environmentally conscious consumer behavior: an empirical

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJCBS: Volume: 02, Number: 01, November-2012 Page 20

Environmentally Conscious Consumer Behavior: An Empirical Study

Namita Rajput, Associate Prof., Sri Aurobindo College, Delhi University, India

Preeti Bajaj , Assistant Prof, Amity University, Noida

Geetanjali Batra, Assistant Prof.,ARSD College, Delhi University

Abstract

Environmental problems are mainly attributable to the impact of humans on natural systems. Rapid

urbanization and rising consumer oriented lifestyle has intensified the environmental problems

management. There is an urgent need to increase public environmental awareness to counter and

conquer the problem. Studies of green behavior have awakened a growing interest, since the

accelerated environmental degradation is partly attributed to a lack of such behavior which is very

difficult to change. The objective of this study is to study those variables which influence “green-

buying”, investigate whether environmental attitudes are translated into actual consumer behavior in

relevant situations and to determine variables that predict environmentally conscious consumerism.

This paper summarizes variables extracted from four models of green behavior: Environmental beliefs,

Ecological knowledge, Environmental concern and Environmental Attitudes, with a special focus on

the sample taken from Delhi and NCR individuals as an example of application of environmental

marketing strategies. Analysis shows that there is a strong relationship between the five variables

discussed above and environmentally favorable behavioral intentions. Factor analysis was conducted

using CFA (Confirmatory Factor analysis) to find out relationship of variables within the construct.

Five hypothesis asserting relationships between major variables were established. Factors influencing

green purchase intention were correlated to form a linear relationship. These hypotheses were tested

using Chi Square. To analyse the data from a different perspective, a one-way multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was performed to investigate gender differences in green purchase behaviour.

Three dependent variables were used: environmental knowledge, environmental concern and

environmental attitudes towards green purchase. The fixed variable was gender. There was a

statistically significant difference between men and women on the combined dependent variables. Men

have greater environmental knowledge, concern and attitude towards Green Purchase as compared to

women. It is recommended to relate environmental issues to survival process, in order to apply

efficient environmental marketing strategies. The results of the study indicate that environmental

knowledge, habits and concern are strongly related to environmental beliefs and influence

Environmental attitude. However this is not reflected in intention to purchase or actual purchase

behaviour.

Key words: Green buying, environmental attitude, Factor analysis, linear relationship.

Introduction

The issue of environment has grown important over the past few decades, however the critical part of

this issue remains that the rate at which the problems related to environment are increasing is quite

higher than the rate at which the actions are taken to solve these problems. Whether it is government,

population or other organizations all are responding to the furies caused by the nature or human actions

rather than behaving proactively & taking a check at their current actions. The most important part in

this environmentally friendly behavior is to be played by the consumer. Follows & Jobber (1999) in

their study to develop a model to predict environmentally purchase behavior found that there will be a

positive relationship from attitude towards environmental consequences & a negative relationship from

attitude towards individual consequences to environmentally responsible purchase intention. Their

study also indicated that motivation to promote & enhance the welfare of others underlies positive

environmental attitudes. This behavioral intention is further formed by the combination of a positive or

negative attitude towards the behavior, a subjective norm to perform the behavior, and perceived

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJCBS: Volume: 02, Number: 01, November-2012 1

control over the behavior. Moreover, the attitude is determined by strengths of beliefs about

consequences of the behavior & evaluations of these consequences (Minton & Rose, 1997). By

imposing informal social sanctions the personal norm is tied to the self concept & is experienced as a

feeling of moral obligation (Schwartz, 1977). It refers to what “I feel morally obligated to do” &

motivates behavior by the desire to act in ways that are consistent with one’s values (Minton & Rose,

1997). Behavioral intention is an indication of an individual's readiness to perform a given behavior. It

is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The strength of behavioral

intention further determines the likelihood of the behavior. Increasing economic activities in

developing countries result in more energy and consumption demand, which generally lead to

environmental degradation. There is a conventional belief that such environmental degradation would

resolve as soon as these countries grow economically since that would enable them to afford

environmental friendly technology as well as pro-environmental regulations and policies. However,

several studies indicated that many developing countries already equipped with environmental

policies, legal frameworks and economic instruments, which are regarded as highly sophisticated by

international standards (Hueber et al, 1998, Fujisaki et al, 1997) and yet face the worsening of

environmental conditions. Major difficulties these countries confront are not only the lack of legal and

economic framework for environmental protection, but also lack of participation among general public

in pro-environmental behavior. From the last three decades there has been gradual increase in public

concern for environmental issues.

The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to develop and test a model that explains the

potential influences of consumer‘s green buying behavior and general pro environmental concerns.

