This study examines the influence of eco-packaging on consumer behavior within the mobile phone sector, focusing on Apple and Samsung. As environmental consciousness grows, these brands are implementing sustainable packaging strategies. The research analyzes how consumer perceptions of eco-packaging affect brand loyalty, purchasing decisions, and satisfaction. Data was gathered through surveys and interviews to understand consumer attitudes towards Apple's minimalistic, paper-based packaging and Samsung's upcycled, recycled material initiatives. Findings indicate eco-packaging significantly impacts consumer perceptions, associating it with brand trust and environmental responsibility. Apple's sleek designs appeal to consumers valuing sophistication, while Samsung's upcycling attracts those prioritizing practicality. Challenges include limited consumer awareness of eco-packaging specifics and skepticism about brand claims. The research highlights the need for brands to align sustainability efforts with consumer expectations. Eco-packaging is a critical differentiator in the competitive mobile phone market, offering valuable insights for companies balancing sustainability goals with consumer values.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgment
Declaration
Certificate
Abstract
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Objectives of the Study
1.3 Hypotheses of the study
1.4 Need for the Study
1.5 Scope of the Study
1.6 Statement of the Problem
Chapter 2 Review of Literature
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
4.1 Primary Analysis
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
4.3 Thematic Analysis of Open-Ended Responses
4.4 Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk Test)
4.5 Hypotheses Tests
4.5.1 Spearman’s Rank Correlation
4.5.2 Mann-Whitney U Test
4.5.3 Kruskal-Wallis Test
4.5.4 Chi-Square Test of Independence
Chapter 5 Findings and Conclusions
References
Annexure
ABSTRACT
This study examines the influence of eco-packaging on consumer behavior within the mobile phone sector, focusing on Apple and Samsung. As environmental consciousness grows, these brands are implementing sustainable packaging strategies. The research analyzes how consumer perceptions of eco-packaging affect brand loyalty, purchasing decisions, and satisfaction. Data was gathered through surveys and interviews to understand consumer attitudes towards Apple's minimalistic, paper-based packaging and Samsung's upcycled, recycled material initiatives. Findings indicate eco-packaging significantly impacts consumer perceptions, associating it with brand trust and environmental responsibility. Apple's sleek designs appeal to consumers valuing sophistication, while Samsung's upcycling attracts those prioritizing practicality. Challenges include limited consumer awareness of eco-packaging specifics and skepticism about brand claims. The research highlights the need for brands to align sustainability efforts with consumer expectations. Eco-packaging is a critical differentiator in the competitive mobile phone market, offering valuable insights for companies balancing sustainability goals with consumer values.
Key Words: Eco-packaging, Consumer behaviour, Sustainability, Brand loyalty, Environmental responsibility.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The packaging industry, a linchpin of modern commerce, serves far more than a mere protective function. It acts as a crucial interface between products and consumers, shaping perceptions and influencing purchasing decisions. Traditionally, packaging has often relied on non-biodegradable materials, contributing significantly to environmental degradation. However, the escalating global awareness of environmental sustainability has ushered in a paradigm shift, placing eco-packaging at the forefront of responsible business practices. Eco- packaging, characterized by the use of biodegradable, recyclable, or reusable materials and designs, represents a concerted effort to minimize the environmental footprint of packaging waste. This transition is not merely a trend but a fundamental necessity in an era marked by climate change and resource depletion.
In the dynamic and technologically advanced mobile phone industry, eco-packaging has emerged as a critical differentiator. Companies like Apple and Samsung, global titans known for their innovation, are increasingly recognizing the strategic importance of aligning their packaging strategies with global sustainability goals and evolving consumer expectations. The mobile phone sector, a significant contributor to electronic waste, faces mounting pressure to adopt sustainable practices across its value chain. Eco-packaging, therefore, serves as a tangible demonstration of a brand’s commitment to environmental stewardship.
The Indian market, a burgeoning hub for mobile phone consumption, provides a compelling context for this study. India's growing middle class and youthful demographic, particularly Generation Z, are increasingly conscious of environmental issues. These consumers are not only discerning in their product choices but also prioritize sustainability in their purchasing decisions. The rising awareness of eco-friendly practices in India is reflected in the growing demand for products and packaging that minimize environmental impact. This shift in consumer behavior aligns with global trends, where consumers are increasingly associating eco-packaging with responsible branding and ethical consumption.
Apple, a brand synonymous with minimalistic design and premium quality, has taken significant strides in implementing eco-packaging strategies. The company’s efforts to eliminate plastic wrap from iPhone boxes and introduce fiber-based trays exemplify its commitment to reducing plastic waste. Similarly, Samsung, a major player in the Android ecosystem, has adopted innovative approaches such as upcycled packaging, which allows consumers to repurpose packaging materials, and the increased use of recycled materials in their product boxes. These initiatives reflect a broader industry trend towards embracing circular economy principles and minimizing the environmental impact of packaging.
However, despite these commendable efforts, several challenges persist. A significant gap exists in consumer awareness regarding the specific details of eco-packaging initiatives implemented by brands. Many consumers remain uninformed about the materials used, the recyclability of packaging, and the overall environmental impact of these efforts. This lack of awareness can hinder the effectiveness of eco-packaging strategies and limit their potential to influence consumer behavior. Furthermore, there is a need to understand how these initiatives resonate with consumers in emerging markets like India, where cultural and economic factors may influence perceptions and preferences.
This research aims to address these challenges by providing a comprehensive analysis of the impact of eco-packaging on consumer preferences, purchasing decisions, and brand loyalty within the Indian mobile phone industry, with a specific focus on Apple and Samsung. By employing primary data collection methods, such as surveys and interviews, this study seeks to gather firsthand insights into the awareness, attitudes, and expectations of Indian consumers regarding eco-packaging. The findings will provide valuable insights into how these brands’ eco-packaging strategies are perceived and how they influence consumer behavior.
Moreover, this research will contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that drive consumer adoption of eco-packaging in the mobile phone sector. By examining the interplay between brand reputation, sustainability initiatives, and consumer preferences, this study will offer valuable recommendations for companies seeking to enhance their eco-packaging strategies and align them with the evolving expectations of environmentally conscious consumers. Ultimately, this research aims to bridge the gap between industry practices and consumer perceptions, fostering a more sustainable and responsible mobile phone market in India.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
1. To analyze the role of eco-packaging in shaping consumer behavior and brand loyalty.
2. To compare Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging strategies based on consumer feedback.
3. To provide actionable recommendations for improving eco-packaging adoption and communication strategies.
1.3 Hypotheses of the study
Null Hypothesis (H01): Eco-packaging has no significant impact on consumer behavior (purchasing decisions) and brand loyalty in the mobile phone industry.
Alternative Hypothesis (H11): Eco-packaging has a significant impact on consumer behavior (purchasing decisions) and brand loyalty in the mobile phone industry.
Null Hypothesis (H02): There is no significant difference in consumer perception and feedback regarding Apple's and Samsung's eco-packaging strategies.
Alternative Hypothesis (H12): There is a significant difference in consumer perception and feedback regarding Apple's and Samsung's eco-packaging strategies.
Null Hypothesis (H03): Enhanced communication strategies regarding eco-packaging initiatives do not significantly increase consumer awareness or positively influence brand perception.
Alternative Hypothesis (H13): Enhanced communication strategies regarding eco-packaging initiatives significantly increase consumer awareness and positively influence brand perception.
1.4 Need for study
The growing emphasis on sustainability has driven businesses to adopt eco-friendly packaging solutions, responding to increasing global awareness and demand. Leading brands like Apple and Samsung have integrated biodegradable, recyclable, and reusable materials into their packaging to align with sustainability goals. However, a significant consumer awareness gap exists, as many remain skeptical about the effectiveness and environmental impact of eco- packaging, affecting its adoption. Understanding how eco-packaging influences brand trust, purchasing decisions, and loyalty is crucial for companies. Additionally, regional market differences, particularly in emerging markets like India, require further exploration to tailor marketing and sustainability strategies effectively. Despite the significance of eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry, limited research compares consumer perceptions of Apple and Samsung in this area. Conducting surveys and interviews will provide data-driven insights to help businesses, policymakers, and marketers refine eco-packaging strategies.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The study focuses on eco-packaging strategies adopted by Apple and Samsung within the Indian context, emphasizing metropolitan cities where awareness of sustainability and purchasing power are higher. Additionally, the research includes insights into the global trends influencing these companies’ packaging choices. By concentrating on consumer perspectives, this study aims to provide actionable insights for companies and policymakers in enhancing the adoption and impact of eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry.
1.6 Statement of Problem
As companies in the mobile phone industry adopt eco-packaging to align with global sustainability goals, consumer awareness and perception of these initiatives remain inconsistent. Apple and Samsung, two of the biggest players in the industry, have made significant efforts in implementing eco-friendly packaging. However, many consumers lack awareness or remain skeptical about the effectiveness of these sustainability claims. We recognize that eco-packaging has the potential to influence purchasing decisions, brand trust, and customer loyalty, yet its actual impact remains underexplored. Additionally, there is a lack of comparative research on how Apple and Samsung's eco-packaging strategies are perceived by consumers. Through our research, we aim to analyze how eco-packaging affects consumer behavior, evaluate its role in brand trust and loyalty, and identify the factors that drive consumer preferences for sustainable packaging. Our findings will provide valuable insights that can help companies enhance their eco-packaging strategies and better align with consumer expectations.
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. In their study on eco-design packaging, Tian Zeng, Jonathan Deschênes, and Fabien Durif (2020) explored how sustainable packaging can address environmental and social concerns. They reviewed 261 research articles and analyzed three key perspectives: traditional scientific methods, consumer behavior, and real-world societal challenges. They concluded that focusing on real-world sustainability issues has the most significant impact. Their research offers valuable insights that can help us improve eco- packaging to better align with consumer and environmental needs.
2. Felix James and Aju Kurian (2021) conducted a study on consumer perceptions of sustainable packaging in the Indian e-commerce sector. Their findings highlight the growing consumer awareness of environmental issues and the increasing demand for eco-friendly packaging solutions. Using a structured questionnaire, they found that factors like ease of use, environmental concerns, and willingness to pay significantly influence purchasing decisions. This research reinforces our understanding of the importance of affordability and usability in driving the adoption of sustainable packaging.
3. In the cosmetics industry, Matilde Bellomo (2021) examined what motivates consumers to buy sustainably packaged beauty products. A survey of 223 Italian consumers revealed that attitudes and a belief in personal impact (PCE) strongly influence green purchasing behavior, while social pressure has little effect. Her research suggests that increasing awareness and trust in eco-friendly products can encourage sustainable consumption. This insight is crucial as we analyze how consumer awareness shapes eco-packaging preferences in the mobile phone industry.
4. Megia Esvandiari (2023) studied the effect of eco-friendly packaging on purchase intention, using AQUA Life products as a case study. Their research found that eco- packaging directly influences purchasing decisions, with consumer perception acting as a key mediator. The study emphasizes the importance of consumer education on reuse and recycling, which aligns with our goal of assessing consumer awareness levels regarding eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry.
5. The role of social media in shaping consumer perceptions of sustainability was explored by Sanaz Amirmokhtar Radi and Sajjad Shokouhyar (2021). Their study analyzed over 106,000 tweets to assess consumer sentiment on sustainability in the mobile phone industry. Their findings show that consumer discussions on sustainability, eco- packaging, and green practices influence brand perception. This research strengthens our argument that brands need effective communication strategies to enhance awareness of their eco-packaging initiatives.
