Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.1476

Environmentally Responsible Consumption: Construct

Definition, Scale Development, and Validation
Sudhanshu Gupta* and Richa Agrawal
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT
Most environmental problems are rooted in human behaviour, especially consumption. While
not consuming is not an option, it would help if all consumption could be measured for environ-
mental responsibility. This study conceptualizes and operationalizes environmentally responsible
consumption (ERC), and develops a standardized scale for measuring the same. Depth interviews,
blog data analysis, and customer surveys were conducted to develop a standardized 38-item ERC
scale that captures ten unique behaviours pertaining to acquisition, use, and disposal. The scale is
an improvement over available measures and compares favourably on several key parameters.
The ERC scale could be potentially used by governmental and non-governmental bodies,
policymakers, and environmental groups, for gaining insights into current consumption behav-
iours of the general public or specific target groups, identifying specific behaviour/s that need im-
provement, and targeting and tracking such behaviours over time. It could also be used by
businesses for identifying opportunities in green products and/or services. Copyright © 2017 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Received 30 May 2017; revised 8 October 2017; accepted 22 October 2017

Keywords: environmentally responsible consumption; measure of consumption; environmental sustainability; scale development;
psychometric tool; consumption process; reliability and validity; acquisition, use, and disposal

Introduction

O
F THE VARIOUS HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND BEHAVIOURS, NONE IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT AS SERIOUSLY AS CONSUMPTION (STEG AND
Vlek, 2009). The excessively high rate of human consumption – 64% more than resources can be gener-
ated by planet Earth (Global Footprint Network, 2016) – is one of the major contributors of today’s increas-
ing environmental woes. Interestingly, environmental problems can be corrected by changing or
managing the very same behaviours that give rise to these problems in the first place (Steg and Vlek, 2009). To
bring about the desired changes in consumption behaviour, it is important that current consumption behaviours
pertaining to acquisition, use, and disposal be measured and mapped in terms of their environmental responsibility.
It is only when all deviations from environmentally responsible consumption (ERC) are known that efforts can be
made to target and correct consumption behaviours which are environmentally less responsible. Developing a psy-
chometric scale that makes such a measurement and mapping possible is thus crucial.

*Correspondence to: Sudhanshu Gupta, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras - 600036, Chennai, India.
E-mail: sudhanshugupta2002@gmail.com

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

A variety of scales are available in the extant literature that measure: general ecological behaviour (Kaiser, 1998),
ecologically conscious behaviour (Tilikidou et al., 2002), green consumption behaviour (Kim et al., 2012), environ-
mentally appropriate behaviour (De Young, 1985), environmental behaviour (Markle, 2013; Stanley et al., 1996), en-
vironmental responsibility (Stone et al., 1995), pro-environmental behaviour (Larson et al., 2015), green
consumption value (GCV) (Haws et al., 2014), consciousness for sustainable consumption (Balderjahn et al.,
2013), environmentally significant behaviour (Gatersleben et al., 2002), and home and transport energy saving
(Poortinga et al., 2004). However, most of these scales measure behaviours pertaining to any one stage of the con-
sumption process, for example, scales developed by Kim et al. (2012) and Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher (2016)
measure behaviours related to purchase (acquisition), but not behaviours concerning use and disposal, even though
such behaviours are an integral part of the consumption process (Stern, 2000; Halkier, 2001; Peattie, 2010). Also,
available scales often focus (narrowly) on capturing specific behaviours – such as recycling, walking, or bicycling
instead of driving the car – or the consumption of specific products (e.g. detergent, paper, water, and electricity).
These and other issues with existing measures (discussed in detail later) limit their usability, utility, and value for
measuring ERC.
Against this backdrop, the present paper proposes a multidimensional, multi-item scale for the measurement of
ERC and assesses its psychometric properties.

Construct Definition and Domain Specification

To define the construct and specify its domain correctly, context-specific meanings/definitions of consumption were
examined and available literature in the area of responsible consumption was reviewed.

Consumption
The term ‘consumption’ has different meanings in different contexts (Stern, 1997). From consumers’ perspective,
consumption is a three-stage process that involves purchase, use, and disposal of goods and/or services (Stern,
2000; Halkier, 2001; Kim et al., 2012) for the satisfaction of one’s needs and wants (American Marketing
Association, no date).

