Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cheah2011
Cheah2011
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm
MIP
29,5 Attitudes towards
environmentally friendly
products
452
The influence of ecoliteracy, interpersonal
Received 25 November 2009 influence and value orientation
Revised 23 May 2010,
24 November 2010 Isaac Cheah and Ian Phau
Accepted 8 March 2011
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the key antecedents and moderators that influence consumers’
willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products.
Design/methodology/approach – A convenience sampling method was employed. A total of
600 self-administered questionnaires were distributed during lectures in a large Australian university.
In total, 256 useable Australian consumer responses were collected and used for analysis.
Findings – The results show that the three antecedents of ecoliteracy, interpersonal influence and
value orientation have strong correlations with attitudes towards environmentally friendly products.
Consumers with favourable attitudes towards environmentally friendly products are more likely to
purchase environmentally friendly products. Perceived product necessity moderates the relationship
between attitudes toward environmentally friendly products and the willingness to purchase
environmentally friendly products.
Research limitations/implications – Longitudinal studies can be conducted in the future. Other
possible moderating factors such as product involvement or pricing can also be explored. A wider
range of behavioural indicators can be used to capture a more accurate measurement of
environmentally oriented behaviours.
Practical implications – Consumer education about the environment is crucial for consumers to
form a more favourable mindset towards environmentally friendly products. Communication
initiatives that highlight various environmental support campaigns and environmentally conscious
product strategies are some of the ways to encourage purchasing behaviour.
Originality/value – The study empirically examines the antecedents and consequences of attitudes
towards purchasing green products in an Australian context. Furthermore, the study uses day-to-day
necessity products as the product category.
Keywords Environmentally friendly products, Willingness to buy, Ecoliteracy, Consumer behaviour,
Self-image, Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Owing to the increased prominence of environmental concerns and the subsequent efforts
of governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations and local environmentalists
Marketing Intelligence & Planning to increase awareness of society’s impact on the environment, environmentalism has
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2011
pp. 452-472 become an important global phenomenon (Brown, 2008; Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008;
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007). The resulting rise in environmentalism among consumers
0263-4503
DOI 10.1108/02634501111153674 (Montoro et al., 2006; Wustenhagen and Bilharz, 2006) is driving businesses to realise
that they are members of the wider community and need to pave the way for “corporate Environmentally
environmentalism” (Banerjee et al., 1995). friendly products
Shrewd business firms today view green developments as market opportunities
rather than simply regulations to be complied with (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008;
Polonsky and Rosenberger, 2001; Taghian and D’Souza, 2008). While consumers’
environmental concerns have moved into mainstream marketing, it is useful from a
marketing perspective to investigate how consumers make informed choices about 453
green products (D’Souza et al., 2006). Social marketing literature views green consumer
behaviour as a form of ethically oriented consumer behaviour that is motivated not
only by consumers’ own personal needs, but also by their concern for the welfare of
society in general (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Osterhus, 1997; Pelton et al., 1993).
While many studies investigate the various aspects of environmental marketing
(Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008; Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007; Polonsky,
1994), the market is now experiencing a renewed interest in ecologically oriented issues
with a more pervasive focus on the consumer marketplace (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003;
D’Souza et al., 2006). These include increased standardisation in environmental
regulations and government initiative packages and programmes such as the Australian
Government’s “Energy-efficient homes package” and the “Smart grid, smart city national
energy-efficiency initiative” (Australian Government, n.d.). In addition, extensive media
coverage of environmental problems, disasters and initiatives (e.g. An Inconvenient
Truth, film documentary presented by Al Gore) promotes and increases awareness of
global warming fears (Shabecoff, 2001, 2003).
The majority of recent research published on environmental marketing segments
are limited to a “Euro-American” context (Coddington, 1990; Kärnä et al., 2003;
Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Wustenhagen and Bilharz, 2006), with the exception of a few
notable studies investigating the effects of environmental marketing in an Australian
context (Banerjee et al., 1995; Phau and Ong, 2007; Taghian and D’Souza, 2005, 2008).