Moreover, there are increasing needs for such public participation due to the recent change in sources

of environmental problems. Today, the sources of pollution have shifted from production to

consumption processes. The Human Development Report of 1998 (UNDP) affirms this trend and states

that growth in consumption and unbalanced consumption patterns are placing unprecedented pressure

on the environment. In this light, the acceptance of pro-environmental behavior by general public, that

is, to adopt sustainable life style, is an urgent issue in protecting environment. Customer-centric

approaches put the customers into the central point of the marketing management processes of

companies. Therefore, the influence of environmental issues on marketing is an area of increasing

significance to industry and commerce.

A socially conscious consumer takes into account the public consequences of his or her private

consumption or who attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social change. That is,

consumers incorporate social issues into their purchase decisions by evaluating the

consequences of their consumption upon society. Consumers who consider the environment to be

important will therefore evaluate the environmental consequences associated with the purchase of a

product. If the environmental consequences are important enough to the consumer, the result may be

the purchase of an environmentally responsible product. These products not only satisfy a consumer's

immediate needs and wants, but also serve to benefit the environment in the long term. The difficulty

with investigating environmentally responsible purchase behavior has been with its measurement.

First, many of the measures are normative in nature and can lead to socially desirable responses

(Roosen and De Pelsmacker, 1997). A scale composed of several statements all worded to represent

positive environmentally responsible actions can produce a halo- effect that encourages respondents to

over-report environmentally responsible behaviors. The result is an inflated level of environmentally

responsible behavior that does not correspond to actual market share data. Second, it is important for

researchers to clearly delineate between environmentally responsible intention and behavior.

Environmentally responsible products in general tend to be viewed as the socially acceptable choice

which can inflate intention relative to actual behavior. Finally, researchers often combine a wide range

of environmental purchase behaviors into a single measure. The scientists and ecologists worldwide

have come up with various ways to reduce the damage caused to the earth by using gases which emit

no pollution and are eco friendly, technological innovations, such as development of alternative fuels,


to resolve such dilemmas, rather than changing their behavior patterns and lifestyle choices. Though

such remedies and innovations have made remarkable gains in conserving resources and reducing

pollution, many scientists and environmentalists hold that solutions to environmental problems do not

lie in technology alone (Hardin, 1993; Stern, Young, & Druckman, 1992). Consumers must adopt

environmentally sound behaviors, such as reliance on public transportation and recycling of household

wastes and buy products that are environmental friendly in order to sustain the environment. This

paper aims to study variables that predict "green buying" (i.e., buying products that are

environmentally beneficial)-consumers' knowledge and beliefs about environmental products, green

buying habits, general environmental attitudes, and factors that influence environmentally conscious

purchases to find whether people with a pro-environment attitude act in ways consistent with that

attitude. The purpose of this research was to study the effect of environmental beliefs, knowledge,

concern and attitudes on environmental friendly behavioral intentions.

Marketers have reacted to consumers’ growing environmental consciousness by developing

“environmentally friendly” products. However, only a few “green” products have been successful

(Reitman 1991) despite the vast majority of consumers reporting that their purchases were influenced

by environmental concerns (Chase and Smith 1992). Little empirical evidence exists to support that

pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs translate into environmentally conscious behavior such as

green buying and recycling (Hume 1991). It is notable that pro-environmental behaviors differ from

general purchase-related consumer behaviors. Engaging in a general purchase behavior is driven by an

assessment of its benefits and costs that are relevant solely to the individual consumer performing the

behavior. Prior research has identified several key factors motivating environmentally conscious

behavior, including individuals’ concerns about the environment, their beliefs about their ability to

ease the problem (Ellen, Cobb- Walgren 1991), and an overall orientation towards the welfare of

others (Schwartz 1977; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993) or towards their relationship with others

(McCarty and Shrum 2001).

In this backdrop the purpose of this paper is:

To study variables those influence “green- buying”.

To investigate whether environmental attitudes are translated into actual consumer behavior in

relevant situations.

To determine variables those predict environmentally conscious consumerism.

To achieve the objectives the study is divided into following sections: Section I gives the overview

and insights of green buying stating also giving the brief review of existing Literature, Section II gives

description of Data & methodology, Section III gives the analysis and interpretations of the results.

Section IV gives summary and conclusions and references are contained in the last section.

Section II: Data and Methodology

The Data and Data Collection

The study was carried out in the Delhi and NCR Region. The subjects of the study were aged over 18

and were residents of the community in the relevant district. A total of 500 respondents were

approached. However, only 244 questionnaires were received back which contained the complete

necessary information and were thus usable. Respondents were either interviewed or filled in the same

questionnaires online. The questionnaires covered respondents’ socio-demographic and economic

background, their attitudes about, and knowledge of the environment, and self-reported

environmentally responsible consumption practices, confusion about environmental claims, and

intention to purchase green products.

