Learning From Regional Green Disposal Models

Environment
Human impact on the climate Issues Environmentalism Stewardship Environmental studies
Environment in Consulting Education Engineering Humanities Law Policy Science Social science
Article index Lists Portal
Category Commons
v t e

Part of a series on
Green politics
Core topics Climate change litigation Fossil fuels lobby Green politics Green party List of topics Politics of climate change
Four pillars Ecological wisdom Social justice Grassroots democracy Nonviolence
Perspectives Alter-globalization Bright green environmentalism Criticisms of globalization Deep ecology Degrowth Dirty hands Disinvestment Ecoauthoritarianism Eco-capitalism Ecocentrism Ecofascism Ecofeminism Eco-nationalism Eco-socialism Environmentalism Green anarchism Green conservatism Green left Green liberalism Green libertarianism Green Zionism Social ecology Queer ecology
Organizations Asia Pacific Greens Federation European Green Party Federation of Green Parties of Africa Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas Federation of Young European Greens Global Greens Global Young Greens World Ecological Parties
Related topics Carbon fee and dividend Carbon tax Circular economy Climate change mitigation Climate finance Climate justice Climate target Conservation movement Corporate political activism Eco-investing Ecological economics Ecological modernization Ecomodernism Eco-tariff Ecotax Eco-terrorism Environmental conflict effects of agriculture effects of aviation finance issues justice movement planning pricing reform racism technology Environmentalism opposition Environmental skepticism Stewardship in music Fossil fuel phase-out Green development economy growth grabbing greening imperialism industrial policy infrastructure job New Deal recovery retrofit state theory transport hierarchy vehicle washing Localism Low-carbon economy List of environmental incidents conflicts killings Political ecology Progressivism Renewable energy Sustainable design development energy engineering refurbishment transport War on coal Water conflict
v t e

Environment friendly processes, or environmental-friendly processes (also referred to as eco-friendly, nature-friendly, and green), are sustainability and marketing terms referring to goods and services, laws, guidelines and policies that claim reduced, minimal, or no harm upon ecosystems or the environment.^[1]

Companies use these ambiguous terms to promote goods and services, sometimes with additional, more specific certifications, such as ecolabels. Their overuse can be referred to as greenwashing.^[2][3][4] To ensure the successful meeting of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) companies are advised to employ environmental friendly processes in their production.^[5] Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal 12 measures 11 targets and 13 indicators "to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns".^[6]

The International Organization for Standardization has developed ISO 14020 and ISO 14024 to establish principles and procedures for environmental labels and declarations that certifiers and eco-labellers should follow. In particular, these standards relate to the avoidance of financial conflicts of interest, the use of sound scientific methods and accepted test procedures, and openness and transparency in the setting of standards.^[7]

Products located in members of the European Union can use the EU Ecolabel pending the EU's approval.^[8] EMAS is another EU label^[9][10] that signifies whether an organization management is green as opposed to the product.^[11] Germany also uses the Blue Angel, based on Germany's standard.^[12][13]

In Europe, there are many different ways that companies are using environmentally friendly processes, eco-friendly labels, and overall changing guidelines to ensure that there is less harm being done to the environment and ecosystems while their products are being made. In Europe, for example, many companies are already using EMAS^{[citation needed]} labels to show that their products are friendly.^[14]

Many companies in Europe make putting eco-labels on their products a top-priority since it can result to an increase in sales when there are eco-labels on these products. In Europe specifically, a study was conducted that shows a connection between eco-labels and the purchasing of fish: "Our results show a significant connection between the desire for eco-labeling and seafood features, especially the freshness of the fish, the geographical origin of the fish and the wild vs farmed origin of the fish".^[15] This article shows that eco-labels are not only reflecting a positive impact on the environment when it comes to creating and preserving products, but also increase sales. However, not all European countries agree on whether certain products, especially fish, should have eco-labels. In the same article, it is remarked: "Surprisingly, the country effect on the probability of accepting a fish eco-label is tricky to interpret. The countries with the highest level of eco-labeling acceptability are Belgium and France".^[16] According to the same analysis and statistics, France and Belgium are most likely of accepting these eco-labels.

