O3-03

The 8th International Conference on Serviceology (ICServ2...

Extended Abstract of ICServ2023

Comparison of Sense of Sustainability and Premium Components in Japan:
A Study using the Evaluation Grid Method
Miyuki Toga1, Masashi Sugimoto1, Yoichi Yamazaki1, Tomomi Hatano1, Noriko Nagata1,
Hiroaki Fukuda2, and Koji Takata2
1
Kwansei Gakuin University, 1 Gakuen Uegahara, Sanda, Hyogo 669-1330, Japan
E-mail: m.toga@kwansei.ac.jp
2
Henkel Japan Ltd., 14th floor Sphere Tower Tennouzu, 2-2-8 Higashi Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 140-0002, Japan
Keywords:
subjective sustainability, all Industries, sustainability attitudes
1 INTRODUCTION
Sustainability is not only a social issue, but also an issue for eachindividual consumer, because consumers are part of the supply
chain of various goods and services. Therefore, understanding
how consumers perceive and adopt sustainability is important inpromoting sustainability.
Previous studies have reported a discrepancy between what is
actually sustainable and what is subjectively perceived assustainable. Steenis et al. showed that consumers do not consider
products in paper boxes that are actually sustainable to besustainable and that they consider glass bottles that are notactually sustainable to be sustainable [1]. In this study, subjective
sustainability is called "sense of sustainability" and isdistinguished from objective sustainability. To investigate how
people perceive sustainability, it is necessary to consider thesense of sustainability in goods and services.
Sustainability is considered a new value in goods and services.
However, consumers have values that have been emphasized in
the past. When various values are attached to a service or a
product, it is difficult to satisfy them simultaneously if theincrease of one of them decreases the other. As consumers adopt
the value of sustainability, the relationship with traditional values
will be important.
One value that has been emphasized and considered is sense ofpremium [2]. Kapferer and Michaut suggest that sustainability
may be one of the quality factors expected by customers ofluxury (a concept similar to premium) goods [3], while Kunz et
al. point out that sustainability and luxury are perceived asconflicting concepts [4]. Therefore, it is not clear what kind of
relationship exists between the sense of sustainability and thesense of premium.
The purpose of this study is to determine the sense ofsustainability, including its relationship to the sense of premium.
To this end, we will visualize the components of the sense ofsustainability and the sense of premium using the evaluation grid
method. To compare the components of the sense ofsustainability and the sense of premium, it is necessary toorganize them according to a common classification. Sustainable
development has three innovative components: environmental
protection (I), social inclusion (II), and economic growth (III)(Fig. 1) [5]. Given the possibility that customers of luxury goods
expect sustainability [3], the senses of sustainability andpremium are organized along these three components in thisstudy.

Social Inclusion
社会的包摂
(II)
(Ⅱ)

環境保護
Environmental
Protection(Ⅰ)(I)

Fig.1 Three innovative elements of sustainable development
and is conducted in the form of an online questionnaire using a
Web User Interface.
In the evaluation grid method, for example, participants compare
what they consider to be a high sense of sustainability and what
they consider to be a low sense of sustainability and describe thereasons, conditions, and their connections in a hierarchicalmanner. A hierarchical evaluation structure grid can be createdwith abstract value judgments at the top, sensory understanding
in the middle, and objective and concrete understanding at thebottom (Fig. 2).
The results of the evaluation grid are compiled into an evaluation
structure diagram using the Evaluation Structure Visualization(ESV) system developed by the Kansei Value Creation Instituteof Kwansei Gakuin University, to which the authors belong. ESV
is capable of setting threshold values (Katz centrality) based on
the frequency of occurrence and the values of components thatare strongly related to other components and can be used tocreate a graphical representation of components that are wellconnected to other components.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Evaluation grid method
This study conducts interviews based on the evaluation grid
method, which can visualize the evaluation structure
hierarchically [6,7]. The original evaluation grid method is a
face-to-face interview, but this study is based on that procedure©ICServ2023

経済成長
Economic(Ⅲ) (III)
Growth- O3-03 -High-level concept

It can be ◎◎.

It is ○○.

Low-level concept

It made of△△.

●● mustbe attached.

Fig.2 Explanation of evaluation structureO3-03

The 8th International Conference on Serviceology (ICServ2...

Table 1 19 industries targeted in this studyNo.

