Effects of sustainable packaging cues on perceived sustainability, purchase intention and price acceptance of cosmetic products
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.22(4).2026.09
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2026, Issue #4, pp. 134–150
- 2 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Sustainable cosmetic packaging is increasingly important as consumers use packaging-related cues to evaluate the environmental attributes and value of products. However, empirical evidence on consumer responses to different sustainable packaging configurations and communication cues remains limited in Central and Eastern Europe. This study examines perceived environmental sustainability, purchase intention and price acceptance across cosmetic packaging configurations featuring conventional plastic, biodegradable plastic and glass, as well as consumer evaluations of Vegan and Cruelty-Free labels and QR-code cues. A quantitative within-subject study was conducted among 204 adult Slovak consumers using an online questionnaire with nine visual stimuli. Data were analyzed using the Friedman test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Significant differences were identified across packaging configurations in perceived sustainability (χ²(2) = 8.21, p = 0.016), purchase intention (χ²(2) = 16.09, p < 0.001) and price acceptance at the premium price level (χ²(2) = 28.48, p < 0.001). Perceived sustainability was strongly and positively associated with purchase intention (ρ = 0.686, p < 0.001). Configurations featuring biodegradable plastic and glass received higher perceived sustainability evaluations than those featuring conventional plastic, while no significant difference was detected between biodegradable plastic and glass configurations. Biodegradable plastic and glass configurations generated higher purchase intentions than conventional plastic. At the premium price level, the glass configuration received higher price acceptance evaluations than both conventional and biodegradable plastic configurations. No statistically significant differences in perceived sustainability were detected between the Vegan or Cruelty-Free labels and the QR-code cue. The findings provide empirical evidence on consumer responses to sustainable cosmetic packaging configurations and offer practical insights for packaging design and sustainability communication strategies.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Ministry of Education, Research, Development and Youth of the Slovak Republic under Grant KEGA 041PU-4/2026 – Innovation of the course consumer behavior in the context of neuromarketing principles and tools and Grant VEGA 1/0673/26 – Research on aspects of consumer behavior in e-commerce with emphasis on neuromarketing approaches.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M31, M30, D91
-
References29
-
Tables12
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Overview of constructs included in the present analysis
- Table 2. Sample characteristics (N = 204)
- Table 3. Descriptive statistics for perceived sustainability across packaging configurations
- Table 4. Differences in perceived sustainability across packaging configurations
- Table 5. Descriptive statistics for purchase intention across packaging configurations
- Table 6. Differences in purchase intention across packaging configurations
- Table 7. Correlation between perceived environmental sustainability and purchase intention
- Table 8. Descriptive statistics for price acceptance across packaging configurations at the highest price level (€23.95)
- Table 9. Differences in price acceptance across packaging configurations at the highest price level (€23.95)
- Table 10. Descriptive statistics for sustainability labels and the QR-code cue
- Table 11. Comparison between sustainability labels and the QR-code cue
- Table 12. Summary of hypotheses testing
-
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Amberg, N., & Fogarassy, C. (2019). Green consumer behavior in the cosmetics market. Resources, 8(3), 137.
- Cosmetics Europe. (2022). Ensuring a strong CPR for the green and digital transition: Policy options and impacts. Cosmetics Europe – The Personal Care Association.
- D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11(2), 162-173.
- European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final).
- European Commission. (2020). A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe (COM/2020/98 final).
- Eurostat. (2026). Packaging waste statistics. European Commission.
- Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189.
- Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1-2), 128-143.
- Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2020). Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, Article 120123.
- Kumar, B., Manrai, A. K., & Manrai, L. A. (2017). Purchasing behaviour for environmentally sustainable products: A conceptual framework and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 1-9.
- Kutschera, E. L., & Crowell, T. L. (2026). Scanning & sustainability: The role of QR codes in environmental consciousness of apparel consumption. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 28(4), 9731-9742.
- Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 53-62.
- Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., & Mugge, R. (2016). Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Quality and Preference, 53, 132-142.
- Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R., & Beas, I. N. (2020). Environmental impact of food packaging materials: A review of contemporary development from conventional plastics to polylactic acid based materials. Materials, 13(21), Article 4994.
- Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process: A cognitive model and an empirical test (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
- Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64-81.
- Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 159-177.
- Perret, J. K., Gómez Velázquez, A., & Mehn, A. (2025). Green cosmetics – The effects of package design on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and sustainability perceptions. Sustainability, 17(6), Article 2581.
- Plotkina, D., Rabeson, L., & Bambauer-Sachse, S. (2025). The role of green brand image in explaining European consumers’ reactions to different types of sustainable packaging. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 84, Article 104228.
- Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 385-393.
- Rundh, B. (2009). Packaging design: Creating competitive advantage with product packaging. British Food Journal, 111(9), 988-1002.
- Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2017). Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 286-298.
- Taufique, K. M. R., Siwar, C., Talib, B., Sarah, F. H., & Chamhuri, N. (2014). Synthesis of constructs for modeling consumers’ understanding and perception of eco-labels. Sustainability, 6(4), 2176-2200.
- Testa, F., Sarti, S., & Frey, M. (2019). Are green consumers really green? Exploring the factors behind the actual consumption of organic food products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 327-338.
- Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1787-1810.
- Underwood, R. L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(1), 62-76.
- Vecchio, R., & Annunziata, A. (2015). Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: An experimental auction approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 335-342.
- White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22-49.


