Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products

Attitudes towardsenvironmentally friendly

productsThe influence of ecoliteracy, interpersonal

influence and value orientation

Isaac Cheah and Ian PhauCurtin 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 of600 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 andvalue orientation have strong correlations with attitudes towards environmentally friendly products.Consumers with favourable attitudes towards environmentally friendly products are more likely topurchase environmentally friendly products. Perceived product necessity moderates the relationshipbetween attitudes toward environmentally friendly products and the willingness to purchaseenvironmentally friendly products.

Research limitations/implications – Longitudinal studies can be conducted in the future. Otherpossible moderating factors such as product involvement or pricing can also be explored. A widerrange of behavioural indicators can be used to capture a more accurate measurement ofenvironmentally oriented behaviours.

Practical implications – Consumer education about the environment is crucial for consumers toform a more favourable mindset towards environmentally friendly products. Communicationinitiatives that highlight various environmental support campaigns and environmentally consciousproduct strategies are some of the ways to encourage purchasing behaviour.

Originality/value – The study empirically examines the antecedents and consequences of attitudestowards purchasing green products in an Australian context. Furthermore, the study uses day-to-daynecessity products as the product category.

Keywords Environmentally friendly products, Willingness to buy, Ecoliteracy, Consumer behaviour,Self-image, Australia

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionOwing to the increased prominence of environmental concerns and the subsequent effortsof governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations and local environmentaliststo increase awareness of society’s impact on the environment, environmentalism hasbecome an important global phenomenon (Brown, 2008; Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008;Manaktola and Jauhari, 2007). The resulting rise in environmentalism among consumers(Montoro et al., 2006; Wustenhagen and Bilharz, 2006) is driving businesses to realise

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

MIP29,5

452

Received 25 November 2009Revised 23 May 2010,24 November 2010Accepted 8 March 2011

Marketing Intelligence & PlanningVol. 29 No. 5, 2011pp. 452-472q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-4503DOI 10.1108/02634501111153674

that they are members of the wider community and need to pave the way for “corporateenvironmentalism” (Banerjee et al., 1995).

Shrewd business firms today view green developments as market opportunitiesrather 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 amarketing perspective to investigate how consumers make informed choices aboutgreen products (D’Souza et al., 2006). Social marketing literature views green consumerbehaviour as a form of ethically oriented consumer behaviour that is motivated notonly by consumers’ own personal needs, but also by their concern for the welfare ofsociety 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 issueswith a more pervasive focus on the consumer marketplace (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003;D’Souza et al., 2006). These include increased standardisation in environmentalregulations and government initiative packages and programmes such as the AustralianGovernment’s “Energy-efficient homes package” and the “Smart grid, smart city nationalenergy-efficiency initiative” (Australian Government, n.d.). In addition, extensive mediacoverage of environmental problems, disasters and initiatives (e.g. An InconvenientTruth, film documentary presented by Al Gore) promotes and increases awareness ofglobal warming fears (Shabecoff, 2001, 2003).

The majority of recent research published on environmental marketing segmentsare limited to a “Euro-American” context (Coddington, 1990; Karna et al., 2003;Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Wustenhagen and Bilharz, 2006), with the exception of a fewnotable studies investigating the effects of environmental marketing in an Australiancontext (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 fornumerous new concepts and models that deal with environmental marketing.

The next logical step is to expand these concepts universally to evaluate thedifferences that may exist between cultures, especially when dealing with consumerbehaviour in an environmentally conscious setting. For example, criticism surroundsAustralian businesses, working professionals, experts and academics who blindlyespouse concepts developed in cultures different from their own, while having verylittle understanding of how or if these concepts can be generalised or if they have thepotential 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, manyEuro-American countries and cultures appear to adhere strictly to a chain ofcommand, which is reflected in the high power-distance levels, as well as exemplifyinghigh levels of individuality. European countries or cultures such as Greece andPortugal have stronger uncertainty-avoidance levels, whereas Germany and Franceare distinguished through weaker uncertainty avoidance, implying more risk aversionand the tendency to avoid confrontation and uncertainty (Carbaugh, 2005; Hester andEnglin, 1997). In addition, Euro-American societies are likely to embrace long-termdevotion to traditional and forward-thinking values, meaning that any sort of changewould take longer to implement (Hofstede, 1980), thus contributing to the stringent