Industries

12

Agriculture, Forestry
Fishing (Industry)

3

Mining, Quarrying, Gravel Extraction

45Construction Industry
Manufacturing Industry

6

Electricity, Gas, Heat Supply, and Water Supply

7

Information and Communication Industry

8
9Transportation Service, Postal Service
Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade10

Finance, Insurance

11
12

Real Estate Business, Goods Rental BusinessAcademic Research, Professional and Technical Services

13

Lodging Services, Food Services

14
15

Lifestyle-Related Services, Entertainment
Education, Learning Support Industry

16

Medical Care, Welfare

17

Compound Service Business

18
19Services (Not Elsewhere Classified)Public Business

2.3

Measurement of objective sustainability knowledge
and attitude
To examine the participants' objective knowledge and attitudes
toward sustainability, we administered a sustainability
knowledge task consisting of a 10-item correct/incorrect
judgment task, developed based on the Ministry of theEnvironment's "Domestic and International Situation
Surrounding Plastic" [9], and a 31-item sustainability attitude
questionnaire (Japanese translation) by Haan et al. The
questionnaire consists of 31 items, including 5 factors ofsustainability spending, skepticism (-), responsibility, support,
and mobility [10].
2.4 Detecting dishonest participants and confirming thetendency of compliance with instructions
The implementation of the evaluation grid method using the Web
UI may include inappropriate answers by dishonest participants.
To detect this, we added a satisficer detection item to the
Personality Scale (TIPI-J) [11]: "Please select approximately
disagree with this question.” Participants who made a choiceother than the one indicated were suspected to be a satisficer who
ignored the instructions and answered inaccurately [12].
Therefore, the participant's data could be omitted from theanalysis. In addition, a group of participants who tend to comply
with the instructions have moderate correlations between each of
the two items measuring the five factors of the TIPI-J:
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, and openness to experience [13]. This method is also
used for a posteriori validation.
2.5 Survey Methodology
2.5.1 ParticipantsParticipants were recruited through a Japanese crowd-working
service. A total of 380 participants, 20 per industry, answered allquestions, excluding those who dropped out during the survey.

©ICServ2023

The total number of participants was 128, consisting of 63 males
and 65 females (mean age 41.8 years, SD = 9.6; 39.1 years, SD= 9.5; respectively). The number of industries per participants
ranged from 1 to 19.
2.5.2 Period
The survey was conducted November 11–16, 2022.
2.5.3 Questionnaires and Procedures
All questions were asked in the form of a Web-basedquestionnaire. Participants were asked if they felt the industry
had a high level of sustainability or premium, and if they felt thecurrent level of sustainability was high compared to the ideal forthe industry. Next, participants were asked to recall as many
goods and services as possible that have a high/low sense ofsustainability/premium for the industry. After explaining theevaluation grid method using a Web UI form (web survey form
interface is formatted and displayed according to the hierarchicalstructure of the evaluation grid using HTML and CSS.), they
were asked to enter their answers. Finally, a sustainability
knowledge task and an attitude questionnaire were conducted.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Tendency of participants' compliance with answers
No participants answered incorrectly on the satisficer detection
question, and each of the two items measuring the five factors of
the TIPI-J showed more than moderate correlations(extraversion: −.51, agreeableness: − .39, conscientiousness:−.65, emotional stability: −.60, and openness to experience: −.57,
all significant at the 1% level). Based on these results, theparticipants were considered to have complied with the
instructions to answer the questions, and thus, the subsequent
analysis was conducted.
3.2 Participants' Sustainability Knowledge and Attitudes
The results of the sustainability knowledge task showed that the
average correct answer rate was 77% (SD = 0.80).
Subscale scores were calculated for each of the five factors forresponses to the Sustainability Attitude Questionnaire (Fig. 3).
5
Mean of subscale scores

2.2 Targeted goods and services
To examine various goods and services, we targeted 19
industries, excluding "unclassifiable industries" from the major
items of the Japanese Standard Industrial Classification (Table 1)
[8].

4
3
2
1
Sustainable
Spending

Sustainability Sustainable
Skepticism (-) Responsibility

Sustainable
SupportSustainable
Mobility

Fig. 3 Sustainability attitude score
Since actual sustainability costs a little extra, it is assumed thatthe degree to which one can tolerate the cost will affect one’s
sense of sustainability. Therefore, the correlation coefficients
between the "spending on sustainability" factor and the otherfour factors were calculated from the scores of the fivesustainability attitude factors (Table 2). The correlation
coefficients between the spending on the sustainability factor andthe other four factors are moderate.

- O3-03 -Table 2 Correlation between sustainable spending and the otherfour factors
Skepticism(-)
Spending**.48

Responsibility**.58

Support**.42

Mobility**.34**: p < .01

O3-03

The 8th International Conference on Serviceology (ICServ2...

Extended Abstract of ICServ2023(a) High sense of sustainability
Can be done
onlineResource
conservation

Protecting
natureCost
reduction

SocialInclusion (II)EnergysavingEnvironmental
considerations

Economic
Growth (III)Trash
reduction
Safe

DemandWaste
reduction

Environmental
Protection (I)High sense ofsustainability

Recyclable

Resources can beused without waste

Necessity
EnvironmentallyfriendlyReusable

Renewable energy
is usedGeenhousegases reduction

Environmental
conservation

Technologicaldevelopment

Low sense ofsustainability(b) Low sense of sustainability

Wasteful

Pollutes env.

