communicating environmental friendliness through product design and appearance
DESCRIPTION
This thesis studies ways for mobile devices to communicate environmental friendliness to consumers. As background for the empirical research, consumer behavior, product semantics and emotional design have been studied. The empirical findings of this thesis are based on interviews and a survey. The interpretation and conclusions of the results from both the interviews and the survey were projected by means of the theoretical framework. The mobile devices were examined by their design elements, such as color, material, design style and technologies.Consumers do not usually connect ICT-technology with environmental issues. As a finding of the thesis, it can be presented that the analyzed design elements affect the perceived environmental image of the product. The semantic language of environmental friendliness is obviously young. Therefore, in order to successfully communicate environmental friendliness, the product’s communicative elements must be clear and distinct, even naïve, and create a connection between the product and the environment.Based on this study, green, blue and white are colors that have the strongest reference to environmental friendliness, while black and pink are colors that have the least reference to environmental friendliness. Natural materials, such as rock and wood, are perceived most environmentally friendly, plastics and metals are the opposite. Simple and purposeful design style is perceived more environmental friendly than showy or technical looks. Technically simpler and more durable mobile devices were perceived more environmentally friendly than music, video or 3G mobile devices, although evaluation of single features was perceived difficult. Also differences between the perceived greenness of different electronics brands do exist. This thesis concludes the research results in four conceptual suggestions for products that support an environmentally friendly message.The sampling of the research had a majority of academically educated Finnish citizens and, therefore, the study gives information concerning only the phenomenon itself without studying differences between demographic groups. Reliability of the study was improved by taking multiple approaches, by conducting interviews and an Internet-based survey that was accessible by invitation only. Design elements are mostly analyzed separately even though they exist as combinations in real life.Previous studies related to the topic are scarce. This thesis suggests that the bilateral impact of design elements and the impact of cultural backgrounds should be further studied. Also the testing of presented product concepts is suggested for future studies. The topic should be expanded and deepened by further studies.TRANSCRIPT
Communicating Environmental Friendliness through Product Design and Appearance
improving the green appearance of mobile devices
Lotta Hassi, TSE Pekka Kumpula, TAIK Jouni Riuttanen, TKKinterdisciplinary master´s thesis
interdisciplinary master´s thesis
Authors Lotta Hassi, TSE Pekka Kumpula, TAIK Jouni Riuttanen, TKK
Supervisors Ph.D. Heli Marjanen M.Sc. Juulia Räikkönen Sr. Design Manager Jari Ijäs D.A. Toni-Matti Karjalainen Ph.D. Peter McGrory Ph.D. Eija Nieminen Ph.D. Matti Pietola Lic.Sc. (tech.) Lauri Repokari
1.5.2007 Turku / Helsinki
Communicating Environmental Friendliness through Product Design and Appearance
improving the green appearance of mobile devices
layout: sara bengts/perfect white
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 introduction 91.1 Background for the Study 91.2 Defining the Research Area 111.3 The Purpose and Structure of the Study 14 1.4 Description of Team Work and Research Process 16
2 the greening of consumer attitudes, behavior & product appearance 182.1 The Rise of Public Concern and Environmental Marketing 182.2 Towards Environmentally Sustainable Design 192.3 The Green Consumer & Environmental Segmentation 202.4 Environmental Attitudes and Behavior 24 2.4.1 The Relationship Between Green Attitudes and Behavior 24 2.4.2 Predominant Trends in Green Consumerism 252.5 Challenges in Green Marketing 29 2.5.1 The Credibility Challenge and the Practical Challenge 29 2.5.2 Communicational Challenges 312.6 The Perceived Green Image of Consumer Electronics 35 2.6.1 Sustainability and ICT – research by the Finnish ministry of environment 35 2.6.2 Environmental Appearance of Electronics – research by Stilma et al. 36 2.6.2.1 Studying Environmental Appearance 36 2.6.2.2 Attributes of Environmental Appearance 37
3 product semantics & emotional design 393.1 The Four Dimensions of a Product 393.2 Communicating Through Products 42 3.2.1 Visual Cues 42 3.2.2 Product Design as a Language 433.3 Emotional Design 46 3.3.1 The Emotional Side of Products 46 3.3.2 Affective System and its Four States 47 3.3.3 Emotional Response 50 3.3.4 Product Emotions 503.4 Semantics and Emotional Design in Regard to Our Research 52
4 research strategy: decisions made in conducting this study 544.1 Research Approach & Methods 54
4.2 Qualitative Research: methods and data collection 55 4.2.1 Semi Structured Interviews 55 4.2.2 Think Aloud Protocol 56 4.2.3 Grouping 56 4.2.4 Sampling for the Interviews 57 4.2.5 Pilot Test 57 4.2.6 Structure of the Interviews and Demographics of the Participants 58 4.2.7 Interview Setting 614.3 Quantitative Research: methods and data collection 62 4.3.1 Internet Based Survey 62 4.3.2 Sampling for the Survey 62 4.3.3 Structure of the Survey 63 4.3.4 Survey Participants and the Target Group 654.4 Reliability and Validity of the Study 67
5 the qualitative research: finding the hypotheses 705.1 An Overview of the Interviews 70 5.1.1 General Indications of the Results 70 5.1.2 Eco-points Used in Analyzing the Grouping Results 715.2 Results from the First Phase: Background Questions 725.3 Results from the Second Phase: Grouping 74 5.3.1 Colors 74 5.3.2 Materials 78 5.3.3 Mobile Devices 805.4 Results from the Third Phase: technology questionnaire 83
6 the quantitative research: towards the design guidelines 866.1 Aim of the Survey & Eco-points Used in the Survey Analysis 866.2 Color Evaluations 866.3 Material Evaluations 886.4 Mobile Device Evaluation 906.5 General Attributes and Technology Evaluation 926.6 Brand Evaluation 946.7 Semiotic Analysis of the mobile devices in the Survey: The breakdown of the Three Most and Least Green Devices 98 6.7.1 The Three Most Environmentally Friendly Mobile Devices 98 6.7.1.1 Nokia 3110 98 6.7.1.2 Nokia 1101 99 6.7.1.3 Nokia 7360 100
6.7.1.4 Conclusions from the Analysis of the Top Three 101 6.7.2 The Three Least Environmentally Friendly Mobile Devices 103 6.7.2.1 Panasonic X500 104 6.7.2.2 Samsung SGH-Z540 104 6.7.2.3 Nokia E61 105 6.7.2.4 Conclusions from the Analysis of the Bottom Three 106
7 design guidelines & eco-concepts 1087.1 Design Guidelines for Environmentally Friendly Product Appearance 108 7.1.1 Colors 108 7.1.2 Materials 110 7.1.3 Design Style 111 7.1.4 General Attributes and Mobile device Types 112 7.1.5 Concept Combination Table 1137.2 Bringing the Guidelines to Life: Suggestions for Eco-concepts 115 7.2.1 tarting Point for the Eco-concepts 115 7.2.2 Simplistic, Humble and Compact 116 7.2.3 Sympathetic 121 7.2.4 Good Quality and Durability 125 7.2.5 Forms Designed by Winter 126 7.2.6 Organic Form 129
8 summary 133
bibliography 136appendicesAppendix 1 Terminology 142Appendix 2 Colors, materials and mobile devices used in the interviews 147Appendix 3 Technology questionnaire 149Appendix 4 Answers to technology questionnaire in the interview 151Appendix 5 Survey questionnaire (in finnish) 153Appendix 6 Answers to first phase questions in the interview (in finnish) 173Appendix 7 Participants’ comments in interviews during the ranking of
colors, materials and mobile devices (in finnish) 176Appendix 8 Ranking of mobile devices in the interview 184Appendix 9 Answers to the concluding question in the interviews (in finnish) 188Appendix 10 Results from survey 189
list of figuresFigure 1 Green products do not communicate a green message 9Figure 2 Product life cycle 12Figure 3 Marketing mix 12Figure 4 Key attraction points of a product’s design 14
Figure 5 Products favored by the Neo-greens 22Figure 6 Examples of successful environmental marketing 28Figure 7 Eco-labels used in Finland 32Figure 8 Dimensions of a product 40Figure 9 Form follows function; Indian headgear 43Figure 10 Bauhaus furniture are a good example of passive type of
product communication 45Figure 11 Packaging design by Pekka Kumpula with Remes & Packart
for Polar Electro 45Figure 12 Basic model of product emotions 52Figure 13 Research strategy in this thesis 58Figure 14 The axes in the grouping exercise 60Figure 15 Screenshots of the survey questionnaire 64Figure 16 Percentage of participants in each segment 66Figure 17 Ranking of colors by each participant 75Figure 18 Ranking of colors (in eco-points) 75Figure 19 Ranking of materials by each participant 77Figure 20 Ranking of materials (in eco-points) 77Figure 21 Ranking of mobile devices 81Figure 22 Ranking of mobile devices (in eco-points) 81Figure 23 Ranking of colors in eco-points 87Figure 24 Rank order correlation of colors 87Figure 25 Ranking of materials in eco-points 88Figure 26 Rank order correlation of materials 89Figure 27 Ranking of mobile devices in eco-points 91Figure 28 Pictures of mobile devices in their ranking order 91Figure 29 Rank order correlation of mobile devices 92Figure 30 General attributes -ranking 93Figure 31 Grades for general phone types 93Figure 32 Ranking of the most environmentally friendly brands 95Figure 33 Ranking the least environmentally friendly brands 95Figure 34 The Greenpeace ranking of consumer electronics 96Figure 35 Comparison of brand rankings 96Figure 36 An example of advertisement for home appliances 97Figure 37 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 3100 99Figure 38 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 1101 100Figure 39 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 7360 101Figure 40 The mobile devices in the order of their ranking 102Figure 41 Syntactical breakdown of the Panasonic X500 104Figure 42 Syntactical breakdown of the Samsung SGH-Z540 105Figure 43 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia E61 106Figure 44 Results and conclusions from color evaluations 109Figure 45 Results and conclusions from material evaluations 109Figure 46 Results and conclusions from mobile device evaluations 111Figure 47 Results from general attribute and mobile device type
evalualuations 113Figure 48 Concept combination table combines the results from
all the studied elements 114Figure 49 Concept collage for the Simplistic, Humble and Compact 117Figure 50 First visualizations of the Simplistic, Humble and
Compact concept 118
Figure 51 Second phase renderings of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept 119
Figure 52 Third phase renderings of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept 119
Figure 53 Final renderings of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept 120
Figure 54 Concept collage for the Sympathetic concept 122Figure 55 First visualizations of the Sympathetic concept 122Figure 56 An example of a “Being alive” product 123Figure 57 Second phase rendering of the Sympathetic concept 124Figure 58 Third phase renderings of the Sympathetic concept 124Figure 59 Final version of the Sympathetic concept 124Figure 60 Concept collage for Good Quality & Durability 125Figure 61 Concept collage for Forms Designed by Winter 127Figure 62 First visualizations of the Forms Designed by Winter concept 127Figure 63 Second phase renderings of the Winter concept 128Figure 64 Final rendering of the Forms Designed by Winter concept 128Figure 65 Concept collage for Organic Form 129Figure 66 First visualizations of the Organic Form concept 130Figure 67 Second phase rendering for the Organic Form concept 131Figure 68 Final version of the Cone concept 131
list of tablesTable 1 The research problem and sub-focuses 15Table 2 Product attributes thought to be suitable for linking
environmental messages (Stevels et al. 2001) 33Table 3 Demographics of the participants of the interviews 59Table 4 Segmentation for the survey 66Table 5 Strength of the environmental message versus unity in
answers concerning colors, materials and mobile devices 71Table 6 Results from the background questions of the interviews 72Table 7 The rankings, eco-points and standard deviation of colors 76Table 8 The ranking, eco-points and standard deviation of materials 79Table 9 The ranking, eco-points and standard deviation of
mobile devices 82Table 10 Mean averages of the answers to questions in the technology
questionnaire 84
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
9
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 background for the study
The great majority of Finnish consumers are interested in buying environmen-tally friendly products (Haavisto, Kiljunen & Nyberg 2007, 111–113). However, they still need to be motivated to carry out their interest as well as be sufficiently informed about the green products on the market. To the majority of consumers, the environmental decision criterion comes in when two similar products are rated identical in other aspects (price, quality, etc). At the moment, companies’ approach to environmentally friendly products is mostly technical (weight, energy con-sumption, etc.) or organizational. The promotion of environmental friendliness to consumers has mainly been achieved through means of adding technical informa-tion to the product: labeling and logos, certificates, advertisements and informa-tion on the Internet.
Companies communicate their environmental message through different media, but they seem to be overlooking one central means of communication: the product itself. Current green products show no consistent green message – the consumer is not offered any visual clues to distinguish the green products from the so called brown ones (Figure 1).
figure 1 Green products do not communicate a green message. From left: Philips Green Flagship TV; Nokia 6650, which was designed with easy disassembly in mind; Fujitsu-Siemens laptop that received the Nordic Swan -label.
Design can be regarded as communication - as a language of its own. Products function as means of communication and self-expression while revealing the user’s identity to the surrounding world and arousing personal pleasure (Karjalainen 2004, 22–24). If design is a language, what does it tell us? Product semantics is the study of symbolic qualities of man-made shapes, in the cognitive and social
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
10
context of their use (Krippendorff and Butter 1984, 5). A product tells something about itself and about the person who owns it. Through its design and function, the product expresses values that people then interpret. Through its semantic content and expression, the product can create positive or negative perceptions, emotions, values and associations within a person. Emotional design, on the other hand, is a field of research that examines how people project their own emotions, motivation and beliefs into everything they are in contact with (Norman 2004, 138). Norman (2004, 7) argues that everything people do is linked with emo-tions and at the same time, emotions affect thoughts. We interpret everything we experience and see. Through our own interpretation, we evaluate products and also judge or feel empathetic towards them. We can say that a product is sad, aggressive, feminine or, for example, environmentally friendly.
A product’s message consists of more than what merely its most outer layers com-municate to people. With electronics, the benefit the product usually offers is an easier everyday life. Therefore, if design is used as a language, how does technology support the product’s message on environmental friendliness? Will consumers see technologies as vanity or as means of dematerialization? In order to communicate through technologies, they must be understandable to the user and presented as enablers (Haskell 2004). The starting point for communicating a message of green electronics is good; Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is gener-ally perceived “clean” without producing significant damage to the environment, and thus consumers consider it difficult to outline the relationship between envi-ronmental issues and ICT. The perceived distant relation between environmental issues and ICT is present at the buying situation, as consumers do not think about the environment when they buy ICT equipment, such as mobile devices. Further-more, buying is considered as a pleasure and ownership is seen as useful. The envi-ronmental message of the product should avoid ruining the pleasure. (Heikkinen, Hirvonen & Sairinen, 2004.)
Environmental friendliness is generally considered as a positive quality in prod-ucts. Companies are expected to actively fulfill their responsibility towards the environment and act in the name of sustainable development. The general public’s values are greening, but however, their actions are not yet following the same path. Consumers are not willing to make personal sacrifices to the environment. There-fore, the attractiveness of the product can not be compromised; a green product can not lose out to other products in any area. Greenness is rarely seen as the most desirable product attribute and, therefore, it rarely compensates the underper-formance in other areas. Yet, based on the notion of consumers’ positive attitude towards environmental friendliness, it is beneficial for the product to communicate a pro-environmental message. The physical aspects of the product should be used
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
11
to attractively convey the message of an environmentally friendly product, with the means of product semantics and emotional design. (Peattie 1995; Ottmann 1998; Torvi & Kiljunen 2005; Haanpää 2005.)
The aim of this study is to find design clues for perceived environmental friendli-ness and apply them in a manner that assures an attractive product entity. Thereby, the product could do both: communicate green values and be attractive to con-sumers. The focus is on studying product design and technologies as communica-tive tools. Is communicating environmental friendliness through the design style and appearance of products possible in the first place and, if so, how is it done? In other words, we are determining whether a product can be used as a means of visualizing green.
1.2 defining the research area
The study focuses on perceived environmental friendliness, thus it does not asses the real environmental performance of products at any point. There is very lit-tle previous research concerning communicating green values through product design. The study discusses areas such as semiotics, emotional design, technology, consumer behavior and marketing. These separate fields have naturally been previ-ously studied in great length, but our approach is more virginal: it combines the more traditional areas in a new way. For our work, the most significant previous study is that of Stilma, Stevels, Christiaans and Kandachar (2004) who have inves-tigated the communication of green values through product design in audio prod-ucts. From this study, it can be concluded that visible distinctive differences can be identified between the most and the least environmentally friendly rated products but, interestingly, a Green flagship-product, which claims to be environmentally orientated, was not recognized as a green product by consumers. This underlines the need for more attention to visualizing the environmental performance of prod-ucts. Both Stilma et al. (2004) and Stevels, Agema and Hoedemaker (2001) have emphasized the need for further study in communicating green values through product appearance and design style.
Environmental communication consists of the numerous components of marketing communications and communications in general; product appearance is only one of the components. Interesting topics for study would have been, for example, the effect of price on the environmental image of products or studying effective ways for environmental communication in general. Nonetheless, in this study, we will concentrate on design characteristics and a selected set of technologies as compo-nents of creating perceived environmental friendliness in mobile devices. The focus within mobile devices is on mobile phones, PDAs and smartphones. Within the
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
12
figure 2 Product life cycle. The phase chosen for this study is highlighted.
figure 3 Marketing mix. The component chosen for this study is highlighted. (Kotler, 2003, 16)
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
13
product life cycle, this study addresses the phase between marketing and logistics and the use phase (Figure 2) and focuses on effecting the consumer’s purchase de-cision by the means of product appearance, at the time the consumer is in visual or physical contact with the product itself. Physical contact is required to assess all the dimensions of product design and appearance, including attributes such as weight and the texture of the material.
Marketing mix is the set of marketing tools the company uses to pursue its market-ing objectives. These tools form the four P’s: product, price, place and promotion, of which we address the first: product (Figure 3). This approach leaves out such relevant subjects of communication as advertising, communicating through price or point of sale. Product, in the marketing mix, contains for example packaging, brand name, services, warranties, product variety, quality and returns, which we will leave out of our scope (Kotler 2003, 15–16). Instead, we will focus on prod-uct design and appearance as well as technologies and features related to them.
Yet another way of defining the approach we have chosen for our work is through the key attraction points of a product’s design (Gotzsch 2005). Creating attractive products is essential for the success of a business, and environmental issues can contribute to this attraction. Gotzsch (2005) has examined how an eco-design approach impacts the key attraction points of a product’s design. By combining el-ements from product attachment (consumers’ attachment to a product) and design management literature, Gotzsch (2005) proposed a model that visualizes the key elements of product attraction: aesthetic beauty, meaning associations, ergonom-ics, costs and performance (Figure 4). Among the key attraction points, the interest of this thesis lies primarily in the product’s meaning associations, but also in the product’s performance.
Monö (1997, 12) describes products as objects with ergonomic, technical and communicative features. The ergonomic features of a product operate when the de-sign is fitted to suit human physique and behavior, the technical features represent the product’s functionality, construction and production and the communicative features are linked to the product’s ability to communicate with humans. We focus on the meanings and associations of the product as well as partly on the perform-ance of the product (Figure 4). We are especially interested in seeing whether performance, which is part of the functional values, also has communicative value, and could it contribute to the meaning associations (Figure 4). Can technologies act as means for communicating green values?
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
14
1.3 the purpose and structure of the study
The aim of this study is to define a set of product characteristics which according to the consumers, express environmental friendliness. The products in question are mobile devices such as mobile phones, PDA’s and smartphones. The study focuses on product appearance and technological features, and their perceived – not actual – environmental friendliness. Information from literature and previous research will be combined with studies among consumers. Results of this study can be used to better transfer the message of a product’s environmental friendliness to consum-ers, and thus offer an environmentally friendly product that supports the compa-ny’s environmental message expressed by other means of communication.
Our research problem is as follows: Can environmental friendliness be communi-cated by the design style and appearance of products (such as form, color, material and technologies)? If it can be, how? In other words, can product design support or harm the message of environmental friendliness? The research is conducted on mobile devices and the results and design guidelines presented later in this thesis are based on mobile devices. However, this does not necessarily mean that the results are limited to mobile devices only.
figure 4 Key attraction points of a product’s design with integration of environmental issues (Gotzsch 2005, 11). The focus areas of our study are highlighted.
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
15
This study is conducted as a cross disciplinary teamwork, covering the three disci-plines that are also the pillars of the prospective innovation university; engineering, business and design. The team of three includes a student from Helsinki University of Art and Design, a student from Helsinki University of Technology and a student from Turku School of Economics. Thus, the research problem is divided into three different perspectives according to the respective disciplines: business, engineer-ing and design (Table 1). Separate focuses do not, however, suggest that the areas were studied by the representative of the corresponsive discipline alone; the three focuses are different focuses of the project, not focuses of different researchers. The research process is described in more detail in chapter 1.4.
table 1 The research problem and sub-focuses
This thesis begins with an overview of the rise of greener attitudes, consum-ers and design (Chapter 2) and is followed by a study of product semantics and emotional design (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 presents the research strategy of the empirical research for this thesis. This is followed by the first part of the research, the qualitative research (Chapter 5). The purpose of the qualitative research was to help us find the hypotheses and the key elements in communicating environmental friendliness through product semantics. Subsequently, in Chapter 6, the results of the qualitative research and a semiotic analysis of the devices that performed the best and the worst in the survey are presented. Finally, in Chapter 7, conclusions of the results are presented in the form of design guidelines, and the guidelines are used in creating eco-concepts.
In this thesis, the words environmentally friendly, green and eco are used as synonyms. Similarly, the expressions non-environmentally friendly, non-eco and
the research problem & sub-focuses
Can environmental friendliness be communicated by the design style and appearance of products (form, color, material, technologies)? If yes, how?
business focus What should a credible environmentally friendly product communicate? How should environmental friendliness be communicated through product appear - ance in order for it to be plausible?
engineering focus What set of technologies best communicates the eco- message?
design focus How to communicate the elements of an environmentally friendly product through the means of industrial design?
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
16
brown are used to express the opposite of the previous. This thesis combines three disciplines, and thus the vocabulary is accordingly wide. Appendix 1 presents the definitions to the discipline-related terms used in this thesis.
1.4 description of team work and research process
From the very beginning until the end of the process, the teamwork has been intensive and all the decisions were made together. The team met face-to-face on a weekly basis – and even more often in the beginning. Furthermore, web-confer-encing provided good means of communicating and the meetings over the Inter-net could last for hours, including discussing, sharing documents and pictures and working simultaneously – this was essential for the kind of team work we wanted to do. All members of the team have studied in the IDBM-program (International Design Business Management) and had already trained cross-disciplinary team work. Teamwork was based on mutual teaching and learning, shared decision mak-ing and open-mindedness, which required respect for each others’ skills and input.
The research process proceeded through six phases:
1. Defining the research problem 2. Background study 3. Formulating research methodology 4. Conducting the research 5. Analyzing the results 6. Drawing conclusions – Creating design guidelines based on research results – Creating concepts based on the guidelines
The research process began by finding a topic of common interest for the multi-disciplinary team. While conducting the background study, several different ways to project environmental friendliness were studied and discussed, some related to traditional technological approaches, some to consumer behavior and others to industrial design. As the background study proceeded, it became obvious that traditional environmental performance indicators were not sufficient for commu-nicating the environmental friendliness of a product to consumers. Our approach began to unravel as we gained knowledge in semantics, emotional design and us-ing the product itself as a tool for communication. The final topic evolved through several phases into Communicating Environmental Friendliness through Product Design and Appearance.
The literature review was divided so that each member presented everything that he/she had read to others. This was done to ensure that everyone had equally deep
1 int
rodu
ctio
n
17
and wide knowledge about everything we had read through. In addition, we were able to cover different subjects faster, as we were not reading the same publica-tions. Topics that were discussed were initially divided by disciplines, and there-fore, the person in charge of the topic met prerequisites to analyze and help others to understand the topic. When it was time to make a decision, the whole team discussed until consensus was reached. Everyone’s opinion was treated equally. As the idea was also to learn from others, every comment was taken openly and every subject was carefully taught to all members of the team.
After defining our scope, we decided to deepen our knowledge by conducting our own research. This seemed to be the best option since there was very little previous research concerning our topic. The research was begun with qualitative research in order to find the hypotheses for the following larger quantitative research. Students of Industrial Arts, Physics and Engineering Sciences were interviewed, since they possessed the skills for analyzing the factors in question. Based on the results of the interviews, a survey was conducted. The survey was launched on the Internet and was accessible by invitation only.
Data from the interviews and the survey was analyzed and, based on the results design guidelines for environmentally friendly appearance were created. These guidelines were put to test when designing the four eco-concepts (presented in Chapter 7). The directions for the concepts were extracted from the research results and, as a starting point, mood boards for each concept were built. Each eco-con-cept had a different approach. The idea was to present different means of applying the guidelines created by us. In other words, the eco-concepts suggest different means for communicating green values through the product.
During the whole process, there were three checkpoints. At these points, the cur-rent situation and the outcome were discussed and presented to a company rep-resentative. Throughout the process, the representatives of each discipline worked together in each part of the project. This was crucial for the success of the project – in addition to the shared excitement for the project. The project would not re-main as it is today if the contribution of any member would be removed.
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
18
2 THE GREENING OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR & PRODUCT APPEARANCE
2.1 the rise of public concern and environmental marketing
Public concern about environmental problems has developed rapidly after 1960’s. The general public’s awareness has firmly been raised over the years by such land-marks as Rachel Carlsson’s book Silent Spring in 1962, the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth in 1972, and the introduction of the concept sustainable devel-opment by Brundtland’s Commission in 1987 (Haanpää 2005, 30). Today, people are constantly faced with changes in the state of the environment: environmental crisis and catastrophes as well as changes progressing more slowly are reported by the media on a daily basis.
The concept of green marketing dates back to the early 1970’s. Yet it was not until 1990 that green marketing ‘‘arrived in earnest’’ (Peattie 1992, 46). In the early 1990’s, many different aspects of green marketing were discussed academically. It was concluded that more research was needed on, for example, promotion and consumer needs (Simintiras, Schlegelmilch & Diamantopoulos 1993). However, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the main focuses of the green marketing literature were almost exclusively the size of the green market and the profile of the green consumer. It has even been claimed that the consumer profile was the only area of interest in studying the greening of the consumer (Iyer & Banerjee 1993, 495).
The green ideology bases on reducing the very same consumption which market-ing aims to stimulate. Therefore, the term “green marketing” appears contradictory. But as Peattie (1992) points out, it is not the marketing that is environmentally un-friendly – instead, it is some of the products and services which are marketed. As the general awareness has risen, marketing has been forced to become increasingly green to meet the needs of the market. Environmental marketing goes beyond the conventional marketing concept and can be defined as “the holistic management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying the requirements of customers and society in a profitable and sustainable way” (Peattie 1995, 28). From this definition, the three main principles of environmental marketing can be extracted: social responsibility, the pursuit of sustainability and holistic approach (Pattie 1995, 29).
Already at the beginning, environmental marketing faced troubles. The willing-ness to pay extra for green products was less than anticipated. Actual sales of green products turned out to be much smaller than expected by the consumer surveys.
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
19
Later, it has also been noticed that the market share for green products has not changed significantly over the past decade. Today, the environmental claims in advertisements, for instance, are often met with criticism and suspicion from con-sumers, consumer organizations and competitors. (Meyer 2001; de Boer 2003.) Green marketing is yet to make its true breakthrough. Innovative approaches within the field of green marketing must be taken, in order to meet the require-ments of the markets of today.
2.2 towards environmentally sustainable design
Many definitions of the term sustainable development have been introduced over the years, but the most commonly used one comes from Our Common Future (Brundtland 1987, 8) and describes sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own needs”. In product development, sustainability or sustain-able development can also be called Design for Sustainability (DfS) (Otto 2007). Sustainability refers to three key elements encompassing environmental, social and economic issues in business activities (Ympäristösanasto 1998). It involves the creation of products or services while balancing economic profitability with envi-ronmental responsibility and social values; the objective is to reduce the negative impact of, for example, a product on its environment – whether natural or social.
Design for Environment, Eco Design and Green Design, on the other hand, are corresponding terms and relate specifically to environmental issues (Gotzsch 2005, 3). These concepts aim at creating products or services with a minimal impact on the environment and simultaneously maintaining the high quality. Tischner, Schmincke, Rubik and Prösler (2000, 36) have described Eco Design as environ-mentally conscious product development and design, which describes a systematic manner that aims at including environmental aspects into the planning of prod-ucts, the development of them and the design process as early as possible.
Companies are increasingly recognizing the business opportunities offered by sus-tainability. The take-make-waste-approach to economic growth is seen as unsteady in the long term from both consumer and corporate perspectives (Senge & Carlst-edt 2001). The United Kingdom Design Council conducted a study (Richardson, Irwin & Sherwin 2005) that described the situation of sustainable design in the United Kingdom (UK) and revealed that, with the exception of some pioneers driv-en by personal commitment to sustainability, the approach towards the develop-ment of sustainable products and processes is more responsive than innovative. The emphasis in sustainable design in the UK has been on finding technical solutions for material and energy efficiency, though in some rare cases, a broader life cycle
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
20
approach was used. The British government is firmly committed to reducing the environmental impact of the British economy, but the financial encouragements and constraints on business and the public are currently too weak to obtain substantial results – a situation that is not restricted to the UK alone. In terms of consump-tion, a government can provide positive incentives or it can educate consumers by creating awareness through media campaigns and by demanding labels and product information that enable environmental-conscious choices. (Richardson et al. 2005.)
Many product designers regarded sustainable design as an attribute of good design in general and not as a specialized area (Richardson et al. 2005, 30). Designers also felt that they lacked the skills and appropriate tools needed for sustainable design (Richardson et al. 2005, 31). Even though our thesis does not aim at improving the environmental performance of products, and it does not concern Eco Design directly, the results of our work aim at offering the design team tools for imple-menting the environmental friendliness of the product into its appearance.
2.3 the green consumer & environmental segmentation
In response to the environmental concern of the early 1970’s, concepts such as theory of responsible consumption and responsible simplification arose (Peattie, 1995, 83). Peattie (1995, 84) defines green consuming as “the purchasing and non-purchasing decisions made by consumers, based at least partly on environ-mental or social criteria”. However, he also adds that the concept of green consum-ers as a specific group is worth challenging. Nonetheless, many surveys have aimed at identifying typical demographic qualities of the green consumer. For example, females and people with a relatively high education and income have been identi-fied as most likely to engage in green consumer behavior (e.g. Peattie 1995; Rex & Baumann 2007). Within the Finnish population, age and gender are conclusive factors. For Finnish green consumers, the following applies (see e.g. Haanpää 2005; Suomalaiset ja Ympäristö, 2002; Torvi & Kiljunen; 2005):– Women are more active than men in environmental protection– Women are more likely to make green purchases – The level of environmental concern decreases when moving from older to
younger consumers. – The least interested in green product argument are consumers between 25–34
years (Haanpää 2005, 44).– Divorced or widowed consumers are more in favor of the green product argu-
ment than married or unmarried. – The highest educated tend to be most concerned about the environment– The wealth of consumers does not significantly affect the environmental con-
cern; in this sense, people are equally concerned.
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
21
Moreover, the results of Wilska (2006) show that the typical Finnish green con-sumers are women over 45, who are environmentally conscious and critically disposed towards materialism. However, the income of this group of consumers does not explain their thrifty lifestyle, and Wilska (2006) suggests that the humane ideology behind the consumption behavior adds experiential value to the green lifestyle. Even though the young are often regarded more conscious and critical than average consumers, in reality, it is the middle-aged and older women who do the pro-environmental shopping. In general, the oldest age-groups make most of the pro-environmental purchases and the younger groups the least. The division between genders is also clear, especially among the young consumers; young girls are more environmentally conscious than boys of the same age, and it is reflected in their buying behavior. (Wilska 2006, 46–48.)
The green group of consumers can also be described on a more general level, re-garding their personality traits. The environmentally conscious consumers have an interest towards new products, and they are information seekers who also eagerly share information about products with others. In addition, the green consumers consider themselves as opinion leaders; therefore, they might also provide valuable word-of-mouth information to others. The green consumer is a careful shopper, who rarely makes impulse purchases but pays special attention to price. However, brand loyalty is not something common for the environmentally inclined consum-ers. Thus, if companies succeed in attracting green consumers, they must show effort to keep them. As a combination, the tendency to actively seek information and the lack of brand loyalty implies that the green consumer will continuously be looking for new products. However, if the lack of brand loyalty is due to the marketers’ inability to offer good environmental products and messages, providing the green consumer with those, may promote brand loyalty of green consumers. (Shrum et al 2001, 80–81.)
