An exploratory examination of environmentally responsible straight rebuy purchases in large...

Journal of Business & Industrial MarketingEmerald Article: An exploratory examination of environmentally responsible straight rebuy purchases in large Australian organizationsMichael Jay Polonsky, Harry Brooks, Philip Henry, Craig Schweizer

Article information:

To cite this document: Michael Jay Polonsky, Harry Brooks, Philip Henry, Craig Schweizer, (1998),"An exploratory examination of environmentally responsible straight rebuy purchases in large Australian organizations", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss: 1 pp. 54 - 69

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629810206287

Downloaded on: 19-08-2012

References: This document contains references to 36 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 4 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 2019 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

James A. Fitzsimmons, Jeonpyo Noh, Emil Thies, (1998),"Purchasing business services", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss: 4 pp. 370 - 380http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226672

J. David Lichtenthal, Mary M. Long, (1998),"Case study: service support and capital goods - dissolving the resistance to obtaining product acceptance in new business markets", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss: 4 pp. 356 - 369http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226663

Martin Wetzels, Ko de Ruyter, Marcel van Birgelen, (1998),"Marketing service relationships: the role of commitment", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss: 4 pp. 406 - 423http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858629810226708

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IntroductionThere is growing evidence that firms are becoming more concerned abouthow their activities affect the natural environment (Cairncross, 1990;Langrehr et al., 1992; McDaniel and Rylander, 1993; Nichols, 1993; Walleyand Whitehead, 1994). The growing number of firms that are modifyingtheir products or implementing environmental management systems is oneindication of this increasing environmental concern. These systems are oftenbased on standards developed by third-party organizations such as theInternational Standards Office, ISO 14001, or the British Standardsorganization, BS 7750 (Hamner, 1996; Zeffane et al., 1994). However, manyfirms are not modifying their behavior simply because of governmentalpressure, as research suggests that there are organizations who believeimproving environmental performance is also a business opportunity (Jay,1990; Langrehr et al., 1992; Menon and Menon, 1997; Porter and van derLinde, 1995; Zeffane et al., 1994).

Much of the research examining firms’ environmental behavior has focussedon various aspects related to the firm’s production activities. For example,many organizations are becoming more concerned with their wastegenerating activities and have designed various programs to reduce these by-products. Such a corporate focus has the advantage that it often generatessubstantial cost savings, reduces the firm’s negative environmental impact(Walley and Whitehead, 1994), enhances the firm’s “green appeal” andprovides consumers with less environmentally harmful alternatives. In theirrole as consumers, organizations can also stimulate suppliers ofenvironmentally “responsible” products, to produce more such goods(Glover, 1994). For example, McDonald’s was actively involved withrecyclers of polystyrene, both as a supplier of waste materials and a purchaserof the recycled product, stimulating both supply and demand (Polonsky,1995). Thus, firms marketing goods with environmental attributes have to

54 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 1 1998, pp. 54-69, © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0885-8624

An exploratory examination ofenvironmentally responsiblestraight rebuy purchases in largeAustralian organizationsMichael Jay PolonskyDepartment of Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

Harry BrooksDepartment of Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

Philip Henry Department of Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, and

Craig SchweizerDepartment of Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

The authors would like to thank Philip Rosenberger III, Gary Mankelow and theanonymous reviewers at the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing for theiruseful comments.

Waste generatingactivities

Recycled paper products

A purchasing manager’snightmare

External governmentpressure

understand the way in which purchasing decisions regarding these goods aremade, if they are to satisfy organizational consumers.

To date, there has been a limited amount of research examiningorganizational purchasing behavior of products with environmentalattributes (Drumwright, 1992, 1994). From an environmental marketingperspective, it may be more important to understand environmentalorganizational consumption, given that organizational buying represents amajority of all marketing activities, far overshadowing purchases by finalconsumers.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the organizationalpurchase of one environmental straight rebuy product and provide someinsights that may assist marketers of products with environmental attributesin being more effective. The examination of purchasing agents’ (PAs’)attitudes and perceptions toward the purchase of recycled paper products hasseveral advantages:

• these products tend to be straight rebuy purchases;

• these products tend to have a similar buying center structure;

• these products can be used across industries in a similar fashion; and

• PAs have a majority of the influence in the purchase of supplies(Jackson et al., 1984), such as recycled paper.

To examine this issue, this study undertook in-depth interviews withpurchasing agents (PAs) of 11 large (i.e. having more than 100 employees)organizations in one of Australia’s largest cities. While the study examinesone of the least complicated environmental purchase activities, that of thestraight rebuy of recycled paper products (i.e. a supply), it should be notedthat other nonsupply straight rebuy decisions involving products withenvironmental attributes may be more complex. Thus, these results may notbe generalizable to all types of “environmental” straight rebuy situations orto other purchasing situations.

Environmental organizational purchasingIt has been suggested that company efforts to “buy green” can have themakings of a purchasing manager’s nightmare. For example, recycled paperproducts offer limited colors, have poorer quality than virgin paper (whichcan lead to jams in printers), and may cost more (Nichols, 1993). Althoughin other areas, buyers have found that recycled paper products are in fact abetter buy than virgin paper. More recently laser-printer manufacturers andpaper manufacturers have been keen to point out that recycled paper is infact superior to non-recycled paper, as it holds toner longer (Xerox, 1994).