WastesenergyDestroysnatureHigh cost

Bad for theenvironment

Not
necessary
Cannotberecycled

Produces
waste
Cannot bereusedWastesresources

Consumesresources

Pollutes
the air
Uses paper
resources

Consumes
electricity

Produces
garbage
Burdens theenvironment

Consumes
fossil fuels

Depletes resources

Emits greenhouse gases
Leads to environmental destruction

Fig. 4 Evaluation grids of sense of sustainability (Katz centrality = 0.045)

3.3 Results of the evaluation grid method
At the end, 4,849 responses (components) were obtained.
Responses with similar content were categorized and grouped
together. Of all the responses, 2,900 were grouped into 497
categories, and those corresponding to environmental protection(I), social inclusion (II), and economic growth (III) wereclassified using color coding. The categories that could beclassified into more than one category were not classified and left
as they were.
The evaluation grids of sense of sustainability are shown in Fig.
4. The components of a grid describing a high sense ofsustainability showed that resource conservation, reusability,
waste reduction, cost reduction, and environmental
considerations, such as recycling and protecting nature,
increased the sense of sustainability. The components of a grid
describing a low sense of sustainability showed that greenhousegas emissions are bad for the environment, produces garbage,and high cost decreased the sense of sustainability.
The evaluation grids of sense of premium are shown in Fig. 5.
The components of a grid describing a high sense of premium
showed that high prices and fees, rarity, specialness, satisfaction,
good quality, added value, and high cost increase the sense ofpremium. The components of a grid describing a low sense ofpremium showed that the not using good quality products, mass
production, conveniently available to everyone, and low costdecreased the sense of premium.
4 DISCUSSION
In this study, the evaluation grid method was used to determine
the evaluation structure of consumers' senses of sustainability©ICServ2023

and premium. Participants' current sustainability knowledge andattitudes were also examined.
In the evaluation structures of high and low senses ofsustainability, most of the factors are related to environmental
protection (I), and none of the factors related to social inclusion(II) are shown. A few components related to economic growth(III) were found to be related to cost: “cost reduction (high senseof sustainability)" and "high cost (low sense of sustainability)".
These results indicate that most of the factors that influence thesense of sustainability are related to environmental protection (I),and are perceived as being biased against subjective
sustainability, which includes social inclusion (II) and economic
growth (III).
In the evaluation structures of high and low senses of premium,most of the elements are related to economic growth (III), andthe elements of "high cost (high sense of premium)" and "lowcost (low sense of premium)" were also found. Factors related toenvironmental protection (I) and social inclusion (II) were notindicated.
A common cost component was shown to be associated with boththe sense of sustainability and the sense of premium. The cost
component of the sense of sustainability is related to waste
reduction and reusability (high sense of sustainability) and to the
produces garbage (low sense of sustainability). On the other
hand, the components related to the cost of the sense of premium
are connected to the high price and cost, the demand via goodquality (high sense of premium), the not using good quality
products, and conveniently available to everyone (low sense ofpremium). That is, the sense of sustainability and the sense ofpremium have a common component of cost, but the cost of thesense of sustainability is composed of subcomponents related toenvironmental protection (I), whereas the cost of the sense of- O3-03 -O3-03

The 8th International Conference on Serviceology (ICServ2...

High sense ofpremium(a) High sense of premium

Expen
sive

Brand nameproduct

Mining ofrare metals
Scarcity
value
Limited production
and output

RarityUse of high quality
materials

Good
quality

Added
value

High costServices for
wealthy

Spendingmoney

Attracting thebest talent

Many
users

Beaut
iful

Tradition

Expensive materials

DemandTaketime

Feelingof
specialnessHigh prices andfees
DifferentiatedSatisfaction

Limited number ofpeople engaged(b) Low sense of premium

Fewer
workers

Knowledge,
experienceand ability
requiredLow sense ofpremium

Image is not
good

Hard
labor

Poor
qualityCan't afford
the cost
Low
price/fee

Environmental
Protection (I)SocialInclusion (II)High production
and makeup

Not using goodquality products

Mass production

Low cost

No demand

Economic
Growth (III)

