What is wrong in my example is the disingenuous nature in which they are communicating their intentions. When a company says, “Due to the overwhelming response from our surveys indicating green initiatives are important to our customers, we are no longer sending paper bills”, to me that’s a bunch of BS. First of all, what customers are clamoring to be inconvenienced with nothing in return. Second of all, at least provide an option – oh besides charging me more now for a paper bill that used to be part of my initial price. They’re simply cutting costs and passing on the inconvenience to the customers.

Regarding whether a consumer decides to purchase a generic or brand name, I don’t think the analogy fits so I can’t reply in the context of this article. I think that’s a consumer preference issue whereby they have to decide if it’s worth paying a premium for a brand-name product. That’s their choice though and if they feel there is a differentiation, then the value proposition supports the premium. If the generic is viewed as equivalent, there’s no reason to buy brand name.

You seem to suggest you should not do any thing “green” unless some one pays you to convert your processes… while I understand that in fact that is probably the majority attitude in the US (both privately and by companies), one could argue that the “price” you would pay now for converting should be considered an investment that pays dividends in the future.