Responsible Consumption
‘Consumption’ was explored as ‘responsible consumption’ for the first time by Fisk (1973), who defined it as ‘ratio-
nal and efficient use of resources with respect to the global human population’ (p. 24). ‘Responsible consumption’
was subsequently explored variously by several scholars. In our explorations of the available literature, we identified
five different perspectives or themes of responsible consumption. These include: the social perspective – socially
conscious consumption (Roberts, 1995) and socially responsible consumption (Webb et al., 2008; Yan and She,
2011); the ethical perspective – ethically minded consumer behaviour (Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher, 2016) and
consumer ethics (Muncy & Vitell, 1992); the sustainability perspective – sustainable consumption (Balderjahn
et al., 2013); the green perspective – green consumption (Kim et al., 2012; Gleim et al., 2013); and the environmental
perspective – ecological consciousness (Tilikidou et al., 2002), environmental responsibility (Stone et al., 1995), and
environmentally conscious consumption (Roberts, 1995). Representative definitions of responsible consumption
from each of these perspectives are given in Table 1.
Despite the fact that ‘responsible consumption’ remains rooted in the ‘rational and efficient use of resources’
(Fisk, 1973, p. 24), it differs in meaning and focus across all the five perspectives (see Table 1). Unfortunately, how-
ever, none of the existing conceptualizations, including those from green, sustainability, and environmental per-
spectives, focuses on the day-to-day consumption behaviours of consumers or assesses responsibility of such
behaviours in terms of their impact on the environment. Given the growing need for such an assessment, we pro-
pose a new perspective of responsible consumption and call it ERC.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Responsible consumption
Fisk (1973) Rational as well as efficient use of resources keeping in mind the
needs of the global human population
Environmental perspective
Stern (2000) Behaviours undertaken with the intention to change (normally, to
benefit) the environment
Social perspective
Webster (1975) Use of an individual’s purchasing power to bring about social
change by taking into account the public consequences of
his or her private consumption
Mohr et al. (2001) Acquisition, usage, and disposition of products on a desire to
minimize or eliminate any harmful effects on the society and
maximize beneficial impact on society in the long-run
Yan and She (2011) Behaviours undertaken at every step of the consumption process
that are influenced by one’s concern for social, moral, and
environmental issues
Ethical perspective
Muncy and Vitell (1992) Moral principles and standards that guide behaviour of individuals
or groups as they obtain, use, or dispose of goods and services
Sustainability perspective
Norwegian Ministry for Use of services and related products which respond to basic needs
the Environment and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of
(1994) natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of
waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product
so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations
Green perspective
Haws et al. (2014) Considering the environmental impact of one’s purchase and
consumption behaviours

Table 1. Selected definitions of responsible consumption

Defining ERC
To define ERC, we (1) reviewed all available definitions of responsible consumption, and (2) used the definitions
of ‘socially responsible consumption’ by Webster (1975), Mohr et al. (2001), and Yan and She (2011), and the def-
inition of ‘consumer ethics’ by Muncy and Vitell (1992) to guide our efforts. It is evident from these definitions
that any conceptualization of responsible consumption should (a) relate to and include the three stages of the
consumption process – acquisition, use, and disposal, and (b) consider the consequences of consumption from
the concerned perspective. Keeping these in mind, we define ERC as – any consumption-related behaviour,
namely, acquisition, use, and disposal, undertaken in a manner such that it reduces the negative impact of con-
sumption on the environment. ERC is explored in this study in the context of one’s day-to-day consumption. Be-
haviours – such as educating others about environmental issues, signing a petition concerning the environment,
and participation in wildlife studies (Larson et al., 2015) – that are not related to one’s day-to-day consumption are
not part of this study.

Existing Measures – A Review

A thorough review of the extant literature helped to identify 12 ‘self-report’ scales that either measure one or more
ERC behaviours or have a dimension that captures such consumption behaviours. ‘Self-report’ scales are capable of
capturing behaviours that are not directly observable and/or measureable – such as reusing and recycling
behaviours – and hence are more complete and comprehensive (Olli et al., 2001) (the scale proposed in this study
is a self-report scale). These scales are summarized in Table 2.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 Reference Scale Sample items Remarks

Scales pertaining to ‘environmental’, ‘green’, or ‘sustainable’ themes

De Young (1985) 11-item, two-dimensional environmentally
appropriate behaviour scale
Stanley et al. (1996) 37-item, six-dimensional environmental
behaviour scale
Kaiser (1998); 38-51 item general ecological behaviour
Kaiser and Wilson (2004) scale (one-dimensional, six categories)
Tilikidou et al. (2002) 11-item, one-dimensional pro-environmental
purchase behaviour
scale; 11-item, two-dimensional pro-
environmental activities scale
Markle (2013) 19-item, four-dimensional pro-
environmental behaviour scale
‘Reuse unused side of the paper’, ‘Recycle
non-deposit glass jars and bottle’, etc.
‘Buy biodegradable laundry soap’,
‘Recycle plastics’, ‘Keep tires inflated’, etc.
‘I buy milk in returnable bottles’, ‘After
meals, I dispose of leftovers in the toilet’,
etc.
‘I prefer recycled paper product’, ‘I try to
use less water’, etc.
‘How often do you turn off the TV when
Items very specific to a product or behaviour
Most validity test results not reported
Items very specific to a product or behaviour
Most validity test results not reported
Items very specific to a product or behaviour
Items very specific to a product or behaviour
Items very specific to a product or behaviour

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
leaving a room?’, ‘During the past year
how often have you car-pooled?’, etc.
Larson et al. (2015) 13-item, four-dimensional pro-environmental ‘Recycled paper, plastic and metal’, Focus is on non-consumption-related behaviours
behaviour scale ‘Signed a petition about an
environmental issue’, etc.
Kim et al. (2012) 10-item, three-dimensional green ‘Purchase of organic foods’, ‘Purchase Captures behaviours related to purchase only
consumption behaviour scale of energy-efficient products’, etc.
Scales pertaining to ‘social’ and ‘ethical’ themes
Roberts (1991) 25-item, two-dimensional socially responsible ‘I use low-phosphate detergent (or soap) Items specific to a product or behaviour
consumer behaviour (SRCB) scale for my laundry’, ‘I do not buy Focus is on purchase-related
products from companies who behaviours
discriminate against minorities’, etc.
Francois-LeCompte and 20-item, five-dimensional socially responsible ‘I do not buy products from companies Focus is on the social theme
Roberts (2006) consumption scale that employ children’, ‘I buy fair
trade products’, etc.
Webb et al. (2008) 26-item, three-dimensional socially ‘I try to buy from companies that help Focus is on the social theme
responsible purchase and the needy’, ‘I recycle cardboard’, etc.
disposal scale
Yan and She (2011) 34-item, three-dimension, nine-factor SRCB scale ‘I always reuse shopping bags’, ‘I always Focus is on the social theme
buy from companies that I know
are devoted to charity’, etc.
Sudbury-Riley and 10-item, five-dimensional ethically minded ‘I do not buy household products Focus is only on purchase-related behaviours
Kohlbacher (2016) consumer behaviour scale that harm the environment’, ‘Whenever
possible, I buy products packaged
in reusable or recyclable containers’, etc.