In the United States, environmental marketing claims require caution. Ambiguous titles such as environmentally friendly can be confusing without a specific definition; some regulators are providing guidance.^[17] The United States Environmental Protection Agency has deemed some ecolabels misleading in determining whether a product is truly "green".^[18]

In Canada, one label is that of the Environmental Choice Program.^[12] Created in 1988,^[19] only products approved by the program are allowed to display the label.^[20]

Overall, Mexico was one of the first countries in the world to pass a specific law on climate change. The law set an obligatory target of reducing national greenhouse-gas emissions by 30% by 2020. The country also has a National Climate Change Strategy, which is intended to guide policymaking over the next 40 years.^[21]

The Energy Rating Label is a Type III label^[22][23] that provides information on "energy service per unit of energy consumption".^[24] It was first created in 1986, but negotiations led to a redesign in 2000.^[25]

Oceania generates the second most e-waste, 16.1 kg, while having the third lowest recycling rate of 8.8%.^[26] Out of Oceania, only Australia has a policy in policy to manage e-waste, that being the Policy Stewardship Act published in 2011 that aimed to manage the impact of products, mainly those in reference to the disposal of products and their waste.^[27] Under the Act the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS) was created, which forced manufactures and importers of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) importing 5000 or more products or 15000 or more peripherals be liable and required to pay the NTCRS for retrieving and recycling materials from electronic products.

New Zealand does not have any law that directly manages their e-waste, instead they have voluntary product stewardship schemes such as supplier trade back and trade-in schemes and voluntary recycling drop-off points. Though this has helped it costs the provider money with labor taking up 90% of the cost of recycling. In addition, e-waste is currently not considered a priority product, which would encourage the enforcement of product stewardship. In Pacific Island Regions (PIR), e-waste management is a hard task since they lack the adequate amount of land to properly dispose of it even though they produce one of the lowest amounts of e-waste in the world due to their income and population. Due to this there are large stockpiles of waste unable to be recycled safely.

Currently, The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), an organization in charge of managing the natural resources and environment of the Pacific region, is in charge of region coordination and managing the e-waste of the Oceania region.^[28] SPREP uses Cleaner Pacific 2025 as a framework to guide the various governments in the region.^[29] They also work with PacWaste (Pacific Hazardous Waste) to identify and resolve the different issues with waste management of the islands, which largely stem from the lack of government enforcement and knowledge on the matter.^[30] They have currently proposed a mandatory product stewardship policy be put in place along with an advance recycling fee which would incentivize local and industrial recycling. They are also in the mindset that the islands should collaborate and share resources and experience to assist in the endeavor.

With the help from the NTCRS, though the situation has improved they have been vocal about the responsibilities of stakeholders in the situation and how they need to be more clearly defined. In addition to there being a differences in state and federal regulations, with only Southern Australia, Australian Capital Territory, and Victoria having banned e-waste landfill, it would be possible to make this apply the rest of the region if a federal decision was made. They have also advocated for reasonable access to collection points for waste, with there being only one collection point within a 100 km radius in some cases. It has been shown that the reason some residents do not recycle is because of their distance from a collection point. In addition, there have been few campaigns to recycle, with the company, Mobile Muster, a voluntary collection program managed by the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association, aimed to collect phones before they went to a landfill and has been doing so since 1999. Upon further study, it was found that only 46% of the public was award of the program, which later increased to 74% in 2018, but this was after an investment of $45 million from the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association.