This large, albeit predominantly Westernised, body of research paves the way for
numerous new concepts and models that deal with environmental marketing.
The next logical step is to expand these concepts universally to evaluate the
differences that may exist between cultures, especially when dealing with consumer
behaviour in an environmentally conscious setting. For example, criticism surrounds
Australian businesses, working professionals, experts and academics who blindly
espouse concepts developed in cultures different from their own, while having very
little understanding of how or if these concepts can be generalised or if they have the
potential to be suited to Australian consumers (Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Banerjee et al.,
2003; Chamorro et al., 2007).
For example, in examining the dimensions of cultural variability, many
Euro-American countries and cultures appear to adhere strictly to a chain of
command, which is reflected in the high power-distance levels, as well as exemplifying
high levels of individuality. European countries or cultures such as Greece and
Portugal have stronger uncertainty-avoidance levels, whereas Germany and France
are distinguished through weaker uncertainty avoidance, implying more risk aversion
and the tendency to avoid confrontation and uncertainty (Carbaugh, 2005; Hester and
Englin, 1997). In addition, Euro-American societies are likely to embrace long-term
devotion to traditional and forward-thinking values, meaning that any sort of change
would take longer to implement (Hofstede, 1980), thus contributing to the stringent
MIP and lengthy facilitation process of government initiatives and regulations pertaining to
environmental issues. However, given the fact that the Euro-American Union contains
29,5 nations at both extremes of these cultural dimensions, depending on the nature and
severity of the issues discussed, it may be potentially difficult to generalise or even
ascertain the cultural technicalities and pressures that contribute to any outcome.
On the other hand, Australian citizens are characterised by low levels of
454 uncertainty avoidance, a high level of individuality and lower than average
power-distance levels (Hofstede, 1980); this indicates greater equality between societal
levels, including government, organisations and even within families, as well as an
orientation that reinforces cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a
more stable cultural environment. Therefore, the character of Australians contributes
to the smooth cooperation of corporate, public and governmental groups with regard to
environmental issues such as sustainability performance and the minimisation of
carbon “ecological” footprints.
Until recently, the literature provided little understanding of the antecedents and
consequences of attitudes towards green products for Australian consumers and
businesses (D’Souza et al., 2006). Another omission from the findings of most studies is
the lack of product category specificity, and failure to address or compare specific
types of environmentally friendly products (e.g. processed honey). As a result, there is
currently an imbalance between the growing use of environmentally friendly products
in the marketplace and the limited research attention focused on this category of
product alternatives (Taghian and D’Souza, 2005). This additional knowledge can help
businesses design their marketing procedures and improve the perceived fit between
traditional products and those of an ecological nature.
To revisit consumers’ willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products in
Australia, this study empirically tests a conceptual model. First, it investigates the
correlation of the three antecedents derived from the literature, which are:
(1) ecoliteracy;
(2) interpersonal influence; and
(3) value dimensions consisting of collectivism and individualism, against the
dependent variable of consumer environmental attitudes (CEA).
Relevant literature
Social and psychographic information about consumers has received much attention
within the context of environmental marketing (Laroche et al., 2001; McCarty and
Shrum, 1994; Ottman, 1993). Socio-psychographic information includes values, level of
education in a specific area, interpersonal influence, opinions and attitudes. One of the
more significant papers looking at consumers’ psychographic information is that of
McCarty and Shrum (1994), who used a list of values scale proposed by Kahle (1996) in
order to measure a number of variables to link them with recycling behaviour.
Many authors feel that these variables have the ability to predict certain behaviours, Environmentally
and as such most studies conducted within environmental marketing have examined friendly products
these, more than psychographic information (Banerjee et al., 2003; Laroche et al., 1996;
Roberts and Bacon, 1997).