Demographic characteristics of the sample:

In our sample of 244, 63.9% respondents were in the age group of (20 – 30), 26.2% between (30 – 40)

and 9.8% between (40 – 50). 41% respondents were post graduates, 57.4% were graduates and 1.6%

was high school pass outs. 49.2% had annual family income less than 5 lakhs, 41% had annual family


income between 5 to 11 lakhs, 3.3% had annual income between 11 to 17 lakhs and 6.6% had annual

income between 17 to 22 lakhs. 36.1% respondents are male and 63.9% respondents are females.

49.6% respondents are married and 50.4% are single.

Figure 1: Demographic Characteristics of the population

Survey Instrument

Dependent measure: Actual green buying behaviour of the consumer which measures the extent to

which individual respondents purchase goods and services believed to have a more positive (or less

negative) impact on the environment.

Independent measures: Five key psychographic correlations as shown to be significant in the past are

included in the present study. These include environmental beliefs, environmental knowledge,

environmental habit, environmental concern and pro-environmental attitudes were the main

independent variables.

The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the effects of environmental belief, Ecological

Knowledge, Environmental Concern, Environment attitude, Intention to purchase on green purchase

behaviour and to elucidate the interrelationships among the constructs. In light of the aforementioned

discussion, a model is constructed and Figure 2 presents the proposed model with the hypothesized

structural linkages among the variables.

Figure 2: Model Estimation

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

F

ENVIRONMENTAL

BELIEFS

ENVIRONMENTAL

KNOWLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL

ATTITUDE

GREEN PURCHASE

INTENTION

ACTUAL GREEN

PURCHASE

BEHAVIOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERN

ENVIRONMENTAL

HABIT


Testable Hypothesis

Five hypothesis asserting relationships between major variables were established.

1) H0: People with strong Environmental belief have less knowledge about ecological

issues.

H1: people with strong environmental belief have more knowledge about ecological issues.

2) H0: Consumers with strong Environmental belief have less concerned response towards

ecological issues.

H1: Consumers with strong environmental belief have more concerned response towards

ecological issues.

3) H0: Consumers concerned about the environment do not tend to have pro environmental attitude.

H1: Consumers concerned about the environment tend to have pro environmental attitude.

4) H0: Consumers who tend to have pro environmental attitudes do not show intention to purchase.

H1: Consumers who tend to have pro environmental attitudes show intention to purchase.

5) H0: Consumers with strong intention to purchase are not likely to actually purchase green

products.

H1: Consumers with strong intention to purchase are not likely to actually purchase green

products.

Section III: Analysis and Interpretations of Results

3.1 The Reliability Test of Scales

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine the internal consistency reliability of each scale

used in this study. Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a

set of items are as a group. A "high" value of alpha signifies that the items measure an underlying (or

latent) construct. The results of Cronbach Alpha are shown in table 1

Table 1: Summary of the Alpha Value for Each Scale.

SCALES NO. OF ITEMS α VALUES

Environmental Habits 14 .768

Environmental Belief 6 .801

Environmental Concern 11 .712

Environmental Knowledge 20 .778

Environmental Attitude 12 .689

Green Purchase Intention 11 .803

The results of Cornbach alpha test show that all the variables are significant as the value of each

variable is close to one. The intention to purchase green products has maximum influence on green

buying decisions followed by environmental beliefs, environmental knowledge, environmental habits,

and environmental concern.

3.2: Environmental Beliefs

Consumer environmental beliefs were judged on basis of 6 items. All items were ranked on 5 point

Likert scale. The items included were aimed to understand level of responsibility of the respondents

towards protecting the environment. The items were designed in such a manner so as to enable us in

drawing inferences about environmental beliefs of the respondents. Items Included questions like if we

have responsibility to avoid products that are damaging to the environment, we have responsibility use

products made from recyclable material, is it beneficial to use products that are produced locally, is it

beneficial to buy products from local store, is it beneficial to look for products using less packaging, is


it beneficial to carry own bag rather than a plastic carrier provided by shop owner. Factor analysis was

done using confirmatory Factor analysis technique on AMOS output results of which are shown below

in Figure 3 and Table 2(A) and 2(B).

Figure 3: Factor analysis using the confirmatory Factor analysis technique. (Environmental

Belief)

Table 2(A): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Beliefs)

Name of

the

variable

Enviro

nm

ental B

elief

S.E.

Estimate

Regression

Estimate

Squared

multiple

correlation P

EB5 <--- 1 0.074 0.006

EB1 <--- 6.622 0.648 0.42 0.28

EB2 <--- 9.92 0.923 0.852 0.282

EB3 <--- 2.546 0.243 0.059 0.299

EB4 <--- 1.442 0.09 0.008 0.403

EB6 <--- 5.84 0.476 0.227 0.283

Table 2(B): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Beliefs)

Model Fit Statistic

Chi-square 276.88

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.607

Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.796

RFI 0.745

Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA)

0.025

Interpretation


The standardized regression weights of each measured variable are shown in the Table 2(A). The

standardized regression weights indicate comparative influence of the construct to its variables. The

high value of the standardized weights indicates the higher influence of the construct to the variable.