6. In his research on green supply chain management, Yazan Migdadi (2019) examined how mobile phone manufacturers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. His findings highlight that energy-efficient production and product design have the greatest impact, whereas supplier-related actions play a lesser role. This reinforces our understanding that sustainability efforts must extend beyond packaging to be fully effective.
7. The study by Gheorghe Orzan et al. (2018) focused on Romanian consumer behavior toward sustainable packaging. A survey of 268 respondents showed that consumers prefer paper, glass, and cardboard packaging due to their recyclability. However, high prices and lack of information act as major barriers to adoption. This supports our need to examine whether cost and awareness levels influence eco-packaging adoption in India.
8. Gonzalo Wandosell et al. (2021) explored green packaging from consumer and business perspectives. Their research highlights that consumers value recyclability and biodegradability, but their choices are often influenced by price. For businesses, adopting sustainable packaging is driven by customer demand and regulatory requirements. This aligns with our study, as we seek to understand whether Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging efforts are perceived as genuine or as compliance-driven strategies.
9. In his dissertation, Sheik M. Isaacs (2015) investigated how product quality, price, and brand loyalty influence consumer willingness to buy eco-friendly products. His findings show that while brand loyalty encourages repeat purchases, consumers are still hesitant to recycle electronic waste. This supports our objective of analyzing whether eco-packaging initiatives translate into stronger brand loyalty in the mobile phone sector.
10. A study by Anh Thu Nguyen et al. (2021) examined consumer willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging in Vietnam. The findings reveal that education level significantly impacts purchasing intentions, while age and gender have minimal influence. Consumers are more willing to pay for biodegradable materials over plastic packaging. This suggests that education and awareness campaigns are essential in increasing eco-packaging adoption—a factor we will consider in our study.
11. Hesham Moustafa et al. (2019) explored biodegradable materials for green packaging, focusing on innovations like coffee-ground-based packaging and nanocellulose applications. They addressed challenges such as moisture resistance and durability, which are relevant when evaluating the practicality of Apple and Samsung’s eco- packaging efforts.
12. In their study on private label innovation, José Felipe Jiménez-Guerrero et al. (2015) found that eco-packaging enhances brand appeal and customer loyalty. Their research emphasizes that using lightweight, recyclable materials not only reduces environmental impact but also improves logistics and cost-efficiency. We will consider these factors when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of eco-packaging strategies in the mobile phone industry.
13. Gabriele Murtas and Pedeliento Giuseppe (2022) analyzed how sustainable packaging affects consumer behavior. They found that while consumers prefer biodegradable materials, they often find minimalist packaging less visually appealing. Their findings suggest that brands must balance aesthetic appeal with sustainability, which we will examine in our comparison of Apple’s sleek packaging vs. Samsung’s upcycled materials.
14. Anwar Sadat Shimul and Isaac Cheah (2022)) explored how advertising strategies influence consumer preference for eco-friendly products. They found that guilt-based messaging is more effective for environmentally aware consumers, while pride-based messaging works better for those with lower awareness. We will use these insights to assess how Apple and Samsung communicate their eco-packaging efforts..
15. Mrinmoy Mitra et al. (2024) studied consumer adoption of green packaging in Dhaka and found that younger, educated consumers are more receptive to eco-packaging. However, challenges like high costs and limited awareness persist. This aligns with our study’s focus on identifying barriers to eco-packaging adoption in India.
16. Monteiro et al. (2019) examined eco-design adoption in the packaging industry and found that many companies support sustainability but struggle with implementation. Their research highlights the need for government incentives and industry collaboration, which could be relevant when evaluating Apple and Samsung’s sustainability commitments.
17. Munasinghe and Shantha (2021) analyzed millennial preferences for green packaging in Sri Lanka and found that price and product quality are the biggest factors influencing green purchasing decisions. We will use these insights to determine whether price plays a major role in eco-packaging adoption in the Indian market.
18. Md Zahid Hasan et al. (2024) studied consumer willingness to pay for green packaging in Bangladesh. Their findings suggest that trust and product availability drive adoption, while high prices discourage consumers. This highlights the need for brands to build trust in eco-packaging initiatives, a factor we will evaluate in our study.
19. Abhinav Kumar Singh (2024) explored Samsung’s circular economy approach. His study found that Samsung focuses on material recycling and reuse, but challenges such as policy issues and supply chain complexity remain. This supports our analysis of how sustainability initiatives impact consumer perception of mobile phone brands.
20. Linh Nguyen Khanh (2020) investigated the role of green digital marketing in influencing eco-conscious behavior. Their findings confirm that social media is a crucial tool in promoting sustainability initiatives. This reinforces our belief that Apple and Samsung must improve their communication strategies to enhance consumer awareness of eco-packaging.
21. In our study, we also refer to the research by Tian Zeng and Fabien Durif (2019), which examines how perceived risks influence consumer decisions regarding eco-design packaging. They identify five key risks: functional, physical, financial, life-standard, and socio-environmental. Their study highlights that while eco-design packaging is generally viewed positively, concerns like high prices, poor product protection, and aesthetic appeal create an attitude-behavior gap. This aligns with our objective of evaluating consumer skepticism towards Apple and Samsung's eco-packaging efforts and understanding whether price and design influence adoption.
22. C. Sunita (2023) investigated consumer perception of sustainable packaging in the e- commerce industry. Using factor analysis, she identified seven key influences: protection, promotion, preference, ethics, awareness, convenience, and initiatives. Her findings reveal that while consumers appreciate eco-friendly packaging for its safety, environmental benefits, and reusability, they also expect clear labeling and promotional efforts. This study supports our argument that Apple and Samsung must enhance communication strategies to improve eco-packaging adoption.
23. Blanca Corona and van den Broek Karlijn L. (2024) explored how consumer behavior affects the environmental success of circular packaging strategies. Their research points out that most life cycle assessments (LCA) assume consumer behavior rather than incorporating real-world insights. They emphasize the need to integrate social norms and personal attitudes into LCA models for better evaluations of sustainability initiatives. This insight is crucial for our study, as we aim to assess how consumer behavior influences the perceived effectiveness of Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging strategies.
Research Gap
While numerous studies have examined consumer behavior toward eco-packaging, few have specifically explored its impact on consumer perception, brand loyalty, and purchasing decisions in the mobile phone industry. Existing research primarily focuses on sectors such as FMCG, cosmetics, and e-commerce, with little attention given to mobile phone packaging strategies. Additionally, limited studies compare Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging efforts and their influence on consumer trust. While research indicates that factors like price, awareness, and brand perception influence eco-packaging adoption, their specific effects on smartphone consumers in India remain unclear. This study aims to bridge these gaps by analyzing how eco-packaging shapes consumer preferences, trust, and brand loyalty in the mobile phone sector, with a comparative focus on Apple and Samsung.
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In our study, we adopt a mixed-methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques to gain a comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and preferences regarding eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry. The quantitative aspect helps analyze the prevalence and distribution of specific consumer attitudes and behaviors, while the qualitative aspect explores deeper insights into consumer motivations, opinions, and suggestions for improvement. Specifically, the quantitative strand examines the relationship between eco-packaging awareness, brand preference, and consumer demographics, whereas the qualitative strand interprets the nuances of consumer opinions, offering a more contextualized perspective on eco-packaging preferences and brand trust. We selected a sample of 189 participants for our study, employing a convenience sampling method due to time and resource constraints, enabling us to efficiently reach a target audience familiar with mobile phone brands. The online survey was distributed across social media platforms and personal networks, targeting individuals likely to be consumers or potential consumers of Apple and Samsung products. While random sampling would enhance generalizability, our approach ensured access to relevant participants within a feasible timeframe. Although no age restrictions were imposed, our sample may reflect a bias toward digitally engaged individuals, potentially skewing toward younger demographics with greater internet access, which we acknowledge as a limitation.
For data collection, we primarily relied on primary data, supplemented by relevant secondary sources for contextual background. The primary data was gathered through an online survey designed to capture consumer awareness, attitudes, and preferences regarding eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry. The survey development process included a literature review on eco-packaging, consumer behavior, and brand loyalty, followed by faculty advisor feedback and a pilot test with a small group of college students (n=10) to refine question clarity and relevance. The final survey, hosted on Google Forms and active for two weeks, featured structured multiple-choice questions for quantitative insights and open-ended questions for qualitative feedback. Secondary data sources included industry reports on sustainable packaging trends, news articles covering Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging initiatives, and scholarly publications on sustainable packaging, consumer behavior, and corporate social responsibility, identified through online databases like JSTOR, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar.
For data analysis, we applied various statistical tools to understand consumer perceptions, preferences, and the impact of eco-packaging on brand loyalty and purchasing decisions. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency, and dispersion, were used to summarize demographic characteristics and key survey responses. The Chi-Square Test of Independence assessed relationships between categorical variables like brand preference and eco-packaging awareness, while the Mann-Whitney U Test compared response distributions between Apple and Samsung consumers. The Kruskal-Wallis Test examined differences in eco-packaging importance across demographic groups, and Spearman’s Rank Correlation analyzed relationships between consumer perceptions, such as eco-packaging importance, brand trust, purchase likelihood, and brand loyalty. The Shapiro- Wilk Normality Test was conducted to determine data distribution, guiding appropriate statistical test selection, and thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses to identify key themes in consumer perceptions.
To facilitate data organization, analysis, and visualization, we utilized SPSS and Microsoft Excel. SPSS was employed for advanced statistical analysis, including Chi-Square, Mann- Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman’s Rank Correlation, generating tables and graphs for interpretation. Excel was used for organizing raw survey data, performing basic descriptive statistics, creating visual representations, and assisting in data cleaning before in- depth SPSS analysis. These tools ensured that our data analysis was accurate, efficient, and comprehensive, enabling us to derive meaningful insights into consumer attitudes toward eco- packaging.
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 PRIMARY ANALYSIS:
Demographics
In this section, we present the demographic characteristics of the 189 respondents who participated in our survey. Understanding the demographic profile of our sample is crucial for interpreting our findings and assessing the generalizability of our results.
Age Group:
Table 1 displays the distribution of respondents across different age groups. The largest segment of our sample (53.44%, n=101) falls within the 18-24 age bracket, indicating a strong representation of young adults. The 35-44 age group comprises 22.75% (n=43) of our respondents, followed by those aged 44 and above at 12.17% (n=23). The smallest age group represented is the 25-34 bracket, accounting for 11.64% (n=22) of our sample.
This distribution suggests a potential bias towards younger demographics, which is not unexpected given the online nature of our survey distribution. We acknowledge this skew and recognize that the views and preferences of younger adults may influence our overall findings. Future research with a more balanced age distribution could help provide a broader perspective on consumer perceptions of eco-packaging in the mobile phone industry
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Gender:
The gender distribution of our respondents is fairly balanced, with male participants making up 50.79% (n=96) of the sample and female participants accounting for 48.68% (n=92). Additionally, one respondent (0.53%) identified as "Others", ensuring inclusivity in our demographic representation.
This near-equal distribution of male and female respondents allows us to draw comparative insights into gender-based perceptions and preferences regarding eco- packaging in the mobile phone industry. While the sample provides a well-rounded gender representation, future studies with a larger and more diverse sample could further enhance the generalizability of our findings.
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 2: Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Occupation:
The occupational distribution of our respondents shows that the majority (49.73%, n=94) are students, followed by working professionals, who make up 42.33% (n=80) of the sample. This indicates a strong representation of young, educated individuals and active professionals, who are likely to be key decision-makers in purchasing mobile phones.