While around the world some firms have been proactive in becoming moreenvironmentally responsible (i.e., less environmentally harmful), there arestill many firms who have been motivated to act solely because of externalgovernmental pressure. Firms have often been pushed to make their offices“greener.” For example, in Singapore, the government has undertaken topersuade businesses to exchange data electronically, in order to cut back onthe amount of paperwork generated (Mckenzie, 1993), and in the USA, allfederally purchased paper must contain 20 percent post-consumer recycledcontent (Peattie and Ring, 1993). These and other governmental actions

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 1 1998 55

(Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency, 1994) indicate thatpolicy makers have an understanding of the green revolution’s importance.While many companies are voluntarily pushing ahead, the average office hasa long way to go. The purchase of recycled products moves the firm one stepcloser to the green “ideal,” i.e., minimizing their negative environmentalimpact. Compared with ten years ago, or even five years ago, managers’attitudes and understanding of the importance of the natural environment hasimproved considerably (Mckenzie, 1993).

While managers are becoming more environmentally aware, there has beenlimited research examining organizational environmental purchasingbehavior (Apaiwongse, 1991, 1994; Drumwright, 1992, 1994; Langrehr etal., 1992). The most comprehensive research to date to examineenvironmental organizational purchasing behavior was a US study thatundertook 63 in-depth interviews in ten organizations to determine “how andwhy socially responsible buying comes about in organizations”(Drumwright, 1992, 1994). It was found that organizations and buyingcenters consisted of three different types of individuals:

(1) policy entrepreneurs,

(2) converts, and

(3) resisters.

Policy entrepreneurs were identified as individuals who are prepared to go topersonal expense to put important issues forward within a company, i.e.champion the environmental issue. They use their knowledge of an issue as apower base, to “prick the corporate social conscience” (Drumwright, 1992).Converts, on the other hand, are people within the organization who embracethe policies put forward by policy entrepreneurs, often after initialresistance. It was suggested that once an individual converted, they oftenfervently believe and preach social responsibility themselves. The last group,resisters, needs little explanation, as they are individuals within theorganization who do not see the need to modify existing behavior.

Based on this previous work, organizations can be classified into fourcategories, which are described in Table I (Drumwright, 1992, 1994). Thereare two major groups that can then be further subdivided. The first of thesetwo groups has a deliberate strategy to undertake socially responsible buyingactivities and can be subdivided into the groups of founder’s ideas andsymbolism. The second group does not have a deliberate strategy forundertaking socially responsible buying and can be subdivided into thegroups of opportune and restraint. If they (the opportune and restraintgroups) are making environmental purchases, they may be doing so for“other” reasons, such as that they face external pressure. For example,governmental regulations requiring the phasing out of CFC based productsforced all firms in the aerosol industry to purchase non-CFC propellants.Firms that modified their behavior prior to the introduction of the regulationsmight be classified as firms based on founder’s ideas or symbolism, whereasthose firms that only modified their behavior due to governmental actionmight be classified as opportune or restraint.

The buying centerAs this work broadly examines organizational purchasing, it is useful tobriefly examine the buying center and some issues relevant to this study.There have been numerous attempts to model the purchasing process(Johnson and Lewin, 1996) and it would be impossible to examine all thesemodels in this paper. It is, however, important to identify some basic

56 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 1 1998

Environmentalpurchasing behavior

Socially responsiblebuying

similarities in the models, especially those related to purchase of straightrebuy products.

Most earlier work suggests that the nature of the purchase will influencewho is involved in the decision-making process. The structure of the buyingcenter usually consists of a number of individuals including users, buyers,influencers, deciders, and gatekeepers. In some cases, an individual mayoccupy several buying center roles, i.e. they may be buyer, decider andinfluencer. In addition, each individual involved in a buying center ismotivated by different forces, which will depend on their role in the buyingcenter and their role in the organization (Johnson and Lewin, 1996; Webster,1993). Given the number of individuals involved in the buying centerdecision-making process, research examining this area has tended to be morecomplex. To be comprehensive a buying center study needs to identify andinterview all buying center members (Drumwright, 1994).

Another important buying center issue is that the type of purchase influencesthe buying process and the buying center structure. Industrial purchases havebeen classified into three different buying categories:

(1) new task,

(2) modified rebuy, and

(3) straight rebuy.

There have been many differences found between the types of purchases,with new task purchases being the most complex and straight rebuys beingthe most straightforward. For example, it has been found that straight rebuypurchases take less time, involve fewer decision makers, and usually dealwith less complex products, compared to the other decision types (Doyle etal., 1979).


Table I. Drumwright’s classifications of socially responsible buying (SRB) byorganizations

SRB-deliberate organizational strategy

Founder’s idealsThe founder viewed the organization as a bully pulpit for social change and a sociallaboratory. The company has a formal stated social mission, a social responsibility officerand social responsibility audits for itself and its vendors

SymbolismSRB was used to symbolize the company’s efforts at socially responsible behavior inother realms in which such efforts were complex and not easily communicated. Topmanagement recognized that social responsibility was linked to success because thebusiness was subject to heavy public and/or regulatory scrutiny

OpportuneThe company engaged in SRB when cost savings or competitive advantage resulted. Thecompany was responding to what it perceived to be as a hot topic among customers orcompetitors at the moment

RestrainsRather than buying something that would be more advantageous, the companyvoluntarily exercised restraint and engaged in SRB at a non-negligible cost. At times, thecompany began to resemble other types

Note: Definitions are taken from Drumwright (1994), p. 15.