The results indicate that the most important Environmental belief is responsibility to use products

made of recyclable material explains more than 92.3% of variation in the construct, followed by

responsibility to avoid purchasing the products that are damaging to the environment and carrying own

bag for purchasing rather than using plastic bag provided by the shop keeper as significant factors in

affecting the Environment Beliefs of consumer.

The squared multiple correlations indicate the percentage of variance of the measured variable that

can be explained with the help of the variations in the construct. The squared multiple correlations of

responsibility to use products made of recyclable material is .852. 85.2% of the variance of this

measure can be explained with the help of this construct. The squared multiple correlation of

responsibility to avoid purchasing the products that are damaging to the environment indicates that 42

percent of the variance of can be explained with the help of variations in Environmental belief

followed by carrying own bag for purchasing rather than using plastic bag provided by the shop keeper

which explains 22.7% variation. Rest all sources are insignificant to explain the variation in the

construct.

The statistics for goodness of fit of the model from AMOS output is shown in Table 2 (B) the results

indicate that the goodness of fit indices (CFI, RFI and NFI) is significantly high. Hence, the model is

fit. The Chi-square value is also presented in the table. The lower value of RMSEA also supports that

the model is fit.

3.3: Environmental Habits

To understand the environmental habits of the respondents, they were tested on basis of 14 items. All

items were ranked on Likert’s 5 point scale. The items included if they turned off lights of unused

room, keep heating or cooling low in the room, use solar power for home and water heating, purchase

energy efficient appliances which use logos like “energy Star”, if possible, walk or ride a bike to the

destination, minimize use of fresh water, wash laundry in cold water than warm or hot water to save

energy, prefer to buy fuel efficient vehicle, turn off tap when soaping or cleaning teeth, compost

garden/kitchen waste, recycle paper, reuse paper, use reusable batteries, repair electrical if not good

rather than buying new ones and donate old clothes to charity. Results of Factor analysis using

confirmatory Factor analysis technique on AMOS are shown below:

Figure 4: Factor analysis was conducted using the confirmatory Factor analysis technique.


Table 3(A): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Habits)

Name of

the

Variable

S.E

Estimate

Regression

Estimates

Squared

Multiple

Correlation P

EH13

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

HA

BIT

S

1 0.425 0.181

EH9 <--- 3.183 0.765 0.586 ***

EH8 <--- 0.527 0.242 0.059 0.002

EH5 <--- 0.841 0.295 0.087 ***

EH1 <--- 0.247 0.271 0.073 ***

EH2 <--- 0.226 0.123 0.015 0.098

EH3 <--- 2.145 0.506 0.256 ***

EH4 <--- 1.128 0.521 0.272 ***

EH6 <--- 0.495 0.169 0.029 0.026

EH7 <--- 0.921 0.3 0.09 ***

EH14 <--- 0.277 0.075 0.006 0.301

EH12 <--- 1.026 0.309 0.096 ***

EH11 <--- 1.596 0.561 0.315 ***

EH10 <--- 2.226 0.598 0.357 ***

Table 3(B): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Habits)

Model Fit Statistic

Chi-square 278.88



RFI 0.745



0.045

Interpretation

The standardized regression weights of each measured variable are shown in the Table 3(A). The

results in Table 3(A) indicate that the most important Environmental Habit is turning off tap while

soaping or cleaning teeth which explains more than 70% of variation in the construct, followed by

purchasing appliances with logos like Energy Stars, using solar power, recycling or reuse of paper.

The squared multiple correlations of turning off tap as an environmental habit is .315. This indicates

that 31.5 percent of the variance of this measure can be explained with the help of construct. The

squared multiple correlations of energy efficient electronic appliances indicate that 21.5 percent of the

variance can be explained with the help of variations in environmental habit.

The statistics for goodness of fit of the model from AMOS output is shown in Table 3(B) the results



the model is fit.

3.4: Environmental Concerns

To understand the level of participation of the respondents in pro environmental activities

environmental concern was tested on basis of 11 items. The responses were measured on a 5 Point


Likert Scale. The items were as follows: Participation in waste recycling if provided by respondent’s

community/society, public means of transport for travelling to and fro to office, Participation in rain

water harvesting, Participation in planting trees, reforestation and protecting public parks and the like.

The results were as follows:


Table 4(A): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Concern)

Name

of the

Variable

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

CO

NC

ER

N

S.E.