A consumer’s environmental attitudes and behaviour have been documented as a
complex, yet vital concept required to address the profile of the ecologically conscious
consumer (Roberts and Bacon, 1997). Several studies, namely those by Roberts (1996), 455
Roberts and Bacon (1997) and Stern et al. (1993), have examined a collaboration of
demographic and psychographic dimensions associated with environmental attitudes
and behaviour. Previous studies (Amyx et al., 1994; Kinnear et al., 1974; McCarty and
Shrum, 1994) have established an apparent correlation between favourable attitudes
towards environmentally friendly products and positive purchase decisions. Equally,
negative attitudes will dissuade consumers, resulting in a non-purchase decision
(McCarty and Shrum, 1994).
According to Meneses and Palacio (2006), the major difference between sustainers
and non-sustainers is the degree of ecological concern. With respect to attitudes toward
environmentally friendly products, the terms “importance” and “inconvenience” are
most extensively examined and referred to in the green marketing literature
(Amyx et al., 1994; Kinnear et al., 1974; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981).
Amyx et al. (1994) defined perceived importance with respect to the environment
as “the degree to which one expresses concern about ecological issues”. In other words,
“importance” is simply confined to whether consumers view environmentally
compatible behaviours as important to themselves (self-interest) or to society as a
whole. For example, organic foods and energy-efficient appliances are environmentally
friendly products that consumers are willing to purchase, simply because these
products are believed by consumers to appeal directly to their self-interest while at the
same time promoting environmental benefits (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). On the other
hand, the term “inconvenience” refers to how inconvenient it is perceived by the
individual to behave in an ecologically favourable fashion (Roberts and Bacon, 1997).
For example, a person may feel that recycling is important for the long-term benefit of
the society, but he or she may also feel that it is personally inconvenient. Similarly, a
consumer may know that single-serving aseptically packaged juices or puddings will
harm the environment, but still buy them because they are convenient.
As for previous studies (Kinnear et al., 1974; McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Roberts and
Bacon, 1997), the majority concluded that the main reason for consumers’ failure to
respond to environmental concerns seems largely to be due to negative perceptions of
their contribution. This directly implies the concept of low self-efficacy and the notion of
perceived consumer effectiveness of the degree to which an individual feels he or she can
make a difference in improving the quality of the environment (Antil, 1978; Berger and
Corbin, 1992; Ellen et al., 1991). Therefore, it is plausible to assume that an individual’s
attitude towards the severity of ecological problems or pertaining to the environment in
general may influence his or her willingness to purchase environmentally friendly
products.
Ecoliteracy
Environmental knowledge evolves in two forms: one is that consumers have to be
educated to understand the general impact of the product on the environment,
MIP and the other is consumer knowledge of the product itself being produced in an
29,5 environmentally friendly way (D’Souza et al., 2006). According to Laroche et al. (1996),
an individual’s knowledge about the environment plays a multifaceted role in
influencing his or her behaviour; that is, it provides the subject with knowledge about
action strategies and issues and helps shape attitudes and intentions through the belief
system. In addition, this leads to the practical aspects of the knowledge variable as it
456 outlines the important leverage points whereby marketers and agencies can influence
pro-environmental behaviour.
Most consumers would like to make rational choices in situations concerning the
purchase of environmentally friendly products, thus they would want enough
information to be fully aware of and knowledgeable about environmental problems and
issues in order to form an opinionative or attitudinal view in order to choose according to
their intentions. As Laroche et al. (2001) pointed out, the education of the consumer is
seen as an appropriate method for increasing perceived convenience and establishing
credibility in terms of being environmentally friendly. This is referred to as ecoliteracy,
which is used to measure the respondent’s ability to identify or define a number of
ecologically related symbols, concepts and behaviours. It has been found to be correlated
with some attitudes and behaviour toward the environment (Laroche et al., 1996).