Other occupational groups, including self-employed individuals (2.65%, n=5), teachers (3.17%, n=6), homemakers (1.06%, n=2), and those in the "Others" category (1.06%, n=2), form a smaller portion of the sample.
This distribution suggests that our findings may be more reflective of student and professional perspectives on eco-packaging, as they form the dominant groups in our study. Future research could benefit from a more diverse occupational representation to capture a broader range of consumer attitudes and purchasing behaviors.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Annual Income Range:
The income distribution of our respondents reveals that the majority (52.38%, n=99) fall into the below ₹3 lakh category, indicating a significant representation of students and early-career professionals. The second-largest group (31.22%, n=59) falls within the ₹3-6 lakh range, suggesting a substantial number of mid-level professionals or young working individuals.
Higher income brackets are less represented, with 12.70% (n=24) earning between ₹6-12 lakh, while only 1.59% (n=3) fall into the ₹12-20 lakh category, and 2.12% (n=4) report earnings above ₹20 lakh.
This distribution suggests that our findings may be more reflective of perceptions from lower and middle-income groups, who might be more price-sensitive when considering eco- packaging in mobile phones. Future research with a more evenly distributed income sample could provide deeper insights into how income levels influence consumer willingness to adopt eco-friendly packaging.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Income
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 4: Distribution of Respondents by Income
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Brand Awareness
This section examines the distribution of respondents based on their primary mobile phone brand usage, providing insights into brand awareness and market share representation within the surveyed sample. Understanding brand usage patterns among respondents is crucial for interpreting their perceptions and preferences related to eco-packaging, as brand loyalty and prior experiences can significantly influence consumer attitudes.
Brand Usage Analysis (Current Mobile Phone Brand):
The brand distribution of our respondents shows that Samsung and Apple are equally represented, with each brand accounting for 19.58% (n=37) of the total sample. This indicates a significant presence of consumers using premium smartphone brands, making them a relevant group for evaluating eco-packaging initiatives from these companies.
Other popular brands include Vivo (13.76%, n=26), OnePlus (10.05%, n=19), Realme (6.35%, n=12), Oppo (5.29%, n=10), and Redmi (4.76%, n=9). Additionally, 20.63% (n=39) of respondents reported using brands classified under "Others", highlighting a diverse range of mobile phone users beyond the major brands listed.
This distribution suggests that while Apple and Samsung users form a key segment of our study, a considerable portion of respondents use other brands, allowing for a broader comparison of consumer perceptions regarding eco-packaging across different smartphone brands. Future research could further explore brand-specific preferences and sustainability expectations to gain deeper insights into consumer behavior.
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Current Mobile Phone Brand
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by Current Mobile Phone Brand
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
General Attitudes Toward Eco-Packaging
This section explores general consumer attitudes and perceptions regarding eco-friendly packaging, examining its importance, influence on trust and purchase likelihood, impact on brand perception, potential for driving recommendations, and the extent to which consumers are willing to pay a premium for eco-conscious packaging choices.
Importance of Eco-Packaging:
The importance of eco-packaging among respondents is evident, with a significant majority expressing positive attitudes toward sustainability in packaging. A substantial 44.15% (n=83) of respondents consider eco-packaging "Very Important," indicating strong support for sustainable packaging initiatives. An additional 26.60% (n=50) rate it as "Important," further reinforcing the preference for eco-friendly packaging solutions. Meanwhile, 17.55% (n=33) remain neutral, suggesting that while they do not oppose eco-packaging, it may not be a priority in their purchasing decisions. A smaller percentage, 7.45% (n=14), consider it "Slightly Important," and only 4.26% (n=9) believe it is "Not Important at All," indicating minimal resistance toward eco-packaging initiatives.
Table 6: Importance of Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 6: Importance of Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Trust Increase Due to Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 7, the data indicates that eco-packaging positively influences consumer trust in brands, with a significant proportion of respondents expressing agreement with this statement. Specifically, 28.72% (n=54) of respondents "Strongly Agree" that eco-packaging enhances their trust in a brand. The largest group, 41.49% (n=78), "Agree," further supporting the notion that sustainability efforts contribute to a positive brand perception. Meanwhile, 21.81% (n=41) remain neutral, suggesting that while eco-packaging does not negatively impact trust, it may not be a decisive factor for them. A small percentage, 3.72% (n=7), "Disagree," and 4.26% (n=9) "Strongly Disagree," indicating that for a minority, eco-packaging does not significantly affect brand trust.
Table 7: Trust Increase Due to Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 7: Trust Increase Due to Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Purchase Likelihood Based on Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 8, a significant proportion of respondents indicate that eco-packaging positively influences their likelihood of purchasing a product. Specifically, 25.53% (n=48) of respondents “Strongly Agree” that eco-packaging increases their likelihood of making a purchase. The largest group, 46.28% (n=87), “Agree,” suggesting that nearly half of the respondents consider eco-packaging an important factor in their purchase decisions. Meanwhile, 19.68% (n=37) remain neutral, meaning that while they do not oppose eco- packaging, it is not necessarily a deciding factor for them. A smaller percentage, 3.72% (n=8), “Disagree,” and 4.79% (n=9) “Strongly Disagree,” indicating that for a minority, eco- packaging does not significantly affect their purchasing decisions.
Table 8: Purchase Likelihood Based on Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 8: Purchase Likelihood Based on Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Brand Perception Improvement:
As shown in Table 9, a significant portion of respondents believe that eco-packaging enhances their perception of a brand. Specifically, 28.19% (n=53) of respondents "Strongly Agree" that eco-packaging positively influences their brand perception. The largest segment, 46.81% (n=88), "Agree," reinforcing the idea that sustainable packaging contributes to a stronger brand image. Meanwhile, 18.09% (n=34) remain neutral, suggesting that while eco-packaging does not negatively impact their view of a brand, it may not be a major deciding factor for them. A small percentage, 3.19% (n=6), "Disagree," and 3.72% (n=7), "Strongly Disagree," indicating that for a minority, eco-packaging does not significantly influence brand perception.
Table 9: Brand Perception Improvement Due to Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 9: Brand Perception Improvement Due to Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Likelihood to Recommend a Brand Based on Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 10, a significant portion of respondents indicate that eco-packaging increases their likelihood of recommending a brand to others. Specifically, 27.66% (n=52) of respondents are "Very Likely" to recommend a brand due to its eco-packaging efforts. The largest group, 43.09% (n=81), are "Likely," further reinforcing that sustainable packaging positively impacts word-of-mouth marketing and brand advocacy. Meanwhile, 20.74% (n=39) remain neutral, meaning that while eco-packaging does not deter them from recommending a brand, it is not necessarily a driving factor. A smaller percentage, 5.85% (n=11), are "Unlikely," and 2.66% (n=5) are "Very Unlikely" to recommend a brand based on eco-packaging, indicating that for a small minority, sustainability efforts have little to no impact on their recommendations.
Table 10: Likelihood to Recommend a Brand Based on Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 10: Likelihood to Recommend a Brand Based on Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Willingness to Pay More for Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 11, while many respondents recognize the value of eco-packaging, their willingness to pay extra for it varies significantly. The largest group, 47.34% (n=89), is willing to pay up to 5% more for eco-packaging, indicating moderate price sensitivity but also a willingness to support sustainability efforts to some extent. Additionally, 14.89% (n=28) are open to paying 6–10% more, suggesting that a smaller but notable segment values eco- packaging enough to invest further. Only 7.45% (n=14) of respondents are willing to pay more than 10% extra, indicating that high premiums for sustainability may not be widely accepted. However, 30.32% (n=57) of respondents wouldn’t pay extra at all, highlighting a significant portion of consumers who may prioritize cost over sustainability.
Table 11: Willingness to Pay More for Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 11: Willingness to Pay More for Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Influence of Eco-Packaging on Brand Loyalty
This section analyzes the extent to which eco-friendly packaging influences brand loyalty for both Apple and Samsung. Understanding how consumers perceive the connection between a brand's commitment to sustainable packaging and their loyalty to that brand is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of eco-packaging strategies in building long-term customer relationships.
Apple Brand Loyalty Influence:
As shown in Table 12, eco-packaging plays a role in shaping brand loyalty toward Apple, though its impact varies among consumers. Specifically, 15.87% (n=30) of respondents "Strongly Agree" that Apple's eco-packaging efforts increase their brand loyalty. The largest segment, 40.74% (n=77), "Agree," suggesting that a significant portion of consumers associate sustainability with stronger brand commitment. Meanwhile, 33.33% (n=63) remain neutral, indicating that while eco-packaging does not negatively affect their loyalty to Apple, it may not be a decisive factor in their continued preference for the brand. A smaller percentage, 4.76% (n=9) "Disagree," and 5.29% (n=10) "Strongly Disagree," showing that for a minority, eco- packaging does not significantly impact their loyalty to Apple.
Table 12: Influence of Eco-Packaging on Apple Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 12: Influence of Eco-Packaging on Apple Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Samsung Brand Loyalty Influence:
As shown in Table 13, Samsung's eco-packaging initiatives have a notable impact on brand loyalty, with a majority of respondents expressing positive sentiment toward the brand’s sustainability efforts. Specifically, 17.46% (n=33) of respondents "Strongly Agree" that Samsung's eco-packaging enhances their brand loyalty. The largest group, 48.15% (n=91), "Agree," indicating that nearly half of the respondents perceive Samsung’s sustainability efforts as a factor in their continued preference for the brand. Meanwhile, 26.98% (n=51) remain neutral, suggesting that while eco-packaging does not negatively affect their loyalty, it may not be a primary influence on their purchasing decisions. A smaller proportion, 4.76% (n=9) "Disagree," and 2.65% (n=5) "Strongly Disagree," indicating that for a minority, eco-packaging has little to no impact on their brand loyalty toward Samsung.
Table 13: Influence of Eco-Packaging on Samsung Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 13: Influence of Eco-Packaging on Samsung Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Comparison:
Comparing the responses for Apple and Samsung reveals some interesting trends. While both brands see a substantial portion of respondents agreeing that eco-packaging influences their loyalty, Samsung has a slightly higher percentage of "Agree" responses (48.15%) compared to Apple (40.74%). The proportion of "Neutral" responses is also slightly lower for Samsung. This suggests that, within this sample, Samsung's eco-packaging efforts might be perceived as having a slightly stronger influence on brand loyalty compared to Apple's. However, further analysis, such as comparing the distributions statistically, is needed to confirm this observation.
Awareness of Eco-Packaging Initiatives
This section analyzes consumer awareness and perceptions regarding eco-friendly packaging initiatives within the mobile phone industry. Understanding consumer knowledge and attitudes towards eco-packaging is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of current industry practices and identifying opportunities for improvement.
Awareness of Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 14, a majority of respondents (58.20%, n=110) are aware of eco-packaging, while 41.80% (n=79) report no prior awareness of the concept. This data suggests that while eco-packaging initiatives are gaining recognition, there is still a significant portion of consumers who remain uninformed about these sustainability efforts. The 58.20% awareness rate indicates that brands like Apple and Samsung have made progress in communicating their eco-packaging strategies, but the 41.80% lack of awareness highlights the need for stronger marketing and consumer education efforts.