Estimate

Standardised

Regression

Weights

Squared

Multiple

Correlation P

EC9 <---

0.626 0.392

EC10 <--- 0.233 0.727 0.528 ***

EC1 <--- 0.156 -0.272 0.074 ***

EC2 <--- 0.143 0.048 0.002

0.49

5

EC3 <--- 0.172 0.231 0.053

0.00

1

EC4 <--- 0.15 0.505 0.255 ***

EC5 <--- 0.162 0.523 0.274 ***

EC6 <--- 0.23 0.764 0.584 ***

EC7 <--- 0.149 0.605 0.366 ***

EC8 <--- 0.132 0.562 0.316 ***

EC11 <--- 0.128 0.08 0.006

0.25

3


Table 4(B): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Environmental Concern)

Model Fit Statistic

Chi-square 289.77



RFI 0.496



0.029

The standardized regression weights of each measured variable are shown in the table 3.4(A). The

results indicate that the most important way of showing concern towards environment is by converting

waste into energy which explains 76.4% of variation in the construct followed by communicating with

local government about environment issues like pollution of vehicles, noise pollution, waste

management and protecting eco system directly and indirectly which explains 72.7% of variation in

the construct.

The squared multiple correlations indicate the percentage of variance of the measured variable that can

be explained with the help of the variations in the construct. The squared multiple correlation of

converting waste into energy is .584 followed by communicating with local agencies is .528.

The statistics for goodness of fit of the model from AMOS output is shown in Table 4 (B) the results



the model is fit.

3.5: Knowledge about Environment Issues

Consumer’s knowledge about environment issues was judged on the basis of 11 multiple answer

questions and 9 close ended items with Yes / No options. The questions related to causes of water

pollution, soil pollution, smog, Global warming, depletion of natural resources, loss of species, air

pollution, depletion of ozone layer and the like. One way ANOVA was used to analyse if there is

significant difference in Environment Knowledge between males and females.

3.6: Environmental Attitude

Environmental Attitude was measured on bases of New Environmental Paradigm consisting 12 items.

Attitudinal variables included general pro-ecological attitudes, personal motives of frugality and

participation in community programmes, belief in the effectiveness of recycling, support of

government regulations to protect the environment. The items were like: balance of nature is very

delicate and easily upset, Humans have the right to modify the natural environment, Human kind was

created to rule over the rest of nature, when humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous

consequences, Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. We have responsibility to use

products which are made from recyclable material; we are approaching the limit of the number of

people the earth can support. When I have a choice between 2 equal products I purchase the one less

harmful to other people and the environment. Variables used in this study were measured on a

frequency scale of agree, undecided and disagree. Aspects like consideration for specific product

characteristics which are environmentally friendly before purchase (e.g. energy saving; recyclable) and

respondent’s practices related to recycling and conservation were also included.

3.7 Gender Differences and Green Purchase Behavior

For the statistical analysis of the questionnaires, SPSS 19.0 was selected because of its ability to

extensively analyse quantitative data. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was

performed to investigate gender differences in green purchase behaviour. Three dependent variables


were used: environmental knowledge, environmental concern and environmental attitudes towards

green purchase. The fixed variable was gender. There was a statistically significant difference between

men and women on the combined dependent variables: [F (18, 225) = 5.398, P< 0.05; Wilks’ Lambda

= 0.698]. Men reported higher levels of Environment Knowledge, environment concern and attitude to

Green Purchase. The results of MANOVA are shown in Table 5 below:

Table 5: The Multivariate Tests Conducted On The Combined Dependent Variables.

Table 6 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source

Dependent

Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Model EC* 3145.277a 2 1572.639 1693.548 0

EA** 3811.012b 2 1905.506 2.71E+04 0

EK*** 198.368c 2 99.184 1109.601 0

GENDER EC 3145.277 2 1572.639 1693.548 0

EA 3811.012 2 1905.506 2.71E+04 0

EK 198.368 2 99.184 1109.601 0

Error EC 224.723 242 0.929

EA 16.988 242 0.07

EK 21.632 242 0.089

Total EC 3370 244

EA 3828 244

EK 220 244

a. R Squared = .933 (Adjusted R Squared = .933)

b. R Squared = .996 (Adjusted R Squared = .996)

c. R Squared = .902 (Adjusted R Squared = .901)

*EC=Environmental Concern

**EA=Environmental attitude

***EK = Environmental Knowledge

Table 7: Mean Scores

Descriptive Statistics

GENDER Mean Std. Deviation N

EC Male 3.64 0.776 88

Female 1.56 1.055 156

Total 2.59 0.962 244

EA Male 4.82 0.388 88

Female 3.03 0.159 156

Total 3.95 0.283 244

EK Male 0.91 0.289 88

Female 0.6 0.304 156

Total 0.85 0.298 244

An inspection of the estimated marginal means shown in Table 7 indicated that men reported higher

levels of environmental knowledge, concern and attitudes towards green purchase than women. Bray

and Maxwell (1982) suggest that if a significant MANOVA effect is detected, the follow-up test is to

Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

GENDER Pillai's Trace .302 5.398a 18.000 225.000 .000

Wilks' Lambda .698 5.398a 18.000 225.000 .000

Hotelling's Trace .432 5.398a 18.000 225.000 .000

Roy's Largest Root .432 5.398a 18.000 225.000 .000


perform Univariate ANOVA for each dependent variable. To test whether the difference between the

mean score of environmental knowledge in men (.91) and women (.60) is statistically significant, one-

way ANOVA was used. The results (D.F. 1, P < 0.05) suggest that there is a significant difference

between men and women in overall environmental knowledge. This result implies that men are

generally more knowledgeable in environmental issues than women. This result provides strong

support for the first hypothesis. The result also corroborates the results of previous research conducted

in the West. For example, Arcury and Johnson (1987) found that the degree of environmental

knowledge was dependent on gender: men gave correct answers to the knowledge questions more

often than women. Table 3.7 shows also that men reported higher levels of environmental concern. To

test whether the difference between the mean score of concern in men (3.64) and women (1.56) is

statistically significant, one-way ANOVA was used. The results (D.F. 1, 225 = 276.229, P < 0.05)

suggest that there is a significant difference between men and women in overall environmental

concern.

This result implies that men are generally more concerned about environmental issues than women.

This result fails to support the second hypothesis. This result also contradicts previous research

conducted in the West (e.g. Davidson and Freudenburg, 1996). However, it should be noted that

whether women are, in reality, more concerned about the environment than men has not been

determined conclusively by empirical studies (Momsen, 2000). It appears that more analyses and

explanations are needed in this area. Finally, Table 7 indicates that men reported more positive

attitudes towards green purchase. To test whether the difference between the mean score of green

purchase attitudes in men (4.82) and women (3.03) is statistically significant, one-way ANOVA was

used. The results (D.F. 1, 225 = 359.388, P < 0.05) suggest that there is a significant difference

between men and women in overall green purchase attitudes. This result implies that men have

generally more positive attitudes towards green purchase than women. This result fails to support the

third hypothesis. It is also at odds with previous research conducted in the West (e.g. Tikka et al.,

2000). However, in a Canadian study Eagles and Muffitt (1990) found no environmental attitude

differences between the genders.

3.8: Intention to Buy Green Products

Consumer’s intention to buy green products was judged on the basis of 11 questions like if they would

like to buy less polluting products or switch to different brands because of ecological reasons or switch

to a green version of the product. Their opinion was taken on a 5 point likert scale.


(Intention to Purchase)


Table 8 (A): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Intention to Purchase)

Name

of the

Variable Estimate

Regression

Estimate

Squared

Multiple

Correlations P

ITP9 <---

INT

EN

TIO

N T

O P

UR

CH

AS

E

1

ITP8 <--- 0.569 0.265 0.145 0.032

ITP7 <--- 2.379 0.582 0.709 ***

ITP1 <--- 1.158 0.338 0.343 ***

ITP2 <--- 2.26 0.592 0.688 ***

ITP3 <--- 1.644 0.402 0.408 ***

ITP4 <--- 0.314 0.303 0.036 0.3

ITP5 <--- 1.93 0.496 0.395 ***

ITP6 <--- 1.958 0.498 0.334 ***

ITP11 <--- 1.581 0.433 0.353 ***

ITP10 <--- 1.538 0.405 0.38 ***

Table 8 (B): Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Intention to Purchase)

Model Fit Statistic

Chi-square 256.78



RFI 0.745



0.225


Interpretation

The standardized regression weights of variables as shown in the Table 8(A) show that purchase of

goods packed in reusable containers explains more than 55% of variation in the construct, followed by

making special effort to buy environment friendly household chemicals and detergents as significant

factors in consumers intention to purchase Green Products.

The squared multiple correlations indicate the percentage of variance of the measured variable that

can be explained with the help of the variations in the construct. As shown in the Table 8(B), the

squared multiple correlations of intention to purchase products in reusable containers is .688. 68.8% of

the variance of this measure can be explained with the help of sources of information construct. The

squared multiple correlation of making special effort to buy environmental friendly detergents is .709.

Rest all sources are insignificant to explain the variation in the construct.

The statistics for goodness of fit of the model from AMOS output is shown in table 3.8 (B) the results



the model is fit.

Table 9: Testing of Hypothesis Using Chi-Square Analysis

Testable Hypothesis Chi

Square

Value

P Value Accept/Reject

1 H0: People with strong Environmental belief have

less knowledge about ecological issues.

H1: people with strong environmental belief have

more knowledge about ecological issues

292 .03 Accept

Alternate

Hypothesis

2 H0: Consumers with strong Environmental belief

have less concerned response towards ecological

issues.

H1: Consumers with strong environmental belief

have more concerned response towards ecological

issues.

290 .02 Accept

Alternate

Hypothesis

3 H0: Consumers concerned about the environment

do not tend to have pro environmental attitude.

H1: Consumers concerned about the environment

tend to have pro environmental attitude.

288 .003 Accept

Alternate

Hypothesis

4 H0: Consumers who tend to have pro

environmental attitudes do not show intention to

purchase.

