IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uneewp/12899.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Selling Australia as 'Clean and Green'

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie)
  • Kristiansen, Paul

Abstract

'Green and clean' has been used as a key marketing tool to promote Australian products overseas. The rationale is that consumers are generally concerned about personal health and the environment and will choose, and pay price premiums, for products that are, or perceived to be, clean (good for them) and green (good for the environment) over alternative products. But is Australia seen as clean and green? Is it really why people buy Australian products? And how effective is it as a marketing tool? This paper attempts to answer some of these questions. The study found that Australia may have a clean green image at present in some of her overseas markets, but to maintain such an image over time, concrete proof of environmental and quality credentials need to be provided to satisfy increasingly more educated and better-informed consumers. Wide adoption of integrated EMS and QA systems by Australian producers and food companies appears to be a means to establish such credentials and substantiate any 'clean and green' claim. Therefore, government policies should focus more on developing a range of tools to encourage good environmental and quality management practices, rather than on promoting the 'clean and green' image. Such campaigns may be counter-productive in the long run as it leads to complacency, rather than raising environmental and quality awareness.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2004. "Selling Australia as 'Clean and Green'," Working Papers 12899, University of New England, School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uneewp:12899
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.12899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/12899/files/wp040008.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.12899?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kingwell, Ross S., 2003. "Quality Assurance Certification and Implementation: Growers' Costs and Perceived Benefits," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    2. Khanna, Madhu & Isik, Murat & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 157-174, August.
    3. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hui‐Shung (Christie) Chang & Paul Kristiansen, 2006. "Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 103-113, March.
    2. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2006. "Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-11, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2004. "Selling Australia as "clean and green"," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58393, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    3. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    4. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2004. "Deforestation, Production Intensity and Land Use under Insecure Property Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 1128, CESifo.
    6. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    7. Senthold Asseng & David Pannell, 2013. "Adapting dryland agriculture to climate change: Farming implications and research and development needs in Western Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 167-181, May.
    8. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    9. Javad Torkamani & Shahrokh Shajari, 2008. "Adoption of New Irrigation Technology Under Production Risk," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(2), pages 229-237, February.
    10. Ricardo Smith Ramírez, 2007. "FIML estimation of treatment effect models with endogenous selection and multiple censored responses via a Monte Carlo EM Algorithm," Working papers DTE 403, CIDE, División de Economía.
    11. Jackson, T.M. & Hanjra, Munir A. & Khan, S. & Hafeez, M.M., 2011. "Building a climate resilient farm: A risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 729-745.
    12. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    13. Morais, G. & Braga, J.M., 2018. "Irrigation and farm efficiency in Brazil," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275987, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Kampas, Athanasios & Petsakos, Athanasios & Rozakis, Stelios, 2012. "Price induced irrigation water saving: Unraveling conflicts and synergies between European agricultural and water policies for a Greek Water District," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 28-38.
    15. Fleming, Patrick, 2014. "A Model of Agricultural Land Use, Costs, and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170373, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Micheels, Eric T. & Nolan, James F., 2016. "Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: A Canadian Prairie case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 127-138.
    17. Pannell, David J., 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-21.
    18. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    19. Clarke, Hamish & Trafford, Guy & Woodford, Keith, 2014. "An evaluation of the viability of two ‘AMS’ farm systems in Central Canterbury," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187493, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Fosso, Prisca Koncy & Tsafack Nanfosso, Roger, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 97(1), April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uneewp:12899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuneau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.