Table 14: Awareness of Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 14: Awareness of Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Most Valued Eco-Packaging Feature:
As shown in Table 15, the most valued feature of eco-packaging among respondents is the use of recyclable materials, with 41.27% (n=78) prioritizing this aspect. This suggests that consumers are highly concerned about environmental impact and sustainability, favoring packaging that can be recycled and repurposed. 32.80% (n=62) of respondents value creative and reusable packaging, indicating that many consumers appreciate innovative designs that serve secondary purposes rather than being discarded after use. 17.46% (n=33) prefer minimal use of plastic, highlighting growing awareness around plastic waste reduction. Only 8.47% (n=16) consider cost-effectiveness as the most important factor, suggesting that while price remains relevant, most consumers prioritize environmental benefits over cost savings when it comes to eco-packaging.
Table 15: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Feature
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 15: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Feature
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Perceived Leader in Eco-Packaging Innovation:
As shown in Table 16, respondents have mixed perceptions regarding which brand—Apple or Samsung—is leading in eco-packaging innovation.
- The largest group, 44.97% (n=85), believes that both brands are equally innovative, suggesting that consumers view Apple and Samsung as comparable in their sustainability efforts.
- 25.93% (n=49) perceive Samsung as the leader in eco-packaging innovation, while 21.69% (n=41) consider Apple to be ahead. This indicates a slight edge in consumer perception toward Samsung’s eco-packaging initiatives.
- A small segment, 7.41% (n=14), believes that neither brand is particularly innovative in this area, highlighting some skepticism about the actual impact of their sustainability efforts
Table 16: Perceived Leader in Eco-Packaging Innovation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 16: Perceived Leader in Eco-Packaging Innovation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Perceived Environmental Impact of Strategies:
As shown in Table 17, the majority of respondents (52.91%, n=100) perceive that both Apple and Samsung have an equal environmental impact through their sustainability strategies. This suggests that consumers recognize both brands' efforts in reducing environmental harm but may not see a clear distinction between their initiatives. 21.16% (n=40) believe that Samsung’s upcycling initiatives and use of ocean plastics have a greater environmental impact, highlighting awareness of Samsung’s reuse and waste-reduction efforts. An equal 21.16% (n=40) consider Apple’s use of renewable and recycled fibers as more impactful, indicating that Apple’s material-focused approach resonates with some consumers. A small portion, 4.76% (n=9), believe that neither brand’s efforts have a significant impact, suggesting skepticism about the effectiveness or transparency of their eco-friendly initiatives.
Table 17: Perceived Environmental Impact of Strategies
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 17: Perceived Environmental Impact of Strategies
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Consumer Demand for Transparency in Eco-Packaging Efforts:
As shown in Table 18, a majority of respondents express a strong demand for transparency in eco-packaging efforts by brands.
- 24.87% (n=47) of respondents "Strongly Agree" that brands should be more transparent about their eco-packaging initiatives.
- The largest group, 51.32% (n=97), "Agree", reinforcing the idea that over three-fourths of consumers (76.19%) expect clear and honest communication regarding sustainability efforts.
- 17.46% (n=33) remain neutral, as seen in Table 18, indicating that while transparency is not a major concern for them, it does not negatively affect their perception of eco- packaging.
- A small percentage, 2.12% (n=4), "Disagree", and 4.23% (n=8) "Strongly Disagree", showing that for a minority, transparency in eco-packaging is not a significant priority.
Table 18: Consumer Demand for Transparency in Eco-Packaging Efforts
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 18: Consumer Demand for Transparency in Eco-Packaging Efforts
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Brand-Specific Perceptions (Apple vs. Samsung Eco-Packaging)
This section delves into consumer perceptions of Apple and Samsung's eco-packaging, exploring which brand's approach is considered more appealing. Understanding these brand- specific perceptions is crucial for discerning the relative effectiveness of each company's eco- packaging strategies and for identifying areas where each brand can further strengthen its position in the market.
Appeal of Eco-Packaging:
As shown in Table 19, consumer perceptions of eco-packaging appeal are fairly evenly distributed, with no clear preference for either brand. The largest group, 42.33% (n=80), believes that both Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging are equally appealing, suggesting that consumers see similar aesthetic and functional value in both brands’ sustainable packaging efforts. 25.40% (n=48) prefer Samsung’s eco-packaging, indicating that Samsung’s upcycling initiatives or design choices may resonate more with this segment. Similarly, 24.34% (n=46)
find Apple’s eco-packaging more appealing, showing that Apple’s use of renewable and recycled materials also holds significant consumer appeal. A small portion, 7.94% (n=15), find neither brand’s eco-packaging particularly appealing, suggesting that some consumers may still prefer traditional packaging or are not influenced by sustainability-driven designs.
Table 19: Which Brand’s Eco-Packaging is More Appealing?
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 19: Which Brand’s Eco-Packaging is More Appealing?
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Consumer Preferences for Enhanced Eco-Packaging
This section explores the specific features consumers desire in eco-packaging for mobile phones and the improvements they suggest for Apple and Samsung. Understanding these preferences and suggestions is vital for brands seeking to enhance their eco-packaging strategies, meet consumer expectations, and demonstrate a commitment to sustainability.
Desired Additional Features:
As shown in Table 20, respondents have clear preferences regarding additional features they would like to see in eco-packaging. The most desired feature is Recycled/Reusable Materials, with 30.43% (n=14) of respondents favoring packaging that can be repurposed or made from recycled content. This indicates strong consumer support for circular economy practices in packaging design. 23.91% (n=11) prefer a reduction in plastic usage, highlighting concerns over plastic waste and environmental pollution. 15.22% (n=7) favor biodegradable materials, emphasizing a preference for packaging that naturally decomposes without harming the environment. Minimalist packaging is preferred by 6.52% (n=3), suggesting that some consumers value simple, waste-reducing designs. Creative design was selected by 4.35% (n=2), showing that a small group of consumers values aesthetic and functional packaging innovations. Water-soluble packaging, smart packaging, and general sustainability considerations each received 2.17% (n=1) of responses, indicating that while less common, innovative packaging solutions still hold niche appeal.
Table 20: Desired Additional Features in Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 20: Desired Additional Features in Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
Suggested Eco-Packaging Improvements:
As shown in Table 21, respondents provided several suggestions for improving Apple and Samsung’s eco-packaging initiatives, with a strong focus on material sustainability. The most common recommendation, Recycled/Reusable Materials (28.13%, n=9), suggests that consumers want packaging that can be repurposed or made from post-consumer recycled content, aligning with global circular economy trends. General Sustainability (25.00%, n=8) reflects a broad consumer expectation for environmentally friendly practices, indicating that brands should clearly communicate their sustainability efforts beyond packaging. Biodegradable Materials (21.88%, n=7) highlights demand for packaging that naturally decomposes, reinforcing the preference for low-impact disposal options. Reduce Plastic Usage (12.50%, n=4) further supports the shift away from plastic-heavy packaging, showing continued concern over plastic waste. Minimalist Packaging (6.25%, n=2) suggests that some consumers favor simple, efficient packaging designs that minimize waste. Creative Design (3.13%, n=1), while less commonly mentioned, shows that some consumers value aesthetic and innovative approaches in packaging sustainability.
Table 21: Suggested Eco-Packaging Improvements for Apple & Samsung
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Figure 21: Suggested Eco-Packaging Improvements for Apple & Samsung
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and complied by the researcher.
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
General Attitudes Toward Eco-Packaging
Table 6.1: Descriptive Statistics for Importance of Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 6 (Importance of Eco-Packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean importance rating for eco-packaging is 3.97, indicating that respondents generally lean towards finding it "Important" to "Very Important." The median value of 4 aligns with this, showing that at least half of the respondents rated it as "Important" or higher. The mode of 5 suggests that the most frequently chosen response was "Very Important."
The standard deviation of 1.16 indicates some variability in responses, though not excessively high. The negative skewness (-0.97) shows that the distribution is left-skewed, meaning more respondents rated eco-packaging as important rather than unimportant. The kurtosis value (0.07) suggests a relatively normal distribution with a slight peak.
Table 7.1: Descriptive Statistics for Trust Increase Due to Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 7 (Trust Increase Due to Eco-packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean trust increase rating due to eco-packaging is 3.85, suggesting that most respondents tend to "Agree" that eco-packaging enhances their trust in a brand. The median value of 4 confirms that at least half of the participants rated their agreement level as "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 indicates that the most commonly selected response was also "Agree."
The standard deviation of 1.03 suggests moderate variability in responses. The negative skewness (-0.96) shows that more respondents leaned towards agreement rather than disagreement. The kurtosis value (0.75) suggests a slightly more peaked distribution compared to a normal curve.
Table 8.1: Descriptive Statistics for Purchase Likelihood Based on Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 8 (Purchase Likelihood Based on Eco-packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean purchase likelihood rating based on eco-packaging is 3.83, indicating that respondents generally lean towards agreeing that eco-packaging influences their purchasing decisions. The median value of 4 aligns with this trend, confirming that at least half of the respondents rated their likelihood as "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 further supports this, showing that "Agree" was the most common response.
The standard deviation of 1.01 suggests a moderate spread in responses, though most cluster around agreement. The negative skewness (-1.01) indicates that more respondents favored agreement over disagreement. The kurtosis value (0.95) suggests a slightly more peaked distribution compared to a normal curve.
Table 9.1: Descriptive Statistics for Brand Perception Improvement Due to Eco- Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 9 (Brand Perception Improvement Due to Eco-packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean rating for brand perception improvement due to eco-packaging is 3.93, indicating that respondents generally agree that eco-packaging enhances their perception of a brand. The median value of 4 confirms that at least half of the respondents rated their perception as "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 further highlights that "Agree" was the most frequently selected response.
The standard deviation of 0.96 suggests a moderate spread in responses, with most clustering around agreement. The negative skewness (-1.08) indicates that more respondents leaned towards agreement rather than disagreement. The kurtosis value (1.34) suggests a slightly more peaked distribution, meaning responses were somewhat concentrated around the higher Likert scale values.
Table 10.1: Descriptive Statistics for Likelihood to Recommend a Brand Based on Eco- Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 10 (Likelihood to Recommend a Brand Based on Eco-packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean likelihood to recommend a brand based on eco-packaging is 3.87, indicating that respondents generally lean towards being "Likely" to recommend such brands. The median value of 4 supports this, showing that at least half of the respondents selected "Likely" or "Very Likely." The mode of 4 suggests that "Likely" was the most frequently chosen response.
The standard deviation of 0.97 suggests a moderate spread in responses. The negative skewness (-0.83) indicates that more respondents leaned towards higher likelihood ratings rather than lower ones. The kurtosis value (0.50) suggests a relatively normal distribution with a slight peak.
Table 11.1: Descriptive Statistics for Willingness to Pay More for Eco-Packaging
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 11 (Willingness to Pay More for Eco-packaging)
Interpretation:
The mean willingness to pay more for eco-packaging is 1.99, indicating that respondents generally lean toward paying "Up to 5% more" but not significantly higher. The median value of 2 supports this, showing that at least half of the respondents selected "Up to 5% more" or lower. The mode of 2 confirms that "Up to 5% more" was the most frequently chosen response.
The standard deviation of 0.87 suggests a moderate spread in responses, with most clustering around the lower willingness-to-pay categories. The positive skewness (0.70) indicates that more respondents selected lower payment levels, with fewer choosing higher price increases. The kurtosis value (-0.06) suggests a relatively normal but slightly flattened distribution.
Influence of Eco-Packaging on Brand Loyalty
Table 12.1: Descriptive Statistics for Influence of Eco-Packaging on Apple Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 12 (Influence of Eco-packaging on Apple Brand Loyalty)
Interpretation:
The mean rating for the influence of eco-packaging on Apple brand loyalty is 3.57, suggesting that respondents generally lean towards agreement but with some neutrality. The median value of 4 indicates that at least half of the respondents rated their agreement as "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 highlights that "Agree" was the most commonly selected response.