Interpersonal influence
Interpersonal influence primarily consists of the impact of acting to persuade, convince
or influence others for the purpose of having a specific effect. An important
determinant of an individual’s behaviour is the influence of others (Bearden et al.,
1989). According to social cognitive theory, the process of interpersonal influence
advocates a bilateral-directional interaction that also occurs between environmental
and personal characteristics (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1989). As part of this process, social
influences and physical structures within the environment develop and modify human
expectations, beliefs and cognitive competencies. In addition, humans evoke different
reactions from their social environment as a result of their physical characteristics,
such as age, size, race, sex and physical attractiveness.
The social influences of peers, family groups and influential bodies can convey
information and activate emotional reactions through factors such as modelling,
instruction and social persuasion (Bandura, 1986). Social environments such as family,
friends and peer networks (normative susceptibility) strongly influence buying
decisions that involve environmentally friendly products. Interpersonal processes and
relationships between opinion leaders and professionals are likely to have a substantial
impact on similar attitudes towards buying decisions (informational susceptibility).
Stafford and Cocanougher (1977) suggested that the lack of consideration for the effects
of interpersonal influence on the development of attitudes, norms, values, aspirations
and purchase behaviour may hinder the understanding of the essence of consumer
behaviour.
Value orientation
The term “value” has been defined as an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive belief
that a specific end state of existence or specific mode of conduct is preferred to an
opposite end state or mode of conduct for living one’s life (Kahle, 1996; Rokeach, 1986).
The two most frequently studied values in research on environmentally friendly
products and ecological behaviour are collectivism and individualism (Hui and Environmentally
Triandis, 1986; McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Triandis, 1989, 1993). friendly products
Individualism in cultures implies loose ties (Hui and Triandis, 1986; Markus and
Kitayama, 1990; Triandis, 1989). Each individual has expectations to look after oneself
or one’s immediate family but no one else. Personal gratification, which concerns the
need for a sense of accomplishment, social recognition and to enjoy the finer things in
life (Ang et al., 2001), is the cornerstone of individualism. The individualistic consumer 457
who values personal gratification is not very conducive to environmental friendliness.
On the other hand, collectivism ignores personal gratification but implies cooperation,
helpfulness and consideration towards the goals of the group that are relative to the
individual (Crane, 2000; Laroche et al., 2001; McCarty and Shrum, 1994). A collectivist
is likely to forgo individual motivations for the good of the group. McCarty and Shrum
(1994) and Triandis (1993) conclude that collectivist people tend to be more
environmentally friendly, while individualistic people tend to be more environmentally
unfriendly. Therefore, consumers who value personal gratification will have a
less-favourable attitude towards the environment, and vice versa.
458 Value
H3
orientation H5
Figure 1.
Proposed research model Perceived product necessity
Survey instrument
The questionnaire comprised five sections of established scales and a section on
demographic information. Section A consisted of items measuring consumer values
orientation of collectivism and individualism adapted from Laroche et al. (2001) and
McCarty and Shrum (1994), and a consumer interpersonal influence scale adapted from
Bearden et al. (1989). The 12 items reflected two correlated dimensions of susceptibility to
interpersonal influence, namely normative and informational influence. Section B
consisted of items measuring CEA. The scales were adapted from Laroche et al. (2001),
McCarty and Shrum (1994) and Roberts (1996), and included a variety of topics related to
the environment, such as the severity of environmental problems, the importance of being
environmentally friendly, the level of responsibility of corporations and the inconvenience
of being environmentally friendly. The questions also implied a variety of personal and
societal issues. Section C consisted of a modified version of Sharma et al.’s (1995) scale of
perceived product necessity. The section measured a range of 15 products differing in
their level of necessity. Section D replicated Sharma et al.’s (1995) methodology and was
adapted for the purchasing of environmentally friendly products. The section measured
the “willingness to buy” an environmentally friendly alternative of each of the 15 products
listed in the previous section (Section C). Section E adapted Laroche et al.’s (2001) work in
measuring “ecoliteracy” – the respondent’s knowledge of the environment – through
nine environmentally related questions, each worth one mark. The respondents’ answers
indicated how much they knew about environmental issues. The total score achieved by
each of the respondents was rated as 1-3 (very un-ecoliterate), 4-6 (fairly ecoliterate) and
7-9 (very ecoliterate). All the responses were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, with
1 – “strongly disagree” and 7 – “strongly agree”.