Table 2. Selected measures of responsible consumption: A summary

S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017

DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Review of the 12 measures (scales and dimensions) revealed that:

1 Seven of the 12 scales measure constructs that are substantially different from ERC. These scales measure
ethically minded consumption behaviour (Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher, 2016), socially responsible consump-
tion (Francois-LeCompte and Roberts, 2006; Webb et al., 2008; Yan and She, 2011), etc. and hence are not suited
for measuring ERC.
2 Constructs captured by the scales are often defined either too narrowly or too broadly (Messick, 1993). For exam-
ple, scales by Larson et al. (2015) – pro-environmental behaviour – and Tilikidou et al. (2002) – ecological con-
sciousness – are too broad and include non-consumption-related behaviours pertaining to environmental
citizenship, social environmentalism, etc. rendering these scales unsuitable for measuring ERC.
3 Existing scales often fail to consider and include behaviours pertaining to all the three stages of the consumption
process. In fact, as mentioned by Thøgersen (1994) and Peattie (2010), non-purchase aspects of consumption,
such as product use and disposal, are often overlooked and neglected in the extant literature.
4 Scales tend to focus on specific environmental behaviours – such as purchasing organic products, recycling glass,
walking or bicycling instead of driving the car – or on the use of specific products – such as detergents, paper,
water, and electricity. As a result, most scales end up ignoring products and/or behaviours, rendering them insuf-
ficient and incomplete measures of ERC [Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher (2016) on issues in Roberts’s (1995) so-
cially responsible consumer behaviour (SRCB) scale].
5 Results of advanced scale reliability and validity are available less frequently for existing scales. For example,
evidence of convergent and discriminant validity is not made available by Stanley et al. (1996) and Kim et al.
(2012); while results of nomological validity are not reported by Francois-LeCompte and Roberts (2006), Kim
et al. (2012), Larson et al. (2015), and Stanley et al. (1996). Basic and advanced reliability and validity tests are
strongly recommended for scale development (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991; Netemeyer et al., 2003).
In the absence of a scale that measures day-to-day consumption behaviours across the three stages of the con-
sumption process and captures behaviours more comprehensively than specifically, an attempt is made in this study
to develop a more complete and comprehensive psychometric tool for measuring ERC.

Methodology, Data Analysis, and Results

The four-step scale development procedure outlined by Netemeyer et al. (2003) was used for developing the ERC
scale. The procedure outlined by the authors is quite comprehensive and consistent with much of the existing
literature on scale development (e.g. Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991).

Step 1: Defining the Construct and Content Domain

Defining the construct – its facets and domains – is very important in scale development and also the most difficult
(Churchill, 1979; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Netemeyer et al. (2003) suggest that a review of the literature be
undertaken to define the construct and to specify its boundaries for establishing the domain. All pertinent literature
was reviewed and a definition of ERC was developed (discussed earlier).
To assess dimensionality of the construct, data were collected from a series of in-depth interviews (conducted in
India, comprising 22 men and 5 women, aged 23 to 77 years, including academicians, researchers, and industry
experts working in sustainability, environment, and other related areas) and the blog wehatetowaste.com (4,000+
followers on Twitter as in June 2015, and reported high levels of regular activity), and analysed.
Review of pertinent literature and thematic analysis of data (Braun and Clarke, 2006) from interviews and blog
posts helped to identify nine ERC behaviours. These include:
1 Purchasing environment-friendly products (PUR): local, seasonal, energy efficient, recycled products, etc.
2 Purchasing products in environmentally friendly packaging (PACK): products having lean or ‘zero’ packaging or
packaged in reusable, recyclable material, etc.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

3 Need-based purchases (NEED): buying based on careful assessment of one’s needs and requirements, avoiding
wasteful purchasing, etc.
4 Collaborative consumption (COLAB): sharing, renting, borrowing, pooling, etc.
5 Conscious consumption (CC): complete, need based, zero waste consumption, etc.
6 Handling and care (HNC): looking after and using things carefully to enhance the longevity of one’s possessions,
mostly durables.
7 Repair and reuse (RNR): repairing and reusing things instead of discarding them wastefully.
8 Disposing of things that are still usable (DIS): giving, donating, selling, exchanging, things that are not in regular
use or lying unused.
9 Disposing of waste (WAST): segregation of waste, proper handling of harmful and hazardous waste, recycling, etc.
The nine ERC behaviours help to reduce the negative impact of one’s day-to-day consumption on the
environment.

Step 2: Item Generation and Judgement

To generate a pool of items that tap into the domain of the construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003), six to 12 items were
generated for each of the nine behaviours. In-depth interviews and blog data along with items from existing scales
were used for creating an initial pool of 89 items. We then reviewed these items and deleted 17 items for reasons of
redundancy and ambiguity. The remaining 72 items were reviewed for ‘specificity’, ‘clarity’, and ‘representativeness’
(judged at three levels – ‘not’, ‘somewhat’, and ‘completely’) by 18 domain experts who included academicians, re-
searchers, and industry experts. Based on the comments received from the experts, 31 items that were judged as
‘not’ specific, clear, or representative by 15 or more experts were deleted. The wording of items that were judged
as ‘somewhat’ specific, clear, or representative was modified. The 41 remaining items were then submitted to ten
consumers to ensure that item wording, instructions, and response format were easy to understand and follow.
One of the items from the theme Need-based purchases (NEED) was deleted, as quite a few respondents stated dif-
ficulty in understanding it.

