Why removing products looks worse to consumers than adding them

Consumers routinely judge a company's environmental commitment by what they can see, a tendency that often leads them to favor adding eco-friendly items over removing unnecessary ones. This bias, termed the sustainable additive bias, means that visible additions are perceived as greater effort than invisible reductions, even when the latter produce better environmental outcomes.

Diletta Acuti, a senior lecturer in marketing at the University of Bath, and Giampaolo Viglia, a professor of marketing at the University of Portsmouth, tested this behavior across nine studies. In one experiment involving 302 hotel guests, participants rated rooms with more eco-friendly amenities as more sustainable than rooms with fewer items. Despite these higher ratings, the guests in the amenity-heavy rooms generated a larger share of waste.

The researchers found that people struggle to recognize the value of subtraction. In separate experiments involving Lego structures, miniature golf courses, and digital grids, participants consistently missed opportunities to improve results by removing elements. Instead, they added things, a habit that mirrors current consumption trends where the average car grows by one centimeter every two years as larger models gain popularity.

This preference for "more" stems from cognitive processing. Statements framed around addition are easier for the brain to handle than those framed around reduction. Because added items are physically present, they serve as clear signals of corporate effort. Conversely, removing an item leaves fewer cues, leading consumers to interpret the change as a lack of commitment rather than a strategic move to cut environmental harm.

The bias creates a hurdle for businesses trying to reduce waste. When a hotel replaces single-use toiletries with refillable dispensers or a brand removes unnecessary items from a bundle, consumers may not view the change as responsible. They may instead perceive the company as offering less value. The researchers note that consumers can recognize the benefits of removing conventional, less sustainable items, but the bias emerges when they compare that reduction to the addition of new, eco-friendly features.

To counter this, the authors suggest companies make the logic behind reduction visible. A food delivery service could explain why it stopped automatically including disposable bamboo cutlery, clarifying that the change reduces unused material. Similarly, the Italian circular-fashion brand Rifó explains in its sustainability report how its pre-order model matches production with demand to avoid making unwanted garments. By detailing the environmental impact of fewer items, businesses can help consumers view reduction as a deliberate improvement rather than a cut in quality.

Policymakers can also support this shift by showcasing practices that use fewer resources. Highlighting minimalism and efficient consumption challenges the assumption that progress requires adding new products. The researchers conclude that sustainable production alone is insufficient to solve overconsumption, and society must accept that removing what is unnecessary often creates a more efficient service and a better environmental outcome.