Environmentallyfriendly products

453

and lengthy facilitation process of government initiatives and regulations pertaining toenvironmental issues. However, given the fact that the Euro-American Union containsnations at both extremes of these cultural dimensions, depending on the nature andseverity of the issues discussed, it may be potentially difficult to generalise or evenascertain the cultural technicalities and pressures that contribute to any outcome.

On the other hand, Australian citizens are characterised by low levels ofuncertainty avoidance, a high level of individuality and lower than averagepower-distance levels (Hofstede, 1980); this indicates greater equality between societallevels, including government, organisations and even within families, as well as anorientation that reinforces cooperative interaction across power levels and creates amore stable cultural environment. Therefore, the character of Australians contributesto the smooth cooperation of corporate, public and governmental groups with regard toenvironmental issues such as sustainability performance and the minimisation ofcarbon “ecological” footprints.

Until recently, the literature provided little understanding of the antecedents andconsequences of attitudes towards green products for Australian consumers andbusinesses (D’Souza et al., 2006). Another omission from the findings of most studies isthe lack of product category specificity, and failure to address or compare specifictypes of environmentally friendly products (e.g. processed honey). As a result, there iscurrently an imbalance between the growing use of environmentally friendly productsin the marketplace and the limited research attention focused on this category ofproduct alternatives (Taghian and D’Souza, 2005). This additional knowledge can helpbusinesses design their marketing procedures and improve the perceived fit betweentraditional products and those of an ecological nature.

To revisit consumers’ willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products inAustralia, this study empirically tests a conceptual model. First, it investigates thecorrelation 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 thedependent variable of consumer environmental attitudes (CEA).

Second, it investigates the relationship between CEA and consumers’ willingness tobuy environmentally friendly products (WTB-EFP). The study’s third objective is toinvestigate the moderating effect of perceived product necessity on the relationshipbetween CEA and WTB-EFP. The following sections review the related theory,develop the research hypotheses, describe the methodology of the study to test thehypotheses, report the results and discuss the implications of the findings.

Relevant literatureSocial and psychographic information about consumers has received much attentionwithin the context of environmental marketing (Laroche et al., 2001; McCarty andShrum, 1994; Ottman, 1993). Socio-psychographic information includes values, level ofeducation in a specific area, interpersonal influence, opinions and attitudes. One of themore significant papers looking at consumers’ psychographic information is that ofMcCarty and Shrum (1994), who used a list of values scale proposed by Kahle (1996) inorder to measure a number of variables to link them with recycling behaviour.

MIP29,5

454

Many authors feel that these variables have the ability to predict certain behaviours,and as such most studies conducted within environmental marketing have examinedthese, 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 acomplex, yet vital concept required to address the profile of the ecologically consciousconsumer (Roberts and Bacon, 1997). Several studies, namely those by Roberts (1996),Roberts and Bacon (1997) and Stern et al. (1993), have examined a collaboration ofdemographic and psychographic dimensions associated with environmental attitudesand behaviour. Previous studies (Amyx et al., 1994; Kinnear et al., 1974; McCarty andShrum, 1994) have established an apparent correlation between favourable attitudestowards 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 sustainersand non-sustainers is the degree of ecological concern. With respect to attitudes towardenvironmentally friendly products, the terms “importance” and “inconvenience” aremost 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 environmentas “the degree to which one expresses concern about ecological issues”. In other words,“importance” is simply confined to whether consumers view environmentallycompatible behaviours as important to themselves (self-interest) or to society as awhole. For example, organic foods and energy-efficient appliances are environmentallyfriendly products that consumers are willing to purchase, simply because theseproducts are believed by consumers to appeal directly to their self-interest while at thesame time promoting environmental benefits (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). On the otherhand, the term “inconvenience” refers to how inconvenient it is perceived by theindividual 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 ofthe society, but he or she may also feel that it is personally inconvenient. Similarly, aconsumer may know that single-serving aseptically packaged juices or puddings willharm the environment, but still buy them because they are convenient.