Hypotheses testing
The results for the Pearson correlation between ecoliteracy and CEA are statistically
significant and positive (r ¼ 0.188, p , 0.05), which indicates that individuals with
high ecoliteracy are more likely to form favourable attitudes toward environmentally
friendly products. The findings support H1. The correlation between normative
susceptibility and CEA is significantly negative (r ¼ 2 0.341, p , 0.05), while the
correlation of informational susceptibility and CEA is not significant (r ¼ 2 0.021,
p . 0.05). The findings partially support H2. Finally, a significant correlation exists
between both collectivism and CEA (r ¼ 0.191, p , 0.05) and individualism and CEA
(r ¼ 2 0.120, p , 0.05). Thus, the findings support H3. These results mirror those of
Aaker and Bagozzi (1982), Roberts (1995), Zarnikau (2003) and Zimmer et al. (1994).
Informational susceptibility, normative susceptibility and individualism are individual
constructs proven either to have a negative effect or to be non-significant predictors of
attitudes toward the environment. The results and conclusions of the correlation
matrix are based mutually on one- and two-tailed tests, as both methods confirmed
similar correlation ratings. Table I shows the Pearson correlation analysis for the
relationship between the constructs.
The study includes linear regression analysis to test the relationship between CEA
and WTB-EFP. Despite the low R 2 value, the regression model is statistically
significant (R 2 value of 0.12). Table II provides the results of the linear regression
analysis. This finding confirms the hypothesis that consumers with favourable
attitudes towards the environment are more likely to buy environmentally
friendly products, supporting H4. The results reflect those of previous studies by
Regression statistics
Multiple R 0.421
R2 0.177
Adjusted R 2 0.161
SE 0.81045
Observations 256
Coefficients SE t-stat. p-value
Ecoliteracy 0.169 0.077 2.915 0.004
Informational susceptibility 0.063 0.041 1.042 0.299
Normative susceptibility 2 0.345 0.041 25.661 0.000 Table I.
Collectivistic values 0.126 0.072 1.980 0.049 Multiple regression of
Individualistic values 2 0.043 0.047 20.677 0.499 antecedents against CEA
MIP Kinnear et al. (1974), McCarty and Shrum (1994), Roberts (1996), Roberts and Bacon
29,5 (1997) and Van Liere and Dunlap (1981).
In order to test H5, hierarchical moderated regression analysis was undertaken to
analyse the moderation effects of perceived product necessity on the relationship
between the CEA and WTB constructs. Table III provides means and standard
deviations for the 15 products tested. The table orders these products in terms of their
462 necessity to maintaining daily life. It also provides the regression results testing the
moderating effect of product necessity. Separate regression analyses were conducted
for all 15 products by including three terms in the hierarchical moderated regressions:
product necessity, CEA and the interaction between these variables. The WTB-EFP
alternative of each individual product is the dependent variable for all the analyses.
Moderation is indicated when the interaction term between attitudes towards the
environment and perceived necessity is statistically significant.
Table IV reflects that the standardized regression parameters for only two
“non-necessity” interaction terms (e.g. soft drink and jewelry) are statistically
significant, thereby supporting H5. Specifically, the effect of favourable attitudes
on purchase behaviour is stronger for products perceived as unnecessary in contrast to
products perceived as necessary. Thus, the findings marginally support H5.
Regression statistics
Table II. R2 0.124
Linear regression of CEA Adjusted R 2 0.120
against willingness to SE 0.92857
buy environmentally Observations 256
friendly products Coefficients SE t-stat. p-value
(WTB-EFP) CEA 0.352 0.066 5.945 0.000
Product Meana SD
References
Aaker, D.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (1982), “Attitudes toward public policy alternatives to reduce air
pollution”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 85-94.
