Why green choices are drawing flak from consumers

Aarong recently announced that they will be charging a fee for paper bags, drawing anger from customers who see it as an added cost. Photo: TBS

Aarong, one of the most reputed lifestyle brands in Bangladesh, has recently declared that it would stop providing single-use shopping (paper) bags for free from 1 September. The decision was announced in a Facebook post titled "Bring your own bag".  

The move, according to Aarong, aimed at reducing single-use packaging and encouraging environment-friendly habits, was accompanied by alternatives — paper bags at a fixed price, reusable cloth bags at a discount until the end of August, and the promise that proceeds from paper bag sales would fund local tree-planting projects.  

On paper, the decision sounds harmless, even commendable. Especially given the fact that one reusable bag can prevent 1000+ single-use bags from entering the landfills, this initiative seems to be impactful.  

But within hours, the comment section of the Facebook post was flooded with criticism, sarcasm, and rage. One user called it an "extremely bad initiative," while another termed it "outright harassment." Another dismissed the tree-planting pledge as "corporate PR." 

Another popular brand, Khut, also took a similar route, citing similar reasons, and they also have faced criticism.

The backlash against Aarong — or Khut — is not unusual. Similar reactions have surfaced in different countries whenever companies tried to introduce environment-focused measures that could cause inconvenience to customers, even in small ways. 

Many customers see the change as an added cost disguised as environmentalism. A paper bag may cost only a small amount, but it changes the shopping experience.

For decades, consumers have been conditioned to expect a complimentary bag, so the shift feels like a loss. "When I leave with a bag after buying something I love, it feels like a small celebration in itself," said an Aarong customer on condition of anonymity. "But now with this decision, that is no longer the case."

"The decision deserves commendation, however, when analysed from a consumer behaviour and environmental impact perspective, the situation presents a more nuanced picture," said Dr Farzana Rahman Zuthi, a researcher on sustainability and a professor of Civil Engineering at Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology.

The 'trust' question

Public trust in corporate environmentalism is often fragile. Many people have grown sceptical of "green" initiatives by large companies, and they view them as marketing strategies rather than genuine commitments. 

In recent years, the term "greenwashing" —  where companies exaggerate or falsify environmental claims — has entered everyday vocabulary. 

"From a global context, this practice aligns with established norms in developed countries, particularly across Europe, where consumers routinely bring their own bags for grocery shopping," said Dr Zuthi. "However, the critical difference lies in shopping patterns and consumer expectations." 

While the practice of bringing a bag is a sustainable choice, it makes more sense in case of groceries or daily necessities, which is not the case for Aarong, Khut, or other brands taking similar initiative. The bag is associated with both a prestige value and a feeling of celebration.

In this case, customers are suspecting mixed motives rather than sole environmental purpose. This is why they are more resistant to this change. From the way consumers are reacting, it is clear that many believe Aarong will profit from this change, and the impact is not substantial. That suspicion is fuelling the criticism. 

"Eliminating shopping bags from one retail brand, while symbolically important, is unlikely to create the substantial environmental change we need," said Dr Zuthi, adding "Aarong's previous bags were paper-based and biodegradable, which makes this transition less environmentally critical than targeting actual plastic bag usage in high-volume sectors."

The 'why' equation 

The adverse reaction from the public comes from two main sources, according to Dr Zuthi. Firstly, there is a constraint in terms of willingness-to-pay, and second, the inadequate environmental awareness among average consumers.

As the professor explained, there is a fundamental gap between environmental awareness and consumer spending habits. While the awareness among general people is rising, it has not necessarily translated into willingness to pay extra for a sustainable alternative — especially in countries like Bangladesh where people are more sensitive to prices.

Bringing one's own bag might seem a small adjustment, but in practice, it demands a change in routine. Habits such as carrying a reusable bag are simple, but they require forethought and discipline.

Besides, the general consumers are unaware of the long-term environmental costs of convenient items like disposable bags. "Our educational and social systems inadequately emphasise environmental sustainability," noted Dr Zuthi.

She mentioned that there is a psychological factor as well — the loss aversion principle. "When consumers lose a service they previously received for free, they often perceive it as a penalty rather than an environmental necessity."

This sense of being penalised creates resistance, which could be eased with clearer communication about the environmental reasons and a slower implementation strategy. 

While calculating the actual environmental impact of the decision is a matter of time, the question for now is not whether the environment matters — yes, it does — but how to implement changes in a way that will bring the public along rather than pushing them away. 

With the newly added chore at the checkout counter, only time will tell whether Aarong bends under the weight of customer sentiment or its customers' loyalty prevails.