The standard deviation of 0.99 suggests a moderate spread in responses. The negative skewness (-0.68) indicates that more respondents leaned towards agreement rather than disagreement. The kurtosis value (0.49) suggests a distribution that is close to normal, but slightly peaked.
Table 13.1: Descriptive Statistics for Influence of Eco-Packaging on Samsung Brand Loyalty
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 13 (Influence of Eco-packaging on Samsung Brand Loyalty)
Interpretation:
The mean rating for the influence of eco-packaging on Samsung brand loyalty is 3.73, suggesting that respondents generally lean towards agreement. The median value of 4 indicates that at least half of the respondents selected "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 further confirms that "Agree" was the most commonly chosen response.
The standard deviation of 0.89 suggests a moderate spread in responses. The negative skewness (-0.73) indicates that more respondents leaned towards agreement rather than disagreement. The kurtosis value (0.79) suggests a slightly peaked distribution, meaning responses were somewhat concentrated around agreement.
Awareness of Eco-Packaging Initiatives
Table 18.1: Descriptive Statistics for Consumer Demand for Transparency in Eco- Packaging Efforts
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 18 (Consumer Demand for Transparency in Eco-packaging Efforts)
Interpretation:
The mean rating for consumer demand for transparency in eco-packaging efforts is 3.90, indicating a general tendency towards agreement. The median value of 4 suggests that at least half of the respondents selected "Agree" or higher. The mode of 4 further supports that "Agree" was the most frequent response.
The standard deviation of 0.94 indicates a moderate spread in responses. The negative skewness (-1.19) suggests that responses are skewed towards agreement, meaning more people strongly agreed or agreed rather than disagreed. The kurtosis (1.87) indicates a distribution with a sharper peak, showing that responses are concentrated around agreement.
4.3 THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the open-ended responses from the survey, offering rich qualitative insights into consumer perspectives on desired features in eco- packaging and their suggestions for improvement. The analysis reveals several key themes that highlight consumer priorities and expectations regarding sustainable packaging practices in the mobile phone industry.
Common Themes in Desired Features:
Three prominent themes emerged from the analysis of desired features in eco-packaging:
- Sustainability & Durability: This theme underscores the consumer desire for products that are not only packaged sustainably but are also inherently durable and long-lasting. The quotes "More long-lasting phones with minimal environmental impact" and "Smart packaging with biodegradable materials" exemplify this dual focus. Consumers are moving beyond simply wanting eco-friendly packaging; they are seeking products designed for longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing waste throughout the product lifecycle. This aligns with the broader trend of consumers embracing a "less is more" philosophy and prioritizing quality over quantity.
- Biodegradable & Innovative Packaging: Respondents frequently expressed a preference for biodegradable and innovative packaging solutions. Suggestions like "Water-dissolvable packaging" and "Realistic art as a creative design" illustrate a desire for packaging that minimizes environmental impact and potentially adds value through creative design. This theme reflects a growing awareness of the environmental problems associated with traditional packaging materials and a desire for more sustainable alternatives. The emphasis on innovation suggests that consumers are open to and even excited about cutting-edge packaging technologies that offer both environmental and aesthetic benefits.
- Reusability & Circular Economy: The theme of reusability and the circular economy highlights consumer interest in packaging that can be repurposed or reintegrated into the consumption cycle. Suggestions such as "Offer reuse programs" and "Encourage upcycling of packaging" demonstrate a desire for brands to take responsibility for the end-of-life management of their packaging. This theme aligns with the broader movement towards circular economy principles, where resources are kept in use for as long as possible, extracting the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recovering and regenerating products and materials at the end of each service life.
Common Themes in Eco-Packaging Improvements:
The analysis of responses concerning suggested improvements for eco-packaging revealed three key themes:
- Recycled & Eco-Friendly Materials: The overwhelming preference for recycled and eco-friendly materials, as evidenced by quotes like "By using recycled products" and "Use less plastic in packaging," reinforces the importance of material choices in eco- packaging. Consumers are particularly concerned about the use of plastic, likely due to its widespread environmental impact and visibility in pollution. This theme highlights the need for brands to prioritize the use of recycled content and explore innovative, sustainable alternatives to plastic packaging.
- Corporate Competition & Innovation: The expectation that brands should actively compete and innovate in eco-packaging is a recurring theme. Quotes like "Compete against each other more to take the top in eco-packaging" and "Improve by adopting strategies from leading green brands" suggest that consumers see competition as a driver of progress in sustainability. They expect brands to not only adopt eco-friendly practices but also to continuously improve and push the boundaries of sustainable packaging innovation.
- Consumer Education & Engagement: The importance of consumer education and engagement emerged as a critical factor in the success of eco-packaging initiatives. Suggestions such as "Encourage customers to recycle packaging" and "Provide incentives for returning used packaging" highlight the need for brands to actively involve consumers in sustainable practices. This theme suggests that consumers are more likely to participate in recycling and reuse programs if they are well-informed and incentivized to do so.
4.4 NORMALITY TEST (SHAPIRO-WILK TEST)
To determine whether the collected data follows a normal distribution, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed on the Likert-scale survey responses. The null hypothesis (H₀) assumes that the data is normally distributed. A p-value below 0.01 indicates a significant deviation from normality.
Results Summary
The results, as presented in Table 22, revealed that all dependent variables significantly deviated from normality (p < .001), indicating that the data was not normally distributed. Consequently, Spearman's rank correlation (Spearman's rho) was chosen as the appropriate method for analyzing the relationships between these variables, as it does not rely on the assumption of normality.
Table 22: Normality Test Results (Shapiro-Wilk Test)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
To visually confirm the non-normality indicated by the Shapiro-Wilk test, histograms were created for each Likert-scale variable.
Figure 22.1
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.2
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.3
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.4
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.5
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.6
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
Figure 22.7
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Data analyzed and compiled by the researcher.
4.5 HYPOTHESES TESTS
4.5.1 SPEARMAN’S RANK CORRELATION
Correlation Analysis (Spearman's Rho)
To examine the relationships between consumer perceptions of eco-packaging and their behavior and loyalty, Spearman's rank correlation (Spearman's rho) was conducted. This non- parametric test was chosen due to the non-normality of the Likert-scale variables, as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 23.
Table 23: Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Interpretation of Results:
As shown in Table 23, several significant correlations were observed between the variables related to eco-packaging perceptions and consumer behavior. All correlations were statistically significant at the 0.01 level (p < .001), except for the correlation between 'How likely are you to recommend a brand based on its eco-packaging efforts?' and 'To what extent do you agree that Samsung eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?', which was significant at the 0.003 level."
4.5.2 MANN – WHITNEY U TEST
Awareness of Eco-Packaging and Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether awareness of eco-friendly packaging initiatives influences consumer perceptions, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted comparing respondents who were aware of such initiatives (yes) with those who were not (no). The results for each variable are presented in Table 24.
Table 24: Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Awareness of Eco-Packaging Initiatives
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
· Importance of eco-friendly packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4325.500
o P-value = 0.956
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Trust in brand:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4288.000
o p-value = 0.871
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Likelihood of purchase:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4245.500
o P-value = 0.775
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Perception of sustainability commitment:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4264.500
o P-value = 0.816
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Likelihood to recommend brand:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4259.000
o p-value = 0.806
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Loyalty influenced by Apple's eco-packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3726.000
o p-value = 0.077
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Loyalty influenced by Samsung's eco-packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4008.000
o p-value = 0.328
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
· Willingness to pay more:
o Mann-Whitney U = 4312.500
o p-value = 0.925
o No statistically significant difference between aware and unaware respondents (p > .05).
"In summary, the results indicate that awareness of eco-friendly packaging initiatives does not significantly influence the measured consumer perceptions in this study.
Gender Differences in Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether gender influences consumer perceptions of eco-packaging, Mann- Whitney U tests were conducted comparing male and female respondents. The results are presented in Table 25.
Table 25: Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Gender Differences in Consumer Perceptions
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
· Importance of eco-friendly packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3214.500
o p-value = <.001
o Statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p < .001). Females rated the importance of eco-friendly packaging significantly higher.
· Trust in brand:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3509.000
o p-value = .010
o Statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p < .01). Females reported significantly higher trust in brands with eco-packaging.
· Likelihood of purchase:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3726.000
o p-value = .048
o Statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p < .05). Females reported a significantly higher likelihood of purchasing from brands with eco-packaging.
· Perception of sustainability commitment:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3762.000
o p-value = .059
o No statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p > .05).
· Likelihood to recommend brand:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3578.500
o p-value = .017
o Statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p < .05). Females reported a significantly higher likelihood to recommend brands with eco packaging.
· Loyalty influenced by Apple's eco-packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3781.000
o p-value = .071
o No statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p > .05).
· Loyalty influenced by Samsung's eco-packaging:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3988.500
o p-value = .217
o No statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p > .05).
· Willingness to pay more:
o Mann-Whitney U = 3956.500
o p-value = .185
o No statistically significant difference between male and female respondents (p > .05).
In summary, the results indicate that female respondents generally have significantly stronger positive perceptions of eco-packaging compared to male respondents, particularly in terms of importance, trust, purchase likelihood, and likelihood to recommend. However, there were no significant gender differences in perceptions of sustainability commitment, loyalty influenced by Apple or Samsung, or willingness to pay more.
4.5.3 KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST
Age Group Differences in Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether age group influences consumer perceptions of eco-packaging, Kruskal- Wallis tests were conducted comparing four age groups: Above 18 - Below 24, Above 24 - Below 34, Above 34 - Below 44, and 44 and Above. The results are presented in Table 26.
Table 26: Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Age Group Differences in Consumer Perceptions
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
· Importance of eco-friendly packaging:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 32.966
o p-value = <.001
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .001).
· Trust in brand:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 26.911
o p-value = <.001
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .001).
· Likelihood of purchase:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 27.022
o p-value = <.001
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .001).
· Perception of sustainability commitment:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 22.930
o p-value = <.001
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .001).
· Likelihood to recommend brand:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 13.693
o p-value = 0.003
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .01).
· Loyalty influenced by Apple's eco-packaging:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 14.234
o p-value = 0.003
o Statistically significant difference between age groups (p < .01).
· Loyalty influenced by Samsung's eco-packaging:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.186
o p-value = 0.159
o No statistically significant difference between age groups (p > .05).
· Willingness to pay more:
o Kruskal-Wallis H = 4.664
o p-value = 0.198
o No statistically significant difference between age groups (p > .05).
Following the significant Kruskal-Wallis test results, Dunn's post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were conducted to determine the specific pairwise differences between age groups. The results are presented in Table 27.
Table 27: Dunn's Post Hoc Test Results (Bonferroni Corrected) for Age Group Differences
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 26 (Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Age Group Differences in Consumer Perceptions )
Interpretation:
The post hoc tests revealed that respondents in the "Above 34 - Below 44" and "44 and Above" age groups consistently rated the importance of eco-friendly packaging, trust in brands with eco-packaging, likelihood of purchase, perception of sustainability commitment, likelihood to recommend, and Apple loyalty significantly higher than respondents in the "Above 18 - Below 24" age group.
This suggests that older respondents generally have stronger positive perceptions of eco- packaging compared to younger respondents (specifically those in the "Above 18 - Below 24" age group). These findings highlight the importance of considering age demographics when developing and communicating eco-packaging strategies.