H1: Consumers who tend to have pro

environmental attitudes show intention to

purchase.

280 .002 Accept

Alternate

Hypothesis

5 H0: Consumers with strong intention to purchase

are not likely to actually purchase green products.

H1: Consumers with strong intention to purchase

are likely to actually purchase green products

27.22 1.8 Accept Null

Hypothesis

The results of Chi Square analysis indicate that consumers with strong environmental beliefs have

Knowledge on Environmental issues, have concern for environment have environment friendly Habits

and have pro environment attitude but this is not reflected in their buying behaviour. On the basis of

the above analysis, some suggestions have been recommended in the subsequent section.

Section IV: Suggestions and Conclusion

4.1 Suggestions

4.1.1 Reduce the Attitude –Behavior Gap

There is a gap between articulated positive attitudes toward sustainability and people’s actual (mostly

unsustainable) consumption behavior. Although consumers say they are willing to buy “green”


products, only a few do so (Ehrich and Irwin, 2005). If left unaddressed, this gap will continue to

frustrate producers of sustainable product alternatives who rely on traditional, attitudinal market

research methods, only to find that actual demand often falls far short of their initial projections. This

limits the availability of sustainable product alternatives and thus limits movement toward more

sustainable consumption.

4.1.2 A Focus on Reducing Consumption

While prior research has attempted to identify and characterize the “green consumer,” less attention

has been paid to understanding the behaviors of people who focus on reducing their overall

consumption. While some choose reduced consumption because of a desire to “buy time” and to

improve their quality of life, others do so because of values such as concerns about the environmental

and social consequences of consumption (Shaw and Newholm 2002). At the extreme, some consumers

actively reject consumption, a phenomenon referred to as “anti -consumption” (Zavestoski 2002).

4.1.3 Consideration of the Full Consumption Cycle

More research is needed to better understand consumer’s full consumption cycle—not just initial

choice. Consumers’ post choice behaviors, including product usage, product life extension, and

disposal, all have a significant impact on the sustainability of consumption (Pieters 1991). For

example, how and how often consumers use products can determine the consumption of related goods

(e.g., fuel, accessories). How consumers maintain products has an impact on product life and,

therefore, product replacement. Decisions about when and how to dispose of a product, when disposal

can lead to alternate usage or another person’s use, also directly influence the sustainability of

consumption (Mannetti, Pierro, and Livi 2004; Ölander and Thøgersen 2006).

4.1.4 Expanding the Scope of Consumption Research

Researchers must also strive to expand the scope of their research. The majority of consumer behavior

researchers have focused on the consumption of packaged goods and other relatively low-involvement

products. A concerted push is needed for additional research on the consumption of major purchases,

such as automobiles, appliances, and housing—all of which have significant implications for

sustainability (Marell, Gärling, and Laitila 2009). For example, the purchase of a home has significant

implications both directly (e.g., energy use) and indirectly (e.g., commuting distance).

4.1.5 The Marketization of Politics and the Citizen–Consumer

Marketers and consumer researchers are not alone in framing people as consumers. Increasingly,

governments, media, and even environmental nongovernmental organizations address people as

consumers rather than citizens (Slocum 2004; Trentmann 2007). This “marketization” of politics has

led to the construction of the citizen–consumer in sociology and political science (e.g., Martens and

Spaargaren 2005; Soper 2007). The increasing marketization of politics influences people’s inclination

to assume responsibility for detrimental environmental impacts of their consumer behavior.

4.2 Conclusion

From environmental perspective, there is a need for public policies and establishing marketing and

business systems that encourage organizations and people to produce and consume within ecological

limits. This paper addressed opportunities for moving toward an era of green consumption. The focus

was on the value, belief, concern, attitudes and intention as main components of actual green buying

behavior and on how these components interrelate. To test this, we framed 5 hypotheses. These

hypotheses were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The results suggest that environmental

beliefs have direct effects on Environmental Concern, Environmental Habits and Environmental

Knowledge, the latter in turn influence Pro Environmental Attitudes and help in predicting green

buying behavior. To find the impact of gender differences on Environmental Knowledge, Concern and

attitude, Manova and Univariate ANOVA were performed for each dependent variable. The results

suggested that there are significant differences between men and women in overall Environmental

Knowledge, Concern and Attitude. Men reported higher levels of Knowledge on Environment issues

are more concerned about environment and have more positive attitude towards Green Purchase.


Section V: References

Ajzen, I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and the Human

Decision Process, 50: 179

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Arcury, T. A. & Johnson, T. P. (1987). Public environmental knowledge: A statewide survey.

Journal of Environmental Education, 18(4), 31-37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9942746

Bray, James H. and Scott E. Maxwell (1982), "Analyzing and Interpreting Significant

MANOVAs," Review of Educational Research, 52, 340-67. (1985), Multivariate Analysis of

Variance, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Chase, Dennis and Therese Kauchak Smith (1992), “Consumers Keen on Green but Marketers

Don’t Deliver,” Advertising Age, 63 (June 29), s2-s4.