"Economic growth in Asia has increased in the past three decades and has heightened energy demand, resulting in rising greenhouse gas emissions and severe air pollution. To tackle these issues, fuel switching and the deployment of renewables are essential."^[31] However, as countries continue to advance, it leads to more pollution as a result of increased energy consumption. In recent years, the biggest concern for Asia is its air pollution issues. Major Chinese cities such as Beijing have received the worst air quality rankings (Li et al., 2017). Seoul, the capital of South Korea, also suffers from air pollution (Kim et al., 2017). Currently, Indian cities such as Mumbai and Delhi are overtaking Chinese cities in the ranking of worst air quality. In 2019, 21 of the world's 30 cities with the worst air quality were in India."

The environmentally friendly trends are marketed with a different color association, using the color blue for clean air and clean water, as opposed to green in western cultures. Japanese- and Korean-built hybrid vehicles use the color blue instead of green all throughout the vehicle, and use the word "blue" indiscriminately.^[32]

According to Shen, Li, Wang, and Liao, the emission trading system that China had used for its environmentally friendly journey was implemented in certain districts and was successful in comparison to those which were used in test districts that were approved by the government.^[33] This shows how China tried to effectively introduce new innovative systems to impact the environment. China implemented multiple ways to combat environmental problems even if they didn't succeed at first. It led to them implementing a more successful process which benefited the environment. Although China needs to implement policies like, "The “fee-to-tax” process should be accelerated, however, and the design and implementation of the environmental tax system should be improved. This would form a positive incentive mechanism in which a low level of pollution correlates with a low level of tax." By implementing policies like these companies have a higher incentive to not over pollute the environment and instead focus on creating an eco-friendlier environment for their workplaces. In doing so, it will lead to less pollution being emitted while there also being a cleaner environment. Companies would prefer to have lower taxes to lessen the costs they have to deal with, so it encourages them to avoid polluting the environment as much as possible.

Energy Star is a program with a primary goal of increasing energy efficiency and indirectly decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.^[34] Energy Star has different sections for different nations or areas, including the United States,^[35] the European Union^[36] and Australia.^[37] The program, which was founded in the United States, also exists in Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Taiwan.^[38] Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 17 has a target to promote the development, transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies to developing countries as part of the 2030 Agenda.^[39]

Customer satisfaction is a term frequently used in marketing to evaluate customer experience. It is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation. Customer satisfaction is defined as "the number of customers, or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a firm, its products, or its services (ratings) exceeds specified satisfaction goals."^[1] Enhancing customer satisfaction and fostering customer loyalty are pivotal for businesses, given the significant importance of improving the balance between customer attitudes before and after the consumption process.^[2]

Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory is the most widely accepted theoretical framework for explaining customer satisfaction.^[3] However, other frameworks, such as Equity Theory, Attribution Theory, Contrast Theory, Assimilation Theory, and various others, are also used to gain insights into customer satisfaction.^[4][5][6] However, traditionally applied satisfaction surveys are influence by biases related to social desirability, availability heuristics, memory limitations, respondents' mood while answering questions, as well as affective, unconscious, and dynamic nature of customer experience.^[2]

The Marketing Accountability Standards Board endorses the definitions, purposes, and measures that appear in Marketing Metrics as part of its ongoing Common Language in Marketing Project.^[7] In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 71 percent responded that they found a customer satisfaction metric very useful in managing and monitoring their businesses.^[1] Customer satisfaction is viewed as a key performance indicator within business and is often part of a Balanced Scorecard. In a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers, customer satisfaction is seen as a major differentiator and increasingly has become an important element of business strategy.^[8]

Customer satisfaction provides a leading indicator of consumer purchase intentions and loyalty.^[1] The authors also wrote that "customer satisfaction data are among the most frequently collected indicators of market perceptions. Their principal use is twofold:" ^[1]

1. "Within organizations, the collection, analysis and dissemination of these data send a message about the importance of tending to customers and ensuring that they have a positive experience with the company's goods and services."^[1]
2. "Although sales or market share can indicate how well a firm is performing currently, satisfaction is perhaps the best indicator of how likely it is that the firm’s customers will make further purchases in the future. Much research has focused on the relationship between customer satisfaction and retention. Studies indicate that the ramifications of satisfaction are most strongly realized at the extremes."