The predominant picture of the green consumer is becoming more diverse as the green products are being targeted for larger audiences. One of the new segments within the pro-environmentalist consumers is the Neo-greens. These green con-sumers regard the environmentally friendly lifestyle as the new luxury, and they do not compromise their comfortable life style or quality of life for environmen-tal friendliness. Additionally – in contrast to traditional green consumers - they do not want to decrease the level of their personal consumption. According to Bourdieur (1984), one’s lifestyle is manifested in one’s consumption, hobbies and in everything that symbolizes the social position. Social and cultural codes com-municate to others who we are and - perhaps more importantly – who we want to be (Bourdieur 1984). For the Neo-greens, their lifestyle and values are manifested as they shop for the environmentally friendly luxury design and energy efficient
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
22
cutting edge technology (Figure 5). Neo-greens have also been called the see-me-environmentalists, for their tendency to receive value and satisfaction from being able to show their pro-environmental interest through money consuming purchas-es. The Neo-greens have solar panels on the roof, a hybrid car in the garage and organic-cotton clothes in the closet. For the Neo-greens, environmental protection is not about sacrificing convenience. (Pink 2006; Kaarto 2006.)
figure 5 Products favored by the Neo-greens. From top left: clothing from recycled materials, ecological clothing, hybrid car, furniture of recycled materials.
Essential in the products favored by the Neo-greens is the absence of the style and image of traditional eco-products; there is no trace of lower quality appearance, compromises in style or visible eco-labels. The products presented in Figure 5 do not primarily promote environmental values – the greenness is presented as an ad-ditional value. This approach might indicate an upcoming trend, where consumers regard environmental friendliness as a standard, a default value, and they therefore have higher requirements for the green products. With this trend, meeting the requirements of the environment is expected of all products, and the companies that can do it while producing attractive products come out as winners. The Neo-greens might be leading the way for the future masses of green consumers.
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
23
Although the environmental movement has existed for some time, environmental marketing still seems to be a rather new phenomenon. Typically, marketing is not slow to respond to the changes in the market or to adapt innovations, but green marketing has not in many ways met its potential. It could be due to the mixed signals from polls, research results and sales figures. Researches on green market-ing and the green consumer indicate that, in fact, the concept of green marketing is not easy to adopt (Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey 2001, 81). Shrum et al. (2001, 81) stress that green consumers must be treated carefully and with respect, because they are careful and thoughtful consumers. When they are treated with respect, they are more likely to be receptive, but when treated poorly, they effortlessly switch brands and take other green consumers with them.
Even though the green consumers are generally defined by socio-demographical features, it has been argued that the explanatory power of socio-demographics is weak regarding environmental concern (Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics & Bohlen 2003, 477). When trying to find explanations for green attitudes, an analysis on the influence of traditional structural factors is needed (Haanpää 2005, 40). In recent surveys, psychographic characteristics, such as political orientation and environmental concerns, have been used in order to identify the green con-sumer. Such characteristics have turned out to be better at explaining variations in green consumer behavior than demographic criteria. Perceived consumer effective-ness, such as the individual’s belief in making a difference, is considered useful in predicting the actual buying behavior. (Rex et al. 2007, 569.)
When comparing the different environmental segmentation approaches, all the main approaches of segmentation are represented: demographic-, geographic-, psychographic- and behavioral segmentation. For example RoperASW, a leading global marketing research and consulting firm, bases their environmental seg-mentation mostly on demographics and the consumerss likelihood to participate in environmental activities (Green Gauge Report 2002). The international adver-tising, marketing and public relations agency Ogilvy and Mather’s, on the other hand, combines demographics and psychographics (Peattie 1995, 160). Marketing Diagnostics defines green consumers purely in terms of behavior. They believe that the way in which the consumer’s knowledge in environmental issues is reflected in their behavior varies considerably. Environmental concerns might be overlooked in order to allow one’s behavior to continue as before, behavior may be modified to accommodate the environmental concern, or behavior may be changed in order to respond to the concern (Peattie 1995, 161). Stilma (2003, according to Nereng 2003, 5), on the other hand, narrowed the green consumers down to two segments based on the reason for buying green; innovators purchase the environmentally friendly alternative for novelty, where selectors make the green choice driven by the
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
24
care for the environment. Comparing all the approaches, it seems that the most sig-nificant factors affecting consumer behavior are the level of concern, the likelihood to participate in environmental activities, the optimism towards future development and perceived consumer effectiveness. These four aspects formed the basis for our own segmentation, which will be described in Chapter 4.
2.4 environmental attitudes and behavior
2.4.1 the relationship between green attitudes and behavior
Relief to the environmental pressure has been sought mainly from technologi-cal innovations rather than from adapted behavior patterns and lifestyle choices (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan & Oskamp 1997, 189). Though technology has been able to reduce the environmental impacts of humans, the solution to envi-ronmental problems does not lie in technology alone. Consumers must adapt new, sustainable behaviors; the need for change in consumption patterns is evident and globally recognized as an essential goal. Regardless of the increased public aware-ness of the state of the environment and the consumers’ positive attitude towards environmental protection, very little of this good will has translated into pro-envi-ronmental buying behavior (Mainieri et al. 2001, 193; Torvi & Kiljunen 2005, 81–82). For example, research on Norwegian consumers reveals that a greater number of consumers considers themselves environmentally conscious than the number of consumers looking for environmental information when shopping (Nereng 2003, 2). This discontinuation between attitudes and behavior raises the issue of whether pro-environmental attitudes are linked to buying decisions, and if so, how.
Attempts to explain the gap between consumers’ reported attitudes and their actual buying behavior have been the main focus of consumer psychology. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (Kalafatis, Pollard, East & Tsogas 1999) is a often used model according to which intentions are determined by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control. Intention, in turn, may lead to certain behavior, but many fac-tors can interfere in this process; the perceived low or high cost of the product, the existence of alternative products and whether or not the consumer trusts the environmental information provided.
There are several studies examining whether environmental attitudes can predict actual behavior in relevant situations or not (see e.g. Mainieri et al. 2001; Moisand-er 1996; Simmons & Widmar 1990). The results vary: some studies have indicated a positive relation between environmental concern and corresponding behavior, but at the same time, a great number of studies report a weak relation. Thus, there is no prevailing consensus. Both Mainier et al. (2001) and Moisander (1996) be-
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
25
lieve that there is a relation between attitudes and consumption behavior. In their study, Mainier et al. (2001, 198) used demographics, knowledge and beliefs of environmental consumerism as the attitudinal measures. Based on their research, Mainieri et al. (2001, 202) argue that consumers beliefs about environmental consumerism are the best predictors of environmental behavior and of general environmental attitudes. The general attitudes, on the other hand, do not predict behavior as accurately. Women were more pro-environmental in their beliefs, at-titudes and behavior than men, but other demographic variables were not found to affect the green buying behavior (Mainier et al. 2001, 202).
Similarly, Moisander’s (1996, 128) opinion is that consumers’ environmental con-cern may have a potentially significant influence on their consumption behavior, but the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and specific consump-tion behavior is complex. For example, the environmentally oriented consum-ers do not automatically prefer all the green products over brown ones, and also, consumers do not always have the necessary knowledge and resources required to choose the greener alternative (Moisander 1996, 128). Research has also shown (see e.g Moisander 1996) that pro-environmental behaviors are not highly cor-related among themselves; it is often assumed that if people engage in one type of pro-environmental behavior, such as e.g. carpooling, they will also engage in other pro-environmental behavior, e.g. recycling household waste – but this is not often the case (Mainieri et al. 1997, 192).
2.4.2 predominant trends in green consumerism
Regardless of all the corporate investments in marketing environmental and social responsibility, there has been a negative change in the attitudes of the Finnish consumers during the last years (Wilska 2006). The ethicality of consumption is compromised more often than before; the number of consumers concerned about the origins of the food supplies they are purchasing or the environmental impact of their personal consumption has decreased significantly. Similarly, the share of consumers that knowingly make pro-environmental choices in their consumption has fallen from 40% to nearly 30%. This decrease in pro-environmental attitudes has been most dramatic between the ages of 35 to 45. (Wilska 2006, 46–48.)
The development of environmental behavior crosses national borders; within the western civilization, fewer green intentions are turning into green behavior, and pro-environmental behavior is becoming the responsibility of the older. For example, in a nationally representative poll of 1000 adults (Gardyn 2003, 13), 80% of Americans say that whether or not a product is safe for the environment does influence the decision to buy that product. Additionally, 70% of Americans
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
26
say they are more likely to buy a product if the company that makes it is known to implement environmentally friendly practices in its operations. However, despite these claims, only 57% of Americans say that they buy recycled or environmentally safe products and a mere 6% regularly study companies’ environmental records. Also among the Americans, it is the older who seem to be the best consumers of environmentally friendly products; two thirds of the adults over the age of 45 state that they regularly buy environmentally friendly products, compared with less than half of the younger age groups. (Gardyn 2003, 13.)
Gardyn (2003, 13) offers an explanation for the passive pro-environmental behav-ior. According to her, the biggest challenge that green marketing faces is the varying attitudes of individual consumers on their role in environmental protection; 17% of Americans do not think that anything they personally do will make a difference for the environment. The youngest consumers feel this lack of power the most: almost a quarter of both 18–24 -year old and 25–34 -year old respondents agree with the statement of futility (Gardyn 2003, 13). In addition, 18% of Americans think that the products they use do not have a negative environmental impact and that the environmental “movement” has been blown out of proportion. This attitude is also more prevalent among younger consumers and men (ibid). A research among British consumers points to the same direction; only 11% of people strongly believe that their shopping choices could make a difference (Cowe 2000). According to the research, the most potential group of consumers is the brand-aware youngsters, who could become the ethical leaders in the future. Many of the more environmen-tally passive consumers could play a significant role in the purchasing of ethically sustainable products, if they believed they could make a difference. (Cowe 2000.)
Also Ottman (1998, 41–42) has an explanation for the small number of green consumers. She stresses that although a small number of highly committed con-sumers will sacrifice their needs and wants, the great majority of consumers are still not prepared to give up performance, quality, convenience, or price in real-ity. Most consumers feel that, when it comes to green products, primary product benefits may be compromised; although many green products are cheaper, faster, better, smaller, and more convenient or durable, some are more expensive, slower, uglier, or less sanitary. There are several research and literature that indicate the fol-lowing (e.g. Stevels et al. 2001; Ottman 1998; Torvi & Kiljunen 2005):– The majority of the general public is positive or neutral toward environmental
issues– Concern for the state of the environment is widespread– There are clear information needs and there is sensitivity to green marketing– Willingness to change lifestyle is limited– A vast majority of consumers will buy green products but only a minority is
prepared to pay more
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
27
Many decision-makers do not seem to realize that green consumers do not have solely environmental protection related motives when purchasing products. Like other consumers, green consumers aim to satisfy their own personal needs. But the difference between the green and the brown consumers is that the green consum-ers make an effort to consider environmental consequences of their actions in ad-dition to pursuing their own interests. Therefore, the marketing of green products should be based on the total benefit the consumer receives from the green prod-uct. The total benefit comprises of two elements: personal or individual benefit, and social or environmental benefit. However, offering these two types of benefits includes problems. First, the personal benefits from a green product are sometimes small in comparison to brown products. Secondly, the social benefits of a green product sometime seem small, because the environmental benefits of the product are hard to understand or controversial (Heiskanen & Timonen 1995, according to Moisander 1996, 119; Moisander 1996, 118–119). Therefore, green marketing still has a long road to go and plenty can still be learned, especially in the area of communicating the pro-environmental message.
On a more positive note, green marketing has the ability to offer higher levels of satisfaction and reward as compared to conventional marketing, due to the social and environmental benefits. With green products, the consumers are offered not only the direct benefits from owning and using the product, but also the prospect of healthier, more fulfilled lives and the power to make the world a better place. Ottman (1998) emphasizes the importance of a rather immediate “rewarding” of the consumer for making a green purchase: immediate concerns, such as getting through the day, often restrain longer-term and more remote environmental goals. As an example on mobile devices, the purchaser of a less energy consuming device is instantly rewarded with longer operational time. Successful green marketing also appeals to consumer’s self-interest: it can, for example, show busy consumers how environmentally inclined behaviors can save time and effort. Green market-ing should clearly communicate that pro-environmental behavior offers consumers the dual opportunities of saving money or trouble and saving the planet (Ottman 1998, 115–126).
In 2001, environmental attitudes of consumers were investigated by Stevels et al. Their analysis showed results that endorse the thoughts of Ottman (1998); green as such does not sell, and schemes strongly focusing on only environmental prod-uct characteristics as eco-labels are relatively unsuccessful. When, however, other benefits of the products are linked to the environmental ones, a vast majority of the consumers is prepared to give up their prejudice that green products cost more or perform less than traditional ones. From the work of Stevels et al. (2001) it can be concluded that environmental benefits have to be presented in conjunction with
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
28
other benefits, that is, as enhancement of other product benefits to ensure the suc-cess of the products.
The research of Stevels et al. (2001) showed that there is significant sympathy for green products, but environmental issues as such play a decisive role only in a minority of the buying decisions of customers. Therefore, environmental benefits should be linked to other benefits for the consumer in order to make green a posi-tive force in marketing for the majority of consumers (Figure 6). Such benefits are:– Material benefits: lower price, lower cost of ownership– Immaterial benefits: convenience, fun– Emotional benefits: feel good, quality of life, less fear
figure 6 Examples of successful environmental marketing: a cartonless toothpaste and soap pads of recy-cled material. Both are marketed on ease of use.
As a conclusion, it can be stated that consumers generally perceive that the envi-ronmentally friendlier lifestyle demands too massive changes to their habits and customs, and their ability to act for the benefit of the environment is limited. Con-sumers perceive environmentally friendly products too expensive or of poor qual-ity, and only a marginal group of people are ready to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of the environment. Consumers are most likely to choose eco-products when they offer personal, direct benefit, such as more efficient water consump-tion, smaller electricity consumption smaller packaging. The Colgate-Palmolive’s cartonless stand-up toothpaste tube and Scotch Brite Never Rust Soap Pads (made from 100% recycled plastic) can be mentioned as examples of successful environ-mental marketing emphasizing the use-related benefits the consumer receives in-stead of the environmental advances of the products (Figure 6). In addition, these
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
29
two products do not visually accentuate the green message on their packaging or housing; the environmental aspects are not the primary selling arguments, but they are presented as additional benefits.
2.5 challenges in green marketing
2.5.1 the credibility challenge and the practical challenge
The most profound change in environmental marketing is the changed relation-ship between consumers and companies. Where traditional marketing aims to influence consumers purely in order to increase the consumption of an individual, environmental marketing should aim at influencing consumer perceptions and behavior in a manner that improves both individual and social well being. Envi-ronmental marketing requires businesses to take the environmental responsibility for the consumer. According to Peattie (1995, 101–110), green marketing faces at least two kinds of challenges: the credibility challenge and the practical challenge. For a company to succeed in its marketing activities, the environmental message needs to be credible to the rest of the company and to the public. The idea that companies can, want and will work for the better of the environment is often met with doubt. Research suggests that consumers are both confused and distrustful of the environmental advertising claims (Shrum et al. 2001, 71). In surveys conduct-ed among American consumers, the majority of the participants preferred buying green products over brown ones as well as considered the company’s environ-mental reputation in purchase decisions. However, only a marginal group consid-ered the environmental claims of companies to be “extremely or very believable” (Shrum et al. 2001, 71).
The practical challenge, on the other hand, lies in putting environmental market-ing to practice. Green is a relative notion and consumers in the global economy have different perceptions of what constitutes a green product. In addition to the spatial differences regarding the concept of green, what is considered green also varies over time and is related to scientific and technological innovations. The prac-tical challenge poses challenges in terms of e.g. green marketing strategies, green segmentation, product development, marketing communication campaigns and pricing. (Peattie 1995, 105–114.)
The marketing process is essentially about matching the internal variable of the marketing mix with the demands of the marketing environment – in this respect environmental marketing is no different. The marketing mix is also known as the four P’s, a classic model by McCarthy in 1960, which stand for product, price, place and promotion (Kotler 2003, 16; Peattie 1995, 109). For green marketing,
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
30
however, Peattie (1995) divides the four P’s of the marketing mix into the internal controllable green P’s and the external uncontrollable green P’s, which better meet the practical challenges of environmental marketing. The internal green P’s include the classic 4P’s together with other organizational factors. The internal green P’s are (Peattie 1995, 109–110):– Products: how acceptable and competitive is their eco-performance in use dis-
posal, including their longevity and the environmental impact of components such as packaging and raw material.
– Promotion: Will customers understand, believe and respond to a green promo-tional message? A particular area for concern has been the accuracy ofthe green claims.
– Price: Do prices need to be changed to reflect the difference in cost or demand for green products? How price sensitive are customers? What is an acceptable price for a green product?
– Place: Can our greening strategy be supported by using channels with suitable green credentials, and finding eco-efficient methods of distribution?
– Providing Information: Do we have all the information available relating to the environment that internal and external stakeholders require? A green strategy re-quires a new level of openness and disclosure externally. Monitoring the internal and external issues which are relevant to environmental performance introduces an entirely new area for marketers.
– Processes: Can we improve our energy and material efficiency, an output of waste and pollution?
– Policies: Do they effectively motivate, monitor, evaluate, and control environ-mental performance?
– People: Do they understand environmental issues, the company’s performance and their role in the greening process?
As can be seen from the above list, the environmental aspect brings additional practical challenges to marketing. Within the internal green P’s, our thesis’ focus is on the second P, promotion, which creates a communicational challenge. There are great many challenges within communicating the green values, and these will be studied in the following chapter. Our interest lies particularly on whether products can be used as a component of promotion within the green P’s - can products be-come means for supporting the green strategy of a company? But, in order to draw a more complete picture of the practical challenges of green marketing, the exter-nal green P’s most also be laid out and considered as a part of the green marketing process (Peattie 1995, 109–110):– Paying customers: How green are they? How well informed are they about
green issues? Do they want green products and, if so, what sort?– Providers: How green are the companies who supply the business with every-
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
31
thing including raw materials, energy, office supplies and services such as waste disposal?
– Politicians: In a democracy, the public can affect companies indirectly through the government. As the major political parties commit themselves to increas-ingly vigorous environmental protection policies, the green voter may become as powerful an influence on companies as the green consumers.
– Pressure groups: What issues are they currently highlighting? Who and what are they campaigning about? What new areas of concern are emerging?
– Problems: Has the company or any of its competitors been linked with environ-mental and social problems?
– Predictions: What environmental problems might affect the company in the future?
– Partners: Is the company linked to any other organizations whose environmental performance might affect the perception of the company’s eco-performance?
The current development within the external P’s has mainly been on the politi-cians, providers and partners. The changes in the environment do not allow politi-cal parties to overlook the subject of environmental protection. This showed also in the recent parliament election in Finland, where green issues were one of the main topics of campaigns and discussion preceding the election (see e.g. Mikkonen 2007; Keskustan Vaaliohjelma Eduskuntavaaleissa 2007) and where the Greens-par-ty gained an additional seat in the parliament (Yleisradio Oy). In addition to the increasing importance of politics, the role and the eco-performance of a company’s providers and partners has become more significant and more carefully monitored. Larger companies have already for some years been confronted with the demand for being responsible for, not only their own eco-efficiency, but also the greenness of their suppliers. Now also the smaller companies are presented with the same demand (Taipalinen & Toivio 2004, 10).
2.5.2 communicational challenges
Consumers are targeted by environmental communication from several directions; organizations and representatives of both profit- and non-profit organizations. To convey the green message can mean several things, ranging from a shop promot-ing a shampoo made of purely natural ingredients to an individual dressed in solely hemp-clothing, to ministers attempting to convince citizens that the country is strongly contributing to saving the rain forests. As a result of either intentional complexity or the complexity of environmental issues in general, the credibility of environmental communication is not always high. (Nereng 2003, 2.)
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
32
Perhaps the most fundamental communication challenge in ensuring a green purchase is the fact that consumers heading off to stores in search of greener goods need to know how to distinguish the green products from others. Prod-ucts representing new and unfamiliar technologies are constantly being launched. Consumers’ understanding of environmental issues is growing but continues to be low. Thus, even the most environmentally enthused consumers need to be educated on why some types of products represent less environmental harm than others. Providing such information and education still provides the biggest opportunity to expand the market to mainstream consumers (Ottman 1998, 40–41). Today’s solu-tions are mainly based on technical information presented via Internet, brochures or eco-labels. More attention should be paid to presenting the consumer with per-sonal operations models, proportioning the figures to something generally under-standable and making the environmental information concrete instead of figures.
Eco-labels are a traditional tool to communicate environmental performance to po-tential customers. Both government supported and private labeling schemes exist, whereas also industry is increasing the number of eco-labels through self declara-tion (Figure 7). So far most labeling programs have had little success (Stevels et al. 2001; Tervola 2005). The main problem seems to be their lack of transparency to the consumer and the unclear meanings and criteria behind the label. On kind of confirmation of this development is the fact that label programs which focus on one item, particularly energy consumption of domestic appliances, work generally quite well – these labels offer customers a tool for clear judgment.
figure 7 Eco-labels used in Finland. From top left: The Nordic Swan label, the EU’s ecolabel, the EU’s organic food label, Finnish Organic Food association’s label, Inspection of Organic Production in Finland label, The Rainforest Alliance label, Fairtrade label (Ministry of the Environment).
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
33
The most outstanding problem with eco-labels is, however, that they have suffered from inflation. In Finland, people have become accustomed to the wide spectrum of eco-labels (Figure 7). Ethically produced products are “pop” and large-scale companies are racing to introduce new ethical labels. It is the great number of eco-labels that levels the playing field and do not attribute to specific brand image. (Tervola 2005.)
From a marketing perspective, eco-labeling is seen as technical information of the product with a subordinate role in marketing (Stevels 2001). Overall, the means of green marketing need to be broadened. One step taken in this direction is a study by Stevels et al. (2001). Their study focused on finding the product attributes that are thought to be relevant as anchors for environmental messages. The study was conducted among shop assistants. The attributes and their rankings are presented in Table 2.
table 2 Product attributes thought to be suitable for linking environmental messages (Stevels et al. 2001)
product attributes thought to be suitable for linking environmental messages
Rank Item Mentioned by (% of total)
1-3 Price / Cost of ownership 77
1-3 Reliability / durability / build quality 77
1-3 Design 77
4-5 Sound quality 67
4-5 Technical specification / feature 67
6-8 Brand name 43
6-8 Ease of use 43
6-8 Output power 43
From Table 2 it can be concluded that according to shop assistants, price, reliability, durability and build quality are important in linking the “green” message. Design was ranked in the top three, which means that design can be used to send impor-tant green messages as well. This is especially important for our own research and raises the potential of design language in environmental communication. Surpris-ingly though, design outperformed the influence of a brand name, which was ranked as sixth. This indicates, according to shop assistants, that the consumers are
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
34
first and foremost looking for physical clues on environmental performance of a product at the time of the purchase.
Nonetheless, a survey among Americans challenges this result – at least regard-ing the power a brand can have on the green image. According to Gardyn (2003, 13) a strong brand image works best in attracting the apathetic consumers to start buying green products. 46% of the American consumers who do not currently buy environmentally friendly products say that they do not do so because they prefer to continue with familiar brands — brands of environmentally friendly products fail to catch their attention. Skepticism creates another challenge for green marketing. Nearly 30% of the non-green consumers trust the information about environmen-tally friendly products and 26% say that they are too expensive. Also the difficulty of assessing green products, not knowing where to purchase them and the notion that they are of poor quality constrict the market of green consumers. (Gardyn 2003, 13) Also Ottman (2006) shares the idea of the power of brands in green communication. If a brand that consumers trust is also commonly known to be green, a large and growing number of consumers will choose the green alternative (Ottman 2006).
Communication has several variables, of which few have been discussed above. It is important to notice that the different variables have different credibility in regard to environmental message – and in regard to green and brown consumers. Where brand image and the physical elements of the product might convince the less environmentally inclined consumer, the green consumers, who make a special effort to buy green products, find magazines most interesting and reliable. Though green consumers are skeptical about advertising in general, they are more receptive towards printed information than e.g. television. This can be because print, by its structure, can convey concrete information more easily and thoroughly than televi-sion. (Shrum et al. 2001, 80–81.)
Nonetheless, different media – printed, broadcasted, digital or design language – must be used according to the target group. In our study, we will concentrate on the consumers that are passive in pro-environmental behavior but who are posi-tively disposed towards environmental protection. For this group, a company can not purely rely on communicating the green message through printed media, since they are unlikely to make the effort to search for it. With the passive group it is more likely to succeed in sending the green message through other means, such as advertising, sales promotions, branding or the design language of the product.
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
35
2.6 the perceived green image of consumer electronics
2.6.1 sustainability and ict – research by the finnish ministry of environment
The Finnish ministry of the environment conducted a study of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the Environment (Heikkinen, Hirvonen & Sairinen 2004). The research aimed at comprehending how people perceive the relation between ICT and sustainable development. The perceived relationship between environmental issues and ICT affects also the general attitude towards mobile devices, which, furthermore affects the possibilities and options for creat-ing and environmentally friendly appearance.
According to the study of Heikkinen et al. (2004, 15, 74) consumers find it dif-ficult to outline the relationship between ICT and the environmental issues; ICT is generally seen to be clean without significant damage to environment. According to Heikkinen et al. (2004), this can be seen in the buying situation as consumers reportedly do not think about the environment when they buy ICT equipment. Furthermore, the study points out that buying is generally regarded as a pleasure and ownership is seen as a useful thing, therefore environmental message of the product should avoid ruining the pleasure and maintain the altogether attractive-ness of the ICT equipment to consumers. However, electronics do also have some negative associations. Consumers think that ICT technology alienates people from nature – along with urbanization. The mobile device culture is claimed to cause social addiction between people, which prevents them from enjoying personal nature adventures and experiences.
Recycling of electronic waste is a widely known and easily comprehendible pro-environmental behavior. Usually, the take-back and recycling of the products en-sure that the product itself does not pose the greatest impact on the environment, but consumers still see environmental problems mainly through products and their end-of-life impacts. The majority of consumers are still most concerned about the electronic equipment becoming toxic waste at the end of its life-cycle. Therefore, the knowledge of properly arranged recycling is an efficient environmental mes-sage. (Heikkinen et al. 2004, 66.)
ICT technology promotes immaterialization, such as e.g. decreasing paper con-sumption or traffic with the use of electronics (Heikkinen et al. 2004, 21). Envi-ronmental friendliness of electronic products can easily be connected to personal economical savings; low energy consumption decreases the electricity bill and the longer life-cycle of durable products results in longer purchasing intervals. Since there are pro-environmental benefits in certain electronics merely by their exist-ence (dematerialization), the marketing of electronics should more clearly dem-
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
36
onstrate those attributes as well as the link to personal benefits. Only few people – if any – buy ICT equipment for environment protection reasons. Only some environmentally responsible consumers buy electronic equipment on the basis of e.g. decreasing the usage of transportation or on the grounds of dematerialization. According to Heikkinen et al. (2004), this reflects the overall weak mental connec-tion between ICT and the environment, but also that the environmental view-points of the ICT equipment should be more visible in marketing and in stores. This responsibility belongs to manufacturers, retailers and public authorities. Car industry has used environmental performance in marketing, because environmen-tal problems caused by cars are more comprehensible and therefore easier to use in marketing communication. (Heikkinen et al. 2004, 87.)
2.6.2 environmental appearance of electronics – research by stilma et al.
During the literature research for this thesis, one previous study on perceived en-vironmental friendliness of electronics was found. That was a study of Stilma et al. (2004) with the title Visualizing the Environmental Appearance of Audio Products. In their work, Stilma et al. (2004) investigated whether consumers were able to recognize environmental friendliness in products on the basis of visual characteris-tics. Their research aimed at answering the same question as ours, but the products in question were different; whereas Stilma et al. (2004) focused on audio prod-ucts, our research focuses on mobile devices. Also the perspectives differ: whereas Stilma et al. define their aim as “…to investigate if consumers were able to recog-nize environmental friendliness in products on the basis of visual characteristics”, our study strives to determine whether there are similarities in the appearance of products, which consumers perceive as environmentally friendly. In the research of Stilma et al., we were interested in both the results and the methods used in the study; which were both relevant to our own research and therefore will be presented here.
2.6.2.1 studying environmental appearance
Stilma et al. (2004, 866–867) carried out their study as a combination of inter-views and active participation of the participants. In the participant selection, ten environmentally motivated consumers were selected, of whom five were women and five men. Participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 45 years and they had complet-ed higher education (Bachelor or Master’s degree).
The products that were assessed in the consumer research were presented as full color pictures, printed as large as possible and relative in size to each other per product type. Among the products were consumer products such as lamps, (larger)
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
37
household products, cars, bicycles, chairs, solar wind-powered products and dif-ferent kind of audio products. The total selection, including all larger audio prod-ucts, consisted of 85 products. The general grouping included 71 products, 54 of which were selected by other experts or promoted by the producing companies as environmental friendly. 21 larger audio products were used for the specific larger audio product analysis.
The one hour lasting session took place with one participant per session. The participant was asked to group the picture cards on environmental friendliness, regarding the design appearance of the products only, in as many categories as wanted. At the end of the experimental session, participants were given a question-naire as a kind of checklist with semantic words. They were asked to characterize environmental friendliness in the appearance of products by valuing the impact of the listed words and by adding comments.
2.6.2.2 attributes of environmental appearance
After beginning their data analysis, Stilma et al. (2004, 867) soon noticed that in the general grouping, hardly any larger audio products were classified in the envi-ronmentally friendly groups. Also interestingly, a ‘Green flagship’, which claimed to be environmentally orientated, was not recognized as such by the participants. Nonetheless, there were visible distinctive differences between the most and the least environmental rated products.
The comments of the participants showed a difference in opinion per gender. The second product on the top for women, for instance, was more colorful than the second best among men, and the second product on the top for men was rather sharply edged. Also on the subject of the “Green Flagship” products, the opinion per gender differed. To men, the appearance of this product was more neutral, whereas to women, this product did not really have any environmental appearance whatsoever. The reasoning for women was the large size, the black color, the plastic appearance and the sharp edged design. The overall appearance was also described as “fussy” and “noisy”. The most common comments for the positive environmen-tal appearance were (Stilma et al. 2004, 867–868):– smaller products / women: compact designed products;– functionality and usability;– plainness
2 th
e gr
eeni
ng o
f co
nsum
er a
ttit
udes
, beh
avio
r &
prod
uct
appe
aran
ce
38
Other positive environmental friendly appearance characteristics were (Stilma et al. 2004, 868):– wood and metal appearance– quality appearance– balanced design– simplicity in design and impression– unity in design
For men, the most important factors of the environmentally friendly appearance were modern design and rather rounded than sharp edges. Men also noted that smaller products use less energy. For women, colors may be used also in the green appearance but shapes were more important. Stilma et al. (2004, 868) also list the most common comments to avoid the negative environmental appearance: – no aggressive appearance;– no boasting or screaming design;– not many colors or colors screaming for attention.
Other comments to avoid the negative environmental appearance characteristics were (Stilma et al. 2004, 868):– no plastic appearance (~low quality; bad recyclability)– no transparent materials– no noisy impression– no contrasts in design– no distraction by design– no domination of elements– no useless elements/ not too much decoration– not too coarsely shaped– men: no use of colors others than material colors and no black or yellow
coloring
The results of Stilma et al. (2004) showed design style characteristics, which can be applied to a wider spectrum of products. They might seem obvious but appar-ently they are not used yet, since the ‘Green flagship’ was the best technical envi-ronmental product in its range, but it was not recognized as such by the partici-pants of the study. The research of Stilma et al. (2004) suggests that more research should be conducted in order to determine specific environmental appearance characteristics in more detail. Our research aims at producing more green appear-ance elements so that the green design language could be written a little further.
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
39
3 PRODUCT SEMANTICS & EMOTIONAL DESIGN
3.1 the four dimensions of a product
In their daily lives, people are constantly interacting with industrially produced products. Man-made objects satisfy various needs. When products are used as they are supposed to, they perform as expected and as a result, the user feels satisfied. However, there are times when this interaction leads to disappointment. Some-times the products fail to fulfill the user’s expectations either because of the ill functioning of the products or because of the user’s lack of experience. Knowing how to use and how to interact with products is important for a person’s daily life, but for this study, we have to gain a deeper understanding of the different dimen-sions found in products and the tools to analyze them. Therefore, in this chapter we will take a closer look at product semantics and the emotional dimensions of products.
Krippendorff and Butter (1984, 5) define product semantics as the study of the significance and the symbolic qualities of an object with regard to the psychologi-cal and social context of its use. The significance of an object is the total of all con-text in which it can be found. Demirbilek & Sener (2003, 1347) follow a similar manner as they define semantics as “the study of symbolic qualities of man-made shapes, in the cognitive and social context of their use”. A year later, Karjalainen (2004, 58) also asserted that product semantics discusses the issue of how mean-ing is formed and mediated as sings embodied in products. Thus, it is reasonable to say that semiotics can be used as a heuristic principle constituting meaningful structures (Vihma 1990, f2).
Semiotic investigations reveal both functional and stylistic principles of design (Vihma 1990, e3). In fact, all products with their structural and functional connec-tions and relations can be the subject of semiotic investigation (Vihma 1990, e2). In semiotics, the visual and otherwise perceivable qualities of a product are studied in relationship with the product’s function and use. Thus, the significant question is “what kind of a form best serves function and use?” (Vihma 1990, f1).