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, D.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 27-41.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1969), “The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice situation”,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 207-24.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Amyx, D.A., Dejong, P.F., Lin, X., Chakraborty, G. and Weiner, J.L. (1994), “Influencers of
purchase intentions for ecologically safe products”, AMA Winter Educators’ Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 5, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 341-7.
Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K. (2001), “Spot the difference: consumer
responses towards counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-35.
Antil, J.H. (1978), “The construction and validation of an instrument to measure socially Environmentally
responsible consumer behaviour: a study of the socially responsible consumer”, doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. friendly products
Australian Government (n.d.), Australian Government: Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, available at: www.environment.gov.
au/ (accessed 7 January 2009).
Bagozzi, R.P. (1981), “Attitudes, intentions and behavior: a test of some key hypotheses”, Journal 467
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 607-27.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2005), “Environmental marketing strategy and firm performance:
effect on new product performance and market share”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 461-75.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory”, in Vasta, R. (Ed.), Annals of Child Development:
Six Theories of Child Development, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-60.
Banerjee, S.B. and McKeage, K. (1994), “How green is my value? Exploring the relationship between
environmentalism and materialism”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 147-52.
Banerjee, S.B., Gulas, C. and Iyer, E. (1995), “Shades of green: a multidimensional analysis of
environmental advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 21-34.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate environmentalism: antecedents
and influence of industry type”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-22.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.C. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-81.
Bentler, P.M. and Speckart, G. (1979), “Models of attitude-behavior relations”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 452-64.
Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), “Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as
moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-88.
Billington, K. (2008), “National Tree Day: this week”, available at: http://treeday.planetark.org/
news/display/21 (accessed 7 January 2009).
Branthwaite, A. (2002), “Investigating the power of imagery in marketing communication:
evidence based techniques”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 164-71.
Brown, D. (2008), “It is good to be green: environmentally friendly credentials are influencing
business outsourcing decisions”, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 87-95.
Carbaugh, D. (2005), Cultures in Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Chamorro, R., Rubio, S. and Miranda, F.J. (2007), “Characteristics of research on green
marketing”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 223-39.
Chan, K. (1999), “Market segmentation of green consumers in Hong Kong”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 7-24.
Coakes, S. and Steed, L. (2003), SPSS Analysis without Anguish: Version 11.0 for Windows,
Wiley, Melbourne.
MIP Coddington, W. (1990), “It’s no fad: environmentalism is now a fact of corporate life”, Marketing
News, October, p. 7.
29,5
Cohen, M. (2007), “Is the green consumer trend over?”, Environmental Leader, available at: www.
environmentalleader.com
Crane, A. (2000), “Facing the backlash, green market and strategic reorientation in the 1990s”,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 277-96.
468 Cummings, L.F. (2008), “Managerial attitudes toward environmental management within
Australia, the People’s Republic of China, and Indonesia”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 16-29.
DelVecchio, D. (2000), “Moving beyond fit: the role of brand portfolio characteristics in consumer
evaluations of brand reliability”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 7,
pp. 457-71.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R. and Bohlen, M. (2003), “Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence
and an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 465-80.
D’Souza, C. (2004), “Ecolabels programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective”, Corporate
Communication: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-88.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M. and Lamb, P. (2006), “An empirical study on the influence of
environmental labels on consumers”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 162-73.
East, R. (1991), “Beyond the blip: the 15 brand experiment”, Journal of the Market Research
Society, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 57-9.
Ellen, P.M., Wiener, J.L. and Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991), “The role of perceived consumer
effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors”, Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 102-17.
Ginsberg, J.M. and Bloom, P.N. (2004), “Choosing the right green marketing strategy”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 79-84.
Goldsmith, E.R., Lafferty, A.B. and Newell, J.S. (2000), “The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 43-54.
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2002), “Brand associations: looking through the eye of the beholder”,
Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
Ha, T. (2008), The Australian Green Consumer Guide, University of NSW Press, Sydney.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza Ibáñez, V. and Forcada Sainz, J. (2005), “Green branding effects on
attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Hester, S. and Englin, P. (1997), Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization
Analysis, International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America,
Boston, MA.