Step 3: Designing and Conducting Studies to Develop the Scale

Study 1
To explore the underlying factor structure, data were collected for all the 40 items using a seven-point Likert-scale
format, ranging from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’, from respondents residing in the three metropol-
itan cities of India: Chennai, Bengaluru, and Mumbai. Nearly 1,000 individuals were approached in public places –
such as beaches, parks, railway and bus stations, colleges, and premium and non-premium housing societies – to
ensure that the sample had a good mix and representation of different demographics. However, only 368 respon-
dents comprising both men and women, 18–69 years of age, participated in the study. All respondents possessed
either a graduate or postgraduate degree, and could read and converse proficiently in English. Finally, only 320 re-
sponses could be used for analyses as 48 responses had to be discarded due to incomplete data and extreme or pat-
tern responding.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the data using principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation
helped identify 11 factors (2 more than the proposed 9) with an eigen value > 1, and explained more than 70% of
the total variance (Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value
was 0.862). Items measuring conscious consumption (CC) and disposing of things that are still usable (DIS) split
into two factors each. For CC, one set of items represented need-based consumption while the other set represented
complete consumption or ‘zero waste’. Conceptually, consuming or taking only what is needed essentially means
that one takes only as much as can be consumed, which in turn helps ensure complete or ‘zero waste’ consumption.
To ensure that the items captured this, the wording was modified for the items capturing the two factors. In the case
of DIS, one set of items captured the disposal of things by giving, donating, etc., and another captured behaviours
such as selling, exchanging, etc. Such segregation made sense since individuals may have different orientations –
social or economic – when disposing of things that can still be used. The two new factors were named

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Give/Donate/Offer (GDO) and Sell/Exchange/Trade (SET). Further, wording of one of the items in PUR that had a
cross-loading of more than 0.4 was modified, and four new items – one each in PUR, PACK, GDO, and SET – were
added following suggestions received from the respondents. No items were deleted at this stage.

Study 2
Since four new items were added and the wording of a couple of the items was modified, fresh data were collected in
a manner similar to that in study 1 from respondents across the cities of New Delhi, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kanpur,
and Nagpur in India for another round of EFA. A total of 299 usable responses were collected and analysed using
PCA with varimax rotation (Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001 and the KMO measure of sam-
pling adequacy was 0.835). Four items having loadings of less than 0.5 and cross-loadings of more than 0.4 were
deleted and the EFA was performed once again. This time ten distinct factors (eigen value > 1, explaining more than
70% of the total variance) were identified. Rewording of the items of conscious consumption (CC) which had split
into two factors in study 1 led to the identification of a single factor in study 2. The ten factors comprising ERC iden-
tified in study 2 include: PUR, PACK, NEED, COLAB, CC, HNC, RNR, GDO, SET and WAST. Cronbach’s alpha
values for each of these ranged from 0.758 to 0.895, confirming scale reliability (Cronbach, 1951). Item-to-total cor-
relation values ranged from 0.336 to 0.833, confirming internal consistency (Pallant, 2001) (see Table 3 for key sta-
tistics of the 10 factors).

Step 4: Finalizing the Scale

Study 3
To confirm the factor structure conclusively, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. A fresh round of
data was collected (N = 360) in a manner similar to that in study 1 and study 2. CFA revealed that standardized factor
loadings for two items (one each from PUR and COLAB) were less than the acceptable cut-off of 0.6; these items
were hence deleted (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Fit indices for the model having 38 measurable variables and 360 obser-
vations – χ2/df = 1.734 (less than 2), root mean-squared error of approximation = 0.045 (less than 0.07), standard-
ized root mean square residual = 0.050 (0.08 or less), Tucker-Lewis index = 0.933 (above 0.9), and comparative fit
index = 0.942 (above 0.9) – indicated that the model was plausible and fits the data well (Hair et al., 2006). Other fit
indices – goodness-of-fit index = 0.864, adjusted goodness-of-fit = 0.836, normed fit index = 0.874 – were also ac-
ceptable, as the total number of measurable variables in the proposed model was high (Hair et al., 2006). Composite
reliability too was acceptable, ranging from 0.820 to 0.905 for the ten factors (Hair et al., 2006). Average variance
extracted (AVE) for all the factors was greater than 0.5 (Netemeyer et al., 2003), providing evidence of reliability and
convergent validity (Table 4).
To test discriminant validity, inter-correlation values between the factors were checked. The values were found to
be less than 0.6 (0.529 to 0.06), indicating discriminant validity (Carlson et al., 2000). Also squared correlation
values between all pairs of factors (ranging from 0 to 0.28) were found to be less than the AVE value for the respec-
tive factors, establishing discriminant validity conclusively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Study 4
To test if the ERC scale is sensitive to differences and similarities between groups known to be different, and if its
relationship with other theoretically related measures is significant, and whether or not the responses are affected by
socially desirable responding, fresh data were collected from 358 respondents in a manner similar to that described
in studies 1–3.