On a five-point scale, "individuals who rate their satisfaction level as '5' are likely to become return customers and might even evangelize for the firm.^[9] A second important metric related to satisfaction is willingness to recommend. This metric is defined as "[t]he percentage of surveyed customers who indicate that they would recommend a brand to friends." A previous study about customer satisfaction stated that when a customer is satisfied with a product, he or she might recommend it to friends, relatives and colleagues.^[10] This can be a powerful marketing advantage. According to Faris et al., "[i]ndividuals who rate their satisfaction level as '1,' by contrast, are unlikely to return. Further, they can hurt the firm by making negative comments about it to prospective customers. Willingness to recommend is a key metric relating to customer satisfaction."^[1]

In the research literature, the antecedents of customer satisfaction are studied from different perspectives. These perspectives extend from the psychological to the physical as well as from the normative perspective. However, in much of the literature, research has been focused on two basic constructs, (a) expectations prior to purchase or use of a product and (b) customer perception of the performance of that product after using it.

A customer's expectations about a product bear on how the customer thinks the product will perform. Consumers are thought to have various "types" of expectations when forming opinions about a product's anticipated performance. Miller (1977) described four types of expectations: ideal, expected, minimum tolerable, and desirable. Day (1977) underlined different types of expectations, including ones about costs, the nature of the product, benefits, and social value.

It is considered that customers judge products on a limited set of norms and attributes. Olshavsky and Miller (1972) and Olson and Dover (1976) designed their researches as to manipulate actual product performance, and their aim was to find out how perceived performance ratings were influenced by expectations. These studies took out the discussions about explaining the differences between expectations and perceived performance."^[11]

In some research studies, scholars have been able to establish that customer satisfaction has a strong emotional, i.e., affective, component.^[12] Still others show that the cognitive and affective components of customer satisfaction reciprocally influence each other over time to determine overall satisfaction.^[13]

Especially for durable goods that are consumed over time, there is value to taking a dynamic perspective on customer satisfaction. Within a dynamic perspective, customer satisfaction can evolve over time as customers repeatedly use a product or interact with a service. The satisfaction experienced with each interaction (transactional satisfaction) can influence the overall, cumulative satisfaction. Scholars showed that it is not just overall customer satisfaction, but also customer loyalty that evolves over time.^[14]

"The Disconfirmation Model is based on the comparison of customers’ [expectations] and their [perceived performance] ratings. Specifically, an individual’s expectations are confirmed when a product performs as expected. It is negatively confirmed when a product performs more poorly than expected. The disconfirmation is positive when a product performs over the expectations (Churchill & Suprenant 1982). There are four constructs to describe the traditional disconfirmation paradigm mentioned as expectations, performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction."^[11] "Satisfaction is considered as an outcome of purchase and use, resulting from the buyers’ comparison of expected rewards and incurred costs of the purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences. In operation, satisfaction is somehow similar to attitude as it can be evaluated as the sum of satisfactions with some features of a product."^[11] "In the literature, cognitive and affective models of satisfaction are also developed and considered as alternatives (Pfaff, 1977). Churchill and Suprenant in 1982, evaluated various studies in the literature and formed an overview of Disconfirmation process in the following figure:" ^[11]

Organizations need to retain existing customers while targeting non-customers.^[15] Measuring customer satisfaction provides an indication of how successful the organization is at providing products and/or services to the marketplace.