As for previous studies (Kinnear et al., 1974; McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Roberts andBacon, 1997), the majority concluded that the main reason for consumers’ failure torespond to environmental concerns seems largely to be due to negative perceptions oftheir contribution. This directly implies the concept of low self-efficacy and the notion ofperceived consumer effectiveness of the degree to which an individual feels he or she canmake a difference in improving the quality of the environment (Antil, 1978; Berger andCorbin, 1992; Ellen et al., 1991). Therefore, it is plausible to assume that an individual’sattitude towards the severity of ecological problems or pertaining to the environment ingeneral may influence his or her willingness to purchase environmentally friendlyproducts.

EcoliteracyEnvironmental knowledge evolves in two forms: one is that consumers have to beeducated to understand the general impact of the product on the environment,


455

and the other is consumer knowledge of the product itself being produced in anenvironmentally friendly way (D’Souza et al., 2006). According to Laroche et al. (1996),an individual’s knowledge about the environment plays a multifaceted role ininfluencing his or her behaviour; that is, it provides the subject with knowledge aboutaction strategies and issues and helps shape attitudes and intentions through the beliefsystem. In addition, this leads to the practical aspects of the knowledge variable as itoutlines the important leverage points whereby marketers and agencies can influencepro-environmental behaviour.

Most consumers would like to make rational choices in situations concerning thepurchase of environmentally friendly products, thus they would want enoughinformation to be fully aware of and knowledgeable about environmental problems andissues in order to form an opinionative or attitudinal view in order to choose according totheir intentions. As Laroche et al. (2001) pointed out, the education of the consumer isseen as an appropriate method for increasing perceived convenience and establishingcredibility 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 ofecologically related symbols, concepts and behaviours. It has been found to be correlatedwith some attitudes and behaviour toward the environment (Laroche et al., 1996).

Interpersonal influenceInterpersonal influence primarily consists of the impact of acting to persuade, convinceor influence others for the purpose of having a specific effect. An importantdeterminant of an individual’s behaviour is the influence of others (Bearden et al.,1989). According to social cognitive theory, the process of interpersonal influenceadvocates a bilateral-directional interaction that also occurs between environmentaland personal characteristics (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1989). As part of this process, socialinfluences and physical structures within the environment develop and modify humanexpectations, beliefs and cognitive competencies. In addition, humans evoke differentreactions 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 conveyinformation 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 buyingdecisions that involve environmentally friendly products. Interpersonal processes andrelationships between opinion leaders and professionals are likely to have a substantialimpact on similar attitudes towards buying decisions (informational susceptibility).Stafford and Cocanougher (1977) suggested that the lack of consideration for the effectsof interpersonal influence on the development of attitudes, norms, values, aspirationsand purchase behaviour may hinder the understanding of the essence of consumerbehaviour.

Value orientationThe term “value” has been defined as an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive beliefthat a specific end state of existence or specific mode of conduct is preferred to anopposite 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

MIP29,5

456

products and ecological behaviour are collectivism and individualism (Hui andTriandis, 1986; McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Triandis, 1989, 1993).