Structure of the buyingcenter

Influence of the type ofpurchase

In terms of influence of individuals within the buying center, it has beensuggested that PAs were more influential in selecting suppliers and makingpurchase decisions in straight rebuy situations (Jackson et al., 1984). PAswere also found to be responsible for the majority of the purchases ofsupplies, which are goods that do not become involved in the final product,but are essential to everyday operations (Jackson et al., 1984). Thus,examining the attitudes of PAs toward recycled paper should give anindication as to buying center members’ attitudes, although this may varybased on the specific rebuy situation.

MethodologyGiven the lack of literature examining organizational environmental buyingbehavior, it was determined that it would be most appropriate to undertakeexploratory research into the environmentally responsible straight rebuy (ofrecycled paper products) purchases within Australian organizationsemploying more than 100 employees in one large Australian city. As wasmentioned earlier, examining the purchase of recycled paper has theadvantages that the product:

• can be used in similar ways across firms and industries,

• tends to be a straight rebuy purchase,

• is a product that PAs tend to substantially influence, and

• has a buying center for its purchase which is of a similar structure acrossfirms.

While this study is designed to be exploratory it is suggested that thefindings may be generalizable for this specific purchase situation (i.e.recycled paper and/or other supply types of straight rebuy products) to thewider population of large Australian organizations. It is, however, true thatthese results may not be generalizable to all other types of straight rebuypurchases or the other types of purchasing situations.

Data were collected from 11 organizations in one large Australian city. Allorganizations examined were of sufficient size to support a specializedpurchasing department. An examination of two separate mailing listsidentified 16 organizations within the targeted region as employing morethan 100 employees. These organizations were contacted by telephone toexplain the research project and determine whether the PA would beprepared to participate in the study. Eleven of the 16 PAs agreed toparticipate in the study (a 69 percent response rate) representing thefollowing industries: manufacturing (4), utilities (3), governmental/statutorybodies (3) and communications (1). Interviews were conducted under thecondition of confidentiality and thus no data on individual firms or PAs arereported.

PAs responsible for the purchase of paper products were considered the bestpeople to interview due to the assumption that a supply type of straightrebuy was being examined and they (the PA) would have the most influence(Doyle et al., 1979; Jackson et al., 1984; Mattson, 1988). A preliminaryquestion was asked to gauge the extent of the PAs’ role in the process andwhether any other individual was involved. It was found that PAs believedthat they had the most purchasing influence (i.e., they were the keyinformant) for this product and thus no additional organizational informantswere sought. While it is recognized that self reported nature of the responsemay introduce some bias, no attempt was made to verify respondents’ views.


Purchase of recycledpaper

Role of PA in purchasing

The interview protocol was semi-structured in nature and was designed toallow flexibility while still maintaining a standard set of questions. Semi-structured interviews were considered the most appropriate, as they wereused in the earlier literature in this area (Drumwright, 1992, 1994) and inaddition they are often used in exploratory research. The questions usedwere designed based on information obtained from an industry expert andthe previous literature (Drumwright, 1992, 1994; Langrehr et al., 1992).However, given the narrow area examined in this study (supply type ofstraight rebuy) and differing data collection processes (one key informantversus multiple informants), this work is not directly comparable to earlierquantitative results.

The final interview protocol contained 15 questions that could be dividedinto five issues:

(1) organizational demographics;

(2) the environment as an organizational issue;


Table II. Semi-structured interview protocol and issue covered

Question Issue covered

Demographic questions.(e.g., size, industry). What is the main The environmentfunction of your firm? in the organization

Do you consider the environment to be an issue for your The environment organization? Will it continue to be an issue in future years? in the organization

How do you rate the performance of your industry generally in its The environment response to environmental issues? in the organization

What areas of your business are currently using recycled products? Recycled paper What areas could use recycled products in the future? issues

What sort of incentives would encourage you to use recycled and Supplier issuesrecyclable products now?

What sort of written/unwritten policies are in place regarding Buying center the firm’s environmental stance.? How does this affect everyday issuespurchasing decisions?

Which department within your firm has the most influence over Buying centerthe purchase of paper for office and administration work? Why? issues

Are you aware of recycled paper and packaging products available Recycled paperthat could be used within your company? Are you aware of issues/supplierpotential suppliers? issues

How do you perceive suppliers of recycled products? Can they Supplier issuesadequately satisfy the needs of your company? Do the suppliers ofrecycled products communicate their product offerings effectively?

What criteria do you consider most important for evaluating paper Recycled paperbased products? issues

What information sources would be considered important when Supplier issuespurchasing recycled paper products?