Products can also be studied as cultural units which refer to cultural phenomena. Because of this, it can be said that a product proclaims its affinity to something through its form (Vihma 1990, f2). When looking at products, they can be seen as belonging to a certain environment, a certain tradition, to a certain group of peo-ple and to their way of thinking. A product is a sign and has the qualities of a sign. A product does not merely refer to itself and some ideal function, but to a variety
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
40
of functions and uses and other factors including its origin, location, environment, other object, and character and so on. Different products do not only function as different signs, but a single product functions simultaneously in many ways, and therefore the form of the product can be considered as a fusion of different refer-ences. To make things more complex, these references are constantly changing, and thus they may contradict each other (Vihma 1990, f4–f5). When people look at something, what they see and how they understand it is based on their personal experiences. This relationship between a product and its perceiver is complex and any product can be interpreted in many different ways (Vihma 1995, 44; Vihma, 1990, f5).
In order to study the products’ communicational characteristics and to create design guidelines for communicating environmentally friendly values, an under-standing of semiotics is required. Vihma (1995, 50) argues that products can be analyzed from four different points of view: material, structure, efficient cause and purpose. Based on these points, products can be regarded to consist of four cor-responding interrelated dimensions (Figure 8): the material dimension (hyletics), the dimension of technique and construction (syntax), the dimension of technical product form (semantics), and the dimension of use (pragmatics). Even though being separate dimensions, in reality these four dimensions are closely interlinked and could not exist without each other (Karjalainen 2004, 60).
figure 8 Dimensions of a product (Vihma, 1995)
Syntactic dimension is the dimension of technique and construction (Vihma 1995, 52). It addresses the product’s structure, which consists of the different physical parts of the product and of the way they are connected to each other. Technical functioning and how the product can be illustrated by technical drawings, break-downs and mock-ups are a part of the syntactic dimension. It includes both the analysis of the technical construction and analysis of visual details such as joints, openings, holes, form crossing, texture, graphics and colors. Details can also be described as features of visual composition, such as simplicity and complexity of the overall form, symmetry, balance, dynamics and rhythm. (Klöcker 1980, 85, according to Vihma 1995.)
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
41
Pragmatic dimension stands for the dimension of use. It includes the whole life cycle of the product, including its design, marketing, manufacturing, sales, con-sumption, legislation and history. A product is analyzed from the point of view of its use, such as the ergonomic point of view or the sociological point of view. The pragmatic dimension addresses the questions ’who uses the product’ and ‘in what kind of situation is the product used’. The pragmatic dimension discusses also the aesthetics of use, ecological impact and economic effects on business and produc-tion. (Vihma 1995, 53.)
Hyletic dimension stand for the dimension of material. The importance of hyletic dimension was seen in our quantitative research; in the survey, the participants were not able to hold the products in their hand, which affected the analyzing of the hyletic dimension of mobile devices and likely resulted in the ranking of the mobile devices. (Vihma 1995, 51.)
The fourth part of the analysis is the semantic dimension, which is the dimen-sion of messaging. It addresses questions such as ‘what does the product represent’ and ‘how is the purpose of a product expressed or presented’ and ‘in what kind of environment does the product seem to belong to’. The expressive and representa-tional qualities of a product are central aspects of the semantic dimension. (Vihma 1995, 56.)
In Semantic Visions in Design (1990, i1) Vihma explains how product semantics concerns the non-verbal communication of objects. It is believed that products can be designed to communicate information about themselves, which users are able to decode, and thus understand the use and meaning of the product. Vihma suggested that the central aspects of the semantic dimension are its expressive and representational qualities (Vihma 1995, 56). According to Vihma (1995, 56), the key questions in analyzing the semantic dimension are:– What does the product represent?– How is the purpose of a product expressed or presented?– What kind of environment does a product seem to belong to?
As the aim of our study is to define product characteristics that represent environ-mental friendliness, we believe that the semantic dimension plays a key role in our study. Therefore, the questions above presented by Vihma (1995) offer us guiding lines for our study.
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
42
3.2 communicating through products
3.2.1 visual cues
Man has used products since the very early days of his existence. While most of these early products had functional origins, others expressed more representational values. It can be said that “form-follows-function” was the leading idea when creating objects of functional origins, such as a stone-tool for cutting flesh, while styling had its position in more representational category of products, such as the ones that expressed power. The stone that was used to cut flesh had one edge sharper than others, indicating the user where it was to be held. At the same time, the headgear of a tribe leader did not leave any doubts about who was in charge in the village. We can also easily imagine how these two products were never acciden-tally confused with each other; no-one tried to cut flesh with the headgear because the stone and the headgear had different product attributes and thus looked very distinctive (Figure 9). It is this distinctiveness in the appearance of everything we see that helps us to comprehend the objects and their usage in a given situation. However, this does not limit to man-made-objects alone. (Demirbilek & Sener 2003, 1356.)
Product appearance belongs to the semantic dimension. It communicates to the user how the product should be used, when it should be used and by whom it should be used (Vihma, 1990, i1). Where the stone is relatively heavy, cold, sharp, shiny, and small in order to fit a man’s hand, the headgear is light weighted, fairly big, colorful, and created a circle that would fit a man’s head. These two very dif-ferent products had not only different applications of use, but they also looked distinctive – they offered different visual cues.
Just as the headgear and the stone, all products consist of physical elements, such as line, color, texture, shape, and form – or in other words signs, which together build a physical artifact. In terms of product semantics, these elements can be de-fined as visual cues that symbolize certain meanings. Karjalainen (2004, 59) sug-gests that design can be used to construct a specific set of signs and symbols that a larger group of perceivers would interpret coherently – which is the main purpose of strategic communication. By implementing these elements into a product, the product can be used as a device for transmission of a certain language.
We can consider visual cues as codes which reveal the nature of the physical artifacts. In the semantic profile of a product, these codes create a link with the so called primary category of the product and thus express the ‘stoness’ of the stone and ‘headgearness’ of the headgear.
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
43
Most products do not create only one semantic link, but, in fact, express multiple statements establishing links also outside the primary category. In reality, products are full of multiple semantic messages. A visually complex device, such as a profes-sional, environmentally friendly mobile device looks like a mobile device, but it also establishes two other independent links which express ‘professionalness’ and ‘environmental friendliness’. In terms of visual cues, this kind of device would have a specific set of attributes which connect the artifact with all of the three links. Creating these links is not a process superficial imposition, but all second-ary links have to be assimilated to the primary message. An interesting question arises: is it possible to switch these links around in a way that, in the case of our ‘professional, environmentally friendly mobile device’, the primary link would no longer be a mobile device, but for example environmental friendliness? In this case, the device, with its specific set of visual cues, would first and foremost look environmentally friendly and only on a secondary level it would remind of a mo-bile device. This assumption was the basis for one of the concepts we created – the Organic Form – which is presented in chapter 7. (Vihma 1990, d20–d25.)
3.2.2 product design as a language
While design has always been used to transmit messages through objects, in cer-tain stage of the industrial era, these messages tended to communicate more about the designer of the product than the product itself (Vihma 1990, b3). Nowadays,
figure 9 Form follows function; Indian headgear (Southwestern Crafts and Gifts) and a stone tool (Texas beyond History).
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
44
this is typical for the so called star-designers, who have their own specific style or design language; “We speak of a chair as being in the style of this designer or a product of that school (Vihma 1990, b3).” An example of this passive type of communication can be found in Figure 10, which presents a series of visually very similar furniture designed by Le Corbusier. These products have a very specific, clearly identifiable visual language combining black leather with chromed tubular steel structure.
With the understanding of product semantics and the need for strategic communi-cation, this passive type of product communication has led to a more active type, which represents a basic communications model: message created, transmitted, received and responded to (Vihma 1990, b3). This process seeks to comprehend all the necessary qualities of the product and to visualize the appropriate product statement (Vihma 1990, b3). A good example of active product communication with strategic goals is the packaging design made for Polar Electro (Figure 11). The packages contain products made by the company and sold in the global market. The packages do not only have to look attractive, but they also have to express values of the brand and the company. The use of visual cues plays a crucial role in communicating the brand image. Figure 11 shows how the design language of the packaging takes its image from the company’s rounded logo type and imitates its language.
In the field of visual communication, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the communication strategy of the company. One needs to understand the ‘what-is-to-be-said’, in order to be able to explore the options in ‘how-it-can-be-said’. No matter how we compose the message with color, shape, form, and texture, we are sending signals (Vihma, 1990, 6). This is very important to understand for companies producing consumer products, because with the physical artifacts, companies are constantly sending signals and if the message is not consistent or not as intended, the overall message becomes confusing. Thus the operative question should be “what are we communicating?” Demirbilek and Sener (2003, 1347) talk about the same issue when they state that intentionally or not, all manufactured products make a statement through shape, form, color, texture, etc. Products communicate with users and can never be contextually neutral.
While the study and application of product semantics originate from the same philosophical roots as linguistic semantics, its form of communications is com-pletely different (Vihma 1990, 2). Where a linguistic language uses written or verbal codes as means of communication, design uses a visual language. Visual lan-guage is a less developed and less understood form of communication where the alphabets consist of signs and symbols (ibid). In addition, all languages are differ-ent. We have no problems with the ones we master, but any foreign language is im-
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
45
figure 10 Bauhaus furniture are a good example of passive type of product communication. (Fiell & Fiell 1993, 54)
figure 11 Packaging design by Pekka Kumpula with Remes & Packart for Polar Electro (2006)
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
46
possible to use as means of communication without first learning its codes; words in a linguistic language and signs and symbols in design language. Karjalainen (2004, 59) still points out that it is not as simple as it sounds; the target group of the semantic communications is always limited, and, even within the target group, the interpretations vary.
Communication gets ever more difficult in a field that lacks common vocabulary – as it is in the design language of environmental friendliness. The design of a product must make visual statements that not only make the company’s intentions clear but hold the same meaning for the receiver (Vihma 1990, b5). It is difficult to encode certain messages to physical artifacts with a language that is not yet es-tablished, but presumably it is the end users who will have an ever greater problem in decoding the message. All languages – verbal or visual – are learned. (Vihma 1990, b6) It takes time to create a vocabulary for a specific field, and even then it cannot be expected that everyone is able to decode the message.
3.3 emotional design
3.3.1 the emotional side of products
In the 21st century, it is difficult for companies to compete only with price, quality or technological advantages. Today, the products in the market are very similar be-tween each other, and therefore the differentiation from competitors is often based on appealing to the consumers’ emotional level, for example in advertisement (Desmet 2002, ix). Television commercials or advertisements in magazines often do not mention technological differences between products or how the durability of a given product is so much better than that of the competitors. What we see is beautiful, finished images together with powerful music, something that simply makes us stop and stair; this something is meant to hit us directly in the emotional level.
A product development team has several factors to consider when creating a new product; usability, looks, practicality, manufacturability, sustainability, materials and marketing are just some aspects of any given product. The studies in the field of emotional design, by researchers such as Donald Norman and Pieter Desmet, have brought professionals to realize that emotions play an important role also in prod-uct design. The emotional content of design has been of significant importance in the 21st century, and it can now be regarded as “the heart” of design practices, research, and education (Demirbilek and Sener 2003, 1346–1360). During the recent years, companies have realized that not only do emotions play an impor-tant role in people’s everyday life, but they strongly affect the way products are
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
47
designed, used and generally comprehended. In fact, everything people do has to do with emotions and, in turn, our own emotions affect what and how we do it. Emotional side of design may even be more critical to a product’s success than its practical elements. (Norman 2004, 5.)
In the research we conducted for this thesis, we noticed at a very early stage how differently people reacted to the objects they had to analyze; not only were there differences between the results of the participants, but even more interestingly, the participants had difficulties in explaining their own solutions to the tasks. Often they did not have a clear answer to why they had chosen a certain item or why they preferred one over another. Often the answer was “I just felt that it was like this”. Interesting questions arise: do we really choose something over another just because we feel like it and, if so, what are these feelings guiding our decisions in our daily life? Emotional design explains some of the difficulties the participants had during our empirical research. Emotional design also explains the reasons why it is difficult or even impossible to design something that appeals to everybody. More specifically to this study, emotional design explains why the products that communicate environmental values to one person do not necessarily communi-cate that to another person: “One person’s acceptance is another one’s rejection. Moreover, what is appealing at one moment may not be at another”. (Norman 2004, 33.)
3.3.2 affective system and its four states
People often use the word emotion to describe a variety of phenomena, such as sentiments, temperament, moods, and traits. Even though these words are sometimes mistakenly used interchangeably, the truth is that each one of these words has a specific meaning and definition under the concept of affective system (Desmet 2002, 3). The affective system is an information-processing system which works independently of conscious thinking (Norman 2004, 12). It helps in deter-mining which things are good or bad, dangerous or safe. It helps in making rapid decisions and reducing the number of aspects to be considered in a given situa-tion. Emotions, moods, traits, and personality are all aspects of the different ways in which people’s mind work, along the affective, emotional domain (Norman 2004, 32). In the context of emotional design, ‘affect’ can be seen as the consum-er’s psychological response to semiotic content of a product. (Demirbilek & Sener 2003, 1347.)
The different affective states, emotions, moods, traits and sentiments are in a con-stant interaction with each other, and they influence our emotions. Our emotions are affected by our moods and in the same way our moods influence the emo-
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
48
tional response we have. All this naturally applies also to situations where we are dealing with man made products; a person in a bad mood reacts differently to bad usability of a mobile device than a person in a good mood. On the other hand, bad usability can change someone’s good day into a bad one, turning a good mood into a bad mood. (Desmet 2002, 8.)
All different affective states influence our emotions, but in the case of emotional traits and moods, their influence to our emotional response is independent of product appearance. That is, a person in a cheerful mood will experience more pleasant emotional responses towards products in general – regardless of the particular appearance of the product (Desmet 2002, 8). Interestingly, the influence of sentiments or our dispositional likes and dislikes towards something is not inde-pendent of product appearance. In fact, Ortony, Clore & Collins (Desmet 2002, 8) argue that the influence of our sentiments on our emotional response to products strongly interacts with the appearance of those products.
Emotions are one part of the affective system. To be precise, emotions are the conscious experience of affect, complete with the attribution of its cause and the identification of its object (Norman 2004, 11). In fact, everything people think, do, or think of doing have to do with emotions. In addition, a person’s emo-tions change the way he thinks, and they serve as constant guides to appropriate behavior, leading him away from the bad and guiding towards the good (Norman 2004, 7). It goes with out saying that emotions play an important role in everyday life; without emotions, it would be impossible to make decisions or function in the surrounding society. When asked the reasons for selecting one product over another, people often do not have an answer. People simply feel that the way they did it is the correct one. According to Norman (2004, 12), a decision has to “feel good”, or else it is rejected, and such feeling is an expression of emotion. It is important to understand that where most of people have no difficulty to choose between simple alternatives in a given situation, people without emotions would have serious problems and could not function effectively in society.
The emotions that people experience daily are personal. This means that different people feel differently and experience different emotions in a given situation (Des-met 2002, xii). Emotions are also acute, or in other words temporal. This is rather remarkable; a person can experience different emotions towards the same object in a relatively short time. The cause (the stimulus) that elicits emotion can vary and, in some cases, people are even unaware of the cause of a particular emotion (Desmet 2002, 6). One can be fascinated by a mobile device without acknowledg-ing a specific reason for it. The cause can be an event or an object, or some change within the person, such as thoughts or memories. People are usually able to iden-tify the object of their emotion. We normally know who we love or hate or what
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
49
we are afraid of. According to Desmet (2002, 6), emotions are intentional because they imply and involve a relation between the person experiencing them and a particular object. To make things more complex, emotions can also be mixed; a person can feel more than one emotion at the same time. This happens typically in situations where people are dealing with multi-dimensional-stimulus, such as the mobile devices in our study. Complex devices, such as the mobile devices, have different aspects and features in them and, because of this, they elicit different emotions. (Desmet 2002, xii.)
Alike emotions, also moods are acute states and limited in time. However, whereas emotions last for a relatively short period of time, moods tend to affect people longer; it is not uncommon that one is happy or sad for several hours or even days. The main difference between emotions and moods is that where emotions are usually elicited by a cause or an event, moods have combined causes and are essentially non-intentional (one is not sad or cheerful at something). They are not directed at an object but at the surroundings in general (Desmet 2002, 6) and be-cause of this, people are normally unable to specify the cause of a particular mood. Sometimes people are not even aware of their mood, before someone else makes them aware of it.
Human beings are all individuals with different personalities. Personality is the particular collection of long-term-dispositional personality characteristics – emo-tional traits (Norman 2004, 32). Emotional traits, just like moods, are non-in-tentional, and because the same terminology is used for both of them, these two words are sometimes confused. The big difference between them is the duration of which they affect our behavior. Whereas someone is in a certain mood only for a while, a personality can last for years or even for a life time. Human beings are also able to adjust their behavior and thus emphasize certain traits more than others, according to the situation they are in. People act in a certain way with friends and differently when with their parents. Therefore, it can be said that all people have multiple personalities within them. (Norman 2004, 32.)
Sentiments are people’s likes, dislikes and attitudes towards objects and events. “I’m afraid of pollution” is a sentiment. The objects of a person’s sentiments can naturally be also physical products, such as a dispositional love for Nokia mobile devices or a dispositional dislike for the usability of Sony Ericsson. Just as emo-tional traits, sentiments can also last for a lifetime, but the main difference between these two is that like emotions, sentiments also involve a person-object relation-ship. (Desmet 2002, 6.)
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
50
3.3.3 emotional response
Human beings are social creatures in a more or less constant interaction with each other. During the millions of years of evolution, people have learned different ways to communicate their thoughts, feelings and ideas to others. As a child grows up, she learns to use words as codes to speak with other people. Even though this is an important part of the way human begins communicate with each other, there is much more to communication; e.g. body language and facial expressions play an important role in social interaction between people. These two means of commu-nication are actually automatic and indirect results of the affective system working. (Norman 2004, 136) However, it does not end here. Not only do people send constant messages with their facial impressions and bodies, but more interestingly, they can also read the signals other people send to them. The nature of that interac-tion depends much on a person’s ability to understand another person’s mood. (Norman 2004, 136.)
The millions of years of evolution have biologically prepared people to perceive emotional states in other people, in order to adjust their own behavior accordingly. Interestingly, human begins do not interpret only the signals send by other people, but they actually interpret everything they experience. What is remarkable is that because emotions apply equally to the living and non-living, we interpret every-thing we are in contact with. This is called anthropomorphism, the attribution of human motivations, beliefs, and feelings to animal and inanimate things. Typi-cally, people are anthropomorphic towards dolls, pets and animals in general or, in fact, anything they can interact with, including man made physical artifacts, such as mobile devices. Norman (2004, 138) stresses that people anthropomorphize, that is, project human emotions and beliefs into anything, animate or not. Emo-tional judgment and empathy are closely linked with the constant interpretations of the world. With the automatic and uncontrollable initial interpretations people constantly make, they can believe that the object of their interpretation is signaling to them that it is dangerous or safe, good or bad and – more interestingly to this study – environmentally friendly. (Norman 2004.)
3.3.4 product emotions
The four affective states are not restricted to human interaction, but product design and product usage involve, evoke, and influence moods, feelings and emotions in many ways (Desmet 2002, x). A person might experience desire towards a new product in the market and become happy if he buys it. Negative emotions would follow if the person would later loose that product. These are only a few types of emotions that people might experience when dealing with products and, in this
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
51
context, they can be considered as different types or classes of product emotions (Desmet 2002, x). Product emotions do not in any way represent a special type of emotions, and they have the same qualities as the emotions humans experience towards people and events (Desmet 2002, 16). It is important to recognize that emotions always involve a relationship with an object, but in the case of product emotions, the object is not always the product itself. In fact, the object of our emo-tion could easily be some fantasy or association that has to do with the product (Desmet 2002, 6). In addition, it is important to note the distinction between the cause of a particular emotion and its object, which are not necessarily the same; sometimes a product is the object of our emotion, sometimes the product is the cause, and sometimes it is both. (Desmet 2002, 8.)
Products’ emotions can be divided into two main categories; the ones that are expressed (expression) by products and those that are elicited (impression) by products (Desmet 2002, xi). Products can elicit strong emotions in many differ-ent ways. Not only does their appearance play an important role in this, but also the situations where the product is consumed, the buying, owning and using of a product play a decisive role. (Desmet 2002, xii.)
According to Desmet (2002, 108), all emotions are preceded and elicited by an appraisal (Figure 12). Desmet (2002, 108) continues by defining appraisal as a non-intellectual, automatic evaluation of the significance of a stimulus for one’s personal well-being. It is this personal significance of a product, rather than product itself, which causes emotion (Desmet 2002, 20). According to this view, one has to understand how people make judgments about events in their environ-ment in order to understand emotions better. What is interesting about this view is that it is the meaning the person attaches to the event and not the event itself that is responsible for the emotion. In our research for this thesis, the focus on the appraised meaning helps us to explain why different persons experienced differ-ent emotions towards the same products. Since appraisal precedes emotions, if two persons appraise the same product in different ways, they will feel different emo-tions and thus the outcome of a given test is different.
According to Desmet (2002, 108), every emotion contains a concern or, in other words, a more or less stable preference for a certain way of living. Concerns func-tion as points of reference in the appraisal process and they determine the signifi-cance of a stimulus for a person’s wellbeing (Figure 12). Stimuli that match a per-son’s concerns are appraised as beneficial, and those that do not match are apprised as harmful (Desmet 2002, 108). Drives, needs, instincts, motives, goals and values are mentioned as some examples of typical concerns (Desmet 2002, 109; Scherer 2001). Some of people’s concerns are universal, such as the concern for love or safety or the concern for environmental issues.
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
52
figure 12 Basic model of product emotions (Desmet, 2002, 110)
According to the research in the human affective system conducted by e.g. Desmet (2002), concerns function as points of reference in the appraisal process. Apprais-als mediate between products and emotions and it is the appraised significance of the product rather than the product itself that elicits emotions. As different people appraise the same product in a different way their emotional responses are differ-ent. According to Desmet (2002, 111), appraisal and concern can be considered as the keys to discovering the relationship between product design and emotions. He continues by saying that, in order to predict what emotional response someone will have towards a product, we must know the person’s concerns and how this person appraises the product. Genes, heritage, nationality, culture, age, gender and many more factors affect the way we are and, because of this, human beings are all individuals with their own values, instincts, needs, drives and motives. Therefore, it is difficult or even impossible to design something that appeals to everybody. Furthermore, it explains why the products that communicate environmental values to one do not necessarily communicate them to others.
3.4 semantics and emotional design in regard to our research
The use of product semantics as means of communication is the focus of this thesis. Visual cues – lines, textures, shapes, colors and forms – found in man-made products act as codes which reveal the nature of the physical artifacts. Products can be explained from four different points of view: material, structure, efficient cause and purpose. These four product dimension are all important for our research, but
3 pr
oduc
t se
man
tics
& e
mot
iona
l de
sign
53
as explained in this chapter, the semantic dimension plays a key role in finding ways to communicate green values.
Different messages can be communicated through products with an alphabet of sings and symbols. As for example Karjalainen (2005) and Vihma (1995) argue, visual language can be used as a tool of strategic communication for sending specific encoded messages to the consumers. Thus, from this point of view, there is a possibility to communicate environmental friendliness through product design. In addition, as all languages are learned, and the visual ones are no different, the consumers have to know the alphabet of the language in order to understand the message encoded in the design of a product. In this case, it is the alphabet of envi-ronmental friendliness. The following empirical part of this thesis shows how the specific alphabet for environmental friendliness can be created.
Our interaction with products creates emotions in us. Design language has emo-tional bonds that are linked with a person’s concerns. These concerns are, on the other hand, closely linked with a person’s attitudes and behavior, such as the environmental attitudes and behavior. Our interest with this study lies in how the concerns of the consumers can be visually responded to the means of product appearance, in order for the product to offer stimuli that supports the message of environmental friendliness.
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
54
4 RESEARCH STRATEGY: DECISIONS MADE IN CONDUCTING THIS STUDY
This chapter presents the decisions made when designing and conducting our research. Figure 13 sums up these choices and presents them all at once, under the title of research strategy.
4.1 research approach & methods
Our thesis investigates a more or less intact area within the scope of semiotics and aims at finding concrete solutions to the research problem. At the beginning, we had only individual thoughts of the direction of the results, but in fact no hypoth-eses that could have been tested. Therefore, the starting point for this study has been the elaborate and detailed study of the existing literal material, after which both qualitative and quantitative studies were conducted.
Even though we believe that our research has more than one objective, we find it useful to also classify empirical research by its prime objective; is it explora-tive, descriptive or interpretative (Hannu Uusitalo, 2001, 62–69)? The first part of our study can be described as exploratory; it aims at finding new perspectives and ideas, defining unknown areas and, most importantly, it aims at generating hypotheses (Hirsijärvi et al, 2004). The latter part of the study, the creation and implementation of design guidelines, is best described as constructive research. In constructive research, the problem is solved in a new way and the functionality of the solution must be verifiable (Uusitalo, 2001, 69). Based on the results from the quantitative research, we generate guidelines for product design, which present solutions to our research problem “how to communicate environmental friendli-ness through product appearance”. Our work ends in visualizations of the product concepts which have been created by using the design guidelines. These visualiza-tions can then be realized in mock-ups and tested for their ability to communicate environmental friendliness.
In our study, we combined quantitative and qualitative research methods with the aim of them completing each other. Qualitative research was used as preliminary study for the quantitative research. The intention was to obtain hypotheses through interviews, which were then tested in the quantitative research. By doing qualita-tive research before quantitative research, we ensure that the tested matters truly are correct and appropriate in regard to the research problems and that they are also meaningful to the participants. The methods of qualitative and quantitative research were also combined when tools of statistical analysis were used in analyzing parts of the interview results. (Hirsijärvi et al. 2004, 126–127; Silverman 2001, 35–37.)
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
55
Qualitative research usually begins with open-ended observation and analysis, most often looking for patterns and processes that explain the “how and why” questions, whereas quantitative research usually begins with pre-specified ob-jectives focused on testing preconceived outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative research methods are most often associated with inductive and deductive ap-proaches, respectively. Inductive analysis is about inducing the universal from the particular; it begins by making observations, usually in order to develop a new hypothesis or contribute to new theory. Deductive research begins with a known theory and tests it, usually by attempting to provide evidence for or against a hy-pothesis. As our study is a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, it proceeds from inductive reasoning towards deductive reasoning. (Uusitalo 2001, 20–21.)
4.2 qualitative research: methods and data collection
4.2.1 semi structured interviews
Semi structured interviews were chosen as the research method for the first part of the study for its ability to offer flexible communication with the interviewee. Semi structured interview is a form of interview where the researcher has a fixed set of questions to which the interviewee can answer in his own words and can even suggest further questions (Koskinen, Alasuutari & Peltonen 2005, 104–105). It is also possible for the interviewer to depart from the original list of questions. The subject of this research is rather complex and difficult to grasp. Thus, we wanted to be able to clarify the questions as well as clarify and deepen the answers during the study situation. Furthermore, since the subject area has not yet been studied much, it is difficult to predict the direction of the answers in advance. (Hirsijärvi et al. 2004, 193–195.)
We also considered focus group interviews as a way to offer the interviewees the opportunity to receive support from each other in the handling of the complex topic. However, as regards the focus group method, we were most concerned with the risk of having one or two participants that were more familiar with the subject and who would then take control over the conversation. In addition, in the first part of the research, we were most interested in rather subjective opinions. Therefore, it was concluded that semi structured interviews would be more likely to offer us information of that depth better than focus group interviews. (Koskinen et al. 2005, 123–128; Berg 2004, 123–143.)
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
56
4.2.2 think aloud -protocol
As an enhancement to the interviews, a method called the think aloud protocol was brought in. Ericsson and Simon (1993) explain the think aloud protocol in their work as one form of verbal protocol. The think aloud protocol is a method usually used to gather data in usability testing during product design and develop-ment, in psychology, as well as in a range of social sciences. Think aloud protocols involve participants thinking aloud as they are performing a set of specified tasks. Participants are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task. This enables the researchers to see first-hand the process of task completion. Observers at such a test are asked to objectively take notes of everything the participants say, without interpreting their actions and words. As was the case in our research, test sessions are often audio- and video taped, so that researchers can go back and refer to the participants’ actions. The purpose of this method is to make explicit what is implicitly present in partici-pants, who are asked perform a specific task. (Ericsson et al. 1993, 78–80.)
We arrived at the conclusion of combining interviewing and the think aloud protocol, because the subject of the study was perceived difficult to approach and comprehend. This combination offered a good way to start the research. We were also concerned that the participants would not all the times even realize when they arrive with an answer to the research problem. Verbal protocols place added strain on the research participants who are required to do two things at once. Humans are poor at maintaining divided attention for more than a few minutes; therefore we were required to think of ways to support the participants. They needed to be regularly and gently reminded of speaking their thoughts and in some ways “lured” into an apparent discussion with the interviewer. But the divided atten-tion worked also for the benefit of our research; we were interested in gathering intuitive, not thoroughly rationalized comments, and thus straining the partici-pants’ attention with two tasks was hoped to increase the possibility of an intuitive response. (Preece 1994, 621–622.)
4.2.3 grouping
Grouping was used as a method to organize and categorize the items under study as well as structure the thoughts of the participants. Grouping is a method that was also used by Stilma et al. (2004), though the method was modified to better suit our intentions.
During the interviews, the participants were asked to group the items presented to them according to their environmental friendliness, regarding their appearance only. The items the participants grouped were colors, materials and mobile devices.
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
57
The grouping took place on a single axis, with the opposite ends of environmen-tally friendly and non- environmentally friendly. The participants were free to group the items in as many categories as they wanted. No questions were asked by the interviewee during the grouping. Explanations of the categorizations were asked only after the participant was finished. The participant could not rearrange the categorization after discussion, since the aim was to capture intuitive reactions. When analyzing the results, the items received a score that corresponded to their ranking.
By combining the think aloud protocol with the grouping-method, elements from both qualitative and quantitative research were brought together. In addition to analyzing the verbal comments the participants gave during the interview and the groupings, the ranking results from the groupings were also analyzed with the help of statistical tools.
4.2.4 sampling for the interviews
As stated earlier, the purpose of the qualitative part was to find and develop hy-potheses to test in the quantitative research. Different purposes call for different sampling strategies, and for the qualitative research, purposive sampling was used (Silverman 2000, 104–105). Purposive sampling allows choosing participants that possess features and skills which are relevant to the research. The participants for our study were chosen to best suit the purpose of the first part of the research, which in practice signified people with the ability and the language to discuss design features. However, as an exception to the rule, one individual who had no expertise in analyzing form or manufacturing processes was invited to the test. This participant was considered a control participant, who offered information on differences between expert answers and non expert answers. This proved to be an interesting choice, and the results will be analyzed in the following chapter. Pur-posive sampling has its limitations, such as the lack of generalizability (Berg 2004, 36). Since we did not make generalizations based on the results from this first part of the research, this limitation does not undermine the reliability of our research.
4.2.5 pilot tests
The research was started by conducting two pilot tests. The first part of the pilot tests consisted of interviews and grouping exercises that were conducted according to the think aloud protocol.
Pilot tests were conducted to ensure validity of the research and to give an option for possible modifications. As a result of the pilot tests, the tasks in the interview
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
58
were found to be too complicated, the interview took too much time and included too many choices, hence the difficulty to perform the tasks given. For the rest of the interviews, the questions were rephrased and the number of items in the groupings was decreased. Furthermore, for the further interviews, the pictures of mobile devices in the grouping exercise were replaced partly with functional prod-ucts and partly with non-functional “dummies”. The picture gave the participants a rather one-dimensional view of the product in question, and attributes such as size, weight or the feel of housing material could not be evaluated through a pic-ture. Among the tested products, the number of products form different manufac-turers was also increased in order to get a wider set of brands and design styles in the test.
4.2.6 structure of the interviews and demographics of the participants
After the pilot tests, the remaining six interviews were conducted during the time period of October 9th to 12th at the Helsinki University of Technology. Participants were interviewed one at a time, and we had scheduled two interviews per day. The demographics of the participants of the pilot tests as well as the interviews are presented in Table 3. The interviews were conducted in Finnish, and each interview
figure 13 Research strategy in this thesis
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
59
took from 60 minutes up to 90 minutes. All interviews were audio- and video taped as well as photographed. Also one member of the research team wrote notes during the interview.
table 3 Demographics of the participants of the interviews
age 20-29 years
gender 3 females, 5 males
occupation 7 students, 1 researcher
education 3 M.Sc (Eng.) Students, 3 MA students, 1 M.Sc. student, 1 M.Pol.Sc. student
At the beginning of the interview, the participants were told that the test was a part of a master’s thesis, after which, the course of the interview was explained and specifically guided to thing aloud and trust their first impressions. They were also encouraged to reveal their opinions by informing them that there are no wrong or right answers. The interview consisted of four parts: – the background questions– grouping exercises– technology questionnaire– concluding questions
First, the participants were asked general questions regarding their personal envi-ronmental attitudes, behavior and values. This information was used to define the environmental segment they represent. The background questions were:– Do environmental aspects affect your purchasing? How?– When making a purchase decision, do you look for information on the environ-
mental effects of the product?– Does an eco label on the product affect your purchasing decision?– According to your opinion, what should an environmentally friendly product
communicate?