Known-group validity. For known-group validity to exist, the measure should be able to reliably differentiate between
groups that are supposed to score low and high on a trait (Netemeyer et al., 2003). We identified two groups of re-
spondents on the basis of the responses given to the question ‘…do you work with any environmental organization,
participate in various environment related activities, events, etc., or are an active member of any environmental
group, club, association, etc.’. Group 1 (N = 84) consisted of respondents who responded ‘Yes’ to the question while
group 2 (N = 274) consisted of those who answered ‘No’. Respondents who did not provide any answer were as-
sumed to be part of group 2. To confirm known-group validity, the mean score was computed for each of the ten
dimensions of the ERC scale and the Welch t-test was performed (variance and sample size were unequal for the

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

Factor1 Items Mean Standard EFA Corrected Cronbach’s

deviation loading item-to-total alpha
correlation

PUR I avoid buying products that contain hazardous and 5.803 1.444 0.623 0.469 0.822
harmful chemicals
I buy products that are environment friendly 5.201 1.237 0.764 0.680
I buy products that are not harmful to the environment 4.963 1.299 0.797 0.682
I buy products that carry eco-labels, marks, or certifications 4.990 1.384 0.596 0.531
I buy products that do not pollute the environment 5.308 1.245 0.802 0.703
NEED I avoid purchasing things that I do not need 5.712 1.623 0.833 0.736 0.841
I purchase only those things that I really need or require 5.639 1.485 0.864 0.790
I do not purchase things that I do not need even if they 5.171 1.693 0.776 0.602
are on discount
I take care that my purchases do not lead to accumulation 5.565 1.375 0.639 0.582
of unnecessary things
PACK I buy products packaged in recyclable material 4.689 1.316 0.816 0.722 0.825
I buy products packaged in recycled material 4.639 1.309 0.847 0.771
I buy products that come in refill packaging 4.799 1.407 0.709 0.548
COLAB Whenever possible, I borrow things from others 3.866 1.977 0.853 0.681 0.758
Whenever possible, I rent things from others 3.589 1.883 0.785 0.633
Whenever possible, I share or pool things with others 4.806 1.760 0.804 0.613
Whenever possible, I use public transport, facilities, etc. 5.455 1.726 0.534 0.336
CC I avoid wasteful consumption 5.545 1.301 0.704 0.674 0.853
I use things in moderation 5.415 1.130 0.675 0.650
I avoid using things in a wasteful manner 5.542 1.324 0.753 0.665
I turn/switch things off when not in use 6.298 1.106 0.677 0.618
I use things completely to ensure zero waste 5.692 1.195 0.734 0.635
I take only as much as I can consume, to avoid wastage 5.756 1.197 0.612 0.590
HNC I handle all things with care 5.776 1.074 0.790 0.703 0.887
I take good care of all the things 5.749 1.062 0.871 0.831
I send things for regular service and maintenance 5.261 1.300 0.768 0.669
I take due care to use all things in a proper manner 5.592 1.133 0.851 0.803
RNR I avoid discarding things that can be repaired 5.378 1.391 0.818 0.707 0.876
I avoid discarding things that can be used differently 5.234 1.402 0.890 0.833
I avoid discarding things that can be used for other 5.261 1.292 0.814 0.749
purposes
GDO I give things that I do not need or use to others 5.736 1.232 0.889 0.810 0.895
I donate things that I do not need or use to charity 5.528 1.337 0.877 0.787
I offer things that I do not need or use to those who 5.716 1.168 0.874 0.781
need them
SET I sell off things that I do not need or use 4.321 1.766 0.862 0.735 0.887
I exchange things that I do not need or use for things 4.391 1.714 0.850 0.799
I need
I trade off things that I do not need or use 4.211 1.618 0.858 0.802
WAST I segregate my household waste before disposing it 4.525 1.832 0.749 0.634 0.856
I take due care to throw garbage in the assigned bins only 5.512 1.568 0.775 0.688
I dispose of all hazardous waste in the manner prescribed 5.157 1.479 0.841 0.748
I take due care when disposing of chemical, medical, and 5.331 1.433 0.731 0.623
other harmful waste
I put all recyclable waste in recycle bins or sell it to 5.124 1.529 0.729 0.654
the scrap dealer

Table 3. Item/factor statistics for study 2

1
Factors are described in Appendix A. EFA = exploratory factor analysis.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Factor1 Items CFA loading AVE CR

PUR I buy products that are environment friendly 0.840 0.536 0.820
I buy products that are not harmful to the environment 0.691
I buy products that carry eco-labels, marks, or certifications 0.606
I buy products that do not pollute the environment 0.771
NEED I avoid purchasing things that I do not need 0.877 0.606 0.857
I purchase only those things that I really need or require 0.920
I do not purchase things that I do not need even if they are on discount 0.636
I take care that my purchases do not lead to accumulation of unnecessary things 0.636
PACK I buy products packaged in recyclable material 0.854 0.635 0.835
I buy products packaged in recycled material 0.901
I buy products that come in refill packaging 0.603
COLAB Whenever possible, I borrow things from others 0.851 0.608 0.821
Whenever possible, I rent things from others 0.824
Whenever possible, I share or pool things with others 0.649
CC I avoid wasteful consumption 0.758 0.510 0.862
I use things in moderation 0.730
I avoid using things in a wasteful manner 0.719
I turn/switch things off when not in use 0.701
I use things completely to ensure zero waste 0.687
I take only as much as I can consume, to avoid wastage 0.688
HNC I handle all things with care 0.863 0.706 0.905
I take good care of all the things 0.933
I send things for regular service and maintenance 0.716
I take due care to use all things in a proper manner 0.835
RNR I avoid discarding things that can be repaired 0.759 0.720 0.885
I avoid discarding things that can be used differently 0.912
I avoid discarding things that can be used for other purposes 0.868
GDO I give things that I do not need or use to others 0.887 0.748 0.899
I donate things that I do not need or use to charity 0.859
I offer things that I do not need or use to those who need them 0.848
SET I sell off things that I do not need or use 0.789 0.726 0.888
I exchange things that I do not need or use for things I need 0.895
I trade off things that I do not need or use 0.869
WAST I segregate my household waste before disposing it 0.660 0.550 0.859
I take due care to throw garbage in the assigned bins only 0.739
I dispose of all hazardous waste in the manner prescribed 0.838
I take due care when disposing of chemical, medical, and other harmful waste 0.747
I put all recyclable waste in recycle bins or sell it to the scrap dealer 0.712