What are your perceptions about recycled paper products? Recycled paper issues

Have you had any experience with recycled paper products in the Recycled paperpast? Why, Why not? What happened? issues

Do you see any problems or benefits in being seen by stakeholders The environmentand the public as being an environmentally aware company in the organization

(3) buying center function issues;

(4) supplier’s influence; and

(5) recycled paper usage and evaluation criterion issues (see Table II for theInterview Protocol).

The objective of the study is to highlight trends and examine the views of akey informant in the buying center (i.e. PAs) for a straight rebuy purchasewith environmental attributes. However, as has previously been mentioned,it is not clear that these findings can be generalized to all environmentallyoriented straight rebuy situations.

Each semi-structured interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Notes weretaken, the data were then reduced as suggested by the literature(Drumwright, 1992, 1994; Miles and Hubberman, 1984). Given thequalitative nature of the data and small sample size, only descriptive analysisand the examination of broad trends of respondents’ attitudes are provided.This type of exploratory study has inherent limitations, most notable beingthe potential for respondent and interviewer bias. As suggested by earlierresearch, respondents interviewed may, at times, reflect their own attitudesand not necessarily the organization’s attitudes. For example, PAs with astrong personal conviction toward the environment may inadvertently biastheir response. In addition key informants may have an inflated view of theirimportance to any decision process and thus further introduce bias into thedata.

Results and discussionsAs was discussed earlier, four broad issues relating to recycled paper wereexamined in this study. In this section each of these issues is individuallyexamined, based on the information obtained in the 11 PA interviews.

The environment as an organizational issueNot surprisingly, all the PAs felt that the environment was an important issuefor their firm and they believed it would continue to be an important issue inthe future. This result is confirmed by other studies, which found mostmanagers believed the environment was an important issue today and wouldbe in the future (Peattie and Ratnayaka, 1992; Peattie and Ring, 1993;Vandermere and Oliff, 1991). All the organizations examined had some typeof paper recycling program in place to reduce waste.

In probing the PAs in more depth, it was found that a small number oforganizations (three) had policy entrepreneurs or, as they stated, “greenieson staff to push the company to act.” Other PAs said that their organizationswere facing environmental pressures from various external groups, includingregulators and the local community, from which could be implied that manyorganizations are taking a more “opportunistic” approach toward purchasingenvironmental products. They appear to be “responding to what it perceivedto be as a ‘hot topic’ among customers or competitors at the moment.”(Drumwright, 1994) This perspective was supported by two PAs who feltthat their organizations could achieve a “competitive” advantage by goinggreen.

The more “committed” organizations, or those that might possibly be basedon founder’s ideals, went further and established environmental departmentsto ensure that all individuals in the organization behaved responsibly. Therewere two organizations that had integrated environmental training into all


Attitudes of respondents

Importance ofenvironmental issues

Developing new products

Purchasing criteria

Suppliers of recycledpaper

levels of the organization in order to ensure that their employees understoodthe environmental imperative. PAs in these firms believed that their firmswere leading the way in terms of integrating recycled paper into theorganization.

Firms undertaking the above activities might be classified in the founder’sideals or symbolism category, but without an indication of organizationalinvolvement with environmental issues, it is difficult to distinguish betweenthese two categories. As none of the PAs suggested that they wereindividually responsible for the establishment of broad based environmentalpurchasing criteria, it is therefore unclear if PAs were acting as policyentrepreneurs. If they were, it would be inconsistent with the findings ofother researchers (Drumwright, 1992, 1994).

When examining the organization and its relationship to the environment,six PAs indicated that they felt they were constrained by the supplierinability to provide innovative solutions, i.e. the recycled paper was notsatisfactory for all organizational uses. In these cases, the organizations mayultimately be able to assist suppliers in developing new products toappropriately meet organizational needs.

Buying center issuesIn the sample, six of the 11 organizations had policies dealing with thepurchase of recycled paper, though not all of these were formal writtenpolicies. In one case a PA took it on himself to develop appropriatepurchasing criteria for recycled paper. At least two organizations had formalbuying lists that restricted their purchases to approved companies. Thus, if asupplier of recycled paper was not on the list, then their products could notbe purchased.

As suggested by the buying center literature (Doyle et al., 1979), PAs feltthat they had the primary responsibility for the purchase of recycled paper.They considered its purchase to be a routine activity. Two PAs felt that onoccasions there was a minor influence from the firm’s computer department,which consumed large amounts of the paper purchased. Another respondentsaid that on occasions individual departments made specific requests forcertain types of paper, though even in these cases, it was up to the specificPA to find an appropriate supplier.

Supplier related issuesAll PAs said they could easily identify suppliers of recycled paper, with ninePAs naming specific brands. While awareness was high, PAs were less thansatisfied with the service and information provided by recycled papersuppliers. It was felt that suppliers did not “push” recycled paper over virginpaper. This comment was also made when PAs were asked about suppliers’ability to satisfy the company’s general needs. There was “skepticism” byPAs relating to the quality of products produced, which may have been dueto poor past experiences. It was felt that sometimes the productcharacteristics were exaggerated by marketers, leaving PAs “dissatisfied”with the recycled paper products purchased.