The second phase of the research consisted of a grouping exercise in which the participants were asked to group colors, materials and mobile devices. The group-ing was carried out on two separate axis; the perceived environmental friendli-ness/unfriendliness of the article in question and their willingness/ unwilling-ness to possess the item (Figure 14). The participants had 17 colors, 21 pieces of materials and 45 mobile devices to rank (see Appendix 2). The items could be
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
60
arranged on a horizontal line or into groups on the axis. In addition to reminding the participants to think aloud, they were also asked to explain their choices after each grouping. Since we were looking for specific elements that form the mental picture of an environmentally friendly product, the participants were guided as little as possible and they were given the freedom to comment on various aspects of the items. The participants were also asked whether the items they placed at the “un-environmental” end of the axis could convincingly be sold under the label of an “eco-product”, or whether the products were strongly in conflict with the mes-sage of an environmentally friendly product. In this phase, the participants’ spoken comments while arranging the items was equally important with the actual results of their groupings.
I would like to possess I would not like to possess
Environmentally Friendly Environmentally Unfriendly
figure 14 The axes in the grouping exercise. Participants arranged colors, materials and mobile devices on these axes.
The grouping exercises started from the least complicated analysis and it pro-gressed towards the more difficult analysis. In other words, it was decided to start with the analyzing of colors, which are more or less one-dimensional, and end with the analyzing of forms, which are three-dimensional and thus also more demanding and complicated.
The third phase of the interview was a questionnaire evaluating the perceived environmental friendliness of technologies. As a starting point, the participants were instructed to consider a “basic mobile device” that allows one to make and receive both calls and send and receive text messages. The participants were then asked to comment on whether the adding of a certain technology either decreases, increases or has no effect on the perceived environmental friendliness of the prod-uct. The participants were given a two-sheet list of technologies, which they filled in by themselves (Appendix 3). Based on what was learned from the pilot tests, the technologies were now presented as enablers instead of merely explaining the technology. For instance, the QWERTY keyboard was presented as “On my mobile device there is a key for each alphabet” and Bluetooth was presented as “I can con-nect hands free, laptop computer or other equipment to my mobile device without any wires.”
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
61
Finally, in the fourth and the last phase of the interviews, participants were asked general questions on the relation of technologies and perceived environmental friendliness, and they were asked to comment on the study itself. This part played an important role especially in the pilot tests, as we were hoping to receive sugges-tions and opinions that would help us to improve the interview. The questions for the last concluding part were as follows:– What features would you include in the mobile device of your dreams? Why?– What features would you include in an environmentally friendly mobile device?– Was there something in this interview that you experienced as confusing, dif-
ficult or unnecessary?– Is there something you consider that could be improved in the interview?– Is there something you would still like to say?
4.2.7 interview setting
In the interview, there were three researchers and one interviewee. The interview participants might have felt uncomfortable by the setting, and noting this, atten-tion was paid to making the participant feel as relaxed as possible. The research team acted calm and relaxed, offering the participants refreshments and exchang-ing comments on everyday matters, while gradually moving towards the first ques-tions. The participants were also given an overview of the course of the interview to help them feel more in charge of the situation. Another concern related to the relation between researchers and participants was the potential pressure of suc-ceeding, which the interviewees may experience as they are asked to answer the task given. This concern spurs from the fact that the participants in the interview have expertise in the field of materials and manufacturing processes, and thus they might feel that they are expected to recognize the items and their manufacturing processes presented during the interview. This threat was addressed by firmly stat-ing at the very beginning of the interview that there are no correct answers except the one the participant himself gives.
The order of questions carried a threat to the reliability of the results. Before ranking the items according to their environmental friendliness, the participants were asked to rank colors, materials and mobile devices according to their wish to posses the article in question. After this, they were asked to rank the same arti-cles according to the perceived environmental friendliness of the article. Now, it is possible that the positive attitude towards the articles the participant had just ranked as “I would like to posses” affects the way he perceives the environmental friendliness of those articles, so that he is more likely to rank them as more envi-ronmentally friendly. Yet, this order of questions was nevertheless kept, since it was believed that ranking the items according to the willingness to possess it acted well as a rehearsal for the environmental evaluation.
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
62
4.3 quantitative research: methods and data collection
4.3.1 internet based survey
The second part of the study was conducted as a quantitative research. Survey was chosen as the research method, since it offers an efficient and economic tool for data collecting. In survey research, the information is collected with a question-naire form, which in our case was an electronic questionnaire, available in the Internet to a selected group of people. An Internet-based survey offers an easy and a fast way of processing the information, but the obverse of conducting an Internet based survey is the limitations to reach whole populations. This loss in mind, conducting the survey on the streets with portable computers was also considered. Yet, considering the resources for this study, we concluded that Internet based survey was the best match between available resources and the sufficient number of responses. (Heikkilä 2005, 66–69.)
Another compromise made when choosing the Internet based survey was the missed possibility of presenting the participants with real materials and objects to touch and to hold in their hand. These actions would have given the participants possibilities to evaluate also such attributes as the weight, feel or structure of the object, and thus the situation would have been more alike the usual use-situation, in which the individual is in contact with the product as he evaluates it. These losses were attempted to be minimized by presenting the products in question from different angles and by mapping the materials on a form of a sphere, thus bringing the materials “to life” by shades and glare.
4.3.2 sampling for the survey
For the quantitative research, snowball sampling was used. In snowball sampling individuals with relevant characteristics are first identified and asked to either take part in an interview or answer a questionnaire. Each individual in the group of selected people is asked to name x number of different individuals in the popula-tion. For example, each individual may be asked to name his “x best friends” or “x individuals whose opinions he most frequently seeks”. This cycle is repeated until the sufficient number of individuals is reached. In our study, the participants for the first stage were chosen calculatedly, but with the leading idea of reaching a versatile group of Finnish people. These individuals were then asked to name indi-viduals that shared the certain attributes that they do. (Berg 2004, 36.)
The data obtained using a snowball sampling procedure can be utilized to make statistical conclusions about various aspects. The methods of statistical inference
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
63
applied to the data obtained from the sample naturally depend on the kind of ran-dom sample drawn at the initial stage. (Goodman 1961, 148–170.)
4.3.3 structure of the survey
The survey was launched on the Internet on Monday 27.11.2006 and it ended two weeks later on Monday 11.12.2006. The total number of participants was 149. The survey form was shown on a specific website, and therefore an Internet connec-tion was required in order to be able to answer the survey. The survey had different phases which were indicated by horizontal break lines and consecutive number-ing. Screenshots of the survey questionnaire are presented in Figure 15. The entire survey form can be found in Appendix 5 (in Finnish).
The goal of our research and the products related to the study, consumer electron-ics, were briefly described at the beginning of the form. Short description of the form, the progression of the survey and some guidelines to give answers were also given. Participants were told that all the information is processed confidentially and that given answers cannot be connected to a participant.
The first phase of the survey focused on general questions concerning the par-ticipant’s behavior in purchasing situations and the perceived environmental friendliness of selected electronics brands. Brands were selected to represent both domestic appliances and consumer electronics, including also mobile devices. Brands representing domestic appliances were selected for the survey, since in the interviews, the participants most often thought about domestic appliances when they were asked to think about the connection between nature, electronics and electrical equipment. Some brands were selected since they were also included in a recent Greenpeace evaluation (Guide to Greener Electronics 2006). The very recent Greenpeace evaluation presented a possibility to compare the results based both on perceived green image and the true environmental performance of electronics.
In the second phase, the participants were instructed to evaluate how environ-mentally friendly they regarded a specific color, material and design language. All of these items were presented one by one and the answers were collected in scale from “very environmentally friendly” to “very non-environmentally friendly”, presenting the participant with the total of four different options. Colors were selected based on the interviews. In addition to gray, white, yellow, pink and black, a set of common, pastel and unsaturated blues and reds were selected. These were considered to be the most interesting colors according to the interviews and the intuition and opinion of the research team. Materials were also chosen based on the interviews, leaving out both the most obvious and the most difficult materials to implement in mobile device production, such as Styrox. Materials in the survey
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
64
were selected to be rock, light and dark wood, set of metals, leather, textile, acrylic and a blend of acrylic polymer and minerals with two different looks, white and rock-like. Colors were presented by a picture of a square of the color in question. Pictures of the materials were computer aided renderings, where real materi-als were mapped to a three dimensional image of a sphere. Design styles were presented with pictures of real devices. The devices were presented in different orientations and, if they had a transformable form-factor, they were also presented in different forms. The mobile devices were selected to represent different eras in mobile device design style, including several brands. Different kinds of form-fac-tors were represented too, including monoblock, lip-stick, clamshell, PDA-like and swivel. Selected devices were 3100, 1101, 7360 in Warm Amber and Coffee Brown colors, 5100, 6310, N80, 3210, 8800, 7373, N91, 6820, 7280, 3250 and E61 from Nokia, Z530i from Sony Ericsson, Razr from Motorola, SL91 from BenQ-Sie-mens, SHG-E760 and SGH-Z540 from Samsung and X500 from Panasonic. Names of colors, materials and devices were presented with the pictures of each item. A full list of colors, materials and mobile devices used in the survey can be seen in Appendix 5 (in Finnish).
figure 15 Screenshots of the survey questionnaire
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
65
In the third phase of the survey, participants selected from a list of attributes the ones they consider to be connected to an environmentally friendly product. A list of six different mobile device types with a brief description was also given, and the participants were to give grades for the devices according to how environmen-tally friendly they perceived them. The scale was chosen to be from 4 to 10, as it is a well-known scale from primary school to all Finnish people. The attributes selected for the survey, or their opposites, were mentioned during the interviews.
The last phase of the survey was to find out the participant’s background informa-tion. Participants were asked to select which portrayed segment would best de-scribe them as well as give the information on their age, gender, level of education, profession and residential province.
4.3.4 survey participants and the target group
The segmentation of the survey participants was based on existing environmen-tal segmentations found from literature (e.g. Green Gauge Report 2002; Peat-tie 1995). Based on the readings, we concluded the behavioral aspects as most significant. Therefore, the segmentation was based on the level of concern for the environment, the attitude towards environment protection and the likelihood to participate in environmental activities (e.g. marching, purchases). The target group for our survey consisted of consumers who are positively disposed towards envi-ronmental protection, but passive in their actions. Thus, the target group consisted of people who agree with statements 3, 4 & 5 (Table 4). Later, only the results of the target group were analyzed.
The number of the environmentally passive participants in our survey was 107 out of 149; roughly 72% of all the survey participants fell into the target segment (Figure 16). 64% of the target group were between 25 to 44 years of age, which is a noticeably higher proportion, compared to the Finnish population as a whole (Suomi Lukuina: väestö 2006). The age distribution is most likely due to the fact that the starting point for the sampling was friends, colleagues and family of the research team, of which the first two groups are mainly between 25–44 years of age. The gender distribution within the target group was rather equal; 46% were male and 54% female. On the other hand the number of people with a university level education (90%) was higher than in the base group (Suomi Lukuina: koulutus 2006). Most of the participants in the target segment lived in the Uusimaa or Varsi-nais-Suomi region. All demographic background information of the participants within the target segment is presented in Appendix 10.
The target group was worried about the state of the environment but did not take part in any active nature conservancy. They choose environmentally friendly
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
66
figure 16 Percentage of participants in each segment. 72% of the survey participants belonged to our target segment.
63% I buy eco-products when they do not differ from other products...
6% I do not usually buy eco-products...
3% I do not think about environmental issues when making purchasing decisions...
0% I would call myself an environmen-tal activist...
27% I buy eco whenever it is possible...
table 4 Segmentation for the survey. The target group for this study agreed with statements 3, 4 & 5.
segment number
segment description
1I would call myself an environmental activist. I belong to an environmental organiza-tion. I buy only environmentally friendly products and actively participate in environ-ment-discussion.
2I am worried about the state of the environment and I am ready to personally partici-pate in environment protection, but I do not walk for environmental issues. I buy eco whenever it is possible.
3I am worried about the state of the environment, but I do not take part in environ-ment protection activities. I buy eco-products when they do not differ from other products in price or quality.
4I am not very worried about the state of the environment, since I believe the environ-mental issues lie in good hands. I do not usually buy eco-products, but when they do not differ in price or in quality from other products, I might buy the eco-alternative.
5 I do not think about environmental issues when making purchasing decisions.
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
67
products over brown ones when they are not more expensive or differ in quality compared with brown products. Participants in the target group do not usually pay attention to the environmental effects of producing, consuming and disposing of a product. About two thirds of them pay attention to the issue rarely, while only 26% pays attention always of often. Sources of information about environmental impacts of manufacturing, usage and disposal of products are usually the Internet (16%), retailers (20%) and friends (14%) while the majority (65%) of the target group does not search for information at all. 21% of the participants in the target group who do not search for information said that they would like to search for information, but they do not know where to find it.
4.4 reliability and validity of the study
Reliability is the extent to which the measurements of a test remain consistent over repeated tests of the same subject, under identical conditions. An experiment is reliable if it yields consistent results of the same measure. A valid measure is one which is measuring what it is supposed to measure. Validity refers to getting results that accurately reflect the concept being measured. (McKinnon 1988, 36; Hirsijärvi et al. 2004, 216–217.)
McKinnon (1988) classifies four main types of threats to reliability and validity in field research. Continued attention needs to be paid to the following threats throughout the field study:– observer-caused effects– observer bias– data access limitations– complexities and limitation of the human mind
Observer-caused effects may be described as the reactive effects of the observer’s presence on the phenomenon under study. Observer bias, on the other hand, can be described as the tendency to observe the phenomenon in a manner that differs from the genuine observation. Observer bias is distinguished from observer-caused effects where the observer’s presence actually changes the phenomenon under study. The researcher’s role raises two types of limitations in accessing data in the field; first, the researcher is on site for a limited time period, second, the research-er may be faced with the prospect of being barred from witnessing specific aspects of a process, and thus end up studying less than the complete phenomenon they claim to be studying. Finally, the complexities and limitations of the human mind threat the reliability and validity of the research, by jeopardizing the trustworthi-ness of the statements the subjects make. (McKinnon 1988, 37–39.)
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
68
In addition to listing threats, McKinnon (1988, 39) also suggest strategies and tactics to counter these threats to validity and reliability. She lists three strategies of which perhaps the latter two are of most relevance to our study:– the amount of time the researcher spends in the research setting– the use of multiple methods and multiple observations– the researcher’s social behavior while in the setting
During our research, attention was paid to the threats that McKinnon listed. In the interviews, a point of concern was that the participants would consciously seek to mislead or deceive the research team, by perhaps answering questions in a man-ner more flattering or acceptable to them. This threat was addressed by stressing the confidentiality of the results and by striving to gain the trust of the participants already at the very beginning of the interview. It was also noted that even when the participants tried to be honest and accurate, their statements were affected by natural human tendencies and fallibilities, such as, for example, forgetting things. Hence, each participant was provided the most relaxed and unhurried interview situation, in which they could go back to previous questions and add comments to them as the interview progressed.
The participants also pointed out during the interview that their prior knowledge and familiarity of the products in question and knowledge of the materials used in them distracted them from evaluating merely the design elements. This, naturally, also applies to the survey. Since we are searching for specific design elements that support the desired environmental message this poses a threat to validity and reli-ability.
The survey was conducted after the interviews were analyzed. All the survey ques-tions were derived from interviews excluding questions concerning consumer brands and their image. As the survey was Internet based, presenting these items had some limitations. Visualizations can not describe the haptic feel, weight, sur-face structure or vivacity of the material in different lightning conditions. Different monitor settings and possible disturbances that might take place while a partici-pant is filling the survey form might also have had an influence on the results. Since the participants were all Finnish, the influence of national pride related to Nokia might have influenced the results in the brand ranking.
The number of participants in the survey was nearly 150. The sample size was 107 and most of the participants were highly educated, aged from 24 to 44 and lived either in the Uusimaa or Varsinais-Suomi region. As we were more interested in the phenomenon and the subject itself than the differences between different age/edu-cation groups it is acceptable that the sample was not representing Finnish popula-tion in total.
4 re
sear
ch s
trat
egy:
dec
isio
ns m
ade
in c
ondu
ctin
g th
is s
tudy
69
Correlation between the results from qualitative and quantitative research is for most parts high, which enhances the reliability of the results. Therefore, qualitative research seems to offer a good way to get acquainted with the topic and formulate hypotheses. The research team also noted that due to the good correlation, the use of the Delphi method in future research might offer a sufficient tool for research-ing the eco elements of product appearance.
Triangulation refers to the aim to obtain a broad, valid picture of the situation by combining different ways of looking at it (Silverman 2000, 177) For example; each method reveals slightly different facets of the same situation. Every method is a different line of sight directed toward the same point. Thus, by combining several lines of sight, researchers obtain a better, more substantive picture of the situation. This use of multiple lines of sight is called triangulation (Berg 2004, 5). It has also been suggested (Fielding & Fielding 1986, 31) that the important feature of trian-gulation is not the simple combination of different kinds of data but the attempt to relate them so that they counteract the threats to validity identified in data, method or investigator. Nonetheless, Silverman (2000) critiques the use of triangulation, asserting that the hope of triangulation revealing “the whole picture” often leads to scrappy research based on under-analyzed data and an imprecise research prob-lem.
Also Hirsijärvi et al. (2004, 218) suggest that reliability can be ensured when, for example, more than one investigator ends in the same result. In our study, inves-tigator, data and method triangulation have been used. Investigator triangulation consists of using multiple rather than single observers of the same object. During the research, the findings from each evaluator are compared. If the findings from the different evaluators arrive at the same conclusion, some degree of validity has been established. If the conclusions differ substantially, further study is required to uncover the “true” and “certain” finding (Berg 2004, 5–6). Our research team consisted of three members who all come from different disciplines. Thus, in addition to having three individuals making the same inferences, the setting also offers a wide perspective on the subject. Moreover, having formed the hypotheses from the first part of the research and having tested them statistically is bound to enhance the reliability of the results that point to the same direction.
In our study, methods such as interviewing, the speak-aloud method and survey were combined. Methods were selected to best support each other, and to pro-vide us with the appropriate questions for the following stages of the research. In addition to combining methods, we used multiple sources of data: results from our own research, results from other researches, statistics and literature. Thus it is reasonable to state that we have used both data- and method triangulation.
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
70
5 THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: FINDING THE HYPOTHESES
5.1 an overview of the interviews
5.1.1 general indications of the results
The interviews were conducted successfully. The most challenging part for the participants was analyzing the design and appearance of the devices, where the grouping of colors and materials did not present any significant difficulty. Thus, it can be noticed that the more complex and multidimensional the objects were, the more difficult they were to analyze. This is also to be seen in the results from the tests; there were less deviation in the answers from different participants in the grouping of colors and materials than in the grouping of mobile devices. Only through statistical analysis, some correlation in the groupings of mobile devices became apparent.
Based on the results of the interviews, colors and materials can now be divided into two groups: those that are more often perceived as environmentally friendly and those that are more often perceived non-environmentally friendly. The results from our research are in line with and support the results from the study by Stilma et al. (2004). In the case of mobile devices, the categorization into eco and non-eco is more complex.
The participants, except for the non-expert control person, could not find any leading idea, or tool, to help in evaluating the appearance of the devices, which resulted in non-logical results. In other words, the grouping results from a par-ticipant did not necessarily show a logical pattern of order. There was usually no visual clue in the order of the ranked devices, except for the answer provided by the non-expert. Her choices were visually more coherent, and there was an obvi-ous leading idea throughout the task. This could perhaps be explained with the more intuitive approach the non-expert had in comparison to the experts, who possibly were under social pressure to perform well, and thus relied on trying to overly reason their answers.
It was also discovered that materials which are perceived non-eco and are still presented under the title of “environmentally friendly” create a greater conflict than non-environmentally friendly colors in the same situation. In other words, the participants argued it is easier to present a credible environmentally friendly message with a non-eco color than a non-eco material. Materials, therefore, have a
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
71
stronger communicative value than colors, and the form and design elements of a mobile device have a stronger communicative value than its materials. Interestingly, the unity in answers follows the opposite path: participants were more unanimous about the ranking of colors than about the ranking of materials, and they were more unanimous about materials than mobile devices. This relation is presented in Table 5, where the number of plusses indicates the level of strength and the level of unity: the greater amount of plusses, the greater the strength and the unity.
table 5 Strength of the environmental message versus unity in answers concerning colors, materials and mobile devices
Strength of the environmental message
Unity in answers
color + + + +
material + + + +
design style + + + +
While analyzing the results, it was decided to renounce the data from the “I would like to possess – I would not like to possess” exercise. The original idea of having this axis was to compare whether the items that were perceived environmentally friendly were also the ones the participants wished to possess. Finally, it was real-ized that studying one dimension alone produced such a great amount of infor-mation that the analysis of the correlation of two dimensions was left for future studies.
5.1.2 eco-points used in analyzing the grouping results
When analyzing the material gathered from the research, there was a special aim at finding regularities and polarization in the rankings, as well as colors, materi-als and products that did not seem to be environmentally neutral. To compare the groupings made by different participants, the items ranked were given so called eco-points, a system created by the team. Eco-points were given in accordance to the ranking of an item in the grouping. The item ranked most environmentally friendly by a participant received as many eco-points as the number of items (n) in that group (colors, materials, mobile devices). The item ranked second received n-1 points, and so on. For example, the color ranked the most environmentally
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
72
friendly by a participant received 17 points, the next one 16 points, and so on. Finally, the eco-points for each item from each participant were then added up to form the sum of eco-points, which defined the final ranking of that item in the research.
The eco-points of different items can not be compared, that is, the groupings of colors, materials or mobile devices. This is because the number of items (n) is dif-ferent in each group of items and the scale is dependent on the number if items. Thus, it can not be said that materials that receive a greater total of eco-points have a stronger communicating value than colors that receive a smaller number total of eco-points. Standard deviation was also calculated for each item, in order to tell us how much deviation there has been from the given average eco-points.
5.2 results from the first phase: background questions
The results of the answers given to the first set of questions are quantified in Table 6. The question “What should an environmentally friendly product com-municate in your opinion?” is left out from this table, since answers to it can not be quantified. The answers to all questions will be studied more carefully in the following sections.
table 6 Results from the background questions of the interviews
Question Yes No Unsure
do environmental aspects effect your purchasing? how?
5/8 2/8 1/8
when making a purchase decision, do you search for information on the environmental effects of the product?
1/8 7/8 0/8
does an eco label on the product effect your purchasing decision?
5/8* 0/8 3/8
* I am more likely to buy a product with eco-labeling
On the basis of the first background question “Do environmental aspects effect
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
73
your purchasing? How?” it can be concluded that, in general, evaluating environ-mental friendliness is considered difficult and complex. People do not put effort in finding information, but they are, to some extent, open to a number of clues pre-sented at the point of sale, such as for example eco-labels, packaging and housing materials. On the other hand, they are skeptic towards most of the given informa-tion, thinking that they are being deluded in some way. (See Appendix 6 for all answers presented in Finnish)
As regards the first question, it can also be said that the environmental choice is more likely to take place when the consumer himself benefits from it directly. This supports the claims made in literature and previous research in this area (Ottmann, 1998; Stevels et al. 2001). In addition, it became clear that the energy usage clas-sification used by home appliance manufacturers is perhaps the best known and most commonly used criterion for evaluating the environmental friendliness of a product. No other commonly known visual criteria or tool for evaluating the envi-ronmental friendliness by the product itself came up during the interviews, which explains why the evaluation of a product’s environmental friendliness is generally perceived difficult.
From the answers to the first question, it can be concluded that there is readiness to pay premium when the difference in price is very small and the products are otherwise identical. People were not ready to compromise quality, performance or style over environmental friendliness. This supports the previously mentioned claim that environmental benefits should be presented as enhancement of other product benefits, where it does not impair the desirability of the product.
The second question was “When making a purchase decision, do you search for information on the environmental effects of the product?” In general, the partici-pants stated that they do not go out of their way to find information on the envi-ronmental effects of the product. Some were open to information presented at the point of sale. It was also mentioned that in the case of more expensive purchases, the environmental aspects are more likely to be among the attributes considered during the purchasing process.
As the third question, the participants were asked “Does an eco-label on the prod-uct effect your purchasing decision? How?”. Eco-labeling had generally a positive effect in situations where none of the products have superiority over the others and the products do not differ in price. Five out of eight stated that they are more likely to buy a product with eco-labeling than a product without it. But once again, no sacrifices over quality or performance will be made.
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
74
The fourth question was “What should an environmentally friendly product com-municate in your opinion?”. First, the participants hesitated and were not able to answer the question, and thus, the question was further specified by asking for values and features the participant though that an environmentally friendly product should possess. Nonetheless, this question was considered rather difficult and the interviewees felt perplexed. We did not receive the type of answers we were aiming for. The answers focused on how to actually make a product more environmentally friendly, not on values that would communicate environmental friendliness. We de-cided to give the participants time to familiarize with the subject and present this question again at the end of the interview. When the question was repeated at the end of the interview, it produced more specific answers. Good quality, durability, simplicity, dematerialization and immaterialization were mentioned (see Appendix 9, in Finnish). Low energy consumption was also mentioned often. This question still seemed to be rather difficult, but regardless of how difficult the question was considered to be, it provided general attributes to be tested in the survey.
5.3 results from the second phase: grouping
The second phase in the interview was the grouping of colors, materials and mobile devices (fully listed and identified in Appendix 2). The groupings were per-formed on two axis, but the “I would like to posses – I would not like to posses” –axis is left out from the analysis. As mentioned previously, the participants did not experience difficulties in grouping colors or materials, but the grouping of mobile devices was considered challenging.
5.3.1 colors
From the ranked colors of all the participants (Figure 17), it can be seen that shades of blue are more often considered as “environmentally friendly” colors whereas shades of red are mostly considered “non- environmentally friendly” colors. In addition, black tends to be more towards the “non- environmentally friendly” end of the axis, whereas white seems to move a lot along the axis.
In Figure 18, the eco-points for a color from each participant are combined. All the colors are now presented at once in their ranking order. The results in the ranking of colors might have been strongly affected by the nationality of the survey partici-pants. White and blue performed well in the ranking and the reason may be found from the national colors of Finland. The colors also seemed to carry a learned mes-sage of environmental friendliness. Moreover, it can be debated, based also on the comments during the interview, that green is a “learned symbol” of environmental friendliness.
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
75
figure 17 Ranking of colors by each participant
figure 18 Ranking of colors (in eco-points)
Eco-points
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
76
Table 7 presents the combined numerical results from the rankings for all colors. It also shows the number of “eco-points” each color received as well as the standard deviation and mean average of the results.
In colors, there is not much deviation between the rankings and, as stated before, the environmentally friendly colors can already be distinguished from the non-en-vironmentally friendly ones. Thus, it would be rather easy to derive design guide-lines regarding colors already at this point. However, these results need still to be treated as hypotheses at this stage, and they need to be tested on a larger group in the survey.
table 7 The rankings, eco-points and standard deviation of colors
Rank Eco - Non Eco Eco-points Standard Deviation Mean Average
1 unsaturated blue 84 1.8 14.0
2 green 82 2.5 13.7
3 pastel turquoise 80 2.9 13.3
4 white 79 3.5 13.2
5 pastel yellow 76 3.6 12.2
6 blue 73 3.7 11.2
7 gray 50% 66 4.1 11.0
8 yellow 65 4.2 10.8
9 gray 18% 62 4.2 10.3
10 orange 55 4.3 9.2
11 unsaturated yellow 53 4.3 8.8
12 red 52 4.7 8.7
13 unsaturated red 41 4.7 6.8
14 black 38 4.9 6.3
15 pastel blue 36 4.9 6.0
16 pastel red 32 5.9 5.3
17 violet 29 7.0 4.8
Since we used the think aloud protocol, the participants continuously gave com-ments during the groupings. Shades of blue were often related to ocean or peace, and according to this research, blue was the single most environmentally friendly
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
77
figure 19 Ranking of materials by each participant (materials are identified in Appendix 2)
figure 20 Ranking of materials (in eco-points)
Eco-points
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
78
color. Black and white divided opinions; some considered white as “pure” and thus environmentally friendly, whereas others saw white as “bleached” and therefore non- environmentally friendly. Black was generally on the non-environ-mentally friendly side, but some participants though it was rather neutral (neither environmentally friendly nor unfriendly), which can be seen from Figure 17.
Reds in general were considered environmentally unfriendly. Especially the com-bination of red and black was regarded as warning colors, and thus not environ-mentally friendly. Green is ranked the second most environmentally friendly, color, except for one participant, who argued that green is so often used to lure consum-ers into the impression of an environmentally friendly product that she had lost all trust in the color. Other participants said that the reason they placed green to the environmentally friendly end of the axis is the fact that they have deliberately been trained to perceive it as eco.
Unsaturated colors were generally ranked more environmentally friendly than bright colors. Bright colors were considered more toxic, or the production of bright colors was considered as more harmful to the environment. Pastel colors were regarded less environmentally friendly than “stronger” colors.
5.3.2 materials
Materials can also be divided into groups of “perceived environmentally friendly” and ”perceived non-environmentally friendly”, up to some extent. It can be con-cluded, e.g. that in general, metals are considered less hazardous for the environ-ment than plastics (Figure 19). The less processed materials were also generally listed as less hazardous materials than processed and synthetic materials. However, based on the comments of the participants, it can be stated that analyzing materials was already more difficult than analyzing colors. Thus there were also contradic-tory comments on the same material.
Figure 20 combines results from all participants and presents the final ranking of materials. The ranking of materials did not present big surprises to the research team. As a rule of thumb, the less refined and natural the material was, the more environmentally friendly it was ranked.
Interestingly, a blend of natural minerals and acrylic polymer that had the appear-ance of stone was ranked environmentally friendly in the interview session when the participants only had a visual contact with it, but after they had picked it up in their hand and realized that there was something non-stone-like in the item, the participants placed it more towards environmentally unfriendly than first intended. Nevertheless, the stone-like blend ranked higher than the white blend (Table 8).
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
79
It can be seen from Table 8 that standard deviation in materials is rather low (in relation to the mean average), and thus we are already able to derive design guide-lines also from the ranking of materials. Moreover, these results cannot be declared final either until they are confirmed in the quantitative research.
table 8 The ranking, eco-points and standard deviation of materials
Rank Material Eco-points Standard Deviation
Mean Average
1 Wood with bark 118 2.34 19.7
2 Light colored wood (unfinished) 115 1.60 19.2
3 Bark 114 3.10 19.0
4 Light colored wood (finished) 113 1.83 18.8
5 Rock 110 3.20 18.3
6 Cardboard 89 3.49 14.8
7 Dark colored wood 86 6.12 14.3
8 Plaster 85 1.94 14.2
9 Blend of minerals and polymer (dark, stone-like) 83 3.43 13.8
10 Chipboard 77 3.60 12.8
11 Glass 75 3.89 12.5
12 Blend of minerals and polymer (light) 67 2.32 11.2
13 Aluminium 57 4.32 9.5
14 Metallic net 53 3.76 8.8
15 Foam 44 3.83 7.3
16 Plastic honeycomb 42 1.26 7.0
17 White acrylic 39 1.87 6.5
18 Urethane 37 2.79 6.2
19 Clear acrylic 34 2.16 5.7
20 Finnfoam 19 0.98 3.2
21 Styrox 17 1.33 2.8
During the interview, the participants commented that generally, the more refined the material, the less environmentally friendly it is. Participants usually took two points of reference as they evaluated the environmental friendliness; how the mate-
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
80
rial had already been processed when it ends up in the hand of the consumer and what will happen to the material when the product is no longer in use.
Metals were generally less environmentally friendly than woods and wood fiber products, but they were still considered rather environmentally friendly. Partici-pants considered metals durable and well recyclable and they were therefore envi-ronmentally friendly.
Plastics were considered rather un-eco. Generally, all the comments on plastics were negative. Participants also mentioned that alone the mental image they have of plastics is not positive in an environmental sense. It was said that plastics wear out easily and the environmental friendliness of the production process of plastics was considered rather questionable.
5.3.3 mobile devices
Analyzing the perceived environmental friendliness of mobile devices was the most challenging part of the ranking exercise for the participants. It results in devi-ated results with little if any regularity (Figure 21). The same device can be found at both ends of the axis. In Figure 21, the top and bottom five mobile devices from the ranking are presented. A complete list can be found in Appendix 8.
Figure 22 combines the rankings from all participants and presents only the top and bottom ten mobile devices, since there was such a high number (45) of prod-ucts in the test. It was possible to “force” differences out of the ranking by giving the devices eco-points, but nevertheless, there is no noticeable difference in the number of eco-points each device received, if they are studied one by one. By tak-ing a look at the devices ranked first and last, however, we can see a clear difference in eco-points. Still, the high standard deviation compels us to question the general-izability and reliability of this part of the study.