Occupation Differences in Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether occupation influences consumer perceptions of eco-packaging, Kruskal- Wallis tests were conducted comparing five occupation groups: students, teachers, working professionals, self-employed, and homemakers. The results are presented in Table 28.
Table 28: Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Occupation Differences in Consumer Perceptions
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
The Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed statistically significant differences (p < .05) among occupation groups for the following variables:
- "How important is eco-friendly packaging to you when choosing a mobile phone?" (H = 27.323, p < .001)
- "Eco-packaging increases my trust in a brand." (H = 20.516, p < .001)
- "I am more likely to purchase from a brand with eco-friendly packaging." (H = 19.919, p < .001)
- "Eco-packaging improves my perception of a brand's commitment to sustainability." (H = 19.357, p < .001)
- "How likely are you to recommend a brand based on its eco-packaging efforts?" (H = 19.071, p < .001)
- "To what extent do you agree that Apple eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?" (H = 13.395, p = 0.009)
Following the significant Kruskal-Wallis test results, Dunn's post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were conducted to determine the specific pairwise differences between occupation groups. The results are presented in Table 29.
Table 29: Dunn's Post Hoc Test Results (Bonferroni Corrected) for Occupation Differences
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 28 (Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Occupation Differences in Consumer Perceptions)
Interpretation:
The post hoc tests revealed that there were statistically significant differences between students and working professionals across all six variables tested. Specifically, working professionals consistently rated the importance of eco-friendly packaging, trust in brands with eco- packaging, likelihood of purchase, perception of sustainability commitment, likelihood to recommend, and Apple loyalty significantly higher than students.
This suggests that working professionals generally have stronger positive perceptions of eco- packaging compared to students. These findings highlight the importance of considering occupation demographics when developing and communicating eco-packaging strategies.
Income Range Differences in Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether annual income range influences consumer perceptions of eco-packaging, Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted comparing five income groups: Below ₹3 Lakhs, Above
₹3 Lakhs - Below ₹6 Lakhs, Above ₹6 Lakhs - Below ₹12 Lakhs, Above ₹12 Lakhs - Below ₹20 Lakhs, and Above ₹20 Lakhs. The results are presented in Table 30.
Table 30: Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Income Range Differences in Consumer Perceptions
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
The Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed statistically significant differences (p < .05) among income groups for the following variables:
- "How important is eco-friendly packaging to you when choosing a mobile phone?" (H = 16.127, p = 0.003)
- "Eco-packaging increases my trust in a brand." (H = 12.411, p = 0.015)
- "I am more likely to purchase from a brand with eco-friendly packaging." (H = 12.024, p = 0.017)
- "Eco-packaging improves my perception of a brand's commitment to sustainability." (H = 21.625, p < .001)
- "How likely are you to recommend a brand based on its eco-packaging efforts?" (H = 17.453, p = 0.002)
- "To what extent do you agree that Apple eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?" (H = 10.067, p = 0.039)
Following the significant Kruskal-Wallis test results, Dunn's post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were conducted to determine the specific pairwise differences between income groups. The results are presented in Table 31.
Table 31: Dunn's Post Hoc Test Results (Bonferroni Corrected) for Income Range Differences
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Table 30 (Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Income Range Differences in Consumer Perceptions)
Interpretation:
The post hoc tests revealed that there were statistically significant differences between respondents in the "Below ₹3 Lakhs" income range and those in the "₹3-6 Lakhs" income range across all five variables tested. Specifically, respondents in the "₹3-6 Lakhs" income range consistently rated the importance of eco-friendly packaging, trust in brands with eco- packaging, likelihood of purchase, perception of sustainability commitment, and likelihood to recommend significantly higher than respondents in the "Below ₹3 Lakhs" income range.
Mobile Phone Brand Usage Differences in Consumer Perceptions
To examine whether mobile phone brand usage influences consumer perceptions of eco- packaging, Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted comparing two brands: Samsung and Apple. The results are presented in Table 32.
Table 32: Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Mobile Phone Brand Usage Differences in Consumer Perceptions
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
The Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between Samsung and Apple users only for:
- "To what extent do you agree that Samsung eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?" (H = 4.557, p = 0.033)
For all other variables, there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between Samsung and Apple users.
Interpretation:
- The significant result for "To what extent do you agree that Samsung eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?" suggests that Samsung users reported a significantly higher agreement that Samsung's eco-packaging has influenced their brand loyalty compared to Apple users.
- For all other aspects related to eco-packaging perceptions, there were no significant differences between the two groups. This indicates that, in general, both Samsung and Apple users hold similar views on the importance and impact of eco-friendly packaging
4.5.4 CHI-SQUARE TEST
Apple vs. Samsung: Consumer Perceptions of Eco-Packaging Strategies
To examine the differences in consumer perceptions of eco-packaging strategies between Apple and Samsung users, Chi-Square tests were conducted. The results are presented below:
1. Innovation (Leading in Eco-Packaging Innovation)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived leadership in eco-packaging innovation between Apple and Samsung users.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 14.07 | p-value: 0.0028 (statistically significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 33: Perceived Leadership in Eco-Packaging Innovation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- Apple users significantly perceive Apple as the leader in eco-packaging innovation (16 users), compared to Samsung users (7 users).
- Samsung users are more divided; 12 users perceive Samsung as the leader.
- A substantial number of users from both brands perceive both companies as equally innovative (Apple: 20 users, Samsung: 17 users).
2. Appeal (Which brand’s eco-packaging is more appealing?)
Introduction:
This section examines the most appealing eco-packaging brand between Apple and Samsung users.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 23.00 | p-value: 0.00004 (highly significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 34: Most appealing Eco-Packaging brand
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- Apple users strongly prefer Apple’s eco-packaging (20 users vs. just 3 Samsung users).
- Samsung users are evenly split between Samsung (15 users) and “both are equal” (18 users).
- Apple users are less likely to consider Samsung appealing, with only 2 picking it.
3. Feature (Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived eco-packaging feature between Apple and Samsung users.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 0.99 | p-value: 0.80 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 35: Most Valued Feature in Eco-Packaging of Brand
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No strong preference differences between Apple and Samsung users.
- Both groups prioritize "Recyclable materials" the most (17 Apple, 18 Samsung).
- Creative/Reusable packaging is also popular among both groups.
4. Impact (Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived eco-packaging strategy that has greater environmental impact between Apple and Samsung users.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 14.79 | p-value: 0.0020 (highly significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 36: Perceived Environmental Impact of Eco-Packaging Strategies by Brand Users
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- Apple users strongly favor Apple’s eco-packaging strategies (15 users selected Apple's approach vs. only 3 Samsung users).
- Samsung users prefer Samsung's upcycling initiatives (13 users, compared to just 4 Apple users).
- Both groups have a nearly equal number of people (18 Apple vs. 19 Samsung) who believe both brands have equal impact.
Age Group vs. Brand Perceptions
To examine the influence of age group on consumer perceptions of Apple and Samsung's eco- packaging strategies, Chi-Square tests were conducted.
1. Innovation (Leading in Eco-Packaging Innovation)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived leadership in eco-packaging innovation across different age groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 9.83 | p-value: 0.403 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 37: Perceived Leadership in Eco-Packaging Innovation by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between age groups and perception of innovation.
- The 18-24 age group exhibits the most varied responses, with a significant number selecting Samsung and "Both."
- Respondents aged 44 and above show a slight inclination towards Apple but are also relatively divided.
2. Appeal (Which brand’s eco-packaging is more appealing?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the perceived appeal of eco-packaging across different age groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 10.11 | p-value: 0.324 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 38: Perceived Appeal of Eco-Packaging by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant age-based preference for either brand's packaging appeal.
- Apple's packaging appears slightly more appealing to the 18-24 and 34-44 age groups.
- The 18-24 age group remains highly divided, with a large proportion selecting "Both."
3. Impact (Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived environmental impact of eco-packaging strategies across different age groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 12.21 | p-value: 0.202 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 39: Perceived Environmental Impact of Eco-Packaging Strategies by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- Most respondents across all age groups believe both brands have an equal environmental impact.
- The 18-24 age group shows the most diverse opinions, with a notable interest in Samsung's initiatives.
4. Feature (Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the valued eco-packaging features across different age groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 5.74 | p-value: 0.765 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 40: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Features by Age Group
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- "Recyclable materials" is the most valued feature across all age groups.
- The 18-24 age group shows the highest engagement, valuing both recyclability and reusability.
- No significant age-based trends were observed.
Gender vs. Brand Perceptions
1. Innovation (Leading in Eco-Packaging Innovation)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived leadership in eco-packaging innovation across gender groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 6.715 | p-value: 0.348 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 41: Perceived Leadership in Eco-Packaging Innovation by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between gender and perception of innovation.
2. Appeal (Which brand’s eco-packaging is more appealing?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the perceived appeal of eco-packaging across gender groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 2.285 | p-value: 0.892 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 42: Perceived Appeal of Eco-Packaging by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between gender and perceived appeal.
3. Impact (Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived environmental impact of eco-packaging strategies across gender groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 6.704 | p-value: 0.349 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 43: Perceived Environmental Impact of Eco-Packaging Strategies by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between gender and perceived impact.
4. Feature (Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the valued eco-packaging features across gender groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 2.977 | p-value: 0.812 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 44: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Features by Gender
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between gender and valued features.
Occupation vs. Brand Perceptions
1. Innovation (Leading in Eco-Packaging Innovation)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived leadership in eco-packaging innovation across occupation groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 23.320 | p-value: 0.501 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 45: Perceived Leadership in Eco-Packaging Innovation by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between occupation and perception of innovation.
2. Appeal (Which brand’s eco-packaging is more appealing?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the perceived appeal of eco-packaging across occupation groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 18.796 | p-value : 0.763 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 46: Perceived Appeal of Eco-Packaging by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between occupation and perceived appeal.
3. Impact (Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived environmental impact of eco-packaging strategies across occupation groups.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 18.433 | p-value: 0.781 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 47: Perceived Environmental Impact of Eco-Packaging Strategies by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between occupation and perceived environmental impact.
4. Feature (Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the valued eco-packaging features across different occupations.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic : 20.239 | p-value: 0.683 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 48: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Features by Occupation
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between occupation and valued eco-packaging features.
Annual Income Range vs. Brand Perceptions
To examine the influence of annual income range on consumer perceptions of Apple and Samsung's eco-packaging strategies, Chi-Square tests were conducted.
1. Innovation (Leading in Eco-Packaging Innovation)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived leadership in eco-packaging innovation across different annual income ranges.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 8.168 | p-value: 0.772 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 49: Perceived Leadership in Eco-Packaging Innovation by Annual Income Range
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between annual income range and perception of innovation.
2. Appeal (Which brand’s eco-packaging is more appealing?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the perceived appeal of eco-packaging across different annual income ranges.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 15.597 | p-value: 0.210 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 50: Perceived Appeal of Eco-Packaging by Annual Income Range
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between annual income range and perceived appeal.
3. Impact (Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?)
Introduction:
This section examines the perceived environmental impact of eco-packaging strategies across different income ranges.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 17.625 | p-value: 0.128 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 51: Perceived Environmental Impact of Eco-Packaging Strategies by Annual Income Range
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between annual income range and perceived environmental impact.
4. Feature (Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most?)
Introduction:
This section analyzes the valued eco-packaging features across different income ranges.
Chi-Square Test Results:
Chi-Square Statistic: 9.026 | p-value: 0.701 (not significant)
Contingency Table:
Table 52: Most Valued Eco-Packaging Features by Annual Income Range
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Primary data collected by the researcher.