Hoek, J., Gendall, G. and Hedderley, D. (2002), “Green attributes: how do they affect consumer’s
behavior?”, Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. (1986), “Individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural
researchers”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-48.
Kahle, L.R. (1996), “Social values and consumer behaviour: research from the list of values”, Environmentally
The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 135-50. friendly products
Kärnä, J., Hansen, E. and Juslin, H. (2003), “Social responsibility in environmental marketing
planning”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 5/6, pp. 848-71.
Kilbourne, W. and Pickett, G. (2008), “How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern,
and environmentally responsible behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 9. 469
Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), “Ecologically concerned consumers: who are
they?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 20-4.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Forleo, G.B. (2001), “Targeting consumers who are willing to pay
more for environmentally friendly products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 503-20.
Laroche, M., Toffoli, R., Chankon, K. and Muller, T. (1996), “The influence of culture on
pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a Canadian perspective”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 196-202.
McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.G. (1994), “The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value
orientations and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Manaktola, K. and Jauhari, V. (2007), “Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green
practices in the lodging industry in India”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 364-77.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1990), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.
Meneses, G.D. and Palacio, A.B. (2006), “Different kinds of consumer response to the reward
recycling technique: similarities at the desired routine level”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-60.
Moisander, J. and Pesonen, S. (2002), “Narratives of sustainable ways of living: constructing
the self and the other as a green consumer”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 329-42.
Montoro, F.J., Luque, T., Fuentes, F. and Cañadas, P. (2006), “Improving attitudes toward brands
with environmental associations: an experimental approach”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Nunnally, J.C. (1987), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Osterhus, T. (1997), “Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work?”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 16-29.
Ottman, J. (1993), Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oyewole, P. (2001), “Social costs of environmental justice associated with the practice of green
marketing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29, pp. 239-51.
Palmer, D. (2008), “The green revolution: are consumers buying it?”, Australian Food News,
2 October.
Pelton, L.E., Strutton, D., Barnes, J.H.J. and True, S.L. (1993), “The relationship among
referents, opportunity, rewards, and punishments in consumer attitudes toward
recycling: a structural equations approach”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 60-74.
MIP Phau, I. and Ong, D. (2007), “An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in
promotional messages for clothing brands”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25,
29,5 pp. 772-88.
Pickett-Baker, J. and Ozaki, R. (2008), “Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on
consumer purchase decision”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 281-93.
Planet Ark (n.d.), “National Tree Day: Planet Ark”, available at: http://treeday.planetark.org/
470 (accessed 7 January 2009).
Polonsky, M.J. (1994), “An introduction to green marketing”, Electronic Green Journal, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 388-412.
Polonsky, M.J. (1995), “A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing
strategy”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 29-46.
Polonsky, M.J. and Rosenberger, P.J. III (2001), “Reevaluating green marketing: a strategic
approach”, Business Horizons, September/October, pp. 21-30.
Pujari, D. and Wright, G. (1995), “Strategic product planning and ecological imperatives-towards
a taxonomy of strategy, structure and process: a multi case study of companies in the
UK and Germany”, paper read at Marketing Education Group (MEG) Conference,
Bradford, July.
Roberts, J.A. (1995), “Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: a cluster analytic
approach and its implications for marketing”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 97-117.
Roberts, J.A. (1996), “Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-31.
Roberts, J.A. and Bacon, D.R. (1997), “Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental
concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-89.
Rokeach, M. (1986), Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rosenberg, M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “The link between green
purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-53.
Shabecoff, P. (2001), Earth Rising: American Environmentalism in the 21st Century, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Shabecoff, P. (2003), A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1995), “Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and
moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Sirgy, M. (1982), “Self-image/product image congruity and advertising strategy”, in Vinay, K. (Ed.),
Developments in Marketing Science, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 5,
pp. 129-33.