Available toeveryone

Conveniently
available toeveryone

Does not cost a
lot of money

Fig. 5 Evaluation grids of sense of premium (Katz centrality = 0.045)
premium is composed of subcomponents related to economic
growth (III). Therefore, although there appears to be a trade-off
relationship between the two, as low cost is associated with ahigh sense of sustainability and low sense of premium, nocommon component behind the two indicates that they are
independent of each other. The results of this study are not in
consistent with previous studies indicating that sustainability is a
conflicting concept of premium or a component of the sense ofpremium [3,4]. The cost component of the sense of sustainability
and the sense of premium can be considered qualitatively
independent of each other, unless there is a reason for thedifference in the two components.
Based on the scores of the sustainability knowledge task, it canbe said that the participants in this study have some objective
knowledge of sustainability. The scores for attitude were not highfor any of the factors. The fact that the scores for spending onsustainability were not high suggests that the participants do not
accept that sustainability is costly. However, the more
responsible, non-skeptical, and cooperative one is towardsustainability, the more acceptable spending sustainably tends to
be. This suggests that the higher the level of people's attitudes
toward sustainability, the more likely they are to accept the costof sustainability in the future. It is important for people to have a
deeper understanding of sustainability and to recognize that they
are correctly spending money on sustainability.
5 CONCLUSION
This study visualized the evaluation structure of how consumers
understand the senses of sustainability and premium using theevaluation grid method. Most of the factors that influence a highor low sense of sustainability are related to environmental
protection (I) and are understood subjectively rather than throughobjective sustainability. On the other hand, most of the factors©ICServ2023

that influence the high or low sense of premium are related toeconomic growth (III), and no factors related to environmental
protection (I) were indicated. In addition, the sense ofsustainability and the sense of premium were influenced in
opposite directions by a common component, cost, but there wasno common component behind them. These results suggest thatthe sense of sustainability and the sense of premium are
independent of each other.
6 REFERENCE[1] Steenis, N.D., Herpen, E.V., Lans, I.V., Ligthart, T.N., &Trijp, H.C., 2017, Consumer response to packaging
design : The role of packaging materials and graphics insustainability perceptions and product evaluations, Journalof Cleaner Production, 162 : 286-298.
[2] Tobitani, K., Shiraiwa, A., Katahira, K., Nagata, N., Nikata,K., & Arakawa, K., 2021, Modeling of “High-Class
Feeling” on a cosmetic package design, Journal of theJapan Society for Precision Engineering, 87 : 134-139. (inJapanese)[3] Kapferer, J-N., & Michaut, A., 2015, Luxury andsustainability: a common future? The match depends on
how consumers define luxury, Luxury Research Journal, 1:
3-17.
[4] Kunz, J., May, S., & Schmidt, H. J., 2020, Sustainable
luxury: current status and perspectives for future research,
Business Research, 13: 541-601.
[5] United Nations Public Information Center Website"Sustainable Development:
https://www.unic.or.jp/activities/economic_social_develo
pment/sustainable_development/ (Viewed 06/06/2023).
(in Japanese)- O3-03 -O3-03

The 8th International Conference on Serviceology (ICServ2...

Extended Abstract of ICServ2023[6]

Samui, J., 2003, Interview Research for Product Planning:
Present Status and Issues to be Solved, Quality, 33: 281288. (in Japanese)[7] Sugimoto, M., Zhang, F., Nagata, N., Kurihara, K., Yuge,
S., Tanaka, M., Ota, K., and Furukawa, S., 2020, Individual
differences in office comfort: What affects comfort varies
by person Digital Human Modeling and Applications in
Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management,
Posture, Motion and Health, HCII 2020, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 12198: 264-275.
[8] Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications: Japan
Standard Industrial Classification (Revised October2013):
https://www.soumu.go.jp/toukei_toukatsu/index/seido/sangyo/H25index.htm (Viewed 06/06/2023). (in Japanese)[9] Ministry of the Environment Website "Domestic andInternational Situation Surrounding Plastics <Reference
Materials>":
https://www.env.go.jp/council/03recycle/y031203/y031203-s1r.pdf (viewed 06/06/2023). (in Japanese)[10] Haan, M., Konijn, E. A., Burgers, C., Eden, A., Brugman,
B. C., & Verheggen, P. P., 2018, Identifying Sustainable
Population
Segments
Using
aMulti-Domain
Questionnaire: A Five Factor Sustainability Scale, Social
Marketing Quarterly, 24: 264–280.
[11] Oshio, A., Abe, S., & Pino, C, 2021, Development,
Reliability, and Validity of the Japanese Version of Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J), The Japanese Journalof Personality, 21: 40-52. (in Japanese)[12] Omori, S., 2021, Sample Characteristics of Internet
Surveys, NIRA Working Paper, 1: 1-29. (in Japanese)[13] Miuta, A. & Kobayashi, T., 2018, Influence of Satisficing
on Online Survey Responses, The Japanese Journal of
Behaviormetrics, 45: 1-11. (in Japanese)©ICServ2023- O3-03 -