Finding regularities or peaks in the ranking of mobile devices was more difficult. Just by looking at the answers of each participant, there was no evident visual clue that would explain why one device is perceived more environmentally friendly than the other. Thus, all the comments made during the ranking have even more value. The same device can be ranked as one of the most environmentally friendly and one of the least environmentally friendly by different participants. This results in high standard deviation (Table 9). The reason behind the high deviation could be that the perceived environmental friendliness is so subjective, that no univer-sal rules can be generated. It can also be that there are no tools for evaluating the environmental friendliness of a device’s design, and therefore the participants were not able to follow logic in their answers.
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
81
figure 21 Ranking of mobile devices; five most and least environmentally friendly perceived devices.
figure 22 Ranking of mobile devices (in eco-points)
Eco-points
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
82
table 9 The ranking, eco-points and standard deviation of mobile devices
Rank Top 10 & Bottom 10 Eco-points Standard Deviation
Mean Average
1 Nokia 7360 (amber) 169 16.2 28.2
2 Nokia 6310 168 16.6 28.0
3 Samsung SGH-Z540 165 15.5 20.2
4 Sony Ericsson Z530i 159 17.2 26.5
5 Siemens SL75 149 13.9 24.8
6 Nokia 7360 (brown) 148 16.4 24.7
7 Nokia 7370 148 16.4 24.7
8 Nokia 3510 145 19.3 24.2
9 Nokia 6111 145 14.7 24.2
10 Nokia 6101 143 13.9 23.8
36 Nokia 2652 (black) 99 11.8 16.5
37 Nokia 3230 98 9.3 16.3
38 Nokia 6260 96 13.3 16.0
39 Nokia 7280 90 16.1 15.0
40 Nokia N91 87 9.3 14.5
41 Nokia N80 86 15.8 14.3
42 LG LP4100 83 15.8 13.8
43 Panasonic X500 81 14.7 13.5
44 Nokia 3250 67 13.8 11.2
45 Nokia 3100 66 11.7 11.0
At this stage of the research process the aim was to find the hypotheses for the survey as well as to find out the mobile devices that either divide the opinions or are commonly regarded very environmentally friendly or non-friendly. Our aim was not fully met, and there were no clear judgments or conclusions that could have been made on the design style and appearance at this stage. Due to the high deviation in the rankings, no clear winning and losing devices were found, and therefore a semiotic analysis of the devices at this stage was not performed.
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
83
5.4 results from the third phase: technology questionnaire
The groupings were followed by a technology-related questionnaire, in which the aim was to find out the effects that the different technologies had on the perceived environmental friendliness of a mobile device. The participants considered this part of the interview nearly as challenging as the evaluation of the design styles, but at this stage of the interview, the participants were already more familiar with the research approach.
The technologies were rated as follows: 1= environmental friendliness decreases significantly, 2= “-“ decreases, slightly, 3= “-“ increases slightly, 4= “-“ increases significantly. The participants also had the option to give no answer. Table 10 presents the results as a mean average of all points given. The higher the number, the more the adding of that technology increases the perceived environmental friendliness of a mobile device. Respectively, the lower the number, the more the adding of that technology decreases the perceived environmental friendliness.
Of all the listed technologies, the memory card slot, triband/quadband, WLAN/VoIP and GPS received the mean average of three or above, which indicates that they are generally considered to affect the perceived environmental friendliness positively. 3G triggers interesting reactions; to the question “my mobile device is a 3G-mobile device”, the mean average is three, implicating a positive environmen-tal message. Similar results are received when 3G enables making internet calls. But, on the other hand, 3G has a negative effect when it is related to watching TV on the mobile device. In addition, according to the participants, video camera, touch screen and QWERTY-keyboard seems to have a somewhat negative impact on the perceived environmental friendliness. Nonetheless, in general, the overall number of features does not seem to strongly affect the perception of the mobile device’s environmental friendliness.
From the results of the technology questionnaire, it can be seen that the partici-pants reacted differently to features provided by a 3G-mobile device. E-mails, in-ternet calls and 3G by itself had positive environmental effects, whereas watching TV on the mobile device (which also requires 3G) had a negative effect. This may suggest that the concept of 3G is unfamiliar to most people, and it is unclear what it enables. However, a general opinion of the participants was that the more exces-sive the feature or the less the feature has to do with the original idea of a mobile device, the less it communicated environmental friendliness; this could be the case also with the TV. In addition, video camera, touch screen and QWERTY-keyboard had a negative impact on the perceived environmental friendliness. Here, the ex-planation could be found from the larger size of devices with QWERTY-keyboard or touch screen. The poor environmental image of the video camera could, again,
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
84
table 10 Mean averages of the answers to questions in the technology questionnaire
“In your opinion, what happens to the perceived environmental friendliness of the mobile device when the following feature is added?”
Mean Average
I can take pictures with my mobile device. (camera) 2.2
I can listen to music. (music player) 2.3
I can listen to the radio. (radio) 2.6
I can watch television. (3G / DVB-H) 1.8
I can easily increase the number of pictures and music I can carry with me in my mobile device. (memory card slot) 3.3
I can record video footage. (camera) 2.0
I can view and send live footage of myself when I am on the mobile device. (video calls) 1.0
I can surf the Internet. (Internet browser, 3G / GPRS) 2.8
My mobile device is a 3G –mobile device (3G) 3.0
I can read my e-mail. (e-mail agent, 3G / GPRS) 2.8
I can make calls also when abroad, as for example in the USA or Asia. (triband / quadband) 3.7
I can make internet calls with my mobile device, using for example Skype. (WLAN / VoIP / 3G) 3.3
I can make notes or text messages directly on the display of the mobile device or con-trol my mobile device by pressing the icons on the display with my finger. (Touch screen)
1.8
I can send messages that include text, pictures and sound. (MMS-messages, camera) 2.4
My mobile device can indicate to people who want to call me whether I am available or not even before they actually call me. (Presence notifier) 2.7
On my mobile device there is a key for each alphabet. (QWERTY –keyboard) 1.5
For playing music, my mobile device has separate play, stop, and rewind/fast forward keys. (Music control keys) 2.2
I can open e-mail attachments with my mobile device. (Office document viewer) 2.8
My mobile device has a loudspeaker, so I can speak on the mobile device without hold-ing the mobile device in my hand. (loudspeaker hands free function) 2.2
I can connect hands free, laptop computer or other equipment to my mobile device without wires. (Bluetooth) 2.8
My mobile device can tell me my location and inform me about the services close to me as well as show me the route to a desired destination. (GPS, navigation software) 3.0
In general, does the number of features affect the experienced environmental friendli-ness of the product? 2.1
5 th
e qu
alit
ativ
e re
sear
ch: fi
ndin
g th
e hy
poth
eses
85
be related to the issue of excessive, non relevant features. Interestingly, the partici-pants did not think of dematerialization, since if that would have been the case, features as mobile TV, video camera, video calling, touch screen and QWERTY-key-board would have done better in the ranking. Naturally, the lack or the existence of user experience of a given technology affects the results.
GPS, internet calling, triband/quadband, 3G and the memory card slot did well in the ranking. They all received an average grade of three or more, indicating their generally more positive environmental message. All of these use-scenarios were probably rather familiar to the participants and easily comprehensible. Possibly, most of them are also features the participants had already used on an everyday basis, at least in discussions. The familiarity of the features might have created an image of necessity, where the more unfamiliar features might have seemed as something vain or excess.
The possibility of making calls abroad with one’s own mobile device (triband/quadband) scored the highest points. In this case, the link to savings is so clear and concrete that it must have affected the grades; if the device has triband/quadband – possibilities, one manages with one device all over the world, and no other de-vice is required when crossing the borders.
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
86
6 THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: TOWARDS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.1 aim of the survey & eco-points used in the survey analysis
The quantitative research was conducted after the analysis of the qualitative data. The aim was to find and verify which types of appearance characteristics con-sumers perceive as environmentally friendly, and which could therefore be used to design products which communicate green values. The survey was hoped to succeed in the area where the interviews did not, that is, revealing clear differences between the devices perceived most and least environmentally friendly and show-ing tendencies in the more and less environmentally friendly design styles. In this chapter, the results from the survey regarding our target group are presented and the results of other segments are left out.
The survey was based on the same basic structure as the interviews; the charac-teristics to be evaluated were divided into colors, materials, design styles, general attributes and technologies. The participants were presented with verbal, non-nu-merical alternatives. In the survey, the items were not placed in an order of envi-ronmental friendliness by the participants, but their environmental friendliness was evaluated individually. Therefore, the eco-points in the survey were formed in a different manner than in the interviews, and the eco-point results from the qualitative and quantitative research can not be compared. The colors, materials and design styles were ranked after the survey by giving them eco-points accord-ing to the answers of the target group. If a characteristic element was considered as “very environmentally friendly”, it gained 4 eco-points. If it was considered as “environmentally friendly”, it gained 3, “non-environmentally friendly” gained 2 and “very non-environmentally friendly” 1 eco-point. In the survey results, the number of eco-points that divide eco and non-eco items can be defined and used to generate a general division of the items. With a sample of 109 participants, the minimum number of eco-points would be 109 and the maximum 436 eco-points. Therefore, the midpoint between the maximum and the minimum, the neutral line, is 272.5 eco-points.
6.2 color evaluations
There were 12 colors in the survey and half of them were regarded eco-colors (positive eco-points). The results are visualized in Figure 23. Green was the supreme eco-color, but white and blue were also considered definite eco-colors. Violet, on the other hand, was the supreme non-eco-color. Reds and black were
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
87
considered definite non-eco-colors. Yellow and mid-grey were slightly non-eco-colors, whereas unsaturated blue, pastel turquoise and pastel blue were slightly eco-colors (>272.5 eco-points). It is worth noticing that the neutral line is at 272.5 eco-points, which makes pastel blue slightly eco and grey slightly non-eco.
figure 24 Rank order correlation of colors (y-axis shows the rank of the color, x-axis the color)
Eco-points
figure 23 Ranking of colors in eco-points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Qualitative Research Ranking
Quantitative Research Ranking
Unsatu
rated
Blue
Green
Paste
ll Tur
qouis
e
White
Blue Yello
wGray
50%
Unsatu
rated
Red
Black
Paste
ll Blue
Paste
ll Red
Violet
ranking results from qualitative and quantitative research: colors
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
88
Comparing the results from quantitative and qualitative research shows that the results correlate (Figure 24). The rank order correlation was high; 0.85 (-1≤x≥1). Thus, the hypotheses, the conclusions from interviews, can be accepted. At this stage, however, it must be noticed that some colors might have had different ap-pearance in the two researches, since in an Internet survey the appearance of colors is dependent on monitor settings, and lighting may have had an influence on colors in interviews.
6.3 material evaluations
The more natural the material was, the more environmentally friendly it was perceived to be. There were 15 materials, and seven of them were regarded as eco-materials (more than 272.5 eco-points) (Figure 25). Dark colored wood was the supreme eco-material while stone and light colored wood were other signifi-cant eco-materials. Interestingly, dark wood was more eco than light wood, even though dark wood might have a more significant actual environmental effect, if it e.g. originates from rain forests. Still, dark wood has more “wooden appearance” than light wood, which might be the reason for the difference.
figure 25 Ranking of materials in eco-points
Eco-points
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
89
Leather and textiles, as well as hardboard were considered to be eco-materials. Metals as raw materials were considered to be slightly non-eco, excluding alumi-num which was definitely considered to be a non-eco-material. Metallic net with diamond-shaped pattern was rather a non-eco-material, while metallic net with circular pattern was significantly considered to be a non-eco-material. Both sam-ples of the blend of minerals and polymer were definite non-eco-materials. Acrylic was the supreme non-eco-material.
Comparing the results from quantitative and qualitative research, it can be stated that the results correlate (Figure 26). The rank order correlation was high; 0.73 (-1≤x≥1). Materials might have had different appearance between tests, since in the Internet survey, the appearance of materials is dependent on monitor settings and in the interviews, the participants were also able to make judgments based on how the material feels and how much it weights. At least the stone-like blend of minerals and polymer was considered in the interviews to be more like stone and it ranked higher than in the survey. In the survey, the participants were shown a picture of the material and informed that is was a blend of minerals and acrylic polymers, which most likely affected the mental image negatively.
figure 26 Rank order correlation of materials (y-axis shows the rank of the material, x-axis the material)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Light
color
ed w
ood
Stone
Dark co
lored
woo
d
Blend
of m
ineral
s and
poly
mer
(sto
ne-lik
e)
Chipbo
ard
Alum
inium
Blend
of m
ineral
s and
poly
mer
(whit
e)
Metallic
net
Acryl
icMost Eco
Qualitative Research Ranking
Quantitative Research Ranking
ranking results from qualitative and quantitative research: materials
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
90
6.4 mobile device evaluation
The number of devices in the survey test was 21, including models mostly from Nokia but also from Samsung, Motorola, BenQ-Siemens, Panasonic and SonyErics-son. Some of them were older models that are no longer in production. Interest-ingly, the results showed that all devices were considered to be non-environmen-tally friendly by eco-points. Nevertheless, there are differences between different models (Figure 27 and Figure 28). The number of neutral points would have been 272.5. Nokia 3100 almost reached the neutral level with its 263 eco-points. Simple and quite modern “candybar” monoblock devices were considered to be only slightly on the non-eco side, while more detailed devices with techno-look were definitely on the non-eco side, Nokia E61 PDA-like device being the supreme non-eco-device.
Comparing the results from quantitative and qualitative research, it can be con-cluded that there is a very low correlation (Figure 29). The rank order correla-tion was weak; 0.16 (-1≤x≥1). It should be noticed that devices might have had different appearance in the survey and the interviews, since in the Internet survey, the appearance of devices are dependent on monitor settings, and in interview discussion sessions, the participant could also make the judgments based on the feel of the object. The number of devices also differed; there were only 16 devices in the survey and more than 40 in the interviews. 15 of the devices were both in the qualitative and quantitative research.
Especially Nokia 3100 performed differently in these tests. It was the most envi-ronmentally friendly mobile device in the survey, but it ranked lowest in the in-terview sessions. This is very interesting considering the significance of the overall experience a product generates. This result underlines the importance of evaluating whole experiences and taking several senses into consideration, when designing products – not only sight. The difference can also be explained by the dashy covers that the mobile device had, which was easily seen when the mobile device was held in hand but difficult to notice when presented in a picture. When a mobile device has a transformable form-factor or some extraordinary housing, it seems to make a noticeable difference that the mobile device can be touched and held in hand during its analysis.
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
91
1. Nokia 3100 2. Nokia 1101 3. Nokia 7360 4. Nokia 5100 5. Nokia 6310i 6. Nokia N80 7. Sony Ericsson Z530i
8. Nokia 7360 9. Nokia 3210 10. Samsung SGH-E760 11. Nokia 8800 12. Motorola Razr 13. Nokia 7373
14. BenQ-Siemens SL91 15. Nokia N91 16. Nokia 6820 17. Nokia 7280 18. Nokia 3250 19. Panasonic X500
20. Samsung SGH-Z540 21. Nokia E61
figure 27 Ranking of mobile devices in eco-points
figure 28 Pictures of mobile devices in their ranking order
Eco-points
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
92
figure 29 Rank order correlation of mobile devices (y-axis shows the rank of the mobile device, x-axis shows the mobile device model)
6.5 general attributes and technology evaluation
Other attributes that could affect the perceived environmental friendliness were tested with a list of attributes. From the list, the participants could pick as many attributes as they incorporate with environmental friendliness. All the votes that an attribute received were counted together in order to form the total score.
Good quality (70%) and durability (64%) were considered to be the most impor-tant attributes (Figure 30). Technical simplicity (45%), modest style (41%), high price (44%) and compact size (39%) were also quite important attributes, as well as lightness (29%) and effectiveness (29%). Only few participants of the target group considered big size (3%), low price (3%), poor quality (2%) and showiness (2%) to be attributes of an environmentally friendly product.
Participants were also asked to grade the perceived environmentally friendliness of six different types of mobile devices. Grades were given from four to ten. This section is parallel to the previous technology questions. The highest mean value of grades was given to a ‘durable mobile device’ (7.9) while the ‘basic mobile device’ received a grade of 7.6, being the other of the two most environmentally friendly types (Figure 31). Video mobile device (6.3), camera mobile device (6.6), music mobile device (6.5) and data mobile device (6.5) were quite close to each other and they were all less eco. Based on the results, it seems that these mobile devices can be divided into two basic categories according to their perceived environmental friendliness: durable & basic, and devices with entertainment & multimedia features.
Qualitative Research Ranking
Quantitative Research Ranking
ranking results from qualitative and quantitative research: mobile phones
123456789101112131415
Nokia
7360
(warm
ambe
r)
Most Eco Nokia
6310
Sam
sung
SHG-Z5
40
Sony
Erics
son
Z530
i
BenQ-S
iemen
s SL9
1
Nokia
7360
(cof
fee b
rown)
Nokia
3210
Sam
sung
SGH-E
760
Nokia
5100
(gre
en)
Nokia
7280
Nokia
N91
Nokia
N80
Pana
sonic
X500
Nokia
3250
Nokia
3100
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
93
figure 30 General attributes ranking
figure 31 Grades for general mobile phone types. Scale from 4 to 10 (Finnish school grades)
which of the following attributes do you link with an environmentally friendly product:Votes given
how environmentally friendly do you perceive the following types of mobile phones (grades from 4 to 10):
Grades
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
94
6.6 brand evaluation
Branding is an essential part of a product’s marketing and it can convey up to six levels of meaning: attributes, benefits, values, culture, personality, and user. (Aaker & Joachimsthaler 2002, 43–47). Therefore, it is also an essential part of the creat-ing of meanings. In the Finnish mobile device market, the devices are sold with the manufacturer’s brand name, which allows the brand’s communicative qualities to be fully utilized. On other markets, as for example the U.S., these devices are often sold with the brand of the service operator, such as Cincular. Most brands in the Finnish mobile device market are monolithic, and thus the consumers can easily connect the product and the company that has manufactured it.
The Internet survey included two questions concerning the perceived environ-mental friendliness of consumer electronics brands. The participants were asked to choose three most and least environmentally friendly brands. The votes given were summed up and the figures below present the total number of votes. Nokia was the supreme eco-brand and more than half of the participants (53 votes) in the target group considered Nokia to belong to the three most environmentally friendly brands (Figure 32). In addition, Whirlpool (40 votes), Apple (27 votes), Electrolux (27 votes), Miele (26 votes) and Bang&Olufsen (22 votes) performed well in the survey.
The least environmentally friendly brands included Samsung (37 votes), LG (29 votes), Motorola (28 votes), Dell (22 votes) and Braun (18 votes) (Figure 33). It is worth noticing that Braun ranked fifth, even though it had been number seven when asking the most environmentally friendly brands.
On December 6th 2006, when the survey was being finalized, Greenpeace pub-lished their ranking of top 14 consumer electronic manufacturers according to their policies on toxic chemicals and recycling (Guide to Greener Electronics, 2006). In the evaluation, the ranking criteria reflected the demands Greenpeace have set for companies: first, companies need to clean up their products by elimi-nating hazardous substances, and second, they need to take-back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete. Companies score marks out of 30, which were then re-calculated to give a mark out of ten for simplicity (Figure 34).
The topical and recent evaluation presented a good opportunity to compare the perceived environmental friendliness to genuine environmental friendliness. In Figure 35 the results from both our survey and the Greenpeace evaluation are presented.
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
95
figure 32 Ranking of the most environmentally friendly brands
figure 33 Ranking the least environmentally friendly brands
from the consumer electronics brands below, choose three(3) that you perceive most environmentally friendly:
from the consumer electronics brands below, choose three(3) that you perceive least environmentally friendly:
Number of votes received
Number of votes received
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
96
figure 34 The Greenpeace ranking of consumer electronics (Guide to Greener Electronics 2006)
figure 35 Comparison of brand rankings: our survey and Greenpeace evaluation
Nokia did well in both our survey and the Greenpeace evaluation, although the fact that all survey participants were Finnish might have had an effect on the results of our survey. This is based on an assumption that Finnish people are proud of No-kia’s achievements, and they are better aware of Nokia’s efforts for good corporate citizenship. Most surprising was the ranking of Apple: it was perceived as the third most environmentally friendly brand, but when evaluating its genuine environ-mental friendliness, it ranked lowest. Apple’s latest products are known for their extremely simple and compact design, which could explain the good ranking in our survey. In addition, however naïve, Apple’s logo carries a direct link to nature, which also affect the perceived environmental friendliness. In the lack of better tools to evaluate environmental friendliness of consumer electronics, consum-ers might turn to even the simplest clues offered – such as an image of an apple, flower, etc.
survey 1. Nokia 2. Whirlpool 3. Apple 4. Electrolux 5. Miele
greenpeace 1. Nokia 2. Dell 3. Motorola 4. Fujitsu-Siemens 5. Sony Ericsson
top 5 MOST environmentally friendly
survey 1. Samsung 2. LG 3. Motorola 4. Dell 5. Braun
greenpeace 1. Apple 2. Toshiba 3. LGE 3. Samsung 5. Panasonic
top 5 LEAST environmentally friendly
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
97
Also the rankings of Motorola and Dell varied between our research and Green-peace’s research; they were both ranked very non-environmentally friendly by the survey participants but they both performed well in the Greenpeace evaluation. Fujitsu-Siemens did not make it into the top five brands in the survey even though also Greenpeace ranked it fourth best in their evaluation. Fujitsu-Siemens was also acknowledged the Nordic Swan label, Joutsenmerkki, and the event was covered by the media only a moment before our survey was launched (Fujitsu Siemens Com-puters Oy; Aulio 2006). This did not, however, affect the results of the survey.
The Greenpeace evaluation did not cover an analysis concerning domestic ap-pliances. According to our interviews, people seem to easily link environmental considerations to domestic appliances, which could also explain their good rank-ing in our survey. Additionally, domestic appliances are usually white and have a humble appearance, which were considered as characteristics of an environmen-tally friendly product. In addition, attributes such as energy efficiency, excellent washing results and compactness are often seen in marketing advertisements for domestic appliances. (Figure 36)
figure 36 An example of advertisement for home appliances that mention the energy classification (Musta Pörssi Oy)
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
98
6.7 semiotic analysis of the mobile devices in the survey: the breakdown of the three most and least green devices
In this chapter, we take a closer look at the mobile devices that were perceived the most and the least environmentally friendly in our survey. For this analysis, we have taken six mobile devices; three that were perceived most environmentally friendly and three that were perceived least environmentally friendly by the survey participants. Analyzing these “survey winners and losers” helps in understanding why these specific mobile device models performed so well or so poorly in the survey. We believe that the semiotic analysis will give us indications on what is perceived environmentally friendly and non-friendly in mobile device design and appearance.
6.7.1 the three most environmentally friendly mobile devices
Nokia models 3100, 7360 and 1101 were the top environmentally friendly mobile devices in our survey, which means they were perceived as most environmentally friendly by the survey participants. In the next few pages, we will analyze the appearance of these three models. They will first be analyzed separately based on the four product dimensions named in the study of semiotics. After the separate analysis of each device, the reasons for their success in the survey will be discussed.
6.7.1.1 nokia 3110
Nokia 3100 is a monoblock, “candy bar” mobile device with no hinge mecha-nisms (Figure 37). It has a classic composition of main interaction components of a monoblock mobile device (from top): loudspeaker, LCD display, buttons, and micromobile device. Relatively simple layout combines slightly curved, upwards widening form, the straight square of the display and more complex lines of the buttons. The ‘horns’ in the upper part of the device soften the overall image of the device. The lower buttons are attached in the horizontal axis. They are broken with more aggressive vertical ‘cuts’. These cuts create vertical lines, which combine the lower buttons with the upper buttons. Color palette ranges from calm and sensi-tive shades of blue of the product housing to the clean white of the buttons while black frame clearly defines the LCD screen. Textures vary from moderate, matte texture in the housing and fine texture in the buttons.
The device housing for Nokia 3100 is made from injection molded, semitranspar-ent plastic (PC+ABS). Transparency might be difficult to notice merely by looking at a picture, like in the Internet survey. The overall image of the device is hum-ble, not very expensive. Simplicity as opposed to complexity could function as a
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
99
subconscious link to saving resources of nature rather than consuming them. The styling of the lower buttons together with the blue and white colors of the device could function as a metaphor of a fluttering Finnish flag. Among the Finnish citi-zens, this metaphor could function as a secondary semantic link to Finnish values on a subconscious level.
The Nokia 3000 Series is called the Expression Series. It is designed for people who want to make their mobile device look personal. In this device, entertainment and the possibility of enhancing visual aesthetics by changing covers are combined to simplicity. The device itself does not offer camera or radio, but thye can be at-tached to it by using Pop-Port terminal. The Nokia 3100 has optional covers that glow in the dark in order to focus attention on the device and to ease finding the device in the dark. These characteristics were not obvious in the survey, but none-theless, some of the participants may have had previous experience of the device, which naturally affected the results.
6.7.1.2 nokia 1101
The Nokia 1101 is a monoblock mobile device with no hinge mechanisms (Figure 38). It has a classic composition of the main interaction components of a mono block mobile device (from top): loudspeaker, LCD display, buttons, and micro-mobile device. Curved lines are predominant in the device. The upwards tighten-ing rhythm of the buttons combined with the multiple frames around the screen emphasize the importance of this area. Bi-coloration is predominant in the device. The color palette varies from shades of gray to the silver of the buttons. Textures vary from moderate texture of the housing to the smoothness of the buttons. The leading design idea in the device is the uniform buttons-cover, leaving no gaps be-tween the buttons. This particular technical solution has already been seen in 1972 with the introduction of Divisumma 18, a calculator designed by Mario Bellini. (World Design 2000, 39).
figure 37 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 3100
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
100
In this device, the housing is made form injection molded plastic (PC+ABS). Buttons-cover is made from more elastic material than other areas of the hous-ing. Nokia 1101’s simple overall style combined with the black and white display creates a humble image. Simplicity as opposed to complexity could function as a subconscious link to saving resources of nature rather than consuming them.
Nokia 1000 series is called the Ultrabasic Series. The Nokia 1101 is designed to be as basic as a mobile device can be. It offers simplicity with low budget and without unnecessary advanced features beyond making calls, sending and receiving SMS messages and showing time. It has a long operational time, since it uses the same battery as the more advanced models, but it does not consume power as much as they do. 1101 has also a flashlight and it can be personated with colored covers. Technical simplicity and consideration of points of expediency could also function as a link to saving natural resources.
6.7.1.3 nokia 7360
The Nokia 7360 is also a monoblock, “candy bar” mobile device with no hinge mechanisms (Figure 39). It has a classic composition of the main interaction components of a monoblock mobile device (from top): loudspeaker, LCD display, buttons, and micromobile device. The lines are straight with relatively large fillets, associating the device with the ’70s -style. The color palette varies from different shades of gray to elegant shades of champagne and silver. Textures vary from mod-erate, matte texture to glossy, shiny finishing. Fresh overall image combined with a sophisticated leaf pattern, which is located in the area around the large color display, creates a modern look. The device housing is made from leather-inspired materials, plastics, etched metal, and transparent surfaces.
Nokia 7360 is a relatively expensive looking device with an updated and a more feminine style. The sophisticated leaf pattern functions as a secondary semantic link
figure 38 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 1101
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
101
and associates the product on a subconscious level with nature. Nokia 7360 of-fers primarily high aesthetics but it also includes everything that a normal mobile device user needs.
6.7.1.4 conclusions from the analysis of the top three
In our survey, none of the 21 mobile devices were considered to be environmen-tally friendly. Nevertheless, the simple monoblock devices were perceived least harmful to the environment, whereas mobile devices with transformable form-factors performed consistently worse. All the five most environmentally friendly devices were monoblocks without transformable form factors. Remarkably, all the seven monoblocks used in the survey were in the top nine in the ranking (Figure 40). Based on these results, it seems that monoblock devices are perceived less harmful to the environment than other types of mobile devices such as swivel mobile devices, slider mobile devices, clam shell mobile devices and the so called lipstick mobile device.
Transformable form factor (see e.g. Figure 40, devices ranked 15th and 16th) makes the housing of the mobile device mechanically more complex when com-pared to the monoblock devices. The devices with transformable form factors have two or more moving parts. They are mechanically more complex, which applies to the actual technical features, such as moving parts and hinges. In some models, transformability also affects the visual appearance of the product, making them to look more technical and complex. When these two types of devices are compared with each other in regard to simplicity vs. complexity, monoblocks can generally be regarded simpler than devices with a transformable form factor.
Monoblock devices can also be considered easier to approach, and they offer easy and intuitive ergonomics compared to device models with transformable form factors. This is partly because the layout of the main human-machine interaction
figure 39 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia 7360
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
102components (micromobile device, buttons, display and loudspeaker) represents a familiar interface to the consumers. Even if one has never owned or used one, one would still know how to hold it – thanks to the intuitiveness of the form. With a quick glance at this type of device, the product’s form communicates to us which way to hold it (layout), how to interact with it (buttons) and where to look for a dialogue (display). On a subconscious level, this makes the device easier to ap-proach than a technical looking device with a transformable form factor, which ‘hides’ its secrets. The generally more approachable appearance of monoblocks may be one of the reasons for the greener image. Technicality, on the other hand, can be regarded as a ‘hard’ value and it istherefore in conflict with the green message.
The Nokia models 3100 and 1101, which were ranked first and third in our sur-vey, are both relatively inexpensive, monoblock mobile devices. Naturally the price (perceived and known) of these two models is closely linked with the style and technical features found in them. Attributes that describe the device models in this specific segment are: simplicity, modesty and humbleness. Interestingly, these same attributes were mentioned by the interview participants when asked for features that they thought would best describe environmentally friendly mobile devices. Simplicity, durability and modest style were explicitly named to be related with environmentally friendly products.
Nokia 3100 and 1101 were perceived as the two greenest mobile devices, and they both belong to the same product segment. Nokia 7360, on the other hand, was perceived as the third most environmentally friendly mobile device in the survey, and it belongs to a different segment. While modest style fits models 3100 and 1101, that is clearly not the case as regards the 7360 model; this model stands out
figure 40 The mobile devices in the order of their ranking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11
1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
103
with its features and styling. The Nokia 7360 is a more expensive mobile device with looks and features that match the higher price. As stated before, this mobile device is also a monoblock model, and because of this feature, its ranking is, to a certain extent, supported by the simplicity vs. complexity factor discussed earlier in this chapter. Interestingly, in terms of materials, there is a significant difference between the 7360 model and the other two winners. Whereas the housings of the 3100 and the 1101 are entirely plastic, the 7360 has a metallic component on the upper part of the housing. The introduction of metallic material might add per-ceived durability and quality, which are both explicitly mentioned as values related to environmental friendly products. In addition, important is the fact that not only were metals perceived more environmentally friendly than plastics in the survey, but this fact was also explicitly mentioned by the participants in the interviews.
There is another interesting visual aspect in the 7360 model that adds to the perceived environmental friendliness of this particular mobile device. On the face of the housing, a sophisticated leaf pattern graphics circles around the display. Our studies in the field of product semantics, and more specifically, visual cues and semantic links, show that this kind of feature associates the product more towards environmental values. The leaf pattern links semantically to nature, and thus it visually reflects these values more than the same product without the pattern. This might sound obvious or even naïve, but as presented in chapter 3, both linguistic and visual languages are learned. As our research has shown, in the case of eco-lan-guage, the development of the language is just starting, and the language is not yet as sophisticated as a linguistic language. Therefore, consumers searching for clues of environmental friendliness rely on even the simplest clues – such as the leaf pat-tern graphics.
Naturally, an important aspect of a product in any visual analysis is also the color of the housing. Interestingly in our study, the most environmentally friendly ranked colors were also present in the top ranking mobile devices accordingly. In terms of colors, a specifically interesting correlation can be found in Nokia 3100, the model that was perceived as the most environmentally friendly. The housing of this particular model combines two colors, white and blue, which in the color rankings scored second and third. This confirms the consistency of the results, at least as regards colors, mobile device types and general attributes.
6.7.2 the three least environmentally friendly mobile devices
Panasonic X500, Samsung SGH-Z540 and Nokia E61 are models which, according to our survey, were perceived the least environmentally friendly. In the next few pages, we will first analyze the appearance of these three models separately, based
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
104
on the four product dimensions. After these separate analyses, the reasons for their poor ranking will be discussed. In the discussion, the reasons for the following results are analyzed.
6.7.2.1 panasonic x500
The Panasonic X500 is a mobile device with a slide-style hinge mechanism (Figure 41). Design style is dominated by a combination of perfectly strait vertical lines with relatively large rounded fillets, together with perfectly circular buttons. The overall image of the device is somewhat clumsy and bulky. The central button does not seem to fit the top side of the housing. The multiple frames around the display create a strong perspective inwards the device emphasizing the importance of this area. The texture is smooth and uniform, metallic. The color palette varies from different tonalities of gray to metallic silver and black.
figure 41 Syntactical breakdown of the Panasonic X500
The device housing in Panasonic X500 seems to be made of plastic. It offers all basic functions of a modern mobile device, including, for example, a HTML web browser, a camera and a Java MIDP. The looks of the device place it to the fast moving Asian market, with no obvious associations to nature or environmental friendliness. The form and the general image could seem a bit ‘foreign’ for Finn-ish persons and their values. Panasonic mobile devices are not sold on the Finnish market, which makes it less familiar to the participants of the survey, and which must have affected the general opinion among the survey participants.
