | 3 € | 4 |
4.5 € | 4.5 € | ||
6 € | 6 € | ||
7.5 € | 7.5 € |
alt3.cte | SR | ST | 30T | 4.5 € | 6 € | 7.5 € | RRP | SP | ST | −20S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−1.98 | 0.31 | −0.70 | 0.49 | 0.97 | 0.43 | −0.30 | 0.37 | −0.58 | −0.40 | −0.16 |
Variable | Range | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 18–24 | 43 | 14.1% |
25–34 | 106 | 34.9% | |
35–44 | 58 | 19.1% | |
45–54 | 35 | 11.5% | |
55–64 | 45 | 14.8% | |
65+ | 17 | 5.6% | |
Gender | Female | 197 | 64.8% |
Male | 107 | 35.2% | |
Employment | Employee | 200 | 65.79% |
Self-employed 1 | 18 | 5.92% | |
Unemployed 2 | 8 | 18.75% | |
Retired | 21 | 2.63% | |
Student | 57 | 18.75% | |
Education | No title | 3 | 1% |
High School Diploma 3 | 58 | 19.1% | |
Higher Education Diploma | 4 | 1.3% | |
Bachelor’s degree | 61 | 20.1% | |
Master’s Degree | 94 | 30.9% | |
Second-Level Postgraduate Master’s | 2 | 0.7% | |
Ph.D. | 81 | 26.6% | |
Postgraduate Specialization Course | 1 | 0.3% | |
Annual household income | EUR < 20,000.00 | 47 | 15.5% |
EUR 20,000–EUR 40,000 | 105 | 34.5% | |
EUR 40,000–EUR 60,000 | 64 | 21.1% | |
EUR 60,000–EUR 80,000 | 40 | 13.1% | |
EUR > 80,000 | 48 | 15.8% | |
Residence Type | Private home (rented or owned) | 107 | 35.20% |
Apartment (rented or owned) | 135 | 44.4% | |
Apartment shared with students | 20 | 6.6% | |
University residence | 6 | 1.97% | |
Living with parents | 36 | 11.8% | |
Country | Italy | 129 | 42.4% |
Spain | 79 | 26% | |
Germany | 35 | 11.5% | |
Portugal | 23 | 7.6% | |
UK | 9 | 3% | |
Sweden | 7 | 2.3% | |
Switzerland | 5 | 1.6% | |
Austria | 3 | 1% | |
Others 4 | 8 | 2.6% | |
Non-European countries 5 | 4 | 1.3% |
Attribute | Level | Acronym | Coefficient * |
---|---|---|---|
Efficacy in stain removal | Stubborn stain remover | SR | +0.85 |
Standard removal | SSR | −0.85 | |
Recommended washing temperature | Standard temperature (40–60 °C) | ST | −1.87 |
Save energy (30 °C) | 30T | +1.02 | |
Maximum energy saving (20 °C) | 20T | +0.85 | |
Packaging | Standard plastic | SP | −2.51 |
Recycled and recyclable plastic | RRP | +1.17 | |
−70% of plastic | −70P | +1.34 | |
Surfactants | Standard use | SS | −2.51 |
Renewable and sustainable surfactants | RSS | +1.23 | |
−20% surfactants | −20S | +0.78 | |
Price | −0.55 | ||
alt3.cte | −4.24 |
SSR | 30T | 20T | RRP | −70P | RSS | −20S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+1.54 € | +1.85 € | +1.54 € | +2.11 € | +2.42 € | +2.23 € | +1.42 € |
Sample | SSR | 30T | 20T | RRP | −70P | RSS | −20S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Italy | +1.46 € | +1.70 € | +1.29 € | +1.82 € | +2.31 € | +2.13 € | +1.45 € |
Spain | +2.23 € | +2.57 € | +2.49 € | +2.91 € | +3.49 € | +3.04 € | +2.05 € |
Germany | +1.24 € | +2.00 € | +1.39 € | +2.31 € | +2.25 € | +1.77 € | +1.10 € |
Portugal | +1.01 € | +1.42 € | +1.52 € | +1.56 € | +2.09 € | +1.96 € | +1.05 € |
Generation Z | +1.50 € | +1.57 € | +1.27 € | +2.08 € | +2.03 € | +2.18 € | +1.02 € |
Millennials | +1.24 € | +1.70 € | +1.20 € | +1.69 € | +1.76 € | +1.81 € | +1.06 € |
Generation X | +1.66 € | +2.06 € | +1.76 € | +2.42 € | +3.31 € | +2.40 € | +1.79 € |
Boomers | +2.49 € | +2.59 € | +2.67 € | +2.74 € | +2.99 € | +3.67 € | +2.69 € |
Employed | +1.48 € | +1.91 € | +1.61 € | +2.07 € | +2.51 € | +2.33 € | +1.50 € |
Unemployed | +1.68 € | +1.69 € | +1.37 € | +2.19 € | +2.21 € | +1.96 € | +1.21 € |
Diploma | +1.70 € | +1.47 € | +0.96 € | +2.32 € | +2.65 € | +2.68 € | +1.48 € |
Bachelor | +1.46 € | +1.91 € | +1.86 € | +2.35 € | +2.57 € | +2.39 € | +1.44 € |
Master | +1.41 € | +1.43 € | +1.08 € | +1.74 € | +1.73 € | +1.69 € | +0.99 € |
PhD | +2.28 € | +2.47 € | +0.18 € | −2.5 € | −0.97 € | +1.68 € | +0.80 € |
Male | +1.56 € | +1.87 € | +1.69 € | +1.84 € | +2.13 € | +1.94 € | +1.38 € |
Female | +1.52 € | +1.83 € | +1.44 € | +2.26 € | +2.55 € | +2.36 € | +1.43 € |
EUR < 20,000 | +0.98 € | +1.30 € | +1.37 € | +1.82 € | +1.74 € | +1.74 € | +1.21 € |
EUR 20,000–EUR 40,000 | +1.39 € | +1.76 € | +1.08 € | +1.81 € | +2.07 € | +1.94 € | +1.23 € |
EUR 40,000–EUR 60,000 | +1.84 € | +1.61 € | +1.48 € | +2.45 € | +2.73 € | +2.57 € | +1.50 € |
EUR 60,000–EUR 80,000 | +2.10 € | +3.03 € | +2.82 € | +2.84 € | +4.33 € | +3.97 € | +2.40 € |
EUR > 80,000 | +1.70 € | +2.21 € | +2.21 € | +2.30 € | +2.55 € | +2.17 € | +1.37 € |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Saija, M.E.; Daniotti, S. Assessing European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Laundry Detergents: A Choice Experiment Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083365
Saija ME, Daniotti S. Assessing European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Laundry Detergents: A Choice Experiment Approach. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083365
Chicago/Turabian StyleSaija, Maria Elena, and Sara Daniotti. 2025. "Assessing European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Laundry Detergents: A Choice Experiment Approach" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083365
APA StyleSaija, M. E., & Daniotti, S. (2025). Assessing European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Laundry Detergents: A Choice Experiment Approach. Sustainability, 17(8), 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083365