Overall, PAs identified that newer recycled paper products were of higherquality than were earlier products. This may imply that the resources spenton communicating environmental characterises of recycled paper, by largeorganizations such as Xerox (Xerox, 1994), might be changing PAs’


attitudes toward recycled paper. At least two PAs favored additionalsupplier-based promotion of their recycled paper products. However, it mayalso reflect real improvements in the quality of recycled paper. PAs indicatedthat to be effective, any supplier information on recycled paper products hadto differentiate itself from the regular flow of junk mail coming across theirdesk.

PAs suggested that suppliers could provide incentives such as lower costs,which would increase organizational use of recycled paper. Such supplierincentives were favored over governmental or tax incentives. It was felt thatthe quality and value of recycled paper had to be communicated moreclearly to encourage purchase. Finally six of the PAs believed there was apromotional bias by suppliers toward virgin paper, which may have beenattributable to the higher margins associated with that product or the fact thatthe higher price “dissuaded” organizational purchases.

Recycled paper issuesIt was found that eight of the organizations sampled were presently usingrecycled paper somewhere in their organization, though as mentioned aboveall PAs were aware of recycled paper suppliers. PAs identified a variety ofdifferent recycled paper items available, including computer paper,envelopes, letterheads, note pads, photocopying paper, printing paper andtoilet rolls. Not all firms that used recycled paper, used all available recycledproducts. Interestingly, some firms would only use recycled paper internally,while others only used it on letterhead and external materials. Thisdifference in usage might indicate a difference in organizationalcategorization, with those only concerned with outward appearances beingless environmentally “concerned” or involved.

Six of the PAs indicated that previously they had negative experiences withrecycled paper and that it not been “up to scratch.” These PAs suggested thatin the past, using recycled paper had resulted in damage to office equipment.These negative experiences might, therefore, increase the perceivedindividual risk to PAs in regard to purchasing recycled paper and thus,require more communication from suppliers regarding product qualityimprovements would be required to stimulate purchase.

PAs were asked to identify the most important criteria when evaluatingpaper products. The two most identified criteria were quality (4) and price(3), with factors such as delivery, service, recycled content and country oforigin, each being identified as the “most” important by at least one PA.Thus, it appears that PAs are very concerned about paper performance,although respondents were not asked to rank evaluation criteria in terms ofimportance.

There were some contradictory findings in this area of the study, forexample, two PAs said that recycled paper was not white enough to use forletterhead, while another PA suggested that product quality had improved tosuch an extent that without the “recycled” logo consumers would not be ableto identify the paper as recycled. Another contradictory result was that twoof the PAs said that they were willing to pay more for recycled paperproducts that performed well, yet, as mentioned earlier, three PAs indicatedprice was their primary evaluation criteria. These differences might beexplained by the environmental orientation of the firm and the PA. An


Incentives to userecycled paper

Negative experiences

Contradictory results

Effectiveness of recycledpaper

Balanced marketing mix

Segmentation model

alternative explanation might be that perceptions are heavily influenced bythe diverse previous experiences of the respondents. There is strongevidence to support this alternative view as 54 percent (6) of the PAsindicated they had negative previous experiences and only 18 percent (2)had positive past experiences. While most PAs previously had negativeexperiences, on the whole they believed that quality was improving, but thatproduct quality was still inferior to virgin paper.

There was also a question asked regarding perceptions, as distinct from pastexperience. Seven of the respondents had negative perceptions towardrecycled paper’s effectiveness. The reasons given for these negativeperceptions relate directly to their negative previous experiences mentionedabove. Of those who had positive perceptions toward recycled paper, twoPAs felt that it was important for their organization to use recycled paper fora “solid” public image. Thus, PAs may not necessarily be commenting ontheir past organizational use, but rather on broader business benefits. If thisis the case, then these firms would be classified as “opportunists.”

Managerial implications and recommendationsThis study highlights the fact that industrial buyers seem to require productsto have additional attributes to those which have been traditionally offered.Not only do organizations want a quality product at a reasonable price, butthey also appear to want that product to be less environmentally harmful. Itdoes not appear that organizational buyers are placing environmentalpurchasing criteria above all others, i.e., price, quality, etc. As such,marketers must provide a balanced marketing mix and not necessarily focussolely on environmental attributes (Ottman, 1995). Marketers should,however, not ignore environmental attributes when marketing and promotingtheir products either. Although, the importance of the environmentalattributes to the industrial buyer may be dependent on where the buyer’sorganization fits within the four-firm classification: founders ideals,symbolism, opportune and restraint.

It is possible that the specific marketing strategies used might be modifieddepending on the environmental orientation of both the firm and theindividual purchasing agent. This may result in marketers segmentingorganizations and developing specific strategies to target each segment. Forexample in Australia, Kyocera has run several different print advertisementsfor their Ecosys laser printer, in which environmental information has beenincluded with varying degrees of emphasis (Kyocera Electronics Australia,1994, 1995, 1995/1996). Thus, some marketers may already be trying to usean organization’s environmental involvement to segment industrialconsumers.

To assist marketers, it may be useful to identify a process by whichorganizations can be segmented. Figure 1 puts forward a segmentationmodel that relies on three main criteria. These criteria were suggested in theprevious research and are supported by this study. First, marketers need toidentify if firms have an environmental purchasing policy (Drumwright,1992, 1994). Second, marketers must identify the specific criteria used toevaluate the product purchase. In firms with environmental purchasingpolicies, these criteria should be more easily identifiable, as they will beestablished in the policy. For firms that do not have environmentalpurchasing policies, it will be important for marketers to identify individual


PA’s purchasing criteria, which will often be more difficult given their oftensubjective nature.

