The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay?
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to consider the price premium that consumers state they are willing to pay for products with reused or recycled content. It also aims to address the effect of the impact of product category on consumers' willingness to pay premium prices. Design/approach/methodology: Willingness to pay was studied for seven different product categories (n=49). Findings: Perceived functional risk is an important determinant of the price that consumers are willing to pay for products that have recycled or reused content. It was also found that consumers will switch from a recycled product to a new product within a smaller range of price for products with high functional risk. Research limitations/implications: The study is exploratory, while it serves its purpose by raising initial questions and finding that this is a complex area that is worth studying. Additional work is clearly required to consider the wide range of potentially relevant variables and a sampling plan that ensures an understanding of the generalisability of findings across the population within a region and across regions. Practical implications: A technique for understanding consumer willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) is provided and insights into differences are offered between products in terms of WTP for greener products. Practitioners can use this technique to determine the price range and indirectly the profitability of a version of their product based on recycled or reused content. Originality/value: An understanding of WTP for products with recycled or reused content is developed. This is important as legislation in many countries aims at diverting disposed product from waste dumps to consumers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro‐Forleo, G. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/eum0000000006155 · Cited by 2,974
Cited by
Kautish, P., Paul, J., & Sharma, R. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.389 · Cited by 476
AlJaber, A., Martinez-Vazquez, P., & Baniotopoulos, C. (2023) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings13112778 · Cited by 130
Peschel, A. O., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122884 · Cited by 110
Ali, A., Xiaoling, G., Ali, A., Sherwani, M., & Muneeb, F. M. (2019) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2284 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamzaoui Essoussi, L., & Linton, J. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-08-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 458-468
- ISSN
- 0736-3761 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965528140
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/07363761011063358
- The paper
- Hamzaoui Essoussi, L., & Linton, J. D. (2010). New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay? Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011063358
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.