Interpretation:
- No significant relationship exists between annual income range and valued eco- packaging features.
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS:
1. Overall Awareness
The survey results indicate that 58.2% of respondents are aware of eco-packaging initiatives by brands like Apple and Samsung. However, 41.8% remain unaware, highlighting a need for improved communication strategies to enhance consumer knowledge and engagement with sustainable packaging efforts.
2. Positive Perception
Eco-packaging plays a significant role in shaping consumer trust and purchase decisions. A majority of respondents (70.21%) believe that eco-packaging increases trust in a brand, while 71.81% state that it influences their purchase decisions. This suggests that consumers view sustainable packaging as a sign of corporate responsibility and commitment to environmental sustainability.
3. Need for Improved Communication
Although brands have made notable progress in adopting eco-friendly packaging, there is still room for improvement in messaging and outreach. Clear and effective communication strategies can help brands maximize awareness, reinforce sustainability initiatives, and drive higher engagement among consumers.
4. Demographic Differences in Awareness
Age significantly impacts awareness levels. Younger consumers (18-24 years) show higher awareness, likely due to digital marketing and social media exposure. In contrast, older consumers (44+ years) exhibit significantly lower awareness, suggesting that traditional marketing approaches may be less effective in conveying sustainability efforts to this demographic.
5. Gender Differences in Awareness
Female respondents demonstrate higher awareness levels of eco-packaging compared to male respondents. This trend could be attributed to a greater interest in sustainability and eco- friendly choices among women, which has been observed in various consumer behavior studies.
6. Importance of Eco-Packaging in Purchasing Decisions
Eco-packaging is a crucial factor in consumer purchasing decisions. A significant portion of respondents, 44.15%, rated eco-packaging as "very important," while 26.6% considered it "important." This indicates that sustainable packaging is not just a minor consideration but a major factor influencing consumer choices. The data suggests that consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of sustainability, and brands adopting eco-friendly packaging may gain a competitive edge in the market.
7. Correlation Between Eco-Packaging and Purchase Likelihood
Statistical analysis reveals a strong positive correlation (ρ = 0.482, p = 0.000) between the importance of eco-packaging and purchase likelihood. Consumers who place higher value on sustainability are significantly more inclined to choose brands that implement eco-friendly packaging solutions. This reinforces the idea that sustainability is not just a brand perception booster but also a practical sales driver.
8. Eco-Packaging’s Influence on Brand Loyalty
Eco-packaging also impacts brand loyalty, with 56.61% of respondents stating that Apple’s eco-packaging contributed to their brand loyalty, while 65.61% reported the same for Samsung. This suggests that sustainability efforts can strengthen long-term consumer relationships. Samsung, in particular, has seen slightly stronger loyalty due to initiatives such as upcycling and the use of innovative materials, which resonate well with environmentally conscious consumers.
9. Positive Impact on Brand Perception
Sustainable packaging significantly enhances brand reputation. 75% of respondents believe that eco-packaging strengthens their perception of a brand’s commitment to sustainability. This underscores the growing expectation for brands to adopt eco-friendly practices. Investing in sustainable packaging not only aligns with consumer values but also helps brands position themselves as leaders in corporate social responsibility, reinforcing trust and long-term customer relationships.
10. Perception of Innovation
Consumer perception of innovation in eco-packaging is fairly balanced, with 44.97% believing that Apple and Samsung are equally innovative. However, 25.93% favor Samsung, while 21.69% prefer Apple. Samsung’s interactive and repurposable packaging gives it a slight advantage in perceived innovation. This suggests that consumers appreciate packaging that extends beyond simple sustainability and offers additional functionality, such as reusability or creative design.
11. Samsung’s Strengths
Samsung’s sustainability initiatives strongly resonate with environmentally conscious consumers. Its "Galaxy Upcycling at Home" program allows users to repurpose old devices, extending their lifespan and reducing e-waste. This program appeals to consumers who seek practical solutions for minimizing their environmental impact. Additionally, Samsung incorporates ocean-bound plastics into its packaging, creating an emotional connection with consumers who care about marine conservation. The company also actively engages in sustainability campaigns that highlight waste reduction and plastic alternatives, further strengthening consumer trust and loyalty.
12. Apple’s Strengths
Apple’s approach to eco-packaging focuses on minimalism and material sustainability. By reducing plastic use and ensuring 100% recyclability, Apple aligns its packaging with its broader environmental goals. The company incorporates fiber-based materials to minimize its carbon footprint, reinforcing its commitment to sustainability. Apple’s sleek and simple designs appeal to consumers who prioritize minimalism and efficiency, making its eco- packaging strategy particularly attractive to those who value both aesthetics and sustainability.
13. Perceived Appeal
When comparing both brands, 42.33% of respondents found Apple and Samsung’s packaging equally appealing. However, Samsung (25.4%) was slightly more favored over Apple (24.34%), possibly due to its interactive packaging and environmental messaging. This suggests that while both brands are seen as leaders in sustainable packaging, Samsung’s additional efforts in innovation may give it a slight competitive edge in consumer appeal.
14. Impact of Environmental Awareness
Consumers who are more environmentally aware tend to rate Samsung’s packaging higher. A Mann-Whitney U test (U = 3726, p = 0.032) confirms that Samsung’s eco-packaging resonates more strongly with sustainability-conscious consumers, particularly due to its initiatives involving ocean plastics and upcycling. This implies that companies seeking to appeal to highly eco-conscious customers may benefit from highlighting the tangible impact of their sustainability efforts.
15. Prioritized Features
Consumers prioritize different aspects of eco-packaging, with 41.27% preferring recyclable materials, 32.8% valuing creative or reusable packaging, and 17.46% prioritizing minimal plastic use. Interestingly, only 8.47% considered cost-effectiveness as the most important feature, indicating that environmental considerations often outweigh price concerns. This suggests that consumers are willing to support sustainable packaging even if it comes at a slightly higher cost, provided that it aligns with their values.
16. Environmental Concerns Over Price
The survey results indicate that environmental concerns generally take precedence over price considerations. Many consumers are willing to pay more for eco-friendly packaging, suggesting that sustainability is no longer a niche interest but a mainstream expectation. As environmental awareness grows, brands that fail to adopt eco-packaging may risk losing a portion of their customer base to competitors that prioritize sustainability.
17. Income-Based Preferences
Eco-packaging preferences vary by income level. Higher-income consumers (Above ₹12 Lakhs) tend to favor premium sustainable materials and creative packaging, aligning with their preference for luxury and innovation. In contrast, lower-income groups prioritize cost- effectiveness and recyclability, indicating that affordability remains a key factor for this segment. These differences highlight the importance of offering a range of sustainable packaging solutions to cater to diverse consumer needs.
18. Customized Messaging
To effectively communicate their eco-packaging initiatives, brands should tailor their messaging based on target market segments. Lower-income consumers are more likely to respond to messages emphasizing affordability and accessibility, whereas premium market segments value innovation and cutting-edge sustainability practices. By customizing their approach, brands can maximize engagement and ensure their sustainability efforts resonate with the right audiences.
19. Expansion on Hypothesis H3: Gaps in Communication Strategies
H13: Enhanced communication strategies significantly improve consumer awareness. However, this hypothesis was not strongly supported, as awareness levels remained at 58.2%, suggesting that current efforts are not as effective as expected. Several factors could explain this limitation. First, many communication efforts rely heavily on digital platforms, excluding consumers who still engage with traditional media such as newspapers and television. Additionally, messaging about eco-packaging often lacks clarity and detail, making it difficult for consumers to grasp its significance. Furthermore, skepticism surrounding corporate sustainability claims contributes to consumer disengagement, as many remain doubtful about the authenticity of brands' environmental initiatives.
To improve consumer awareness, brands must diversify their communication channels to include TV, print media, and in-store displays, ensuring that information reaches a broader audience. Partnering sustainability influencers can also enhance credibility and engagement. Additionally, placing clear sustainability certifications on packaging can help reinforce trust and transparency, making eco-packaging efforts more impactful and understandable for consumers.
LIMITATIONS
This study had several limitations that should be considered:
- Sample Bias Towards Students: A significant portion of respondents were students, which may have influenced the findings toward younger consumer preferences. The study lacked balanced representation across all age groups, limiting its generalizability to older demographics.
- Sample Size & Representativeness: The study was conducted with 189 respondents, which may not fully represent all Indian metropolitan consumers.
- Self-Reported Data: Survey responses may be subject to social desirability bias, where respondents overstate their interest in sustainability.
- Lack of Longitudinal Data: The study captures consumer perceptions at one point in time, but attitudes may change over time as brands evolve their sustainability efforts.
SUGGESTIONS
1. Enhance Consumer Awareness and Communication
Despite efforts from brands like Apple and Samsung, 41.8% of consumers remain unaware of eco-packaging initiatives. Brands should expand communication channels beyond digital platforms to include traditional media, in-store promotions, and interactive marketing. Additionally, clear and transparent labeling on packaging, featuring sustainability certifications and concise messaging about environmental benefits, can improve consumer understanding and trust.
2. Strengthen Consumer Trust and Brand Perception
Since 70.21% of respondents believe eco-packaging increases trust in a brand, companies must highlight their sustainability commitments more effectively. Establishing third-party certifications, publishing annual sustainability reports, and maintaining consistent messaging across all platforms will reinforce consumer confidence.
3. Increase Adoption Through Incentives
A significant portion of consumers appreciate eco-packaging, but 30.32% would not pay extra for it. To encourage adoption, brands can offer discounts, trade-in options, or loyalty rewards
for consumers who engage in eco-friendly practices, such as recycling old packaging or opting for minimal-packaging purchases.
4. Tailor Marketing Strategies Based on Demographics
Since younger consumers (18-24 years old) show higher awareness and preference for eco- packaging, brands should leverage social media campaigns, influencer collaborations, and interactive digital content to reach them effectively. On the other hand, older consumers (44+ years old) who show lower awareness may respond better to educational campaigns through print media, TV advertisements, and in-store signage.
5. Strengthen Brand Loyalty Through Eco-Packaging Innovations
With 56.61% of consumers agreeing that Apple’s eco-packaging influences brand loyalty and 65.61% saying the same for Samsung, companies should continue innovating their packaging. Samsung’s upcycling initiatives and Apple’s minimalistic, fiber-based materials have proven effective—both brands can further differentiate themselves by introducing multi-use packaging or interactive designs.
6. Address Skepticism with Clear Sustainability Claims
Consumers are increasingly skeptical about corporate sustainability claims. To counteract this, brands must back up their eco-packaging initiatives with measurable impact data, such as carbon footprint reduction statistics and independent eco-certifications. Being transparent about packaging materials and their recyclability will help build consumer trust.
7. Improve Transparency in Eco-Packaging Efforts
With 76.19% of respondents demanding more transparency, brands should clearly disclose the environmental benefits of their packaging, detailing how materials are sourced, processed, and recycled. QR codes on packaging leading to detailed sustainability reports or AR experiences demonstrating the lifecycle of packaging materials could be an engaging way to educate consumers.
8. Encourage Sustainable Consumer Behavior
To foster long-term engagement, brands should promote recycling and responsible disposal of packaging. Samsung’s upcycling initiatives could be expanded to include incentivized take- back programs, while Apple could explore biodegradable packaging with easy disposal guidelines to simplify consumer participation in sustainability efforts.