Table 4. Item/factor statistics for study 3

1
Factors are described in Appendix A. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

two groups) between group 1 and group 2. The difference in mean score for each dimension of the ERC scale across
the two groups was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05), confirming known-group validity.

Nomological validity. As per Tilikidou (2007), ERC behaviours may be driven by a conscious decision to help envi-
ronmental protection or a consumer’s financial/resource concerns, or both. We used this understanding for
confirming nomological validity of the ERC scale. The relationship between all ERC behaviours (measured using
the ERC scale) and the theoretically related constructs of frugality and GCV was tested for this purpose. Frugality re-
fers to the ‘degree to which consumers are both restrained in acquiring and in resourcefully using economic goods
and services to achieve longer-term goals’ (Lastovicka et al., 1999, p. 88). The relationship between frugality and ERC
behaviour has been discussed in the past (e.g. De Young, 1996; Haws et al., 2014). Similarly, GCV may be understood

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

as the tendency to express the value of environmental protection through one’s purchase and consumption behav-
iours (Haws et al., 2014). Environmental or green value orientations and their relationship with ERC behaviour have
also been studied by various scholars in the past (Thompson and Barton, 1994; Haws et al., 2014).
To test nomological validity of the ERC scale, first, Cronbach’s alpha values for Lastovicka et al.’s (1999) frugality
scale and Haws et al.’s (2014) GCV scale were calculated and found to be 0.875 and 0.783, respectively. Following
this, correlation analysis was performed to test all relationships between the constructs (see Table 5 for correlation
results). Respondents with higher scores on frugality were found to score high on all ERC behaviours, except for
COLAB, for which the relationship was insignificant. Similarly, respondents scoring high on the GCV scale also
scored high on all ERC behaviours, except for SET. These findings provide sufficient evidence for nomological
validity of the ERC scale.

Checking social desirability bias. Finally, to assess whether or not respondents would misrepresent themselves by
responding in a socially desirable manner, which is a common problem in market research (Park et al., 2012), we
examined the relationship between the ten ERC behaviours of the ERC scale and a short version of the Marlow-
Crowne social desirability scale (M-C 1) (Strahan and Gerbasi, 1972). Results of the correlation analyses revealed that
four behaviours – PACK, COLAB, RNR, and SET – were not significantly related to social desirable responding. The
six remaining behaviours – PUR, NEED, CC, HNC, GDO, and WAST – showed very low relative correlation with
the social desirability scale (correlation values ranged from 0.104 to 0.225). This suggests that the ERC scale is
not affected much by socially desirable responding (Webb et al., 2008).
Results of the various reliability and validity tests – convergent and discriminant validity, known-group validity,
nomological validity, and test for social desirability bias – all indicate that the ERC scale developed in the present
study is a reliable and valid tool for measuring ERC behaviours and that it possesses sound psychometric properties.

Discussion
The present study makes a significant contribution in that it defines ERC, delimits and delineates its domain,
identifies various ERC behaviours across the stages of purchase (acquisition), use, and disposal, and develops a
38-item, ten-dimension scale for measuring the same (see Appendix A for the final ERC scale).
One of the significant contributions of the present study is that it identifies and includes all relevant behaviours
pertaining to the three stages of the consumption process. This is an important improvement over existing scales
that often confine themselves to studying behaviours related to purchase and fail to consider the full consumption
cycle (Thøgersen, 1994; Peattie, 2010). While existing scales often capture specific environmental behaviours – pur-
chasing recycled paper products, conserving water, etc. – or the use of specific products – low-phosphate detergent,
aluminium, etc., the ERC scale helps measure consumption behaviours across product and/or service categories.
For example, the item ‘I turn/switch off things when not in use’ captures the core behaviour of switching off things
when not in use. It saves one the trouble of having to report the same behaviour for a variety of different things
again and again, for example, ‘I switch off lights when not in use’, ‘I close the tap when not required’, ‘I shut down

ERC scale behavioursa/ PUR NEED PACK COLAB CC HNC RNR GDO SET WAST
additional constructs

FG 0.240** 0.453** 0.356** 0.08 0.512** 0.457** 0.414** 0.440** 0.251** 0.477**
GCV 0.419** 0.358** 0.287** 0.123* 0.432** 0.254** 0.201** 0.230** 0.092 0.271**

Table 5. Nomological validity

Note:
*Significant at p < 0.05 to p > 0.01 (two tailed);
**significant at p < 0.01 (two tailed).
a
Factors are described in Appendix A. FG = frugality; GCV = green consumption value.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

my laptop when taking a break’, and so on.