"Customer satisfaction is measured at the individual level, but it is almost always reported at an aggregate level. It can be, and often is, measured along various dimensions. A hotel, for example, might ask customers to rate their experience with its front desk and check-in service, with the room, with the amenities in the room, with the restaurants, and so on. Additionally, in a holistic sense, the hotel might ask about overall satisfaction 'with your stay.'"^[1]

As research on consumption experiences grows, evidence suggests that consumers purchase goods and services for a combination of two types of benefits: hedonic and utilitarian.^[16] Hedonic benefits are associated with the sensory and experiential attributes of the product. Utilitarian benefits of a product are associated with the more instrumental and functional attributes of the product (Batra and Athola 1990).^[17]

Customer satisfaction is an ambiguous and abstract concept and the actual manifestation of the state of satisfaction will vary from person to person and product/service to product/service. The state of satisfaction depends on a number of both psychological and physical variables which correlate with satisfaction behaviors such as return and recommend rate. The level of satisfaction can also vary depending on other options the customer may have and other products against which the customer can compare the organization's products.

Work done by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (Leonard L)^[18] between 1985 and 1988 provides the basis for the measurement of customer satisfaction with a service by using the gap between the customer's expectation of performance and their perceived experience of performance. This provides the measurer with a satisfaction "gap" which is objective and quantitative in nature. Work done by Cronin and Taylor propose the "confirmation/disconfirmation" theory of combining the "gap" described by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry as two different measures (perception and expectation of performance) into a single measurement of performance according to expectation.

The usual measures of customer satisfaction involve a survey^[19] using a Likert scale. The customer is asked to evaluate each statement in terms of their perceptions and expectations of performance of the organization being measured.^[1][20]

Good quality measures need to have high satisfaction loading, good reliability, and low error variances. In an empirical study comparing commonly used satisfaction measures it was found that two multi-item semantic differential scales performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian service consumption contexts. A study by Wirtz & Lee (2003),^[21] found that a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale (for example, Oliver and Swan 1983), which is a six-item 7-point bipolar scale, consistently performed best across both hedonic and utilitarian services. It loaded most highly on satisfaction, had the highest item reliability, and had by far the lowest error variance across both studies. In the study,^[21] the six items asked respondents’ evaluation of their most recent experience with ATM services and ice cream restaurant, along seven points within these six items: “pleased me to displeased me”, “contented with to disgusted with”, “very satisfied with to very dissatisfied with”, “did a good job for me to did a poor job for me”, “wise choice to poor choice” and “happy with to unhappy with”. A semantic differential (4 items) scale (e.g., Eroglu and Machleit 1990),^[22] which is a four-item 7-point bipolar scale, was the second best performing measure, which was again consistent across both contexts. In the study, respondents were asked to evaluate their experience with both products, along seven points within these four items: “satisfied to dissatisfied”, “favorable to unfavorable”, “pleasant to unpleasant” and “I like it very much to I didn’t like it at all”.^[21] The third best scale was single-item percentage measure, a one-item 7-point bipolar scale (e.g., Westbrook 1980).^[23] Again, the respondents were asked to evaluate their experience on both ATM services and ice cream restaurants, along seven points within “delighted to terrible”.^[21]

Finally, all measures captured both affective and cognitive aspects of satisfaction, independent of their scale anchors.^[21] Affective measures capture a consumer’s attitude (liking/disliking) towards a product, which can result from any product information or experience. On the other hand, cognitive element is defined as an appraisal or conclusion on how the product’s performance compared against expectations (or exceeded or fell short of expectations), was useful (or not useful), fit the situation (or did not fit), exceeded the requirements of the situation (or did not exceed).

Recent research shows that in most commercial applications, such as firms conducting customer surveys, a single-item overall satisfaction scale performs just as well as a multi-item scale.^[24] Especially in larger scale studies where a researcher needs to gather data from a large number of customers, a single-item scale may be preferred because it can reduce total survey error.^[25] An interesting recent finding from re-interviewing the same clients of a firm is that only 50% of respondents give the same satisfaction rating when re-interviewed, even when there has been no service encounter between the client and firm between surveys.^[26] The study found a 'regression to the mean' effect in customer satisfaction responses, whereby the respondent group who gave unduly low scores in the first survey regressed up toward the mean level in the second, while the group who gave unduly high scores tended to regress downward toward the overall mean level in the second survey.