9. Consider Pricing Strategies for Different Consumer Segments
Higher-income consumers (Above ₹12 Lakhs) favor premium sustainability materials, while lower-income consumers prioritize cost-effectiveness and recyclability. Brands should consider offering different packaging options—premium zero-waste or reusable packaging for high-end consumers, and affordable recyclable options for price-sensitive segments.
10. Improve the Appeal of Eco-Packaging
While 42.33% of respondents found both Apple and Samsung's packaging equally appealing, Samsung had a slight edge. This suggests that interactive, repurposable packaging is more engaging than minimalistic designs alone. Brands should experiment with unique textures, colors, or multipurpose designs to make eco-packaging both functional and visually attractive.
11. Expand the Use of Sustainable Materials
Consumers prioritize recyclable materials (41.27%) and creative/reusable packaging (32.8%), while minimal plastic use (17.46%) and cost-effectiveness (8.47%) are less important. Brands should prioritize biodegradable, compostable, or fully recyclable materials, ensuring minimal environmental impact while maintaining high functionality.
12. Leverage Consumer Demand for Innovation
With 44.97% of respondents considering both Apple and Samsung equally innovative, there is room for greater differentiation. Samsung could expand its interactive packaging options, while Apple could explore water-soluble or plant-based materials to reinforce its leadership in design and sustainability.
13. Strengthen Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives
As eco-packaging is closely linked to brand perception, companies should integrate eco- packaging into broader CSR initiatives. Partnering with NGOs, engaging in plastic waste reduction projects, or funding sustainable material research will further strengthen a brand’s eco-conscious reputation.
14. Introduce Customized Sustainability Messaging
Since awareness and willingness to pay vary by demographic, brands should tailor their sustainability messaging accordingly. For cost-sensitive consumers, messaging should emphasize affordability and recyclability, whereas for premium buyers, focus should be on innovation, aesthetics, and luxury sustainability features.
15. Diversify Communication Strategies for Greater Reach
Given the lack of strong evidence supporting H13 (Enhanced communication significantly improving awareness), brands must rethink their communication strategies. Instead of relying solely on digital campaigns, companies should integrate sustainability messages into TV ads, newspapers, store displays, and packaging labels to reach a wider audience.
CONCLUSION
The study confirms that eco-packaging is not just an environmental initiative but a strategic brand asset that enhances differentiation and fosters consumer loyalty. Both Apple and Samsung have incorporated sustainable packaging into their brand strategies, but Samsung's initiatives appear to have a stronger impact on consumer trust and loyalty. The hypothesis evaluation further supports this conclusion. H01 (Eco-packaging has no impact on consumer behavior and loyalty) was rejected, as the data demonstrates a significant positive effect on purchasing decisions and brand loyalty in the mobile phone industry (p = 0.000). This supports
the alternative hypothesis (H11), confirming that eco-packaging plays a crucial role in shaping consumer behavior and loyalty.
Similarly, H02 (No significant difference in perceptions of Apple and Samsung) was partially rejected. While both brands are perceived as innovative in eco-packaging, Samsung holds a slight advantage in consumer appeal and influence on brand loyalty, indicating notable differences in consumer perception and feedback. This partially supports the alternative hypothesis (H12), which suggests that consumer perception of Apple’s and Samsung’s eco- packaging strategies differs.
On the other hand, H03 (Enhanced communication strategies have no impact on awareness) was not fully rejected. While communication efforts have had some positive influence, consumer awareness remains at 58.2%, indicating that current strategies are not entirely effective. Although the null hypothesis is not entirely valid, there are significant gaps in messaging clarity, reach, and engagement. This partially supports the alternative hypothesis (H13), which suggests that enhanced communication strategies can improve consumer awareness and brand perception. However, further improvements in outreach methods, including more diverse and transparent communication channels, are necessary to fully validate this hypothesis.
References
1. Zeng, T., Deschênes, J., & Durif, F. (2020). Eco-design packaging: An epistemological analysis and transformative research agenda. Sustainability Journal, 12 (5), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123361
2. James, F., & Kurian, A. (2021). Sustainable packaging: A study on consumer perception on sustainable packaging options in the e-commerce industry. Journal of Consumer Studies, 15 (2), 89-105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357767509_Sustainable_Packaging_A_Stud y_on_Consumer_Perception_on_Sustainable_Packaging_Options_in_E-_Commerce_Industry
3. Bellomo, M. (2021). Sustainable cosmetics: The impact of packaging materials, environmental concern, and subjective norm on green consumer behavior. Green Marketing Review, 10 (3), 77-94. https://www.doi.org/10.58257/IJPREMS30830
4. Esvandiari, M. (2023). The effect of eco-friendly packaging on purchase intention with consumer perception as an intervening variable. Research in Consumer Studies, 18 (1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijeass.v3i2.1818
5. Radi, S. A., & Shokouhyar, S. (2021). Toward consumer perception of cellphones sustainability: A social media analytics approach. Journal of Digital Consumer Insights, 7 (3), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.012
6. Migdadi, Y. (2019). The effective practices of mobile phone producers’ green supply chain management in reducing GHG emissions. Environmental Business Strategies, 11 (2), 56-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21619
7. Orzan, G., Francisca, C. A., Teodora, B. C., & Giorgiana, C. R. (2018). Consumers’ behavior concerning sustainable packaging: An exploratory study on Romanian consumers. International Journal of Sustainable Business, 9 (4), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061787
8. Wandosell, G., María, P. M., Alfredo, A., & Raúl, B. (2021). Green packaging from consumer and business perspectives. Business and Sustainability Review, 14 (6), 112-134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031356
9. Isaacs, S. M. (2015). Consumer perceptions of eco-friendly products: Brand loyalty, quality, and price sensitivity. Florida Consumer Studies, 5 (1), 27-43. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1568/
10. Nguyen, A. T., Yến-Khanh, N., & Thuan, N. H. (2021). Consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging in Vietnam. Southeast Asian Marketing Journal, 16 (2), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4609-6_11
11. Moustafa, H., Nabila, D., & Ahmed, A. (2019). Eco-friendly polymer composites for green packaging: Challenges and innovations. Sustainable Packaging Research, 22 (3), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.048
12. Jiménez-Guerrero, J. F., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Ceballos-Santamaría, G. (2015). Innovation in eco-packaging in private labels: A competitive advantage approach. Journal of Brand Sustainability, 8 (5), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2015.1011055
13. Murtas, G., & Pedeliento, G. (2022). To pack sustainably or not to pack sustainably? A review of the relationship between consumer behavior and sustainable packaging. Environmental Consumer Research, 19 (4), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 12027-5_9
14. Shimul, A. S., & Cheah, I. (2022). Consumers' preference for eco-friendly packaged products: Pride vs. guilt appeal. International Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (1), 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05-2022-0197
15. Mitra, M., Rana, M., & Dil, A. K. (2024). Consumer perception and adoption of green packaging in Dhaka City area. South Asian Business Journal, 20 (2), 119-137. https://ijirt.org/Article?manuscript=168754
16. Monteiro, J., Silva, F. J. G., Ramos, S. F., & Fonseca, A. M. (2019). Eco-design and sustainability in packaging: A survey of industry practices. Portuguese Business and Sustainability Journal, 11 (3), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.097
17. Munasinghe, P. M., & Shantha, A. A. (2021). Factors influencing the purchase intention of green packaging among millennials in Gampaha District of Sri Lanka. Consumer Insights Journal, 17 (2), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.4038/sljmuok.v7i1.59
18. Hasan, M. Z., Islam, M. O., & Shanta, S. E. (2024). Measuring the impact of green packaging on consumer purchase intention in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Business Research, 23 (1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.23.3.2627
19. Singh, A. K. (2024). Framework for integration of circular economy into business models: A study of Samsung. Business and Circular Economy Review, 18 (2), 57-78. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2024061022532
20. Khanh, L. N. (2020). The effects of green digital marketing towards Finnish consumers’ environmental awareness and company sustainability. European Journal of Marketing Sustainability, 15 (4), 92-110. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2020112524269
21. Corona, B., & Karlijn, L. (2024). Integrating consumer behavior into the environmental assessment of circular packaging. Circular Economy Journal, 22 (1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02218-1
22. Sunita, C. (2023). Consumer perception towards sustainable packaging in the e- commerce industry. Indian Consumer Review, 10 (3), 45-68.
https://doi.org/10.54368/qijcm.3.2.0012
23. Zeng, T., & Durif, F. (2019). The influence of consumers’ perceived risks towards eco- design packaging upon the purchasing decision process. Green Consumption Research Journal, 8 (2), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216131
ANNEXURE
Questionnaire:
1. What is your age group?
- Above 18 - Below 24
- Above 24 - Below 34
- Above 34 - Below 44
- 44 and Above
2. What is your gender?
- Male
- Female
- Others
3. What is your occupation?
- Student
- Working professional
- Homemaker
- Self-employed
4. What is your annual income range?
- Below ₹3 Lakhs
- Above ₹3 Lakhs - Below ₹6 Lakhs
- Above ₹6 Lakhs - Below ₹12 Lakhs
- Above ₹12 Lakhs - Below ₹20 Lakhs
- Above ₹20 Lakhs
5. Which mobile phone brand do you currently use?
- Apple
- Samsung
- Vivo
- Oneplus
- Other
6. Are you aware of eco-friendly packaging initiatives by Apple and Samsung?
- Yes
- No
7. How important is eco-friendly packaging to you when choosing a mobile phone?
- Not important at all
- Slightly important
- Neutral
- Important
- Very important
8. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about eco-packaging?
1) Eco-packaging increases my trust in a brand.
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
2) I am more likely to purchase from a brand with eco-friendly packaging.
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
3) Eco-packaging improves my perception of a brand's commitment to sustainability.
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
9. Which eco-packaging feature do you value the most? (Select one)
- Recyclable materials
- Minimal use of plastic
- Creative/Reusable packaging
- Cost-effectiveness
10. How likely are you to recommend a brand based on its eco-packaging efforts?
- Very unlikely
- Unlikely
- Neutral
- Likely
- Very likely
11. Which brand do you think is leading in eco-packaging innovation?
- Apple
- Samsung
- Both are equally innovative
- Neither
12. How much more would you be willing to pay for a product with eco-friendly packaging?
- 0% (I wouldn’t pay extra)
- Up to 5% more
- 6–10% more
- More than 10%
13. To what extent do you agree that Apple’s eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
14. To what extent do you agree that Apple’s/Samsung’s eco-packaging has influenced your loyalty to the brand?
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
15. Which brand’s eco-packaging do you find more appealing?
- Apple
- Samsung
- Both are equally appealing
- Neither
16. Which eco-packaging strategy do you think has the greater environmental impact?
- Apple’s use of renewable and recycled fibers
- Samsung’s upcycling initiatives and use of ocean plastics
- Both have equal impact
- Neither has a significant impact
17. Do you believe brands should communicate their eco-packaging efforts more transparently?
- Strongly Disagree
- Disagree
- Neutral
- Agree
- Strongly Agree
18. What additional features would you like to see in eco-packaging for mobile phones?
19. What could Apple and Samsung do to improve their eco-packaging strategies?
[...]
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Radhika P. Y. (Author), Daniel Royal (Author), Saurav Ravindran Nambiar (Author), Albert S. Abraham (Author), Mohammed Asif Ali (Author), M. Veera Swamy (Author), M. Arul Jothi (Author), 2024, Eco-Packaging as a Competitive Advantage. A Comparative Analysis of Apple and Samsung in the Context of Sustainable Consumer Preferences, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1577612