The third step is to identify the PAs’ involvement with environment issues andtheir involvement in the purchase of products with environmental attributes.Identification of PAs’ involvement level will be important, even in firmswhere there are environmental purchasing policies, as the PA will beresponsible for the implementation of environmental purchasing policies. Thehigher the PA’s involvement with environmental issues, the more marketersmay need to emphasize the product’s environmental attributes. If the PA is notactively involved with environmental issues, it is most likely more importantto highlight other product attributes. Although the product’s environmentalattributes should also at least be mentioned, even if they are not emphasized.

Thus, strategies for marketing products with environmental attributes can bedeveloped by understanding how involved both the organization andindividual PA are with the environment. While the proposed process is basedon an examination of a supply type of straight rebuy products, it is suggestedthat it may also apply to other types of purchases – nonsupply straight rebuy,modified rebuys and new products. However, the identification of the overallimportance of environmental product characteristics and environmentalinvolvement of all buying center individuals will be more difficult toidentify and evaluate for these other types of purchases.


Does the organisation havean environmental purchasing

policy

Identify purchasingofficer criteria

Identify policycriteria for paper

Identify thepurchasing officer’s

level ofinvolvement inenvironmental

purchases

Identify thepurchasing officer’s

level ofinvolvement inenvironmental

purchases

Resistantor

uninvolved

Reactiveinvolvement

Purchasingagent

moderatelyinvolved(possibleconvert)

Purchasingagenthighly

involved(possible

policyentrepreneur)

Restraint Opportune Symbolism Founder’sIdeals

Figure 1. Model of recycled paper purchasing behavior

Involvement of PA withenvironmental issues

Strategies to overcomepast deficiencies

Problems in marketingenvironmental products

Managerial recommendations can also be based on the fact that products,especially those with environmental attributes, are evolving at a rapid rate.As with all types of products, marketers need to continually communicatewith buyers to identify problem areas to assist in improving their existingofferings. More importantly, marketers need to communicate how theirproducts have been improved. It appears that negative past experiences mayhave a long-term influence on perceptions and future purchase behavior.Marketers must develop effective methods of communication to ensure thatattitudes and perceptions change as the products and quality levels change.

Strategies to overcome past product deficiencies may also attempt tominimize the risk to the purchasing organization. Minimizing risk throughvarious types of guarantees or warranties may be one method of encouragingtrial or retrial. In other cases, firms may attempt to obtain third-partyendorsement or certification for products with environmental attributes as away of reducing consumer uncertainty (Mendleson and Polonsky, 1995;Stafford and Hartman, 1996). For example the Kyocera laser printers areendorsed by the Australian Conservation Foundation (Kyocera ElectronicsAustralia, 1994), which is a highly credible environmental organization inAustralia. This endorsement may encourage some organizations to purchasea product that utilizes new environmentally less harmful technology, whichthey might have not otherwise considered.

Conclusions and future researchIn terms of this exploratory research, it appears that PAs are buying recycledpaper products for many different reasons. “Going green” may be animportant organizational issue, but it seems that when evaluating purchases,environmental product attributes are only one component of the overallevaluation process. It does appear that products must have a minimal set ofacceptable characteristics to be purchased. From this research it is howeverstill unclear how PAs trade off environmental characteristics with otherproduct characteristics. Clearly, quality and value (as distinct from price) aretwo important characteristics that need to be present for purchase to occur.

Organizational purchasing behavior is shaped by many different forces. Ifrecycled product producers, straight rebuy and others, are to become in-suppliers, they must understand the organization’s product use and buyingcenter behavior. Simply appealing to organizations’ desire to “be green” ismost likely not enough to “sell” to all organizations.

It appears that the marketers of environmentally responsible products mayhave to overcome other problems as well. For example, potential consumersmay have inaccurate perceptions of product quality due to poor past productperformance. Marketers must ensure that they communicate environmentalproduct attributes and changes in those attributes effectively to key decisionmakers in the buying center. However, the communication of environmentalproduct attributes is not an easy task. There is a growing stream of literaturediscussing the problems faced by consumer goods manufacturers incommunicating environmental information (Carlson et al., 1993; Davis,1993). Given the buying centers’ diversity, marketers may need to provideextensive information to address all members’ needs.


The research examining environmentally responsible buying behavior is, atpresent, very limited and requires additional academic investigation. This isnot to imply that the existing buying center literature needs to be ignored orreinvented. Applying existing buying center theory to another type ofpurchasing criteria may yield other useful insights and findings. An area oftheory that may need to be further developed, is the linkage betweenorganizational activities and non-financial motivations. If environmentalcriteria are becoming more important to organizations, the marketers need tohave a method of developing strategies that will achieve desiredorganizational outcomes.