More importantly, the ERC scale measures behaviour and not just intentions or attitudes. Scales measuring atti-
tude, intention, etc. rarely provide a true reflection of actual behaviours (Carrigan et al., 2011). In this sense, the ERC
scale is definitely an improvement as it helps in bridging the attitude-behaviour gap. One limitation of the ERC scale
is that it measures self-reported behaviours. Had the ERC scale been able to capture real observed behaviour instead
of self-reported behaviour, it would certainly give a more accurate and true reflection of actual behaviour. However,
observing consumers and collecting accurate data through such observations are problematic (Sudbury-Riley and
Kohlbacher, 2016). The validity of self-reported data is mostly questioned due to its high vulnerability to social
desirability bias (Chao and Lam, 2011). Since the ERC scale is not affected much by socially desirable responding
(tested and established in this study), one can be confident about the validity of self-reported data and also the
ERC scale.
Unlike some of the other studies (e.g. Stone et al., 1995; Stanley et al., 1996; Markle, 2013) that have used student-
only samples to validate their scales, the present study uses data from relevant populations across all four indepen-
dent studies. This helped in not only developing the scale more confidently (Roberts, 1991) but also in assessing its
psychometric properties more rigorously. The ERC scale qualified various statistical and psychometric tests for
content and face validity, convergent and discriminant validity, known-group validity, and nomological validity
among others. It is thus a robust, and easy to follow and administer measure of ERC.
From a utility perspective, the ERC scale could be used by governmental and non-governmental bodies,
policymakers, and environmental groups for understanding current consumption behaviours, identifying specific
behaviour/s that need improvement, and targeting and tracking such behaviours over time. Once behaviours that
need improvement are identified (behaviours that score low on the the ERC scale), effective strategies can be formu-
lated to create awareness about, and to promote, ERC. Interventions tailored for and targeted at customer segments
that need to correct or improve their consumption behaviours would render such efforts especially fruitful.
Businesses too could play an active role in promoting ERC by undertaking various activities (under corporate social
responsibility) to sensitize individuals about the impact of their day-to-day consumption on the environment.
Businesses looking for new opportunities in green product and/or service domains, such as shared consumption
(renting, leasing, pooling services, etc.), waste management, and disposal (waste segregation, recycling, etc.), can
use the ERC scale for segmenting the market and identifying profitable opportunities (Park et al., 2012).
Despite the contributions made by the present study, there are areas that can be improved and investigated in
future studies. Researchers could draw samples from countries and cultures other than India to test the reliability,
validity, and measurement invariance of the ERC scale. Future research could also determine the relative impor-
tance and significance of each of the ten behaviours across customer segments, countries, and cultures. To enhance
construct validity (nomological), the ERC scale could be tested with scales of other theoretically related constructs
(apart from frugality and GCV used in this study). Examples of such related constructs might include environmental
knowledge, environmental belief, environmental unconcern, environmental activism, etc. (Tilikidou et al., 2002;
Tilikidou, 2007; Balderjahn et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2015). Models using these constructs as antecedents,
moderators, mediators, etc. can be proposed and tested, which may eventually help develop a complete picture of
why and how consumers undertake ERC.

References
American Marketing Association. No date. Consumption. https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=C/[30 July 2016].
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.
Balderjahn I, Buerke A, Kirchgeorg M, Peyer M, Seegebarth B, Wiedmann KP. 2013. Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale develop-
ment and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review 3(4): 181–192.
Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Williams LJ. 2000. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal
of Vocational Behavior 56(2): 249–276.
Carrigan M, Moraes C, Leek S. 2011. Fostering responsible communities: A community social marketing approach to sustainable living. Journal of
Business Ethics 100(3): 515–534.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

Chao YL, Lam SP. 2011. Measuring responsible environmental behavior: Self-reported and other-reported measures and their differences in test-
ing a behavioral model. Environment and Behavior 43(1): 53–71.
Churchill GA Jr. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(1): 64–73.
Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334.
De Young R. 1985. Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems 15(4):
281–292.
De Young R. 1996. Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behavior The Role of Intrinsic Satisfaction and Competence Motiva-
tion. Environment and Behavior 28(3): 358–409.
DeVellis RF. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
Fisk G. 1973. Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing 32(2): 24–31.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18(1): 39–50.
Francois-LeCompte A, Roberts JA. 2006. Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in France. Marketing Management Journal
16(2): 50–66.
Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C. 2002. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behaviour. Environment and
Behavior 34(3): 335–362.
Gleim MR, Smith JS, Andrews D, Cronin JJ. 2013. Against the green: a multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal
of Retailing 89(1): 44–61.
Global Footprint Network. 2016. National Footprint Accounts (2016 Edition). http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/na-
tional_footprint_accounts_2016_carbon_makes_up_60_of_worlds_footprint/[30 June 2016].
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Halkier B. 2001. Routinisation or reflexivity? Consumers and normative claims for environmental consideration. In Ordinary Consumption,
Gronow J, Warde A (eds). Routledge: London; 25–44.
Haws K, Winterich KP, Reczek RW. 2014. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environ-
mentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24(3): 336–354.
Kaiser FG. 1998. A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(5): 395–422.
Kaiser FG, Wilson M. 2004. Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual
Differences 36(7): 1531–1544.
Kim SY, Yeo J, Sohn SH, Rha JY, Choi S, Choi AY, Shin S. 2012. Toward a composite measure of green consumption: An exploratory study using
a Korean sample. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 33(2): 199–214.
Larson LR, Stedman RC, Cooper CB, Decker DJ. 2015. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 43: 112–124.
Lastovicka JL, Bettencourt LA, Hughner RS, Kuntze RJ. 1999. Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of Consumer
Research 26(1): 85–98.
Markle GL. 2013. Pro-environmental behavior: does it matter how it’s measured? development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior
scale (PEBS). Human Ecology 41(6): 905–914.
Messick S. 1993. Validity. In Educational Measurement, Linn RL (ed). American Council on Educational and the Qryx Press: Phoenix, AZ;
105–146.
Mohr LA, Webb DJ, Harris KE. 2001. Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on
buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs 35(1): 45–72.
Muncy JA, Vitell SJ. 1992. Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research 24(4):
297–311.
Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S. 2003. Scaling procedures: Issues and Applications. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Norwegian Ministry for the Environment. 1994. Symposium on Sustainable Consumption. Oslo, Norway.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Olli E, Grendstad G, Wollebaek D. 2001. Correlates of Environmental Behaviors: Bringing Back Social Context. Environment and Behavior 33(2):
181–208.
Pallant J. 2001. SPSS survival manual. Open University Press: Buckingham, UK.
Park SJ, Choi S, Kim EJ. 2012. The Relationships between Socio-demographic Variables and Concerns about Environmental Sustainability.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19(6): 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.284
Peattie K. 2010. Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35(1): 195–228.
Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C. 2004. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior a study into household energy use. Environment
and Behavior 36(1): 70–93.
Roberts JA. 1991. Development of a profile of the socially responsible consumer for the 1990s and its marketing management and public policy
implications. ETD collection for University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Paper AAI9200149. Doctoral thesis.
Roberts JA. 1995. Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 3(4): 97–117.
Stanley LR, Lasonde KM, Weiss J. 1996. The relationship between environmental issue involvement and environmentally-conscious behavior: An
exploratory study. Advances in Consumer Research 23: 183–188.
Steg L, Vlek C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology
29(3): 309–317.