Individualism in cultures implies loose ties (Hui and Triandis, 1986; Markus andKitayama, 1990; Triandis, 1989). Each individual has expectations to look after oneselfor one’s immediate family but no one else. Personal gratification, which concerns theneed for a sense of accomplishment, social recognition and to enjoy the finer things inlife (Ang et al., 2001), is the cornerstone of individualism. The individualistic consumerwho 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 theindividual (Crane, 2000; Laroche et al., 2001; McCarty and Shrum, 1994). A collectivistis 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 moreenvironmentally friendly, while individualistic people tend to be more environmentallyunfriendly. Therefore, consumers who value personal gratification will have aless-favourable attitude towards the environment, and vice versa.

Perceived product necessityTwo product categories are examined; these are luxury and necessity items. Luxuryitems tend to have a degree of exclusivity, and are thus usually more expensive(e.g. higher monetary risk) than necessities (Sharma et al., 1995). Moreover, the risk of abad purchase and the hedonistic value of luxury products are characteristics of acomplex task (e.g. purchase decisions become more elaborate, important and timeconsuming), such as purchasing luxury products (Solomon, 2006). On the contrary,necessity items tend to represent commonly owned products, and as such signify alower monetary risk and hedonistic value, and involve less complexity in terms ofdecision making.

When a product is perceived as a necessity, it is expected that consumers’ attitudestowards the environment should play a relatively minor role in affecting purchasebehaviour, or in this case, the willingness to buy environmentally friendly products.On the other hand, it is likely that consumers’ attitudes towards the environment inrelation to items that are dispensable should have a more substantial impact on purchasebehaviour (Sharma et al., 1995; Soloman, 1996). On logical grounds, it could be expectedthat personal preferences and desires (a product necessity) would counteract the morealtruistic and non-self-centred motives contained in the “ideal” attitudinal view.

Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses developmentAs Figure 1 shows, this study seeks to fulfil the objectives summarised in the researchmodel. The model presents CEA as the focal construct and relates it to othersocial-psychological constructs; that is, ecoliteracy (H1), interpersonal influence (H2)and value orientation (H3). CEA predicts a causal relationship with WTB-EFP (H4).The expectation is that this key theoretical linkage is not uniformly strong and must bequalified by pertinent moderating circumstances. The model postulates a singlemoderating variable; the expectation is that CEA will have an especially strong effecton WTB-EFP, and is perceived as relatively non-necessary versus bare necessities(H5). The following sections discuss the theoretical underpinnings behind eachhypothesis.


457

Social cognitive theorySocial cognitive theory defines human behaviour as a triadic, dynamic and reciprocalinteraction of personal factors, behaviour and the environment (Bandura, 1977, 1986,1989). The theory suggests that the dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural andenvironmental influences uniquely determines human functioning (an individual’sbehaviour). Furthermore, people are both products and producers of their environment(Bandura, 1977). A person’s behaviour influences the aspects of the environment towhich they are exposed, and in turn that environment modifies the person’s behaviour.For example, the role of product knowledge or education (information derivedfrom the environment) that affects a purchase decision (purchase evaluation) is ofprimary importance to consumers (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Wiser et al., 1999;Zarnikau, 2003).

A person’s behaviour can affect the way in which he or she experiences theenvironment through selective attention. Based on learned human preferences andcompetencies, individuals select who they interact with and the activities in which theyparticipate from a vast range of possibilities. Therefore, behaviour influences which ofthe many potential environmental influences come into play, and which forms theytake. In turn, the environment partly influences the development and activation ofone’s behaviour (Bandura, 1989).

Based on this, the theory advocates that consumers’ environmental knowledge or“ecoliteracy” (Laroche et al., 1996, 2001), interpersonal influence (Bearden et al., 1989)and value orientation (McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Triandis, 1993) towards theecological environment will play a multifaceted role in influencing CEA and behaviour.As such, the theory formulates the following hypotheses:

H1. Consumers’ ecoliteracy correlates positively with attitudes toward theenvironment.

H2. High interpersonal influence positively correlates with attitudes that areenvironmentally friendly. That is, consumers who are more open to opinionsof norms will tend to conform or comply with the expectations of others.

