IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04182138.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Polluting for (Higher) Profits: Does an Economic Gain Influence Moral Judgment of Environmental Wrongdoings?

Author

Listed:
  • Gilles Grolleau

    (ESSCA - School of Management)

  • Luc Meunier

    (ESSCA Research Lab - ESSCA - Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d'Angers)

  • Naoufel Mzoughi

    (ECODEVELOPPEMENT - Ecodéveloppement - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

Pollution is frequently "rationalized" by involved firms as a necessary bad to reach economic or social goals. Unfortunately, little is known about how external observers form moral judgment when confronted to such a dual output, precisely an economic or social gain (e.g., profits, job preservation) and an environmental harm. Using two experimental surveys, we fill this gap by inviting participants to judge the morality of two companies engaging in the same environmental wrongdoings (river pollution and deforestation) while varying the generated monetary gain. In the preliminary study, individuals perceive environmental degradations generating higher profits for the firm as more morally acceptable. In the main study, we used a multiple-item measure of behavioral intentions towards the firm and we analyzed potential moderating effects. The results are threefold: (i) the attitude towards the firm improves as the profit obtained by the firm increases, up to a tipping point; (ii) when the profit gained by the firm increases, environmentally-unconcerned (resp. concerned) individuals display more positive (resp. negative) attitude towards the firm; (iii) respondents thinking that the firm main objective should be only about profit and not social well-being express a more lenient judgment. We draw several policy and managerial implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Gilles Grolleau & Luc Meunier & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2023. "Polluting for (Higher) Profits: Does an Economic Gain Influence Moral Judgment of Environmental Wrongdoings?," Post-Print hal-04182138, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04182138
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107963
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04182138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascual Berrone & Andrea Fosfuri & Liliana Gelabert, 2017. "Does Greenwashing Pay Off? Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Actions and Environmental Legitimacy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 363-379, August.
    2. Nadelhoffer, Thomas & Heshmati, Saeideh & Kaplan, Deanna & Nichols, Shaun, 2013. "Folk Retributivism And The Communication Confound," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 235-261, July.
    3. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    4. Morgenstern, Richard D. & Pizer, William A. & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2002. "Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 412-436, May.
    5. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    6. Lazaric, Nathalie & Toumi, Mira, 2022. "Reducing consumption of electricity: A field experiment in Monaco with boosts and goal setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. James Konow, 2009. "Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 101-127, June.
    8. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. Berthold, Anne & Cologna, Viktoria & Siegrist, Michael, 2022. "The influence of scarcity perception on people's pro-environmental behavior and their readiness to accept new sustainable technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    10. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Becchetti, Leonardo & Fiaschetti, Maurizio & Marini, Giancarlo, 2014. "Card games and economic behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 112-129.
    12. Banerjee, Onil & Cicowiez, Martin & Vargas, Renato & Obst, Carl & Cala, Javier Rojas & Alvarez-Espinosa, Andrés Camilo & Melo, Sioux & Riveros, Leidy & Romero, Germán & Meneses, Diego Sáenz, 2021. "Gross domestic product alone provides misleading policy guidance for post-conflict land use trajectories in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    13. Croson, Rachel & Konow, James, 2009. "Social preferences and moral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 201-212, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Grolleau, Gilles & Meunier, Luc & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2023. "Polluting for (higher) profits: Does an economic gain influence moral judgment of environmental wrongdoings?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    3. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    4. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    5. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    6. Yoram Amiel & Michele Bernasconi & Frank Cowell & Valentino Dardanoni, 2015. "Do we value mobility?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(2), pages 231-255, February.
    7. Pedro FrancŽs-G—mez & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2012. "Behavioral Business Ethics as a Method for Normative Business Ethics," Econometica Working Papers wp42, Econometica.
    8. Grolleau Gilles & Ibanez Lisette & Mzoughi Naoufel, 2020. "Is a ‘Bad Individual’ more Condemnable than Several ‘Bad Individuals’? Examining the Scope-severity Paradox," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Rustichini, Aldo & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2014. "Moral hypocrisy, power and social preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 10-24.
    10. Romain Espinosa & Bruno Deffains & Christian Thöni, 2020. "Debiasing preferences over redistribution: an experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 823-843, December.
    11. Konow, James & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Akai, Kenju, 2016. "Equity versus Equality," MPRA Paper 75376, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    13. Konow, James, 2009. "Adam Smith and Moral Knowledge," MPRA Paper 18557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Barbara, Latifa & Grolleau, Gilles & Houfaf Khoufaf, Assia & Meriane, Youcef & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2018. "Positional concerns and framing effects in financial preferences," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 183-189.
    15. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2018. "Equity Concerns are Narrowly Framed," NBER Working Papers 25326, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    18. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    19. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    20. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    deforestation; water pollution; outcome bias; moral judgment;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-04182138. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.