There are a number of other areas that could also be examined. For example,research could examine a wider range of product types, other straight rebuy,new purchases and modified rebuy purchases, to determine if the type ofpurchase decision has an influence on the purchasing of products withenvironmental attributes. It could be hypothesized that new productpurchases are already risky decisions and thus firms would be less willing topurchase products with environmental attributes, especially if the productsthemselves are new to the market. If there are quality concerns by industrialconsumers, it may be difficult for products with environmental attributes, ofany type, to be adopted.

There is also an opportunity to examine this phenomenon cross-culturally.While this study examined supply types of straight rebuy products in largeAustralian organizations, it was not directly comparable to the previous USwork in this area, given the different focus of the two studies. Another areathat could be examined is the difference between small and largeorganizations. Small organizations often are considered to have a morefamily/community focus and are often more flexible than largerorganizations. They may, thus, be more likely to purchase products withenvironmental attributes. In general, there appears to be extensive room forresearch into the purchasing of products with environmental attributes.

References

Apaiwongse, T.S. (1991), “Factors affecting attitudes among buying center members towardsadoption of an ecologically-related regulatory alternative: a new application oforganizational theory to a public policy issue,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-60.

Apaiwongse, T.S. (1994), “The influence of green policies on a dual marketing center,”Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 41-50.

Cairncross, F. (1990), “Cleaning up: a survey of industry and the environment,” Economist,Vol. 316 No. 7671, pp. 21-6.

Carlson, L., Grove, S.J. and Kangun, N. (1993), “A content analysis of environmentaladvertising claims: a matrix approach,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 27-40.

Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency (1994), The Development of Scientificcriteria for Commonwealth Government Purchases of Environmentally Preferred PaperProducts, EPA, Canberra.

Davis, J.J. (1993), “Strategies for environmental advertising,” The Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 19-36.

Doyle, P., Woodside, A.G. and Michell, P. (1979), “Organizations buying in new task andrebuy situations,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 8, pp. 7-11.

Drumwright, M.E. (1992), Socially Responsible Organizational Buying, Marketing ScienceInstitute, Boston, MA.

Drumwright, M.E. (1994), “Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concernas a noneconomic buying criterion,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 1-19.


Nonfinancial motivations

Glover, G. (1994), “New concepts in environmental packaging – meeting the challenges andopportunities,” Environmental Marketing:Critical Success Strategies for Reaching theGreen Consumer, Proceedings of the 1994 Conference, February, pp. 39-44.

Hamner, B. (1996), Waste Reduction: The Cost Effective Approach towards ISO 14000Compliance, ASEAN Environmental Project, Philippines.

Jackson, W.D., Keith, J.E. and Burdick, R.K. (1984), “Purchasing agents’ perceptions ofindustrial buying center influence: a situational approach,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48,pp. 75-83.

Jay, L. (1990), “Green about the tills: markets discover the eco-consumer,” ManagementReview, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 24-8.

Johnson, W.J. and Lewin, J.E. (1996), “Organizational buying behaviour: toward an integrativeframework,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Kyocera Electronics Australia (1994), “Kyocera Ecosys:the printer that doesn’t cost the earth,”Kyocera Electronics Australia, Sydney.

Kyocera Electronics Australia (1995), “Kyocera presents,” Time, Vol. 146 No. 47, November27, p. 5.

Kyocera Electronics Australia (1995/1996), “Kyocera: presenting a printer that meetstomorrow’s standards… today,” Time, Vol. 146 No. 51, December 25/January 1, p. 8.

Langrehr, V.B., Langrehr, F.W. and Tatreau, J. (1992), “Business users’ attitudes towardrecycled materials,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 361-7.

McDaniel, S. and Rylander, D. (1993), “Strategic green marketing,” Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 4-10.

Mckenzie, A. (1993), “Green offices pay dividends,” Asian Business, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 56-7.

Mattson, M.R. (1988), “How to determine the composition and influence of a buying center,”Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 205-14.

Mendelson, N. and Polonsky, M.J. (1995), “Using strategic alliances to develop credible greenmarketing,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 4-18.

Menon, A. and Menon, A. (1997), “Enviropeneurial marketing strategy: the emergence ofcorporate environmentalism as market strategy,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 51-67.

Miles, M. and Hubberman, I. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis, Lexington Books, Lexington,MA.

Nichols, M. (1993), “The green office: plastic wood and grainy paper,” Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 71 No. 4, p. 9.

Ottman, J. (1995), “Mandate for the ’90s: green corporate image,” Marketing News, Vol. 29No. 29, p. 8.

Peattie, K. and Ratnayaka, M. (1992), “Responding to the green movement,” IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 103-10.

Peattie, K. and Ring, T.M. (1993), “Greener strategies: the role of the strategic planner,”Greener Management International, No. 3, pp. 51-64.

Polonsky, M.J. (1995), “A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketingstrategy,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 29-46.

Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive,” Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-38.

Stafford, E.R and Hartman, C.L. (1996), “Green alliances: strategic relations betweenbusinesses and environmental groups,” Business Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 50-9.

Vandermere, S. and Oliff, M.D. (1991), “Consumers drive corporations green,” Long RangePlanning, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 10-16.

Walley, N. and Whitehead, B. (1994), “It’s not easy being green,” Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 46-52.

Webster, C. (1993), “Buyer involvement in purchasing success,” Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 22, pp. 199-205.

Xerox (1994), The Environment Comes First and That’s Official, Xerox, Sydney.