Sirgy, M. (1985), “Self-image/product image congruity and consumer decision making”,
International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 49-63.
Soloman, M. (1996), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, Prentice-Hall, USA.
Solomon, M.R. (2006), Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having, and Being, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Stafford, J.E. and Cocanougher, B.A. (1977), “Reference group theory”, Selected Aspects of Environmentally
Consumer Behavior, Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, pp. 361-80. friendly products
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993), “Value orientations, gender, and environmental
concern”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 322-48.
Straughan, R. and Roberts, J. (1999), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green
consumer behaviour in the new millennium”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 471
No. 6, p. 558.
Suchard, H.T. and Polonsky, M.J. (1991), “A theory of environmental buyer behavior and its validity:
the environmental action-behavior model”, in Gilly, M.C. and Robert Dwyer, F. (Eds),
AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL, pp. 187-201.
Taghian, M. and D’Souza, C. (2005), “Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of
advertising themes”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 51-66.
Taghian, M. and D’Souza, C. (2008), “It’s not easy being green: attracting the environmentally
aware consumer”, Deakin Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 5-13.
Tilden, T.L. (2007), “Celebrity green givers”, available at: www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/
blogs/celebrities/7249 (accessed 7 January 2009).
Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-20.
Triandis, H.C. (1993), “Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes”, Cross-Cultural
Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 155-80.
Van Liere, K. and Dunlap, R. (1981), “The social bases of environmental concern: a review of
hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 181-97.
Volsky, R.P., Ozanne, L.K. and Fontenot, R.J. (1999), “A conceptual model of US consumer
willingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 122-40.
Webster, J.F.E. (1975), “Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 188-96.
Wiser, R., Fang, J., Porter, K. and Houston, A. (1999), “Green power marketing in retail
competition: an early assessment report”, prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National
Renewable Energy Laboratories, Berkeley, CA.
Wustenhagen, R. and Bilharz, M. (2006), “Green energy market development in Germany:
effective public policy and emerging customer demand”, Energy Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 1681-96.
Yavas, U. (1994), “Research note: students as subjects in advertising and marketing research”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 35-43.
Zarnikau, J. (2003), “Consumer demand for ‘green power’ and energy efficiency”, Energy Policy,
Vol. 31 No. 16, pp. 61-72.
Zimmer, M.R., Stafford, T.G. and Stafford, M.R. (1994), “Green issues: dimensions of
environmental concern”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Further reading
Ryan, B. (2006), “Green consumers: a growing market for many local businesses”, Let’s Talk
Business, Vol. 123, November.
MIP Appendix
29,5
Items Factor loadings
Interpersonal influence
472 Normative (a ¼ 0.89)
When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others will
approve of 0.82
It is important that others like the products and brands I buy 0.82
If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect
me to buy 0.79
I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others 0.79
I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that
others buy 0.77
I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands
they purchase 0.76
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the brands that they buy 0.66
I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of
them 0.64
Informational (a ¼ 0.67)
If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product 0.85
I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy 0.83
Value orientation
Collectivism (a ¼ 0.82)
Being a cooperative participant in group activities 0.87
Working hard for the goals of your group 0.86
Readily helping others in need of help 0.74
Individualism (a ¼ 0.66)
Self-respect 0.77
Self-fulfilment 0.76
Independence 0.73
CEA (a ¼ 0.84)
Our country has so many trees that there is no need to recycle paper 0.82
Since we live in such a large country, any pollution we create is easily spread out and
therefore is no concern to me 0.80
With so much water in this country, I do not see why people are worried about leaky
faucets and flushing toilets 0.77
Trying to control pollution is much more trouble than it is worth 0.73
Recycling is too much trouble 0.69
There is nothing the average citizen can do to help stop environmental pollution 0.68
In Australia, we have so much electricity that we do not have to worry about
Table AI. conservation 0.61
Corresponding author
Ian Phau can be contacted at: ian.phau@cbs.curtin.edu.au