American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a scientific standard of customer satisfaction. Academic research has shown that the national ACSI score is a strong predictor of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, and an even stronger predictor of Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) growth.^[27] On the microeconomic level, academic studies have shown that ACSI data is related to a firm's financial performance in terms of return on investment (ROI), sales, long-term firm value (Tobin's q), cash flow, cash flow volatility, human capital performance, portfolio returns, debt financing, risk, and consumer spending.^[28][29] Increasing ACSI scores have been shown to predict loyalty, word-of-mouth recommendations, and purchase behavior. The ACSI measures customer satisfaction annually for more than 200 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors. In addition to quarterly reports, the ACSI methodology can be applied to private sector companies and government agencies in order to improve loyalty and purchase intent.^[30]

The Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 1980s by Professor Noriaki Kano that classifies customer preferences into five categories: Attractive, One-Dimensional, Must-Be, Indifferent, Reverse. The Kano model offers some insight into the product attributes which are perceived to be important to customers.

SERVQUAL or RATER is a service-quality framework that has been incorporated into customer-satisfaction surveys (e.g., the revised Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer^[31]) to indicate the gap between customer expectations and experience.

J.D. Power and Associates provides another measure of customer satisfaction, known for its top-box approach and automotive industry rankings. J.D. Power and Associates' marketing research consists primarily of consumer surveys and is publicly known for the value of its product awards.

Other research and consulting firms have customer satisfaction solutions as well. These include A.T. Kearney's Customer Satisfaction Audit process,^[32] which incorporates the Stages of Excellence framework and which helps define a company’s status against eight critically identified dimensions.

The Net Promoter Score (NPS) is also used to measure customer satisfaction. On a scale of 0 to 10, this score measures the willingness of customers to recommend a company to others. Despite many points of criticism from a scientific point of view, the NPS is widely used in practice.^[33] Its popularity and broad use have been attributed to its simplicity and its openly available methodology.

For B2B customer satisfaction surveys, where there is a small customer base, a high response rate to the survey is desirable.^[34] The American Customer Satisfaction Index (2012) found that response rates for paper-based surveys were around 10% and the response rates for e-surveys (web, wap and e-mail) were averaging between 5% and 15% - which can only provide a straw poll of the customers' opinions.

In the European Union member states, many methods for measuring impact and satisfaction of e-government services are in use, which the eGovMoNet project sought to compare and harmonize.^[35]

These customer satisfaction methodologies have not been independently audited by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board according to MMAP (Marketing Metric Audit Protocol).

There are many operational strategies for improving customer satisfaction but at the most fundamental level you need to understand customer expectations.

Recently there has been a growing interest in predicting customer satisfaction using big data and machine learning methods (with behavioral and demographic features as predictors) to take targeted preventive actions aimed at avoiding churn, complaints and dissatisfaction.^[36]

A 2008 survey found that only 3.5% of Chinese consumers were satisfied with their online shopping experience.^[37] A 2020 Arizona State University survey found that customer satisfaction in the United States is deteriorating. Roughly two-thirds of survey participants reported feeling "rage" over their experiences as consumers. A multi-decade decline in consumer satisfaction since the 1970s was observed. A majority of respondents felt that their customer service complaints were not sufficiently addressed by businesses.^[38] A 2022 report found that consumer experiences in the United States had declined substantially in the 2 years since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.^[39] In the United Kingdom in 2022, customer service complaints were at record highs, owing to staffing shortages and the supply crisis related to the COVID pandemic.^[40]

• Customer experience
• Business case
• Computer user satisfaction
• Customer satisfaction research
• Customer service
• Customer Loyalty
• The International Customer Service Institute

• Customer Satisfaction: A Central Phenomenon in Marketing