Zeffane, R., Polonsky, M.J. and Medley, P. (1994), “Corporate environmental commitment:developing the operational concept,” Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 3 No.4, pp. 17-28.

■


Executive summary and implications for managers andexecutives

Buying “green” can make business senseOne of the things my environmentalist friends find hard to appreciate is justhow much business has embraced “green” issues. As Polonsky, Brooks,Henry and Schweizer point out “…many firms are not modifying theirbehaviour simply because of governmental pressure…” but believe that“…improving environmental performance is also a business opportunity.”Firms (quite rightly) act out of selfish interest rather than some higherphilanthropic motivation. To the “green” campaigner this suggests thatbusinesses will resist environmentally responsible actions. The truth is thatmany such responsible actions provide benefits to firms. Just look at thefollowing examples:

Waste management. As the cost of waste disposal rises firms have anabsolute incentive to reduce the amount of waste generated. Thus re-use andrecycling present cost reduction possibilities.

Equipment lifetime. Extending the life of equipment makes economic senseto all businesses. It also accords with the objectives of environmentalists.Indeed, in this area the desire of governmental to regulate on safety issuesacts counter to the “green” objective.

Energy consumption. Most developed world businesses are either servicesor manufacturers with low resource inputs. For these firms reducing “rawmaterial” input presents a straight benefit to the bottom line. Again the“green” objective matches callous, capitalist business objectives.

Marketing differentiation. Consumers expect environmentally responsiblebehaviour from firms – even where those same consumers are wasteful andunfriendly to the environment in the everyday lives. Good firm image,therefore, requires a positive approach to possible environmental problems.And, not surprisingly, firms take those steps.

So, having set the picture, are there still problems in firms makingenvironmentally responsible decisions? The straight answer, as Polonsky etal. show, is “yes.” Resistance to “green” management still exists.

Polonsky et al. look at one individual purchasing activity – buying paper.The authors point out that consumption of recycled paper has increaseddramatically driven partly by government procurement rules and partly byinternal pressures on the buyers. In trying to understand the resistance torecycled paper purchases, Polonsky et al. describe a typology: “policyentrepreneurs,” “converts” and “resisters.”

It might help, at this point, to see managers as consumers. After all when wemake a stationery order in the office we seldom think about its impact onoverall business objectives. Our actions are, perhaps, more akin to those wetake when buying fertilizer for the lawn or furniture for the dining room.Some will consider the “green” issues (because we believe in them) whileothers will buy the one that works or looks best regardless of environmentalconcerns.

Two issues therefore arise. If, in most situations, the environmentallyresponsible rebuy makes business sense then firms should insist on thatpurchase decision becoming policy. The idiosyncratic preferences of a


This summary has beenprovided to allowmanagers and executivesa rapid appreciation ofthe content of thisarticle. Those with aparticular interest in thetopic covered may thenread the article in toto totake advantage of themore comprehensivedescription of theresearch undertaken andits results to get the fullbenefit of the materialpresent

particular manager should not be allowed to dictate the buying decision ofthe whole business. If the designer specifies 115 gsm virgin bond paper forthe letterheads that specification needs substantiation in business terms aswell as aesthetics.

And, as we know the business benefits of “green” policies, we need topromote those policies to managers and staff. One of the biggest problemswith “green” issues is confusion. The benefits need explaining – not just inbusiness terms but in terms of the broad environmental issue itself. Staff will(I hope) respond to the knowledge that their purchasing actions both benefitthe firm and contribute to saving the planet.

Polonsky et al. admit that their study has limits and may not transfer to othermore complex purchasing issues. Buying vehicles, for example, involves afar broader range of environmental and business issues. Not least when youtell managers they’ve to drive a small diesel car rather than a zippy two-litrepetrol vehicle!

In deciding buying policies, therefore, “green” concerns are just onecriterion. Even paper purchases are not determined by “green” issues alone.Firms have to balance short- and long-term costs, availability, fitness for thedesired purpose and acceptability as well as whether the purchase is“environmentally responsible.”

In looking at applying “green” purchasing ideals firms should consider:

• Direct short-term business benefits – will the “green” option reducecosts directly?

• Indirect short-term business benefits – will the “green” option reducewaste or save on fuel bills?

• Direct long-term business benefits – will the “green” option generatereduced running costs or other savings over its life?

• Indirect long-term business benefits – are there improvements toefficiency, reductions in waste generation or other benefits resultingfrom, for example, a longer operating life?

• Current regulations – are there restrictions on the use of a particularsupply?

• Possible regulations or taxes – a government’s planning changesaffecting the area of purchasing policy?

• Wider environmental impact – what is the “green” benefit from yourdecision?

• Image and marketing benefits – will the decision present a positiveimage of your firm?

In applying these criteria firms need to remember that the main objectivemust always remain effective and efficient buying. In many cases this meansthe “green” option is as good as the old “dirty” purchase but you should bewary of making the environmentally responsible choice simply because it is“clean and green.”


(A précis of the article “An exploratory examination of environmentallyresponsible straight rebuy purchases in large Australian orgainizations”.Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

Date post:	30-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	craig
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

An exploratory examination of environmentally responsible straight rebuy purchases in large...

Documents