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Stern PC. 1997. Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and policy. In Environmentally significant consump-
tion: Research directions, Stern PC, Dietz T, Ruttan VR, Socolow RH, Sweeney JL (eds). National Academy Press: Washington, DC; 12–35.
Stern PC. 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):
407–424.
Stone G, Barnes JH, Montgomery C. 1995. Ecoscale: a scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers. Psychology and
Marketing 12(7): 595–612.
Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. 1972. Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 28(2):
191–193.
Sudbury-Riley L, Kohlbacher F. 2016. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research
69(8): 2697–2710.
Thøgersen J. 1994. A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence from Danish source separation programmes. International Journal of Research
in Marketing 11(2): 145–163.
Thompson SCG, Barton MA. 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14(2):
149–157.
Tilikidou I. 2007. The effects of knowledge and attitudes upon Greeks’ pro-environmental purchasing behaviour. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 14(3): 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.123
Tilikidou I, Adamson I, Sarmaniotis C. 2002. The Measurement Instrument of Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour. MEDIT 1(4): 46–53.
Webb DJ, Mohr LA, Harris KE. 2008. A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research
61(2): 91–98.
Webster FE. 1975. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 2(3): 188–196.
Yan J, She Q. 2011. Developing a trichotomy model to measure socially responsible behaviour in China. International Journal of Market Research
53(2): 253–274.

Appendix A.

# Dimensions/Scale items

I Purchasing environment friendly products (PUR)

1 I buy products that do not pollute the environment
2 I buy products that are environment friendly
3 I buy products that carry eco-labels, symbols, certifications, ratings, etc.
4 I buy products that are not harmful to the environment
II Need based purchases (NEED)
5 I avoid purchasing things that I do not need
6 I purchase only those things that I really need or require
7 I do not purchase things that I do not need even if they are on discount
8 I take care that my purchases do not lead to accumulation of unnecessary things
III Purchasing products in environmentally friendly packaging (PACK)
9 I buy products packaged in recyclable material
10 I buy products packaged in recycled material
11 I buy products that come in refill packaging
IV Collaborative consumption (COLAB)
12 Whenever possible, I borrow things from others
13 Whenever possible, I rent things from others
14 Whenever possible, I share or pool things with others
V Conscious consumption (CC)
15 I avoid wasteful consumption
16 I use things in moderation
17 I avoid using things in a wasteful manner
18 I turn/switch things off when not in use

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr
 S. Gupta and R. Agrawal

# Dimensions/Scale items

19 I use things completely to ensure zero waste

20 I take only as much as I can eat or consume, to avoid wastage
VI Handling and care (HNC)
21 I handle all things with care
22 I take good care of all the things
23 I send things for regular service and maintenance
24 I take due care to use all things in a proper manner
VII Repair and reuse (RNR)
25 I avoid discarding things that can be repaired
26 I avoid discarding things that can be used differently
27 I avoid discarding things that can be used for other purposes
VIII Give/Donate/Offer (GDO)
28 I give things that I do not need or use to others
29 I donate things that I do not need or use to charity
30 I offer things that I do not need or use to those who need them
IX Sell/Exchange/Trade (SET)
31 I sell off things that I do not need or use
32 I exchange things that I do not need or use for things I need
33 I trade off things that I do not need or use
X Disposing waste (WAST)
34 I segregate my household waste before disposing it
35 I take due care to throw garbage in the assigned bins only
36 I dispose of all hazardous waste in the manner prescribed
37 I take due care when disposing of chemical, medical, and other harmful waste
38 I put all recyclable waste in recycle bins or sell it to the scrap dealer

Note: All items of the ERC scale were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 =‘completely disagree’, 2 =‘disagree’, 3 =‘somewhat
disagree’, 4 =‘neutral’, 5 =‘somewhat agree’, 6 =‘agree’, 7 =‘completely agree’).

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2017
DOI: 10.1002/csr