Market and product

Compiled by Bao Hien

A survey of 304 European consumers found they would pay an extra €2.42 for laundry detergent with packaging containing 70% less plastic and €2.22 for renewable surfactants, more than the €1.54 for removing stubborn stains. Yet nearly half of respondents said effectiveness is the most important factor, and the data come from hypothetical choices, not real purchases.

The study by Maria Elena Saija and Sara Daniotti (Consorzio Italbiotec, Milan, Italy) was published in Sustainability on April 9, 2025, in open access. It is a 2025 study, not the latest result.
How it was measured: a choice experiment

The team used a discrete choice experiment. Each respondent went through 12 scenarios, each offering two hypothetical products and a “no-buy” option. The product was a 1.5-liter liquid laundry detergent with five attributes: stain removal, wash temperature (30 or 20 °C), packaging (recycled and recyclable plastic, or 70% less plastic), surfactant (renewable and sustainable, or reduced quantity) and price. The team then computed willingness to pay (WTP) by dividing each attribute’s coefficient by the price coefficient.

The final sample was 304 people, mostly from Italy (42.4%), Spain (26%), Germany (11.5%) and Portugal (7.6%). Women made up 64.8%, and more than half held postgraduate qualifications (30.9% a master’s degree, 26.6% a PhD or postgraduate specialization). About 82% said shifting to sustainable consumer products is important for fighting climate change.

Key numbers

Extra willingness to pay across the whole sample:

• Packaging with 70% less plastic: €2.42.
• Renewable and sustainable surfactants: €2.22.
• Stubborn stain removal: €1.54.
• Washing at 30 °C versus 20 °C: about €0.30 higher.

The “no-buy” option was strongly disfavored (coefficient −4.24), meaning respondents strongly preferred choosing a specific product.

Differences between groups

Spanish respondents were willing to pay the most: €3.49 for 70% less plastic packaging and €3.04 for renewable surfactants. Italians were at €2.31 and €2.13. Portuguese respondents were lowest, especially for formulation and temperature.

Women paid more than men for packaging (€2.55 versus €2.13) and surfactants (€2.36 versus €1.94), while men were slightly higher on temperature. Baby Boomers (aged 55 and over) had the highest WTP on most attributes; the author links this to financial stability, not environmental attitudes.

By income, the group above €60,000 would pay €4.33 for 70% less plastic packaging, but the group above €80,000 only €2.55. The author attributes this to a very small sample. The PhD group even showed negative values for recycled packaging (−€2.50), and the author also cautions about its small sample.

Saying one thing, choosing another

Asked directly, nearly 50% said stain removal efficacy is the most important factor, and 28% chose price. More than 41% said packaging is the least relevant, and 27% said surfactants. Yet in the choice experiment, packaging and surfactants earned the highest premiums.

The authors explain this as an attitude–behavior gap: respondents may take effectiveness for granted and so not pay extra for it, ethical considerations may override stated priorities in hypothetical scenarios, and fragrance (not tested) may be a hidden factor. The low value placed on 20 °C washing may also reflect doubts about cold washing.

Implications for industry

The team recommends proritizing eco-design (concentrated formulas, refill systems, packaging with less or no plastic), developing bio-based surfactants and communicating them clearly, not trading wash performance for sustainability, and tailoring products by region: premium options where WTP is high, such as Spain, and lower-cost options where it is low, such as Portugal.

Points to note

The choices are hypothetical and may not match real purchasing behavior. The sample is concentrated in four countries, skewed toward young, female and highly educated respondents, with few people earning above €80,000 or holding PhDs. The pilot had only 44 people, mostly Italian. The team used 12 scenarios, more than the 8–9 their own workflow recommends. Fragrance was not an attribute.

The paper has some inconsistencies: the list of survey languages differs between two sections (English, Spanish, German and Italian in one; Italian, English, French and German in another), and the coefficient range for temperature is given as two values (2.89 and 2.72). The detailed tables, the price levels tested and the confidence of the WTP estimates were not reviewed. The only source cross-checked here is the paper itself, so there is no independent verification.