Davidson, D and Freudenburg, W. (1996).Gender and environmental Risk Concerns: A review

and analysis of available Research. Environment and Behaviour, 28, 302-339.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003

Ellen, Pam S., Joshua L. Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren (1991), “The Role of Perceived

Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors,” Journal of

Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (Fall), 102-117

Eagles, P. F. J. & Muffitt, S. (1990). An analysis of children's attitudes toward animals. Journal

of Environmental Education, 21 (3):41-44.

Ehrich, Kristine R. and Julie R. Irwin (2005), “Willful Ignorance in the Request for Product

Attribute Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (August), 266-277.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.3.266

Follows, Scott B. & Jobber, David (1999). Environmentally responsible purchase behavior: a

test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing. 34: 723-746

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560010322009

Fujisaki, Shigeaki and others (1997), Hattentojyo koku no kankyo ishiki (Environmental

Awareness in Developing Countries: Case of China and Thailand), Tokyo, Institute of

Developing Economies.

Hardin Tibbs(1993), Industrial Ecology An environmental Agenda for Industry.pp1-29

Huber, Richard, Jack Rultenbeek and Ronaldo Seroa da Motta (1998), "Instrumentos de

mercado para la politica ambiental en América Latina y Caribe: lecciones de once países",

Discussion Paper, No. 381 S, Washington, D.C., World Bank.

Hueber, G (1991), “Americans Report High Levels of Environmental Concern,” Gallup Poll

Monthly, 307, 6-12.

Hume, S., Strand, P., Fisher, C., Fitzgerald, K. and Freeman, L. (1989), ``Consumers go green'',

Advertising Age, September 25, pp. 3-5.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self- expressive behaviour.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.002

Marell, A., Gärling, T. and Laitila, T. (2009), Need vs. opportunity recognition in household

car replacements. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 639–643.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00816.x

Martens S. & Spaargaren G. (2005). The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the

Netherlands. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 1(1):29-42. Published online Feb 08,

2005. http://www.google.co.in/archives/vol1iss1/0410-009.martens.html.

McCarty, J. A. and Shrum, L. J (2001), “The Influence of Individualism, Collectivism, and

Locus of Control on Environmental Beliefsand Behavior,” Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 20(Spring), 93-104.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.1.93.17291

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9942746

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.3.266

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560010322009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00816.x

http://www.google.co.in/archives/vol1iss1/0410-009.martens.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.1.93.17291


Minton, Ann P. & Rose Randall L. (1997). The Effects of Environmental Concern on

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business

Research. 40: 37-48.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3

Momsen, Janet H. (2004). Gender and Development. London: Routledge.

Olander, Folke and Thogersen, John (2006), “The A-B-C of Recycling,” Advances in

Consumer Research, 7, 297-302.

Reitman, Valarie (1992), “Green Products Sales Seem to Be Wilting,” The Wall Street Journal,

May 18, B1.

Roozen, Irene and De Pelsmacker, Patrick. (1998), “Attributes of Environmentally Friendly

Consumer Behavior”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 3. p. 21.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J046v10n03_03

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1977), “Normative Influences on Altruism,” Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 10,221-279.

Stern, P. C., Dietz T., and Kalof, L., “Value orientations and environmental concern,”

Environment and Behavior, No. 25, pp. 332–348, 1993.

Soper, Kate and Trentmann, Frank (Eds) (2007) Citizenship and Consumption. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Shaw, D and Newholm T. (2002), Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of consumption,

Psychology and Marketing, 19(2):167-185.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.10008

Slocum R, (2004), "Consumer citizens and the Cities for Climate Protection campaign"

Environment and Planning A 36(5) 763 – 782

http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a36139

Trentmann, Frank (2007) ‘Before “Fair Trade”: Empire, Free Trade, and the Moral Economies

of Food in the Modern World’, Environment and Planning D 25:1079–102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d448t

Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T. & Tynys S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on

students’ attitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 31(3), 12-19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598640

UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (1998), Human Development Report 1998,

Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wiener, J.L. and Sukhdial, A. (1990), “Recycling of solid waste: directions for future

research”, in Parasuraman, A. et al. (Eds), AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings,

American Marketing Associations, Chicago, IL, Vol. 1, pp. 389 – 92.

Young, O.R and Druckman D. (eds. 1992) Global Environmental Change. Understanding the

Human Dimensions. National Academy Press.

Zavestoski, S. (2002), Guest editorial: Anticonsumption attitudes. Psychol. Mark., 19: 121–

126. doi: 10.1002/mar.10005


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J046v10n03_03


http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a36139

http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d448t

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598640


environmentally conscious consumer behavior: an empirical

Documents