6.7.2.2 samsung sgh-z540
The Samsung SGH-Z540 is a clamshell mobile device with a flip-style hinge mechanism (Figure 42). It has straight general lines but plenty of details, which
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
105
make the overall look complex and technical. The texture of the housing is smooth, to which the highly glossy finishing of the display functions as a strong contrast. The color palette is uniform: gun metal type, anthracite, and dark grey.
In this device, the housing seems to be made from plastic. This highly techni-cal looking device holds many styling details that could be borrowed from the world of car styling. The central backbone, which divides the housing in two in the vertical axis, is like a bonnet of a car. In addition, the various “air intakes”, located around the housing associate the product with something that belongs to the highway. When all this is combined with the almost black anthracite color of the housing, associations to military hardware are easier to find than subconscious links to nature – which explains the poor ranking in our research.
The Samsung SGH-Z540 offers high speed data transfer and dual camera setup for easy videoconferencing. It also has stereo loudspeakers and dedicated keys for music playback. The device has a higher than average price but also a long list of functionalities, and it is therefore targeted to more advanced users.
6.7.2.3 nokia e61
The Nokia E61 is a wider monoblock mobile device with QWERTY-buttons (Fig-ure 43). It has no hinge mechanisms. While the composition of the main compo-nents is the same as in the classic mono block mobile devices, the added QWERTY-buttons and the bigger display result in much wider product housing and make the device seem somewhat disproportioned, when compared to normal mono block mobile devices. The large number of buttons, together with the relatively large LCD screen, creates a complex visual image, and the result is a highly techni-cal looking device. Straight and semi curved lines are predominant in the device. The color palette varies from shades of grey to silver. The color of the interface is blue and yellow.
figure 42 Syntactical breakdown of the Samsung SGH-Z540
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
106
The mobile device housing of the Nokia E61 is made from injection molded plastic (PC+ABS) as well as metal alloys (MG-AL). The big number of buttons together with the large screen and the silver color result in a highly technical look-ing device, which seems to fit a professional environment. It is easy to associate the product with the fast moving world of business, with no obvious links to nature or environmental friendliness. Nokia Enterprise solutions are products called the Nokia E-Series. The Nokia E61 is a smartmobile device that is targeted to business users who need to use corporate email with their mobile device. It has multiple options to offer great connectivity with different kind of networks and infrastruc-tures.
6.7.2.4 conclusions from the analysis of the bottom three
In our survey, the simple monoblock mobile devices were perceived least harm-ful to the environment. The three models that are now under analysis represent the other end of the ranking. From the twenty-one mobile devices that were used in our survey, the models Samsung-Z540, Panasonic X500 and Nokia E61 were perceived as the least environmentally friendly by the participants. While all three of these mobile devices have different styling, different technical features and represent different types of form factors, technical and somewhat aggressive overall looks is common for them all.
The mobile device model that was perceived as the least environmentally friendly in the survey was Nokia E61. This particular model has no moving parts or, in oth-er words, hinge mechanisms in its housing, and as such it could even be consid-ered as some sort of monoblock by definition. While this may be true, the model looks very different as compared to the other monoblocks used in the survey. A feature which really separates the Nokia E61 from the other monoblocks are the QWERTY-buttons, and because of this, the general proportions of this device are unique. The stretched proportions together with the large number of buttons make
figure 43 Syntactical breakdown of the Nokia E61
6 th
e qu
anti
tati
ve r
esea
rch:
tow
ards
the
des
ign
guid
elin
es
107
the device look highly technical and visually complex. While simplicity and mod-est looks were both mentioned as values associated to environmentally friendly products, this is clearly not the case with the Nokia E61. Technical and complex looks as opposed to simplicity, together with the silver color of the housing, can be considered as the main reasons why this particular model was perceived the least environmentally friendly in our survey.
Even though the silver color was not among the other colors in the survey, it is remarkable that this particular color, together with black and pastel red, is predom-inant among the 12 mobile devices that were perceived as the most harmful to the environment; black and shades of red were ranked non-eco also in the ranking of colors, and grey, being close to the color silver, was also ranked on the non-green side. Up to some extent, we can consider the results of grey indicating the results of the silver-colored mobile devices. Thus, it can be stated that color-wise, the results from the ranking of colors and materials (as well as the results from the interviews) correlate.
The second least environmentally friendly mobile device model is the Samsung SGH-Z540. The black, gun-like, color of the housing has a strong influence on the overall looks of the mobile device. Based on our research, we can assume that the use of black color together with the aggressive styling must have been the main factors affecting the perceived environmental friendliness, and the poor ranking of this mobile device. In our research, environmental friendliness was often related to so called soft values, which this mobile device does not communicate.
The mobile device that was perceived as the third least environmentally friendly product in the survey is the Panasonic X500. This particular mobile device has Asian origins with a matching appearance. It has transformable form factor and, in order to be more precise, it represents a slide mobile device type in which the two halves of the mobile device, by definition, slide in opposite directions. This type of hinge mechanism allows compact overall size while the mobile device is not in use, revealing the buttons only when needed. This product is not sold in the Finn-ish market and due to this its visual language could seem foreign. Studies in the field of product semantics have shown that visual languages have cultural bonds, and since our study was made in Europe, or with Finnish citizens, to be more precise, the possible Asian appearance of the device can have influenced the results of the survey. What is considered good looking in one culture, or environmentally friendly for that matter, can be the opposite in another one. Interestingly, silver is the predominant color also in this mobile device.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
108
7 DESIGN GUIDELINES & ECO-CONCEPTS
7.1 design guidelines for environmentally friendly product appearance
In this chapter, we combine the results from our research and present them as a synthesis. We suggest the following subchapters to be used as a tool for product or concept design in order to produce an environmentally friendly appearance. The pictures combine the most relevant information, and therefore they can be used as guidelines for concept creation. We have first collected information for colors, ma-terials, design style and general attributes separately, but at the end of this chapter, a concept combination table combines the results from all the areas studied in our research.
7.1.1 colors
Figure 44 presents colors in the order of perceived environmental friendliness. The left side of the figure presents the colors that were perceived as communicating the message of environmental friendliness, and the right side of the picture presents the colors perceived as communicating a non-environmentally friendly message. The comments at the bottom of the picture are a breakdown and analysis of the survey results combined with the results from the interviews. The comments are linked to the colors directly above the comment.
A general division between the shades of blue and red can be done; the blues are generally regarded eco, and reds are generally regarded non-eco. It is likely that the nationality of the research participants affected the results, since white and blue, the national colors of Finland, performed well in the ranking. National pride as well as a general impression of Finland’s clean environment might partly be the reasons behind the results. As regards green, which was the premium eco-color, the pro-environmental message is learned. Green has been the traditional color used when communicating environmental friendliness. However, consumers seem to be becoming skeptical towards green, and therefore the use of this color should be careful.
Eco and non-eco colors can also be divided according to their coldness or warm-ness. Cold, pure and clean colors were more often considered environmentally friendly, whereas warm colors tended to be considered non-environmentally friendly. The combination of black with red or yellow was considered aggressive and alarming and does not therefore support the pro-environmental message.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
109
figure 45 Results and conclusions from material evaluations
figure 44 Results and conclusions from color evaluations
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
110
Pastel reds were considered colors of vanity, hence their non-eco image. From the results, general rules for color use can be derived. The most common colors for positive environmental appearance are– green– different shades of blue– white
The most common colors for negative environmental appearance are– black– different shades of red– yellow– silver
7.1.2 materials
Figure 45 presents the materials in the order of perceived environmental friendli-ness. The left side of the picture presents materials that were perceived to com-municate the message of environmental friendliness. The right side of the picture presents materials that were perceived to communicate a non-environmentally friendly message. The comments at the bottom of the picture are a breakdown and analysis of the survey results combined with the results from the interviews. The comments are linked to the materials directly above the comment.
Generally, the less refined the material, the stronger its pro-environmental message. Wood, stone, leather and textile were perceived more environmentally friendly than metals, plastics and processed wood products, such as chipboard. The mate-rial source for wood, stone, leather and textile is more familiar to consumers, and it is likely that therefore the route to the consumer is perceived shorter, and the material is perceived more eco. In addition, when the material source is familiar, as for example in the case of wood and stone, the connection to nature is easy to perceive. Therefore, also the eco-image of those materials is stronger.
As regards metals and plastics, on the other hand, the material source as well as the refinement process is not so well known. Therefore, the route to the consumer is also likely to be perceived long and consuming to the environment. As regards plastics and metals, the connection to industrial production is emphasized, which does not support a pro-environmental image. From the results, general rules for material use can be derived. Most common materials for positive environmental appearance are– raw natural materials– processed natural materials– natural material appearance
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
111
The most common materials for negative environmental appearance are– metals– polymer composites and plastics
7.1.3 design style
Figure 46 presents mobile devices in the order of perceived environmental friend-liness. The left side of the picture presents mobile devices that were perceived to communicate the message of environmental friendliness. The right side of the picture presents mobile devices that were perceived to communicate a non-envi-ronmentally friendly message. The comments at the bottom of the picture are a breakdown and analysis of the survey results combined with results from the inter-views. The comments are linked to the mobile devices directly above the comment.
figure 46 Results and conclusions from mobile device evaluations
Generally, monoblock mobile devices are perceived more environmentally friendly than mobile devices with transformable form factor. Monoblocks have a simple, purposeful appearance, which is regarded environmentally friendly. An efficient but uncomplicated appearance supports a pro-environmental message. The more stylish the mobile device appears, the less it seems to communicate an eco-mes-
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
112
sage. However, mobile devices that have nature-elements as their decoration seem to be perceived environmentally friendly. Nonetheless, the use of decoration, even when it has a nature link, has to be done carefully. As the semantic language of environmental friendliness develops and becomes more sophisticated, the direct links to nature, such as a flower pattern painted on the housing, may loose their credibility.
Stylish and more decorative mobile devices were considered vain, and therefore they did not support the pro-environmental message. Mobile devices with trans-formable form factor were considered less eco than monoblocks, which could be explained with their generally more technical appearance. The more technical and complex a mobile device appears, the less it supports a pro-environmental mes-sage. Silver, gray and black colors seem to increase the technical appearance and promote hard values, which do not support an environmentally friendly image. From the results, general rules for design style can be derived. Most common com-ments for positive environmental appearance of mobile devices are– simple monoblock– small & compact size– durable & reliable appearance
Most common comments for negative environmental appearance of mobile de-vices are– stylish appearance– technical & complicated appearance– delicate mechanisms, e.g. swivel mobile devices
7.1.4 general attributes and mobile device types
Figure 47 presents the general attribute and mobile device type evaluation results from the survey. The perceived environmental friendliness changes from environ-mentally friendly to non–environmentally friendly when moved towards right along the axis. The upper side of the picture presents the ranking of general at-tributes. The lower side of the picture presents the ranking of mobile device types.
The more complex, technical and showy the product appearance, the less it com-municates environmental friendliness. Good quality, durability, simplicity and modesty are attributes often linked with environmental friendliness. Likewise, durable mobile device and basic mobile device are mobile device types that are perceived to support the pro-environmental message. The more the mobile device moves away from its original purpose, enabling mobile device calls, the less eco it is perceived. However, this is something that might change over time, as camera mobile devices, data mobile devices, video mobile devices etc. come more com-
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
113
mon. Rules for the use of general attributes can be derived from the results. The most common comments for positive environmental appearance are – modesty, plainness & simplicity in design, impression and technologies– quality appearance– durable appearance– compactness (in size)
The most common comments for negative environmental appearance are– dashy, boasting or aggressive appearance– poor quality appearance (e.g. plastic appearance regarded low quality)– “alarming” colors– useless elements, too much decoration
7.1.5 concept combination table
The concept combination table (Figure 48) relies on the decomposed structure of a product and the freedom to choose from alternatives for each communica-tive element. The concept combination table presents the elements studied in this thesis, and it presents them in order of perceived environmental friendliness. As
figure 47 Results from general attribute and mobile device type evaluations
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
114
one moves towards right in Figure 48, the perceived environmental friendliness of the elements decreases.
When creating eco-concepts, attention needs to be paid to all the elements that affect the appearance: color, material, design style, technologies and general at-tributes. Every element has its own row in the concept combination table; differ-ent options for each feature are in rows and a product concept can be formed by combining one feature from each row. Concept combination table offers an overall view of all the choices to be made in concept design and, therefore, it also of-fers an idea of how environmentally friendly the concept is likely to be perceived. Choosing a combination of features does not lead spontaneously to a solution, but it helps concept creation by stimulating creative thinking.
General guidelines for an environmentally friendly product appearance were de-rived from the combined results, and the following suggestions were formed:– ICT is generally not related to environmental issues: build semantic links that
support this clean image.– Use the eco-attributes derived by this research as guiding ideas in the design-
process.– Use the concept combination table to check that none of the following is per-
figure 48 Concept combination table combines the results from all the studied elements
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
115
ceived non–environmentally friendly: colors, materials, design styles, attributes, and functionalities.
– Present technologies as enablers that help performing complex tasks with sim-plicity.
– If the result is to be a camera mobile device (which was generally not perceived environmentally friendly) other elements that have a stronger eco-message should be selected.
– E.g. if a mobile device is going to be simple and durable, colors and materials can be selected more freely.
– In regard to environmental friendliness, design is a stronger communicative ele-ment than material or color. In addition, material is a stronger communicative element than color.
– Brands carry strong environmental messages. A brand that is perceived to be pro-environmental enhances the overall image of an environmentally friendly mobile device.
7.2 bringing the guidelines to life: suggestions for eco-concepts
7.2.1 starting point for the eco-concepts
The eco design checklist, derived from the empirical research, was the starting point for the concept design. Guiding themes were first screened from the results and three ideas for concepts appeared: simplistic, humble & compact; sympathetic; good quality & durability. Alltogether, five concepts were created. After the five concept ideas had been shaped, each concept was broken down by its meaning; what does the concept idea really mean, what are the components of each idea, how are they expressed in existing products? Images of materials and products that expressed the characteristics found relevant to each concept were collected. Finally, we had five mood-boards that represented verbally as well as visually the building blocks of each concept.
Since a product is a compound semantic statement and usually has more than one semantic link, the concept creation was started by defining the primary and secondary links of each concept. The primary links are visual clues that act as codes and reveal the nature of a product concept; they establish a link with the primary category by revealing e.g. the ‘shoness’ of the shoe or the ‘cameraness’ of the camera. But, for example, product concepts such as “sports shoes” or “baby shoes” must simultaneously express both “shoness” and the secondary links; “sports thingness” and “baby thingness” respectively. In product forms, these secondary links are established by borrowing specific visual clues and images associated with
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
116
the concepts of ‘sportiness’ and ‘babyness’, and by consciously assimilating them with the expression of primary categories, such as shoes. It is not a process of superficial imposition of borrowed visual clues but a process of assimilating them with the primary message. (Vihma, 1990)
Conventional monoblock mobile devices held the top five in our research. A monoblock-mobile device expresses technical simplicity since the monoblock format is the most simplistic of the general forms used in mobile devices. It offers ease of use since the from-factor is not transformable. One can use it instantly without moving from transport-form to usage-form. Monoblocks also lack hinge mechanisms that could fail during the use phase. For this reason two concepts with a monoblock-link, and three concepts where neither the primary nor the second-ary link is a monoblock-mobile device were chosen.
7.2.2 simplistic, humble and compact
In this concept, the guidelines were simplicity, humbleness and compactness – all eco-attributes that rise from the research. As regards this concept, the intended primary link is a monoblock cell mobile device; the stripped-down plainness is the secondary link. In our research, the top five most environmentally friendly mobile devices were all monoblocks, which gave the Simplistic, Humble & Compact – concept the starting point.
The concept is derived from the research results where technically simple, simplis-tic, modest, humble and compact were all attributes often linked with an environ-mentally friendly mobile device. When implementing these features and attributes, we strived towards an entity that expresses purity and clarity, is free of vanity and is not ornate, complex or complicated. In addition, the key attributes are car-ried through with thrifty coloring and the use of subdued colors. Also, instead of printed graphics, the use of relatively rough 3D texture allows light and shadow to give the surface the desired effect, not only visually, but also hapticly. This enables reducing the use of different colors and materials, which intensifies the simplistic – more environmentally friendly – appearance. The collage for this concept por-trays products that demonstrate these characteristics (Figure 49).
At an early phase of the concept creation, the possible birch bark metaphor was noticed. In two of the models (A & E, Figure 50), the front and back faces and the bottom face are of the same material and imitate bark that covers wood. The texture of the housing imitates the annual growth lines of a tree.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
117
From the first visualizations, the process was continued by choosing three mod-els for further developing (Figure 50). After discussions, these three designs were found most exciting and potential for further development. At this point, the con-sideration for the colors to be used was also begun. Green, white and blue, which were the top three in the ranking of environmentally friendly colors, were chosen. Main dimensions were set to meet the best performers of the survey. Even though the thickness was later set to be smaller (thinness reflects compactness and light-ness, which were eco-attributes), we were careful not to exaggerate in this. The risk in making the mobile device too thin could have compromised the humble-ness, making the product seem technologically too advanced.
Even though simplistic is the driving force in this concept, some simple ornamen-tal elements were introduced to it (Figure 52). Our research supports the use of direct and even rather naïve hints of nature; a mobile device with flower-ornament was perceived the second most environmentally friendly mobile device. Thus, implementing some nature-themed ornate texture was considered important to experiment. However, we were careful to make the pattern simple and not too feminine or oriental. A dashy appearance should be avoided to keep the overall ap-pearance humble.
figure 49 Concept collage for the Simplistic, Humble and Compact (from top left: photo by Monika Szczygieł, Nexus Psile pc, Ecopod recycling center, Jukka Korpihete lamp, Emporio Armani perfume bottle, Apple mouse, George Jensen watch)
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
118
figure 50 First visualizations of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept. From left to right and top to bottom: A, B, C, D, E.
One of the most interesting findings during the research was that linguistic and visual semantics both have the same philosophical roots. As they are both lan-guages, and all languages are learned, also semantic language can also be learned. This was the starting point for the styling of the concept 1B, where it was assumed that during the past 15 years, the consumers have learned that eco-products have faded, non bleached colors and are made of natural fibers. The visual cues used for the concept 1B were carefully selected in order to connect the looks of the prod-uct housing to this specific, “traditional eco” style. As a direct link to nature, a leaf metaphor was used for the buttons styling in order to emphasize green values.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
119
figure 51 Second phase renderings of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept. From top left: concepts A, B and C.
figure 52 Third phase renderings of the Simplistic, Humble and Compact concept. From top left: concepts A, B and C.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
120
At this stage the size for the display was optimized by comparing it with mobile devices that were perceived environmentally friendly in the research. The Nokia 3100 with its square display came in first in the ranking and the Nokia 7360 with a rectangular 4:5 display came in second.
The size of the mobile devices follows the sizes of current mobile devices on the market. The width and the height of the mobile devices are within the same meas-ures of the current basic mobile devices, but the mobile devices in our concepts are slimmer than average mobile devices of today, yet without being quite as slim as the “trend mobile devices”, such as Motorola’s Razor or the Samsung’s Ultra-edition.
The use of relatively rough textures with direct links to nature, such as tree bark or flower vine in this case, also allows the product to emit the message of nature, not only via the visual channel when looking at the product, but also when touching it. During the research, the haptic dimension of products was noticed to be an important element in the overall greenness of the mobile devices. Therefore, this multi-sensorial message of nature underlines this direct linkage with green values (Figure 53).
figure 53 Final renderings of the Simplistic, Humble & Compact concept. From top left: concepts A, B and C.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
121
7.2.3 sympathetic
Research revealed that dashy and elegant appearances as well as big size were characteristics rarely connected with an environmentally friendly product. The Sympathetic –concept is built on the opposites of those attributes and it strives to implement features and elements that would evoke sympathetic feelings in people. Human beings are biologically prepared to perceive emotional states from every-thing they experience. People project their emotions to everything they experi-ence, interpret what they see and, in turn, their own emotions are affected (i.e. anthropomorphism). As emotions apply equally to living and non living, that is, to humans or for that matter mobile devices, a product can be interpreted to be e.g. sad, embarrassed or more interestingly to this concept sympathetic.
In our survey, the overall image of current mobile devices was generally not con-sidered to be in line with green values. All tested mobile devices scored relatively low in our survey, indicating us that making the concept look like something else than a mobile device could lead to better results. Thus, in this concept, the intend-ed primary link is compassion and affection and mobile device comes as a second-ary link.
Associations that are avoided with this concept are arrogant, proud or haughty, costly or luxurious. Instead, the concept is aimed at arousing affinity and mutual association. The product should have a friendly appearance. Sympathetic appear-ance can be expressed through playful proportions or chubbiness, like the ones found, for example, in a baby or puppy. By using this kind of visual language, we wanted to emphasize the anthropomorphic reaction that people experience when dealing with this concept. In order to help people feel compassionate towards a product, it should express being “alive”. Figure 54 presents images in which the key attributes and characteristics of the Sympathetic concept are expressed.
When designing ‘sympathetic’, it was a continuous struggle to keep from turning the concept into ‘naïve’ or ‘childlike’. This concept must first and foremost express soft values and compassion – and not look toy like. In Figure 55 the first visualiza-tions of the concept are presented. The mobile device combines two spheres and has on overall round appearance. Using touch screen as a basis for the user inter-face makes this design more alive compared to using conventional buttons and display. It also fits visually to the concept better than the buttons.
The feeling of an “alive” product was one of the ideas for this concept. Being alive could be imitated by parts that react to, for example, an incoming call or mes-sage. As illustrated in Figure 56, when an incoming call emerges, the “petals” of the mobile device open up revealing a blooming flower. In addition, a light that indicates the status of the mobile device was considered. The light could have acted
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
122
figure 54 Concept collage for the Sympathetic-concept (from top left: Ole Jensen tea pot, Iittala spoon, Vipp soap dispenser, Eero Aarnio lamp, Jeremy Cole lamp, Alessi Piripicchio fabric shaver, Volkswagen car)
figure 55 First visualizations of the Sympathetic concept
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
123
as a pulse, indicating the activity level of the mobile device when it is, for example, not in use, when a short message has been received, or it could indicate that a call has been missed.
During the development of the Sympathetic concept, several color schemes were experimented for the product housing. In the first phase (Figure 55), the used colors varied from light, not very saturated green to different shades of brown. In order to emphasize the link with nature, different organic surface textures, such as cork and leather, were also tried together with colors (Figure 57). After the first few tries, it was obvious that the results of these tests were unsatisfying. These ini-tial ideas were abandoned because of the over-organic, non-attractive look.
At the later stage, tests with bi-coloration and smooth textures were predominant, resulting to a fresh, environmentally friendly and foremost sympathetic look. The concept was finally presented in two colors, combining a delicate light blue and white together with a smooth surface texture. The smooth texture of the housing is aimed at strengthening the overall sympathetic appearance of the mobile device by activating the haptic dimension, which now expresses the main message of the concept. Both of the colors used in this concept ranked high in our survey in colors that express environmental values.
figure 56 An example of a “Being alive” product
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
124
figure 57 Second phase rendering of the Sympathetic concept
figure 58 Third phase renderings of the Sympathetic concept
figure 59 Final version of the Sympathetic concept
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
125
7.2.4 good quality and durability
From the results of our research, it was obvious that good quality and durability are considered environmentally friendly attributes. For this concept, the intended primary link was ‘mobile device’ and the secondary link was the ‘degree of excel-lence’. From the very beginning of the concept design, it was challenging to find ways to express good quality and durability through the appearance of a product. In Figure 60, images of products that express either good quality or durability are presented. Already the collage reveals the lack of a guiding idea, as the elements collected elements are rather solitary ideas that form no coherent concept.
The characteristics and guidelines listed for this concept were expedient, appropri-ate, scarce in elements, trustworthy, moderation, only the required, meant to be used, lasting enduring yet not sporty, not tool-like, androgynous, quality materials, first-class workmanship, elaborate details and skilled finishing. However, a conclu-sion was soon reached that good quality should apply to all products, and this ideology should be implemented into all concepts.
This concept was finally left out. Even though good quality is something to be ex-pressed in all products, durability, on the other hand, could have been turned into
figure 60 Concept collage for Good Quality & Durability (from top left: Asics running shoes, Iittala tea light holder, Fiskars scissors, Helkama bicycle, NollaNolla table, Interior of a Volvo car)
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
126
a concept of its own. Durability can be expressed, for example, through a tool-like appearance, but that might not support the image of an environmentally friendly mobile device. Tools express hard and cold values whereas soft values are perceived more environmentally friendly. A concept based on durability and environmental friendliness would require further studies.
7.2.5 forms designed by winter
The research did show definite correlation between elements of nature and the perceived environmental friendliness. From that perspective, two inspirational concepts were created and Forms Designed by Winter is the first of those. Here, the primary link is winter and the secondary link is cell mobile device. The guid-ing ideas in this concept were themes, such as evoked stillness, sleeping power, sparing, snow-covered forms, simple – yet efficient, northern lights, smoothened curves, ice, frost and transformation (Figure 61). Even though the form is abstract, it should not merely be a vague or obscure form.
In the first visualization (Figure 62), the form was imitating that of an ice forma-tion. A careful use of organic shapes in the product housing was the key in creat-ing the Forms Designed by Winter concept. With the freedom of concept design, the very strict and strait lines found in injection molded products in the market were challenged. This was done by implementing curved, ice-like features to the top part of the housing and to the delicate places like the part line of the housing. This emphasizes direct links to nature and creates a strong contrast to the existing products.
The initial form resembles Nokia’s Communicator PDA-mobile devices and therefore this concept was to follow other communicator-like design styles, such as clamshell, which has a hinge on the long side and a QWERTY-keyboard in the inside. After the first visualization, it was realized that the ice-like texture did not succeed in presenting our ideas, and thus we moved towards the appearance of a silver jewel with the characteristics of ice formations – such as in the concept col-lage. Although metallic materials were not considered very environmental friendly in our survey, in the Forms Designed by Winter concept it was thought that the or-ganic shapes were enough to create a link with nature and the product itself could appear jewel-like, as a beautiful product by itself – although not dashy (Figure 63 and Figure 64).
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
127
figure 61 Concept collage for Forms Designed by Winter (from top left: Finlandia Vodka advertisement, Noa Bembibre glass knives, photo by Tessa H., Iittala Glass, Björn Weckström jewelry, Ross Lovegrove water bottle, Philppe Starck dumbbell, photo by Wanko)
figure 62 First visualizations of the Forms Designed by Winter concept
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
128
figure 63 Second phase renderings of the Winter concept
figure 64 Final rendering of the Forms Designed by Winter concept
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
129
7.2.6 organic form
Organic form is the second of the two more inspirational concepts. This concept also has its basis in the research results, but the results are somewhat exaggerated and intentionally overdone. In this concept, the leading idea was to work on the terms of the material. Here, the primary link is natural form, and mobile device is the secondary link. The guiding idea was to allow the material to take its shape and give the form – not shape the product by or conforming to artificial rules. It should seem as the form has grown naturally and generated inviting forms. Figure 65 present the leading ideas and illustrations that support these ideas.
figure 65 Concept collage for Organic Form (from top left: Stew Design Workshops’ chair, photo by Lucre-tious, Maya Romanoff surfacing material, Petri Vainio lamp, Aero bowls, Residential Towers by Steven Holl, Space for Music by Martti Kalliala, Esa Ruskeepää and Martin Lukasczyk)
At a very early stage, it was decided that shapes and textures are borrowed from nature herself. The visualizations had very direct visual or functional links to na-ture. Different materials, such as the natural composites produced by the Finnish company called Kareline, were also considered to be used in the product housing. If used wisely, this would underline the link with nature and green values. Later on, with the introduction of the lamellar structure, it was decided that the ma-terials used for the housing were not taken into consideration, as the aim of the
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
130
project was to communicate green values through the looks of the product and not necessarily by the used materials.
The bark-concept (Figure 66) imitates bark both visually and functionally. The functional possibilities are enabled by the flexible organic light-emitting diode display (OLED). One of the great benefits of an OLED display over the traditional LCD display is that OLED does not require a backlight to function. This means that it draws significantly less power and, when powered from a battery, it can operate longer with the same charge. It is also known that the OLED based display devices can be more effectively manufactured than liquid-crystal and plasma displays. The fact that OLEDs can be printed onto flexible substrates opens the door to new ap-plications, such as roll-up displays or even displays embedded in clothing. How-ever, we soon noticed that there were already existing concepts very similar to this one, and thus we decided not to continue with this intriguing idea.
figure 66 First visualizations of the Organic Form concept. Left: Birch Bark concept, right: Egg concept
The egg-shaped concept (Figure 66) borrowed its timeless shape from a bird’s egg. In the first illustration, we tested the differences of having a simple texture painted on the surface and having a light revealing the details of the housing. The idea of having light indicating activity level or status, and making the product seem more “alive”, felt tempting. Therefore, for the next step we searched for different texture that could be used in creating an exciting and nature-like surface texture.
The texture in the second phase rendering (Figure 67) was considered too edgy and aggressively sharp by us. It did not express the softness that was believed an environmentally friendly product should communicate. We searched for a softer texture and arrived with the Cone concept (Figure 68), where the texture imitates the surface of a cone or a lamellar structure. The Egg concept turned into a Cone concept, which probably has a stronger eco-link in the Finnish culture.
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
131
figure 68 Final version of the Cone concept
figure 67 Second phase rendering for the Organic Form concept
7 de
sign
gui
deli
nes
& ec
o-co
ncep
ts
132
Because of the fact that the form of the housing, together with the lamellar struc-ture, was almost directly borrowed form nature, it was decided that the coloring and finishing had to be something totally unexpected. Leaving these two important features brown and matte would have left the housing looking like a real cone, and concept-wise somewhat unsurprising and uninteresting. Instead, it was decided to exaggerate with full force by coloring the housing with gold and giving it a very shiny and reflective finishing. This creates a perfect balance between organic, na-ture-born form and exclusive looks. The results are an interesting product concept with emotional bonds.
When compared to existing clamshell mobile devices in the market, several inter-esting details can be found from this concept. The lamellar structure as such is an obvious difference, but it does not end here. No part line can be seen in the hous-ing, as it is covered with the lamellar structure emphasizing the link with nature. In addition, when opened, the strait part line is hidden under the lamellar pattern leaving the two halves as organic as possible.
8 su
mm
ary
& re
com
men
dati
ons
133
8 SUMMARY
This thesis has presented how the green appearance of mobile devices can be improved. The aim of this study was to find ways to communicate environmen-tal friendliness through design style and appearance of products, in other words, through such elements as form color, material and technologies. Mobile devices were the products under study and the study focused on their perceived envi-ronmental friendliness, not the true environmental performance of the products. Therefore, it is important to understand that the results of this study are not neces-sarily in line with the real environmental friendliness of colors, materials, design and technologies.
The topic was studied through literature research and empirical research, which consisted of interviews and a survey. The theoretical background of this study is based on emotional design, semiotics and consumer behavior. Previous studies or literature on this specific area were rare or non-existing, which lead to conducting our own empirical research.
Generally, consumers are interested in buying environmentally friendly products, but they need to be motivated to carry out their interest as well as to be sufficiently informed. Environmental awareness is on the rise, and the demand for green prod-ucts is increasing. At the same time, consumers are also becoming more demand-ing towards green products, and they will not sacrifice their personal well-being, style or time for the better of the environment.
Products are more and more similar in technological terms and design style has become one of the most important means to differentiate products. Although product design is a central means of communication, it is still overlooked by most companies. Good design can be used to enhance the attractiveness of the green products as well as to communicate its pro-environmental message.
Semantics is the study of significance and the symbolic qualities of an object. It concerns the non-verbal communication of objects. Products can be designed to communicate information about themselves; their use, their meaning or values, such as environmental friendliness. Semantic language, just like linguistic lan-guages, can be developed and learned. Design language has emotional bonds that are linked with a person’s concerns, such as the concern for the environment. Therefore, emotions play a significant role in evaluating products. In this study, the focus was on finding ways to visually respond to the environmental concerns of the consumers with the means of product appearance, so that the product offers stimuli that supports the message of environmental friendliness.
8 su
mm
ary
& re
com
men
dati
ons
134
Currently, people do not think about environmental issues when they purchase ICT equipment, such as mobile devices. Environmental aspects more often affect the purchasing decisions of domestic appliances, such as refrigerators or laundry machines. Their classification system, which is based on energy consumption and performance, is well-known by consumers, and therefore it is a tool often used for evaluating the environmental friendliness of home appliances in a purchasing situation - this is a good example of an existing and generally mastered evaluation language. Even though ICT generally has a clean image, in our research all mobile devices were ranked as non-environmentally friendly. This contradictory result could be explained with the research situation that compelled the participants to think about environmental issues in a situation where they normally do not.
During the interviews, we found out that different design elements have a different impact on the perceived environmental friendliness; usually material was seen as a stronger communicator compared to color. The haptic feel of a material and the mobile device as a whole is also important when assessing the perceived environ-mental friendliness. Our research showed differences between the results of people who were able to hold the product in hand and the people who were not.
Mobile devices can be broken down into design elements such as color, material, design style, functionality, as well as into design attributes, such as size and weight. These elements affect the perceived environmental friendliness of mobile devices. According to our research, cold and pure colors are perceived environmentally friendly, while warm and more pastel and less saturated colors are perceived less environmentally friendly. Green, blue and white are the most environmentally friendly colors, while black and pink are perceived non-environmentally friendly. Furthermore, materials which have a direct link to nature, such as rock and wood, are perceived more environmentally friendly than industrially refined materi-als, like metals and especially plastics, which are perceived non-environmentally friendly. When it comes to design, simple and purposeful design style is perceived more environmentally friendly, while showy, technology-oriented and complicated design style is less environmentally friendly.
Attributes like durability and good quality are most essential to an environmentally friendly product. Modest style, high price, compact design and lightness are also attributes that are currently linked with environmental friendliness. Durable and basic mobile devices, which are meant to be more robust or just simple tools for dialing, are perceived to be the most environmentally friendly mobile device types. People have difficulties in evaluating the environmental friendliness of separate technological features. Technology is easier to evaluate when it is presented as an enabler, through a service offer.
8 su
mm
ary
& re
com
men
dati
ons
135
Mobile devices are sets of technologies, and the larger the number of technological features in a mobile device, the weaker the perceived environmental friendliness of that mobile device. Brands also have an impact on the perceived environmental friendliness of a product. As brands are a collection of values and other abstract attributes, consumers do not necessarily base their evaluation of the brands’ greenness on the true environmental performance, but on the overall image of the company. The product appearance and brand image together affect how environ-mentally friendly a product is perceived.
While some consumers want every possible feature to be included in their mobile devices, some people see mobile devices primarily as a tool for calling and text messaging. As became obvious in the interviews, people build mental models, or tools, to evaluate the environmental friendliness of a mobile device. Usually, these models are quite simple: a mobile device that has everything is environmentally friendly since it replaces multiple devices, or a mobile device that has only basic features is environmentally friendly since it has nothing useless.
The lack of a green design language was noticed during the study: the participants did not yet have tools to evaluate the environmental friendliness of mobile devices, which made their evaluation process difficult. In the absence of a sophisticated green design language, direct semantic links to nature, such as, nature metaphors are essential in a design language supporting an environmentally friendly mes-sage. The more the design language moves away from nature and towards a more mechanical feel, the more difficult it is to communicate environmental friendliness through the product appearance. Environmental friendliness in general is perceived as a soft value, whereas everything related to hard values, such as e.g. business or high-tech, is perceived to have very little to do with environmental friendliness.
We now know that materials, colors, design style and technologies do have an impact on perceived environmental friendliness. The results and conclusions of this study are presented in the form of design guidelines and demonstrated in the product concepts created by the research team. Several concepts were designed to demonstrate the research findings from different perspectives. Results were also presented in the form of a concept combination table, which is meant to stimulate the design process by presenting all the different options at one glance.
This thesis met its aim in finding elements for a green design language and presenting ways to implement the elements in practice. Recommendations and ideas for future research have been given based on this work and they have been presented separately from this thesis.
bibl
iogr
aphy
136
BIBLIOGRAPHY
aaker, david a. – Joachimsthaler, Erich (2002) Brand Leadership. Simon &Schuster UK Ltd: London.
aulio, kai (2006) Matkapuhelimet vihertyvät. Turun Sanomat, 21.11.2006, 18.
berg, bruce l. (2004) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pear-son Education, Inc.: Boston.
de boer j. (2003) Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions for stakeholders. Business Strategy and the Environment. Vol. 12, Issue 4, 254–264.
bourdieu, pierre (1894) Distinction – a social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
brundtland, g.h. (1987), Our Common Future: World Commission on Environ-ment and Development, Oxford University Press: New York, NY, .
cowe, roger (2000) Morality is a spending force. The Guardian. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,378155,00.html>, retrieved 20.3.2007.
demirbilek, oya – Sener, Bahar (2003) Product design, semantics and emotional response, Department of Industrial Design and Technology, Loughborough Univer-sity. Article in Ergonomics, Vol. 46, No: 13/14, 1346–1360.
desmet, pieter (2002) Designing Emotions. Delft University Press: Delft
diamantopoulos, adamantios – Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. – Sinkovics, Rudolf R. – Bohlen, Greg M. (2003) Can Socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 56, Issue 6, 465–480.
ericsson, k. – simon, h. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, 2nd ed. MIT Press: Boston.
Fielding N. G. – Fielding, J.L. (1986) Linking Data. SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.
fiell, charlotte – fiell, peter (1993) Modern Chairs. Benedikt Taschen Verlag GmbH: Köln.
fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy. <http://extranet.fujitsu-siemens.com/x-coll 105a09e/231006_Fujitsu%20Siemens%20Computersin%20kannettavalle%20ensim.pdf i>, retrieved 30.11.2006.
bibl
iogr
aphy
137
gardyn, rebecca (2003) Eco-friend or foe? American Demographics, Vol. 25, No: 8, 12–13.
goodman, leo a. (1961) Snowball Sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 34, No: 1, 148–170.
gotzsch, josiena (2005) Key Aspects of Product Attraction: A Focus n Eco-Friend-liness. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management.
green gauge report (2002) Americans Perspective on Environmental Issues. Rop-er ASW. <http://www.windustry.com/conferences/november2002/nov2002_ proceedings/ plenary/greenguage2002.pdf>, retrieved 17.7.2006.
guide to greener electronics (2006) Greenpeace. <http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/ content/international/press/reports/green-guide-to-electronics-se.pdf>, retrieved 1.11.2006.
haanpää, leena (2005) Postmodernd and Structural Features of Green Attitudes and Consumption. In: National, European, Global. Research Seminars of Economic Sociology ed. by Virtanen Taru. Publications of Turku School of Economics and Business Administration 2:2005. Esa Print: Tampere.
haavisto, ilkka – kiljunen, pentti – nyberg matti (2007) Centenarian in a Fit-ness Test - EVA’s 2007 Attitude and Value Survey. <http://www.eva.fi/eng/index. php?m=7&subm=2&action=1&id=66>, retrieved 20.2.2007.
haskell, bert (2004) Portable electronics product design and development for cellular mobile devices, PDAs, digital cameras, personal electronics, and more. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Heikkilä Tarja (2005) Tilastollinen tutkimus. 5.-6. painos. Edita Prima Oy: Hel-sinki.
heikkinen, timo – hirvonen, jukka – sairinen, rauno (2004) IT-arki ja ym-päristö. Matkapuhelin ja internet ympäristömyönteisen arjen mahdollistajana. Publications of The Ministry of Environment. < http://www.ymparisto.fi/ default.asp?contentid=60635&lan=FI>, retrieved 10.10.2006.
hirsijärvi, sirkka – remes, pirkko – sajavaara, paula (2004) Tutki ja Kirjoita. Gummerrus Kirjapaino Oy: Jyväskylä.
iyer, e – banerjee, b (1993). Anatomy of green advertising. Advances in Consumer Research. Vol 20, Issue 1, 494–501.
kaarto, hanna (2006) Varaa olla vihreä. Helsingin Sanomat 13.8.2006, D1–D2.
bibl
iogr
aphy
138
kalafatis sp – pollard m – east r – tsogas mh (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. Journal of Con-sumer Marketing. Vol. 16, Issue 5, 441–460.
karjalainen, toni-matti (2004) Semantic Transformation in Design. Communi-cating Strategic Brand Identity Through product Design References. 2nd edition. Gummerrus Kirjapaino Oy: Jyväskylä.
keskustan vaaliohjelma eduskuntavaaleissa (2007) <http://www.keskusta.fi/includes/ loader.aspx?id=6b6636d7-f713-410e-8f58-acd1b84fb928>, retrieved 28.3.2007.
koskinen, ilpo – alasuutari, pertti – peltonen tuomo (2005) Laadulliset Menetelmät Kauppatieteissä. Vastapaino: Tampere.
kotler, philip (2003) Marketing Management. 11th edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
krippendorff, klaus – butter, reinhart (1984) Product Semantics: exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, Vol. 3, No: 2, 4–9.
mainieri, tina – barnett, elaine g. – valdero, trisha r. – unipan, john b. – os-kamp, stuart (1997) Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137, No: 2, 189–204.
mckinnon, jill (1988) Reliability and Validity in Field Research: Some Strategies and Tactics. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1, No: 1, 34–54.
meyer, a. (2001) What’s in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes. Business Strategy and the Environment. Vol 10, Issue 5, 317–30
mikkonen, minttu (2007) Kaikki puolueet torjuisivat nyt ilmastonmuuto-sta. Helsingin Sanomat 19.2.2007. <http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Kaikki+puolueet+ torjuisivat+nyt+ilmastonmuutosta/1135225228490>, re-trieved 28.3.2007.
ministry of the environment. Official eco-labelling schemes in Finland. <http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=182582&lan=fi>, retrieved 5.1.2007.
moisander, johanna (1996) Attitudes and Ecologically Responsible Consumption. Oy Edita Ab, Helsinki.
musta pörssi oy. <http://www.mustaporssi.fi>, retrieved 7.4.2007.
monö, rune (1997) Design for product understanding: the aesthetics of design from a semiotic approach. Liber AB: Stockholm.
bibl
iogr
aphy
139
nereng, guro (2003) Communicating Environmental Values – Case Studies and the Potential of the Industrial Designer. Norwegian University of Science and Tech-nology; Department of Product Design.
norman, donald a. (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books: USA.
ottman, jacquelyn a. (2006) The Real News about Green Marketing: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. <http://www.greenmarketing.com/articles_and_report. html>, retrieved 20.3.2007.
ottman, jacquelyn a. (1998) Green marketing – opportunity for innovation. 2nd ed. NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company: Illinois.
otto, beatrice k. (2007) The essentials of sustainability and sustainable design. Design Council, <http://www.design-council.org.uk/en/About-Design/Business Essentials/Sustainability/.>, retrieved 25.3.2007.
peattie, ken (1995) Environmental Marketing Management. Meeting the Green Challenge. Pitman Publishing, London.
peattie, ken (1992) Green Marketing. Pitman Publishing, London.
pink, daniel h. (2006) Rise of the Neo-greens. Wired. Issue 14.05. <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/neo.html>, retrieved 12.10.2006.
preece, j. (1994) Usage Data: Observation, Monitoring, User’s Opinions; Interpre-tive Evaluation; Predictive Evaluation. Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wes-ley Publishing Company, Wokingham, 615–639 & 657–689.
silverman, david (2000) Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications, London.
rex, emma – baumann henrikke (2007) Beyond ecolabels: what green market-ing can learn from conventional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 15, 567–576.
richardson, julie – irwin, terry – sherwin, chris (2005) Design & Sustainabil-ity. A scoping report for the sustainable design forum. Design Council, London.
senge, p – carlstedt, g (2001) Innovating our way to the next industrial revolu-tion, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol 42, No: 2, 24–38
shrum, l. j – mccarty, john a. – lowrey, tina m. (2001) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, Volume XXIV, No: 2, 71–82.
bibl
iogr
aphy
140
siegle, lucy (2006) Recycle, The Essential Guide. Black Dog Publishing Limited: London, UK.
silverman, david (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for AnalysingTalk, Text and Interaction. SAGE Publications, London.
simintiras ac – schlegelmilch bb – diamantopoulos a. (1993) Greening’ the marketing mix: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Proceedings, 22nd European Marketing Academy Conference, Barcelona, Vol. 2, 1355-1383.
simmons, d. – widmar, r. (1990) Motivations and barriers to recycling: Towards a strategy for public education. The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 22, 13–18.
stilma, margot – stevels, ab – christiaans, henri – kandachar, prabhu (2004) Visualizing the Environmental Appearance of Audio Products. Proc. Electronics Goes Green conference, Berlin, 865-870.
stevels, ab - agema, richard – hoedemaker eelco (2001) Green Marketing of Consumer Electronics II. Proc. Electronics Goes Green conference, Berlin, 539-544.
southwestern crafts and gifts. <http://www.crafts-gifts.com/indian/head-dress.shtml>, retrieved 23.3.2007.
suomalaiset ja ympäristö (2002) Publication of Statistics Finland. <http://www.stat.fi/ajk/tiedotteet/v2002/041ymps.html>, retrieved 2.3.2007.
suomi lukuina: väestö (2006). Tilastokeskus. <http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_ vaesto.html>, retrieved 29.3.2006.
suomi lukuina: koulutus (2006). Tilastokeskus. <http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_ koulutus.html<, retrieved 29.3.2006.
taipalinen, jami – toivio, tuula (2004) Vastuullinen yritystoiminta Pk-yritysten voimavarana. Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriön julkaisuja 16/2004. <http://ktm.elinar.fi/ktm_jur/>, retrieved 28.03.2007.
tervola, marjut (2005) Reiluus on kaupan. Ylikansalliset yhtiötkin tahtovat nyt eettisiä merkkejä. Helsingin Sanomat, Hinta & Laatu, 26.10.2005.
texas beyond history. <http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/jbwhite/images/Figure23. html>, retrieved 23.3.2007.
tischner, u. – schmincke, e. – rubik, f. – prösler, m. (2000) How to do Ecode-sign? A Guide for environmentally and economically sound Design. Verlag form GmbH, Frankfurt.
bibl
iogr
aphy
141
torvi, kai – kiljunen, pentti (2005) Seeking Happiness: Are Finns Happy and Why? Finnish Business and Policy Forum. Taloustieto Oy, Yliopistopaino.
uusitalo, hannu (2001) Tiede, tutkimus ja tutkielma. Johdatus tutkielman maail-maan. WS Bookwell Oy, Juva.
vihma, susann (1990) Semantic Visions in Design. Symposium on Design Re-search and Semiotics. Publications of the University of Industrial Arts Helsinki UIAH, d20–d22.
vihma, susanna (1995) Products as Representations. A semiotic and aesthetic study of design products. Publications of the University of Industrial Arts Helsinki UIAH.
wilska, terhi-anna (2006) Kotitalouksien kulutustavat ja –asenteet. Teoksessa: Kauppa 2010, 40-41. Edita Prima Oy: Helsinki.
world design (2000) Howard Buch Production, Chronicle Books: USA.
yleisradio oy. <http://www.yle.fi/vaalit/tulospalvelu/index.htm>, retrieved 28.3.2007.
ympäristösanasto (1998) Ympäristöalan keskeiset käsitteet ja termit. Tekniikan Sanastokeskus, Gummerus.
appe
ndic
es
142
APPENDIX 1 – Terminology
3g Third generation mobile device technology, which provides better data transfer capabilities
basic mobile device Mobile device with only the most important features (like dialing and receiving calls, sending and receiving SMS messages)
bluetooth Specification to interconnect mobile devices, PDA’s and laptop computer
camera mobile device Mobile device which can be used in taking pictures
clamshell Mobile device design style with transformable form factor which resembles clam-shell
data mobile device Mobile device which enables fast data connections (3G)
delphi method A technique aimed at reaching consensus through structured consultation between a group of people who may have very different perspectives and fields of expertise.
dematerialization Decreasing the amount of material used to something
dual-/tri-/quad-band GSM mobile device that is capable of operating in two/three/four frequency bands such as European, Asian and American frequency bands.
durable mobile device Mobile device which is rugged and can take slightly harder use
dvb-h Digital Video Broadcasting: Handhelds. Standard to receive digital television broad-cast signal in handheld devices
eco-points Eco-points are used in this thesis to illustrate how environmentally friendly some-thing was perceived
form factor The physical and external size and shape of a device.
appe
ndic
es
143
gprs General Packet Radio Service, a GSM data transmission technique
gps Global Positioning System, a worldwide satellite-based radio-navigation system developed by US Department of Defense
gsm Global System for Mobile communication, European standard for mobile telepho-ny
haptic Referring the sense of touch
housing Protective cover designed to contain or support mechanical component
html Hypertext Mark-up Language, the coding syntax to write WWW documents
hyletic dimension The dimension of material
ict Information and Telecommunication technology
immaterialization Conversion of physical artifacts to non-physical, e.g. Converting paper-form to electronic documents
java midp Java Mobile Information Device Profile, a specification by Sun Microsystems for the use of Java programming language on embedded devices such as mobile devices and PDA’s.
lca Life Cycle Assessment, procedure to find out environmental impact of a product, including raw materials, refining of the materials, transport, storing, manufactur-ing, usage, reuse, recycling and disposal.
lcd Liquid Crystal Display, a low-power monitor used in portable electronics.
mips Material Input Per unit of Service
appe
ndic
es
144
mms Multimedia Messaging Service, a method of transmitting pictures, video clips, audio files and text messages like SMS
monoblock Traditional mobile device design style where mobile device is built in non-trans-formable form factor
music mobile device Mobile device which is well suitable for listening music (has music player and dedicated keys to control playback)
oled Organic Light Emitting Diode, a type of display used in some portable electronic equipments
pc + abs Polycarbonate and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, typical materials used in mobile device housings
pda P ortable Digital Assistant, are handheld, pocket computers, typically with a touch screen input.
mobile device types Basic mobile device, durable mobile device, data mobile device, video mobile de-vice, music mobile device and camera mobile device.
pragmatic dimension The study concerned with practical matters
primary link Strongest semantic link in products, based on visual clues that reveal what the product actually is
qwerty The first six alphabets in the top row in standard universal keyboards used in com-puters and typewriters. This term is used to refer to the layout of the keyboard.
rank order correlation Rank order correlation expresses to what extent the results of two sets of data are identical in order.
rendering Conversion of an outline image into a fully-formed, three-dimensional image, by the addition of colors and shading.
appe
ndic
es
145
rohs Restrictions of Hazardous Substances, EC Directive
secondary link Second strongest semantic link in products
semantics The study of meaning
semantic dimension The dimension of meanings
semiotics The study of signs and sign systems
skype Peer-to-peer (P2P) Internet telephony (VoIP) network
smartphone A smartphone is a full-featured mobile phone with personal computer-like func-tionality. Most smartphones are camera phones that support full featured e-mail capabilities with the functionality of a complete personal organizer.
sms short messaging service
standard deviation Standard deviation is the root mean square (RMS) deviation of values from their arithmetic mean. It measures how spread out the values in a data set are.
swivel Mobile device design style with transformable form factor which includes a swivel pin and the transformation is done by rotating separate halves of the mobile device around the swivel pin
syntactic dimension The dimension related syntax
touch screen Display device which can record user input when user presses the screen with finger or stylus
transformable form factor Form factor can be changed for transportation and usage situation
weee Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
appe
ndic
es
146
video mobile device Mobile device which can be used to dial video calls
wlan Wireless Local Area Network
voip Voice over Internet Protocol. The technology used to transmit voice conversations over data network using the Internet Protocol.
sources for terminology:
Ympäristösanasto (1998) Ympäristöalan keskeiset käsitteet ja termit. Tekniikan Sanastokeskus, Gummerus.
www.wikipedia.org
www.nokia.fi
appe
ndic
es
147
color selection for the interview
APPENDIX 2 – Colors, materials and mobile devices used in the interviews
appe
ndic
es
148
mobile device selection for the interview– Nokia: 6260, 6310, 3250, 2300, 1110, 3510, 8310, 3310, N80, NokiaVoda-
fone, 3210, 2652 (pearl white, black), 6220, 1600, 5100, 3100, 5140 (blue, orange), 1101, 8250, 7260, 6111, 7380, 3200, 6820, 3230, 6270, N91, 7360 (Warm Amber, Coffee Brown), 6233, 7370, 6060, 6101, 7270.
– SonyEricsson: Z530i – LG: LP4100 – Samsung: SGH-E760 (black), SHG-Z540 (metallic)– NEC: musta, taskulaskin – Siemens: BenQ-Siemens SL91– Panasonic: X500
The pictures of all the mobile devices used in the qualitative research are presented in Appendix 4 where the mobile devices are presented in the order of their ranking.
material selection for the interview
appe
ndic
es
149
APPENDIX 3 – Technology questionnaire
You have a basic mobile device, which you can use to dial and receive calls and to send and receive SMS text messages. How do you feel environmental friendli-ness of the mobile device changes if named feature is added (mark the choice closest to your feeling);
decreases a lot decreases a little increases a little increases a lot cannot say
“I can take pictures with my mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can listen to music” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can listen to radio” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can watch television” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can easily increase the number of picture and music I can carry with me in my mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can record video footage” 1 2 3 4 0
”I can view and send live footage of myself when I am on the mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
”I can surf the Internet” 1 2 3 4 0
”My mobile device is a 3G mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
”I can read my e-mail” 1 2 3 4 0
”I can make calls also when abroad, as for example in the USA or Asia” 1 2 3 4 0
appe
ndic
es
150
decreases a lot decreases a little increases a little increases a lot cannot say
”I can make Internet calls with my mobile device, using for example Skype” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can make notes or write text messages directly on the display of the mobile device or control my mobile device by pressing the icons on the display with my finger” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can send messages that include text, pictures and sound” 1 2 3 4 0
“My mobile device can indicate to people who want to call me whether I am avail-able or not even before they actually call me” 1 2 3 4 0
“My mobile device has a dedicated button for each alphabet” 1 2 3 4 0
“My mobile device has dedicated buttons for controlling music playback (play/stop/ff/rw)” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can open email attachments in my mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
“My mobile device has a loudspeaker which allows me to speak on the mobile device without holding the mobile device” 1 2 3 4 0
“I can connect hands free, laptop computer or other equipment to my mobile device without wires” 1 2 3 4 0
“My mobile device can tell me my location, nearest services like restaurants and guide me a route to the address of my choice” 1 2 3 4 0
“In general, the number of features affects the experienced environmental friendli-ness” 1 2 3 4 0
appe
ndic
es
151
APPENDIX 4 – answers to technology questionnaire in the interview
decreases a lot
decreases a little
increases a little
increases a lot
cannot sayaverage
1 2 3 4 0
“I can take pictures with my mobile device” 2.2
”I can listen to music” 2.3
”I can listen to radio” 2.6
”I can watch television” 1.8
”I can easily increase the number of picture and music I can carry with me in my mobile device”
3.3
”I can record video footage” 2.0
”I can view and send live footage of myself when I am on the mobile device”
1.0
”I can surf the Internet” 2.8
”My mobile device is a 3G mobile device” 3.0
”I can read my email” 2.8
”I can make calls also when abroad, as for example in the USA or Asia”
3.7
”I can make Internet calls, using for example Skype” 3.3
”I can make notes or write text messages directly on the display of the mobile device or control my mobile device by pressing the icons on the display with my finger”
1.8
”I can send messages that includes text, pictures and sound” 2.4
appe
ndic
es
152
”My mobile device can indicate to people who want to call me whether I am available or not even before they actually call me”
2.7
“My mobile device has a dedicated button for each alphabet” 1.5
”My mobile device has dedicated buttons for controlling music playback (play/stop/ff/rw)”
2.2
”I can open email attachments in my mobile device” 2.8
”My mobile device has a loudspeaker which allows me to speak on the mobile device without holding the mobile device
2.2
”I can connect hands free, laptop computer or other equipment to my mobile device without wires”
2.8
”My mobile device can tell me my location, nearest services like restaurants and guide me a route to the address of my choice”
3.0
”In general, the number of features affects the experienced envi-ronmental friendliness”
2.1
decreases a lot
decreases a little
increases a little
increases a lot
cannot sayaverage
1 2 3 4 0
appe
ndic
es
153
APPENDIX 5 – Survey questionnaire (in Finnish)
ympäristöarvojen viestiminen tuotteen kautta
Tämä kysely on osa lopputyötä, joka valmistuu muotoilun, tekniikan ja kauppati-eteen opiskelijoiden yhteistyönä. Kysely käsittelee tuotteen viestimää ympäristöys-tävällisyyttä. Tutkimuksemme kohteena on kannettava kuluttajaelektroniikka.
Tässä kyselyssä tutkitaan miten tuotteen ulkoasu ja ominaisuudet vaikuttaa mie-likuvaasi tuotteen ympäristöystävällisyydestä.
Pyydämme sinua vastaamaan kysymyksiin ensimmäisen mielikuvasi perusteella - kaikki vastaukset ovat yhtä oikeita.
Kyselyssä on neljä vaihetta. Kaikki vaiheet näkyvät tällä samalla sivulla.
Vastaukset käsitellään luottamuksellisesti eikä vastausta voida yhdistää henkilöön.
1 yleisiä kysymyksiä
1.1 Tuotteen valmistuksen, käytön ja käytöstä poistamisen ympäristövaikutukset vaikuttavat ostopäätökseeni
☐ Aina ☐ Usein ☐ Harvoin ☐ Ei koskaan
1.2 Tehdessäni ostopäätöstä etsin tietoa tuotteen valmistuksen, käytön ja käytöstä poistamisen ympäristövaikutuksista (voit valita useamman vaihtoe-htoa)
☐ Kyllä, Internetistä ☐ Kyllä, lehdistä ☐ Kyllä, valmistajalta/maahantuojalta ☐ Kyllä, jälleenmyyjältä ☐ Kyllä, kuluttajaviranomaiselta ☐ Kyllä, tuttavalta ☐ Kyllä, muu lähde ☐ Ei, etsisin, mutta en tiedä mistä ☐ Ei, en etsi
appe
ndic
es
154
1.3 Valitse alla olevista kuluttajaelektroniikan brändeistä kolme (3) mielestäsi eniten ympäristöystävällistä
☐ Apple
☐ Bang&Olufsen
☐ Bosch
☐ Braun
☐ Canon
☐ Dell
☐ Electrolux
☐ Fujitsu-Siemens
☐ Hewlett Packard
☐ LG
☐ Motorola
☐ Miele
☐ Nokia
☐ Panasonic
☐ Philips
☐ Samsung
☐ Siemens
☐ Sony
☐ SonyEricsson
☐ Whirlpool
appe
ndic
es
155
1.4 Valitse alla olevista kuluttajaelektroniikan brändeistä kolme (3) mielestäsi vähiten ympäristöystävällistä
☐ Apple
☐ Bang&Olufsen
☐ Bosch
☐ Braun
☐ Canon
☐ Dell
☐ Electrolux
☐ Fujitsu-Siemens
☐ Hewlett Packard
☐ LG
☐ Motorola
☐ Miele
☐ Nokia
☐ Panasonic
☐ Philips
☐ Samsung
☐ Siemens
☐ Sony
☐ SonyEricsson
☐ Whirlpool
appe
ndic
es
156
2 värit, materiaalit ja muotoilu
2.1 Kuinka ympäristöystävälliseksi koet seuraavat värit Pyydämme sinua vastaamaan kysymyksiisi ensimmäisen mielikuvasi perusteella
Musta ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Valkoinen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Harmaa ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Vihreä ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Pastellin turkoosi ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Murrettu sininen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
157
Sininen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Pastellin sininen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Violetti ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Pastellin punainen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Murrettu punainen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Keltainen ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
2.2 Kuinka ympäristöystävälliseksi koet seuraavat materiaalit:
Metalliverkko ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
158
Metalliverkko ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Kivi ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Teräs ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Alumiini ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Kupari ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Puu ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nahka ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
159
Nahka ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Tekstiili ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Kovalevy ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Puu ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Muovi-/mineraaliyhdiste ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Muovi-/mineraaliyhdiste ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Muovi ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
160
2.3 Kuinka ympäristöystävällisiltä seuraavat matkapuhelimet mielestäsi näyt-tävät ulkonäkönsä perusteella
Motorola Razr ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 6310i ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
161Nokia 3250 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia N80 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
162
SonyEricsson Z530i ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 5100 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
163
Nokia 3100 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 1101 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
164
Nokia N91 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 7280 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
165
BenQ-Siemens SL91 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 7360 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
166
Nokia 7373 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Samsung SGH-E760 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
167
Nokia 7360 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Nokia 8800 Sirocco ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
168
Nokia 6820 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Panasonic X500 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
169
Nokia 3210 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
Samsung SHG-Z540 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
appe
ndic
es
170
Nokia E61 ☐ Erittäin ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Ympäristöystävällinen ☐ Epäympäristöystävällinen ☐ Erittäin epäympäristöystävällinen
3 ominaisuudet
3.1 Mitkä seuraavista ominaisuuksista yhdistät ympäristöystävälliseen tuotteeseen ☐ Hyvä laatu ☐ Huono laatu ☐ Korkea hinta ☐ Alhainen hinta ☐ Painava ☐ Kevyt ☐ Kestävä ☐ Tyylikäs ☐ Tyyliltään vaatimaton ☐ Näyttävä ☐ Uusin teknologia ☐ Teknisesti yksinkertainen ☐ Tehokas ☐ Tehoton ☐ Kookas ☐ Kompakti
appe
ndic
es
171
3.2 miten ympäristöystävällisiksi miellät seuraavat puhelintyypit (anna kouluarvosana: 4-10)
-- Peruspuhelin, jossa on väin tärkeimmät ominaisuudet
-- Videopuhelin, jolla voi soittaa liikkuvaa kuvaa sisältäviä puheluita
-- Musiikkipuhelin, joka soveltuu hyvin musiikin kuunteluun
-- Kestävä puhelin, joka kestää hieman kovempaakin käyttöä
-- Kamerapuhelin, jolla saa otettua laadukkaita kuvia
-- Datapuhelin, joka mahdollistaa nopeat yhteydet (3G)
4 taustatiedot
4.1 Valitse itseäsi parhaiten kuvaava määritelmä
☐ Kutsuisin itseäni ympäristöaktivistiksi. Kuulun ympäristöjärjestöön, ostan vain ympäristöystävällisiä tuotteita ja osallistun aktiivisesti ympäristön tilaa koskevaan keskusteluun.
☐ Olen huolissani ympäristön tilasta ja olen valmis henkilökohtaisella toimin-nallani osallistumaan ympäristönsuojeluun, mutta en marssi ympäristöasioiden puolesta. Ostan ympäristöystävällisen vaihtoehdon aina kun sellainen on olemassa.
☐ Olen huolissani ympäristön tilasta, mutta en osallistu ympäristönsuojelu-toimintaan. Ostan ympäristöystävällisen vaihtoehdon silloin kun se ei ole kalliimpi tai eroa laadullisesti tavallisesta tuotteesta.
☐ En ole kovin huolissani ympäristön tilasta sillä uskon, että siitä huolehtiminen on jo hyvissä käsissä. En pääsääntöisesti osta ympäristöystävällisiä tuotteita, mutta mikäli sellainen osuu kohdalle eikä se eroa hinnallisesti tai laadullisesti muista tuotteista, saatan ostaa ympäristöystävällisen vaihtoehdon.
☐ En ajattele ympäristöasioita tehdessäni ostopäätöstä.
appe
ndic
es
172
4.2 Ikäni
Ikä
4.3 Sukupuoleni
Sukupuoli
4.4 Koulutustasoni
Koulutustaso
4.5 Ammattialani
Ammattiala
4.6 Asuinmaakuntani
Asuinmaakunta
Painathan vielä Lähetä! nappia! Kiitos!
Lähetä!
appe
ndic
es
173
APPENDIX 6 – Answers to first phase questions in the interview (in Finnish)
1. Vaikuttavatko ympäristöasiat päätöksentekoosi ostoprosessissa? Miten?– ”… jonkun verran ehkä, mutta ei välttämättä ihan kauheesti…vettä vähemmän
kuluttava pesukone… isompi hankinta niin vaikuttaa hinta.” (nainen)– ”Vaikuttaa, mahdollisuuksien rajoissa. Kiinnitän huomiota moneenko kertaan on
pakattu, mutta jos ei ole vaihtoehtoja tai tuote on ylivertainen, niin sitten teen sen huonon ratkaisun.” (nainen)
– ”Vaikuttaa, pyrin ostamaan ympäristöystävällisiä tuotteita, mutta on vaikea arvioida kumpi tuote on ympäristöystävällisempi, ylipäätään yrittää valita sem-moisia tuotteita, joiden tuottamisessa ei ole kulunut ylimääräistä energiaa, eikä ole ylimääräisiä muovipakkauksia tms. turhaa jätettä, mieluummin ostaa jotain kestävää nimenomaan ostaa semmoisia jotka kestää.” (nainen)
– ”Joissain määrin vaikuttaa kyllä. Esimerkkituote… astianpesukone, haluan tietää kuinka paljon se vaikuttaa siihen ympäristöön siinä mielessä kuinka paljon vettä se käyttää ja kuinka tehokas se on, ja sama muissa sähkölaitteissa. En näe sitä ympäristöystävällisyytenä vaan ensisijaisesti rahansäästön kautta. Elintarvikkeis-ta… erityisesti hinta vaikuttaa varsinkin näin opiskelijalla.” (mies)
– ”Ei.” (mies)– ”Periaatteessa lähtisin ympäristöystävällisen kannalle, mutta usein ympäristöys-
tävällisiin liittyy negatiivisesti onko se oikeasti ympäristöystävällinen tai teknis-esti oikeasti hyvä, jota ei voida myydä kuin ympäristöarvoilla. Ympäristöys-tävällisyys pitäisi tuoda esille epäsuorasti…oletusarvoisesti asioiden pitäisi olla ympäristöystävällisiä, ja siitä voi maksaa…valitsisin pari euroa kalliimman vessapaperin, jos se olisi ympäristöystävällisempi. Paljon on kiinni siitä onko ympäristöystävällisyys vain näennäistä vai oikeaa.” (mies)
– ”Inhottaa pakkauksessa olevat muovit, ylimääräisiä muovikerroksia pusseja puss-ien paella, mieluummin pahvia jota voi kierrättää.” (mies)
2. Tehdessäsi ostopäätöstä etsitkö tietoa tuotteen elinkaaren aikaisista ympäristö-vaikutuksista? – ”En hirveästi varmaankaan.” (nainen)– ”En mene nettiin aktiivisesti etsimään, mutta sanomalehdistä ym. Luen ja kotona
puhutaan.” (nainen)– ”Pakkauksesta ainakin ettii, jos siinä näkyy joku ympäristömerkki, joutsen-
merkki… jos ei oo mitään, niin en välttämättä lähde netistä etsimään mitään ympäristösertivikaatteja yrityksellä on.” (nainen)
– ”Riippuu ostoksen suuruudesta. Jos on isompi tuote, lähden etsimään inter-netistä ja keskustelen kavereiden kanssa. Elintarvikkeiden ja tekstiilituotteiden
appe
ndic
es
174
kohdalla jää kavereiden kanssa jutusteluksi, onko se (reilun kaupan banaani) nyt todellista vai jääkö rahastukseksi.” (mies)
– ”Ei pahemmin kyllä.” (mies)– ”En. Lähtökohta on, että tarvitseeko tuotetta, minkä tyyppinen se on, mitä se
tarjoaa ja mitä materiaaleja siinä on käytetty, mutta ei katso ympäristöystäväl-lisyyttä sinänsä.” (mies)
– ”Enpä juuri, useimmat ostopäätökset ovat tyyliin “tarvitsen purkin maitoa, ostan purkin maitoa”, jos jääkaapin ostaa niin mieluummin alhaisempaa energianku-lutusluokkaa eli A.” (mies)
3. Vaikuttaako tuotteessa oleva eko-merkintä ostopäätökseesi? Miten?– ”Jos ei oo ihan hirveesti kalliimpi tuote sen takia, niin joo, mutta jos se nostaa
hirveesti hintaa (vaikuttaa elämäntilanne ja asuntolainojen määrä)… vaikuttaa myönteisesti jos se on yhtä hyvä eikä hirveästi kalliimpi.” (nainen)
– ”Jos merkki on tuttu, niin tottakai se vaikuttaa. En kuitenkaan tiedä onko kaikki merkit paikkaansa pitäviä vai onko yritykset vain laittaneet ne. Kyllä se (yleisesti) parantaa, on hyvä että niitä laitetaan.” (nainen)
– ”Ilahdun jos mä nään jonkun tuotteen ja täähän on hieno ja huomaan, että siinä on ekomerkki, ilahdun siitä että oon valinnut ekotuotteen, mut ei se varsinaises-ti…mutta moni ihminen päättelee ulkonäön perusteella.” (mies)
– ”Saattaa se vaikuttaa positiivisesti, mutta ei sillä oo kovin suurta merkitystä…aika paljon painaa hinta ja jos on jotain ennakkotietoja (esim. Laadusta tms), ei ne ympäristömerkit siinä paina.” (mies)
– ”Vaikuttaa positiivisesti jos tuote on muuten hyvä.”(mies)– ”Vaikuttaa myönteisesti, suuremmalla todennäköisyydellä ostan sen. Ekomerkit
maksaa yleensä enemmän” (mies)
4. Mitä ympäristöystävällisen tuotteen tulisi mielestäsi viestiä? (Arvoja, ominaisuuksia)– Kestävää kehitystä ja…no, varmaan enemmän kollektiivista hyvää kuin vain yh-
den individuaalin etujen ajamista, otetaan laajempi kokonaisuus huomioon … kuluttaa vähemmän energiaa, päästää vähemmän myrkkyjä/saasteita luontoon kun se hävitetään.” (nainen)
– ”Näkee että kaikissa sen tuotteen vaiheissa on otettu huomioon ne ympäristöa-siat eikä se oo vain päälle liimattu asia, lähtee materiaalista, pakkaukset, pakkaus-materiaalit, kaikki tällaiset…” (nainen)
– ”Ainakin kestävyyttä…aika paljon se vaikuttaa miltä se oikeasti näyttää se tuote, en osta postimyynnistä koska ei voi kokeilla miten saranat toimii tai putoileeko ruuvit, kun se on semmoista materiaalia niin siitä tuntee onko se kestävä vaikka en tiedäkään sitä, kunhan se on kunnolla tehty. ”(nainen)
appe
ndic
es
175
– ”Sen ei tulis ainakaan viestiä hirveitä hintoja. Sen tulis viestiä ehkä juuri mitä se pyrkii olemaan, ympäristöystävällisyyttä, sustainable economics,… ajatuksella tehty tuote jossa tärkein ei oo rahastus ja voitto vaan joku muu, luonto, voima-varojen säästö.” (mies)
– ”Kyllähän merkit jo sinällään viesti sen ja kyllä mä niitä uskon, mutta mulla ei oo ollu ympäristöystävällinen ajattelumalli eikä se ole vaikuttanut siihen. Merkit ajaa asiansa.” (mies)
– ”Ruskeanvärinen suodatinpussi kertoo, että ei ole käytetty valkaisuaineita jotka on ympäristölle haitallisia.” (mies)
– ”Että alusta lähtien on mietitty kaikki vaiheet ja se on sitä kautta puhtaasti ym-päristöystävällinen tuote.” (mies)
– ”Näkyvin on se pakkaus … ei kuluta luontoa liikaa koska se on ympärisöys-tävällisen määritelmä, ei kaikkea yhtäaikaa esim. reilu kauppa + luomu + eko, ”ostanko pelkkiä arvoja”, tuote on laadukas.” (mies)
appe
ndic
es
176
APPENDIX 7 – Participants’ comments in interviews during the ranking of colors, materials and mobile devices (in Finnish)
värit (vastausten lukumäärä sulkeissa)
Sininen– Sininen viittaa mereen, rauhaan ja ympäristöystävällisyyteen (4)
Musta & valkoinen– Musta + valkoinen = koivumetsä, silloin kun ne on yhdessä se on ympäristöys-
tävällinen, musta erikseen ei ole ihan niin ympäristöystävällinen (1)– Musta ei tue ympäristö viestiä (2)– Valkoinen on valkaistu ja siten ei ympäristöystävällinen (3)– valkoinen viittaa puhtauteen (3)– Musta ja valkoinen ovat arvoneutraaleita ja riippuu ihan tuotteesta ja missä ne
on (1)
Punainen & musta– Punainen ei tue ympäristöystävällisyyttä (2)– Varoitusvärejä (musta, punainen) ei ympäristöystävällisiä (1)– Punainen ja musta yhdessä on voimakas, kaiken maailman (1)
Vihreä– Vihreät ovat ympäristöystävällisyyden värejä (5), yleisesti en välttämättä luottaisi
henkilökohtaisesti vihreän vihreyteen– Vihreä on luonnon väri (1)
Kirkkaat värit & murretut värit– Kirkkaat värit vähemmän ympäristöystävällisiä, valmistettu teollisesti,
jouduttu kaikkia myrkkyjä käyttämään (2)– ”Luontoaiheiset”, murretut värit ympäristöystävällisiä (3)– Pinkin sävyt ja pastellit ei tue ympäristöviestiä (2)– Keltainen ja punainen on tavallaan luonnon värejä mutta ne on liian kirkkai-
ta jotta ne ois sopusointuisia (1)
materiaalit
Ympäristöystävällinen materiaali– Ympäristöystävällisempiä on jalostettu vähemmän– Ympäristöystävällinen asia on semmoinen joka kun otetaan luonnosta käytetään
ihan 100%sti
appe
ndic
es
177
– Mulle tulee lähinnä mieleen mikä kun se otetaan luonnosta tai kun se päätyy takaisin luontoon, se vaikuttaa sinne.
– Vähän sen mukaan kuinka paljon sitä on jouduttu jalostamaan luonnon tuot-teesta ja miten se hajoaa kun se jää luontoon. Ajattelen sen kahden kautta: miten se on valmistettu ja miten paljon sitä on jouduttu jalostamaan.
– Luonnonmateriaalit (eko), synteettiset materiaalit (epäeko)
Metallit– Metallit, en niin paljon tiedä metalleista ja niiden valmistamisesta… metallit nyt
on metalleja ja periaatteessa luonnossa on metalleja (sijoitus hieman epäeko)– Metalliteollisuus ei usein oo hyvää luonnolle, vaatii energiaa ja voimavaroja.– Ehkä se metalli, se on niin kestävä materiaali ja siten ajattelen että se on ym-
päristöystävällisempää kuin muovi– Metallit on ympäristöystävällisempiä kuin muovit. – Metallien valmistusprosessi vie paljon energiaa, mutta sitä voi kierrättää
Muovi– Muovituotteista tulee ensin että onko tässä nyt jotain mitä en tiedä, ei tule
suoralta kädeltä– Mulla on semmoinen mielikuva että muovi ei oo kovin ympäristöystävällistä
mut se on vain mun mielikuva– Muovi kuluu helposti ja siitä ei aina tiedä miten se on valmistettu, vaikka sitä voi
kierrättää– (Durat) näyttää kiveltä, mutta ei tunnu. Kun sen näkee se miellyttää, mutta kun
saa käteen niin se tuntuu teennäiseltä enkä arvosta sitä.– Jos tää on muovia niin se on superpahis puolella
puhelimet
Mies:– Hinta ja tuttuus varmaan vaikuttaa tähän tulokseen…Mä laitoin ympäristöys-
tävälliseen päähän tehokkaammat puhelimet, koska sitä vähemmän eri tuotteita tarvitsee, ei näitä pysty… ei näissä ole olemassa mitään mikä viestisi ym-päristöystävällisyydestä
– Oon laittanu basiceista basicimmat tänne ympäristöystävälliseen päähän koska materiaalit tuntuvat vähiten jalostetuimmilta, en osaa laittaa arvojärjestykseen. Tehokkaimmat osaan laittaa, koska tietää että ne ovat tehokkaita, mutta ei ul-koasu kerro.
– Tää vaikuttaisi olevan aika iso, joten siksi se olisi epäympäristöystävällinen, pieni olisi ympäristöystävällinen. Pieni koko, tehokkuus ja ympäristöystävällisyys liit-tyy toisiinsa. Vanhempi puhelin ei ole ympäristöystävällinen, iän tietää koska on nähnyt puhelimia ennenkin.
appe
ndic
es
178
– Tehokkuusajatus tulee siinä, pieneen tilaan saatu enempi funktioita eli se, että sen pystyt avaamaan kertoo siitä että siinä on tilavuuteen nähden enemmän funktioita, ainoa syy miksi sen pystyy avaamaan on se että pieneen tilaan saa enemmän, ympäristöystävällisissä kaikki on avautuvia ja uusia tai melko uusia. Näihin on otettu huomioon pehmeitä arvoja kun on otettu tekonahkaa ja kuvio-ita materiaalissa, moderniuden kautta voidaan tuoda.
– Metallia on käytetty jonkun verran niissä mitä mä pidän ympäristöystävällisinä, metallit eivät välttämättä ole ympäristöystävällisempiä mutta ne ovat luonnon-mukaisempia
– Isot muovipinnat, todella vähän yksityiskohtia isoissa pinnoissa pitäisi olla hel-pompi valmistaa (epäympäristöystävällinen), kun taas paljon erilaisia yksityisko-htia (ympäristöystävällinen), mutta epäympäristöystävällinen on iso muovika-pula
Nainen:– Tää (Nokia 3250) on sellainen puhelin, muotokielisestä tykkään siitä, erilainen
kuin muut Nokiat, tässäkin on tietty muovisuuden tunne….Tää on ihan hirvit-tävä tää taustakuva ja leikekuori, musta ois hauska tehdä omat kuoret, muotokie-li on selkeä ja pelkistetty mutta leikekuorten takia ois kiva…
– Tässä on jotain todella pelottavaa, tää on aggressiivisen tuntunen, muotokieli on epämiellyttävä
– Tässä (Nokia 1101) on aika kamala tää näppäinmateriaali, todella halvan oloinen.
– Tämä (Nokia 2650) on hyvin halvan näköinen, muistan että tässä on tää kuvio päällä ja yritys johonkin kivaan, mutta tää on tää Nokian terveysside –malli.
– Tää käytettävyys, en voi uskoa että tätä voi käyttää kunnolla (NEC)– Mitä halvemman oloinen materiaali sitä epäekommalta se vaikuttaa. Ne vaikuttaa
feikiltä.– Nää miellyttää mua sen takia, kun nää on vanhoja puhelimia, mulla on ollut tää
(Nokia 3210) ja tässä on jotain tuttua ja turvallista ja nää on ollut käteen tosi hyviä… materiaalit on ihan mukavia, ei mitään turhan laadukkaita mutta ne ei kuitenkaan kulu eikä hajoa saman tien.
– Siihen liittyy sekin aspekti, että jos mä koen jonkun puhelimen miellyttäväks niin mä pidän siitä parempaa huolta, joten tavallaan sen elinikä jatkuu ja nää menis sillä tavalla tähän ympäristöystävälliseen kategoriaan.
– Näissä on käytetty grafiikkana kukkaa, mikä viittaa ympäristöön ja materiaali tuntuu laadukkaalta joka viittaa kestävyyteen ja tuote on laadukas eikä tarvi vaihtaa niin nopeasti.
appe
ndic
es
179
– Tässä (vaihtokuorinen) on mun mielestä se, mikä ei mun mielestä suoraan liity ympäristöystävällisyyteen, mutta jos sä voit itse vaihtaa kuorta niin se lisää sun kiintymystä tuotteeseen ja lisää siten elinikää.
– Näistä muovisista puhelimista ei tuu millään mieleen ympäristöystävällisyys, materiaalin paksuus ja muovisuus, tulee mieleen että niissä on jotain myrkyl-listä.
– Ympäristöystävällisyys tulee esille kun ei tunnu olevan mitään ylimääräistä ja puhelin on simppelisti toteutettu, materiaalit tuntuu kestäviltä eikä oo muovista oloa.
– No väri on puolestaan yks…musta väri, en pysty millään mieltää että tää olis ympäristöystävällinen… Tää on hirveen aggressiivisen näkönen, sen takia en koe sitä ympäristöystävälliseks…Jostakin syystä tällaisesta hitech näköisestä tuottees-ta tulee mieleen, että tässä ei oo ajateltua paljoakaan ympäristöä…metallisessa puhelimessa ekous riippuu onko se miten toteutettu, onko se vaan maalattu. Jos olis kunnon metallinen puhelin, niin siitä tulis varmaan tunne että se varmaan kestää.
Mies:– Tää on aika vaikee tehtävä arvioidan puhelinten ekoutta– Oisko joku teema millä perusteella näitä lähtee, mä en tiedä yhtään millä perus-
teella mä lähtisin… nää on kaikki muovia…ainoo mitkä tulee on semmonen minkä kanssa ois luonnossa...
– Nää retkeilypuhelimet nousee, mä koen että retkeily ja luonto, voisi olla mainos jossa lapissa äijät reissussa ja puhelin heitetty nurtsille
– Tämmösii missä on luonnon elementtejä, on helppoo, kukkii piirretty– Väri viestii tässä ehkä eniten, en mä osaa näiden valmistustavoista ja niiden
tarjoomii, puhelimet tarjoo eri juttuja käyttäjille enkä tiedä mikä niistä on ym-päristöystävälliseltä
– Vähän räikeämmät, keltaista ja vihreetä ja valkonen, mutsta ois taas keskellä ja kiiltävämmät puhelimet tonne (epäekoihin)
– Tän nyt tekee ihan päältäpäin, tämmöset nyt menis (nokia 2650), nää on var-maan samat puhelimet, mut laittaisin tän tänne (valkoinen eko, musta epäeko), tässä on näitä kukkii, se on hyvä
– Just tämmöiset porschen tyyppisen blingbling puhelimet, en näe niissä mitään ympäristöystävällistä
– Mitä simppelimpi puhelin sitä todennäköisemmin se kuluttaa vähemmän virtaa, mutta en näe sitä ympäristöystävällisenä, mitä vähemmän kuluttaa virtaa sitä ekompi, nää multimediapuhelimet vois laittaa mutta tässä on kamera… mikään ei oo hirveen vakuuttava, tässä ei luonnon ympäristöystävällisyys nouse esille, musta ainoo on väri
appe
ndic
es
180
– Mulle ei koko merkkaa, mulle puhelin on niin tärkee juttu ja käytännöllisyys, käytettävyys, en ajattele puhelinta sellaisenaan
– Jos siinä ois kompassi niin näkisin sen ympäristöystävällisenä– Mediapuhelimet, mediatietokoneet, on ehkä kuluttajan puhelimia jotka käyttää,
nettii ja kattoo teeveetä bussissakin ja ne ei oo (epäeko)– Tää melkein kääntyy toisinpäin, simppelimmät puhelimet tulee esille, niin kuin
tässä näkyy tässä (ekot) on näitä halvemman sarjan puhelimia, tässä (epäekot) on näitä kalliimman sarjan puhelimia
– Tästä tulee aikamoinen leiritys, ei voi minkään… tää nyt on ihan piru (Nokia 3250)
– Ehkä tämmöset just puhelin missä on kaksi näyttöö, vähän turhaa sinänsä, kato ny kello tosta sisältä niin ei tarvi kahta näyttöö
– Mulla on semmoinen näkemys, että ympäristöystävälliset tuotteet on tylsiä– Tossa on tollaista kiiltoo ja hässäkkää, mulle tulee ulkonäön perusteella että tää
on uusimpia puhelimia, on kamerat ja hässäkkää, kulutus ja käytetään paljon palveluja, en näe että se ois ympäristöystävällistä (monoblock, vodafone-nokia, kiiltävä kansi, musta tausta ja kamera, jonka ympärillä kromia)
Mies: – Yksinkertaisemman kautta, ei oo hirveästi liikaa nähty vaivaa tuotannon moni-
mutkaistamiseen ja semmoiseen (eko)– Nokian 7280, 7380, hirveästi nähty vaivaa ja resursseja tuhlattu (melko epäeko)
(Oranssi/valkoinen 5140 löytyi nopeammin ekoksi kuin Sininen/musta 5140)– Aluks mä olin kovasti hämmentynyt, ne on niin pieniä eikä niistä tule se ym-
päristöystävällisyys pinnalle mitenkään, sitten rupesin miettimään mikä olis ympäristöystävällistä, se olisi että tehdään resursseja säästäen ja yksinkertaisesti
– Nokia on tuttu ja turvallinen… se tosin on maailmanlaajuinen firma ja menesty-nyt, kyynärpäätaktiikka ja siinä pistetään luontoakin matalaksi
– (epäeko) semmoinen iso möykky, tää on varmaan joku tietokonekin ja siinä on iso akku eikä se voi olla ympäristöystävällinen
– Yksinkertainen ja pieni on eko– Pieneen kokoon nähden tuntuu raskaalta kädessä, metalleja, scifi, ei voi olla
kauheen ympäristöystävällinen (NEC)– Yksinkertaiset ratkaisut näyttää siltä, että vaivattomasti sutaistu ja siinä on
säästetty ja se säästää luontoa– Nämä pari, joissa ei oo läppää ollenkaan on eko, se on se yksinkertaisuus-
näkökulma mutta muuten ei oo väliä – Ympäristöystävällisyys on semmoinen, että aika hatarien mielikuvien perässä
joutuu haparoimaan, ei pysty oikeasti tietämään mistä ne tulee enkä oikeasti tiedä
appe
ndic
es
181
– Ehkä luontoaiheiset olisivat tuntuneet ekoimmilta… yritin järkiperäisillä syillä, jos se on yksinkertainen niin kuormittavia resursseja on ollut vähän, en luullak-seni käyttänyt intuiota
– [Erottelitko nokia 5140:t?] En ajatellut että 5140:t olisivat sama puhelin, oranssi erottuu joukosta, oranssi näyttää halvemmalta ja muovisemmalta ja yksinker-taisemmalta
Nainen:– Tää tehtävä on kyllä jotenkin hankala, mä en tiedä onko kännyköissä jotenkin
eroa mikä on ympäristöystävällinen – Täähän on vihree, kaikki aktiivivihreet haluis tämmösen, mut musta tää näyttää
ydinpomminjälkeiselle elämälle, tää on oudon näköinen (vihreä nokia 5100) – Mielikuva siitä että ne on uudempia myös jotenkin lisää niiden ympäristöys-
tävällisyyttä jollain sairaalla tavalla ja uskon että firmat kehittää sitä– Koko viestii ekoudesta, kliininen ja kiiltävä pinta viestii ympäristöystäväl-
lisyydestä– Nää vahvanväriset on tuolla (epäekot)…järjestelen nää vahvasti siis näiden
värien ja muotojen mukaan ja kuinka uudelle se tuntuu….Tuo on ihan vihonvii-meinen (epäeko) vaikka se onkin vihree (nokia 5100)
– Oon ladannut pienemmän puhelimet tänne (ympäristöystävälliseen päähän), trendi on pienemmät puhelimet ja se kertoo siitä uutuudesta
Mies:– En oo nähnyt, että hitech olisi ympäristöystävällistä, nää kaikki puhelimet on
epäympäristöystävällistä– Erityisesti tää ei o ympäristöystävällistä nähnytkää, (musta-pinkki Nokia 3250)– Kivan vihreä (Nokia 5100) on joo, mutta sitten tää onkin tällaista muovia
Nainen:– Tää on tälläinen halpismalli, tää menee tänne epäekoihin (Nokia 8210)– Tää on superympäristöystävällinen, tää on ollu mulla kohta kymmenen vuotta
(Nokia 3210)– Eiks tää oo semmonen minkä voi heittää seinään (5100, 5140, eko), tässäkin tää
muovikuori tekee että tää ei oo ympäristöystävällinen (mm. 5140)– Tää on niin kapee että ihan varmasti lähtee jotain irti (nec-simpukka, epäeko)– Vanhat puhelimet on kestäviä (eko)
appe
ndic
es
182
– Tässäkin tuntuu että tää ei varmasti kestä ja tässä on tää näppäimistö…jos mä kynnellä painan niin tässä on reikä, tää ei niinku kestä (nokia 2650)
– Selkeästi mekaaniset näppäimet on luotettavampia– Jotenkin tää tuntuu semmoselta halpis (sony eriksson matta simpukkapuhelin)– Tää vaikuttaa kestävältä ja jotenkin luotettavalta puhelimelta… kompakti ei
mitään ylimääräistä hajoavaa tai uloketta, selkeät näppäimet, vaikuttaa tosi käytettävältä, no luotettavalta puhelimelta, että tää vois olla bisnespuhelin eli ei mun puhelin mutta sellainen joka kestää jatkossakin, uuden ajan ym-päristöpuhelin kun toi mun vanha on vanhan ajan ympäristöpuhelin
– Käytettävä puhelin, tämmönen (ohut simpukka) on tosi hepponen, että on tämmöstä kruisailua ja panostettu ulkoasuun eikä tiedä miten se toimii (lg:n automalli)
– Musta muovi, tää on nyt sitä mitä pohdittiin sen muovikulhon ympäristöystäväl-lisyyttä, auto ei tuo mieleen yhtään ympäristöystävällisyyttä mutta kertooko se puhelimena (lg:n automalli)
– Tää on tavallaan tosi monikäyttöinen että sillä voi olla käyttöä, mutta ainakaan nää materiaalit jotka tässä on tuntuu tosi hepposilta ja tämä materiaali ei kyllä viesti mitään ympäristöystävällisyyttä (nokia 6280)
– Tää on tosi inhottava tapaus, kai tää on puhelin mutta tää on tällainen kulutus-hyödyke (nokia n91)
– Näistä materiaaleista on hankala sanoa mikä ois ympäristöystävällistä ja mikä ei– Lähinnä ehkä kestävyysaspekti vaikuttaa onko eko vai ei, pienemmän tekemiseen
menee vähemmän materiaalia mutta tää tuntuu tosi hepposelta, jotenkin tää (simpukka nec) ei tunnu luotettavalta
– Nää muovipuhelimet on epäekopäässä, ja nää kestävän näköiset on täällä eko-päässä, nää (5100, 5140) valitsin tähän (melko eko) kun nää kestää tiputusta vaikka nää oli mulla eka tuolla toisessa päässä
– Siis tavallaan tämmöisistä materiaaleista tulee mieleen ihmisläheisyys joka on musta lähellä ympäristöystävällistä, tää pintamateriaali on tosi kiva (nokia 2650) ei niin tekninen vaan jotenkin tällainen ihmisläheinen, tää ei oo mitään ration-aalista ajattelua vaan tää niinku tuntuu jotenkin luonnolliselta ja hyvältä
– Täällä (epäeko pää) on nää halpismuovipuhelimet ja nää jotka tuntuu että ei oo käytettäviä eikä kestäviä, hepposet puhelimet, tässä (nokia n91) on liikaa kaikkea että tää vois olla eko…ja tuntuu että sieltä sisältä voi löytyä vaikka mitä turhaakin (epäekot)
appe
ndic
es
183
Mies:– Semmonen mikä viestii ekosta, nii täällä on metallivärit ja tällainen mistä
puhuin on yrityspuhelin mikä viestii teollisuudesta ja se taas viestii ympäristölle haitallisesta. Sitten toinen näkökulma on semmoinen, että just tämmöinen joka menee leluks ja mahdollisimman muovisen näköinen joutaa tänne (epäekot)
– En tiedä miten puhelin viestii ympäristöystävällisyydestä… toisaalta pitkälle viety tekniikka voi olla ympäristöystävllistä, mutta jos siitä on jätetty turha pois
– Tämmönen on ehkä eko, ei turhaa väriä käytetty (nokia 1101) – Näissä vaikuttaa aika paljon väritys, tämmönen pinkki väritys johtaa aika paljon
tänne päähän (epäeko)– Tässä värissä on jotain semmosta että tässä on ympäristöystävällisen väristä,
vaalee keltasen vihree, taittuu valosa (nokia 8210) tuo enemmän sitä tuntumaa– Värityksellä on aika vahva merkitys, jotkut näistä tuo vaan mieleen semmoisen
kiireisen kaupunkielämän jota mä en miellä ympäristöystävälliseks– Esimerkiks tää tuo mieleen sen koneen joka sen on valmistanut, tämmönen
(3310) on koottu käsin mut tässä on robotti takana (nec-simpukka) joka ei oo voinut olla ympäristöystävällinen
– Ihan sama efekti (epäeko) kun on käytetty paljon metallia– Muovi on aina muovia, se ei pääse ympäristöystävälliseen millään, metalli on
luonnosta otettu ja se tuntuu enemmän ympäristöystävälliseltä, mut tällanen muovin ja kumin sekoitus [elastomeeri] ei ympäristöystävälliseltä tunnu mutta sijoittuu (ympäristöystävällisemmäksi) kuin läpinäkyvä muovi
– Näytön koko iso viestii että hienoa ja kaikki-mulle-nyt on epäekoa ja semmoin-en missä voidaan luopua jostain on ympäristöystävällistä ja tuntuu, että tolla pärjää (nokia 8210)
– Pienempi on ekompi kuin iso, metalli kuin muovi] joo, punaista väriä en mieltänyt, mutta koko ei ole itsestään selvä. Tää on pieni, mutta viestii että on paljon ominaisuuksia, paljon ominaisuuksia on epäympäristöystävällistä ja ker-too turhamaisuudesta
– Tuntuu vähän turhamaisilta, on pitänyt piilottaa että se näyttää puhelimelta (no-kian ”lipstickit”)
appe
ndic
es
184
APPENDIX 8 – Ranking of mobile devices in the interview
phones: non eco–eco
Eco points
appe
ndic
es
185
mobile device ranking (most environmentally friendly first):
appe
ndic
es
186
Samsung SGH-E760
appe
ndic
es
187
appe
ndic
es
188
APPENDIX 9 – Answers to the concluding question in the interviews (in Finnish)
Mitä ominaisuuksia liität ympäristöystävälliseen puhelimeen?– ”Sen pitäis varmaan olla puuta… mitä monimutkaisempaa teknologiaa sitä
vaikeempaa sen hävittäminen on jälkeenpäin…materiaalia mitä siinä käytetään, kuoret ja kaikki maatuvaa kamaa eikä myrkyllistä kun sitä laitetaan luontoon… akku on kyllä, se on varmaan tosi vaarallinen.” (nainen)
– ”Laadukkuus, pitkäikäisyys, jostain syystä perinteet tulee mieleen, tuli nuo vanhat puhelimet mieleen, niihin on käytetty huomattavasti enemmän tuoteke-hitykseen aikaan joten ne materiaalit voi olla mietitympiä.” (nainen)
– ”Kaikki ne perusominaisuudet mitä ihminen tarvii mutta ei semmoisia mitä ihmiset ei tarvii, sillä voi soittaa ja laittaa tekstiviestejä, jos puhelin pystyy korvaamaan monia muita laitteita, esim. et tarvii erikseen puhelinta ja taskutie-tokonetta, niin on se ympäristöystävällisempää että sulla on vaan se yks puhe-lin.” (nainen)
– ”Laittaisin kännykkään jonkinlaisen standby –moodin, jossa menee virrankulu-tus mahdollisimman nopeasti pois päältä näytöstä kokonaan…jos on 2 näyt-töä, niin en tiedä miten se menee, ois hyvä että toinen näyttö menee kokonaan kiinni … Mediapuhelimissa voi ohjelma jäädä pyörimään taustalta, pitäisi olla mahdollisuus että puhelin kysyy otetaanko pois päältä…Kaikkia virransäästöjä, se ois kuluttajallekin etu, kännykän akku kestäis pidempään…” (nainen)
– ”Mp3-soitin keskittyy liikaa itteensä ja se ihminen ei näe siinä ympärillä tapahtuvaa siinä vois olla värityksenä jotain tota vastaava, vaaleen keltavihreä (8210) niin vaikee yhdistää puhelinta ja ympäristöä… radio vois ihan hyvin olla, wlan ja bt riippuu mitä miettii internetistä… Internetin käyttö on niin abstraktia joten en näe että sen käyttö tuhoaa luontoa ja on siellä myös ym-päristöaktivistit jotka voi ajaa asioita… ” (mies)
– ”Pitäis käyttää vähän sähköä, tietenkin valmistus pitäsi olla aika yksinkertaista… se vois olla ihan hyvän näköinenkin, mutta se ei varsinaisesti lisää sitä ekoutta. Sen pitäisi olla luotettavan oloinen, ei semmonen tuon tyypin ainakaan (nivel-letty moneen suuntaan). Nokia, tuttu ja turvallinen ja suomalainen, jos ne sanois että ne ois tehny ympäristöystävällisen puhelimen niin se menis läpi, markki-noiden johtaja ois varmaan tehny testejäkin.” (mies)
appe
ndic
es
189
APPENDIX 10 – Results from survey
Here the survey results from the target segment are presented as graphs and figures.
choose the alternative that best suits you
87% I am worried about the state of the environment, but I do not take part in environment protection activities. I buy eco-products when they do not differ from other products in price or quality.
8% I am not very worried about the state of the environment, since I believe the environmental issues lie in good hands. I do not usually buy eco-products, but when they do not differ in price or in quality from other products, I might buy the eco-alternative.
5% I do not think about environmental issues when making purchasing decisions.
gender distribution
47% Male
53% Female
appe
ndic
es
190
occupation sector distribution
8% Service 2% Other industry, warehouse sector 3% Industry: clothing, machinery, wood,
electricity, and painting 3% Construction- and mining sector 1% Transportaition and traffic sector 1% Agricultural and forestry sector,
fishery sector 17% Commercial work 23% Administrative and office work, travel-
and IT sector 9% Healthcare and social sector 35% Scientific-, technical-, artistic and
humanistic work
88% University-level 11% Upper secondary school,
vocational school 1% Elementary school
education level distribution
appe
ndic
es
191
age distribution
province distribution
Number of participants
appe
ndic
es
192
the environmental effects of producing, consuming and disposing of a product affect my purchasing decision:
Number of participants
when making a purchasing decision, i search for information on the environmental effects of production, consumption and disposal of the product (you may choose more than one alternative):
Number of votes received
which of the following attributes do you link with an environmentally friendly product:Votes given
appe
ndic
es
193
eco-ranking: colors
Eco-points
eco-ranking: materialsEco-points
appe
ndic
es
194
eco-ranking: mobile devices
Eco-points
how environmentally friendly do you perceive the following types of mobile phones (grades from 4 to 10):
Grades
appe
ndic
es
195
from the consumer electronics brands below, choose three(3) that you perceive most environmentally friendly:
from the consumer electronics brands below, choose three(3) that you perceive least environmentally friendly:
Number of votes recieved
Number of votes recieved
Can environmental friendliness be communicated by the design style and appearance of products?
How should environmental friendliness be communicated through product appearance in order for it to be plausible?
What set of technologies best communicates the eco-message?
This interdiciplinary Master’s thesis seeks answers to these questions through literature and empirical research. The authors of this thesis are students from three different Universities; Turku School of Economics, University of Art and Design Helsinki and Helsinki University of Technology. All three authors have participated in the International Design Business Management -program, which brings together experts of different fields to work as members of interdiscipli-nary teams within the concept of design business management.