H3. Collectivism relates positively with attitudes toward the environment. That is,consumers with a collectivistic background will reveal more altruistictendencies than those from an individualistic background.

Figure 1.Proposed research model

Ecoliteracy

Valueorientation

Interpersonalinfluence

Attitudes towardenvironmentallyfriendly products

Willingness to buyenvironmentally friendly

products

Perceived product necessity

H2

H1

H3

H4

H5

MIP29,5

458

Theory of reasoned actionAjzen and Fishbein (1980) proposed that a person’s behaviour is determined by hisintention to perform the behaviour and that this intention is, in turn, a function of hisattitude toward the behaviour and his subjective norm. Moreover, the subject of“perceived behavioural control” is noted as an element of this theory, suggesting thatindividuals who believe they lack the necessary resources or opportunities to performa particular behaviour are unlikely to form strong behavioural intentions(e.g. motivation for action), despite the fact that their attitude and subjective normsmay still be favourable.

The concept of self-efficacy beliefs is the ability to influence an individual’s thoughtpatterns and emotional reactions (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975, 1980; Bandura, 1977). Forexample, high self-efficacy helps create feelings of serenity in approaching difficulttasks and activities. Therefore, unless the consumer believes that his or her actions willhave the desired consequences, he or she has little incentive or motivation to engage inthose actions. As such, the theory formulates the following hypothesis:

H4. Consumers with favourable versus unfavourable attitudes toward theirenvironment, or the green phenomenon in general, are more likely to buyenvironmentally friendly products.

Self-image congruity theorySirgy (1982) observes that a consumer’s level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction is not onlyan evaluative function of the consumer’s expectation and performance evaluation, but isalso an evaluative function of the consumer’s self-image and product image congruity.For example, the term “actual self” refers to how a person perceives him- or herself, and“ideal self” refers to how a person presents him- or herself to others (Rosenberg, 1979).

First, “positive self-image congruity” occurs in a state of positive self-congruity(a low discrepancy between one’s actual self-image and the product image), and a stateof positive ideal self-congruity (a low discrepancy between one’s ideal self-image andthe product image). This implies that the product image matches one’s actualself-image, as well as the ideal self-image (Sirgy, 1985). This situation results in highconsumer satisfaction in that by purchasing or identifying him- or herself with thisproduct, the consumer reaches an emotional state that enhances his or her self-esteemmotive and reinforces his or her self-consistency motive.

Second, a “positive self-image incongruity” condition takes place when there is astate of negative self-congruity (a high discrepancy between one’s actual self-imageand the product image), but a state of positive ideal self-congruity (a low discrepancybetween one’s ideal self-image and the product image). In this situation, the individualmay be motivated to purchase the product but his or her satisfaction level would bemoderate (Sirgy, 1985). While the purchase would enhance one’s self-esteem motive,a discrepancy exists because the self-esteem motive would conflict with one’sself-consistency motive. As such, the theory formulates the following hypothesis:

H5. The perceived necessity of the ecological product moderates the influenceof consumer attitudes towards the environment on consumer willingnessto buy environmentally friendly products (e.g. H4). Specifically, the effect offavourable attitudes on the willingness to buy environmentally friendlyproducts should be relatively stronger for unnecessary products.


459

MethodData collectionA convenience sample comprising first-, second- and third-year undergraduatebusiness students from a large multinational university in Australia was collected.A total of 600 survey forms, initially cleared by the university’s ethics committee, weredistributed in a number of lectures. The researcher explained the procedure to therespondents in the lecture hall and the respondents took about 15 minutes to completethe forms. A screening question was included in the survey form to ensure that onlyresponses from Australian citizens were taken into account. Although the results ofconvenience sampling in general may limit the generalisability or representativenessof the findings, there is evidence to suggest that the usage of student samples is reliablefor such studies, as previous studies have been proven to generate reliable researchfindings (Aaker and Keller, 1990; DelVecchio, 2000; Yavas, 1994).

Survey instrumentThe questionnaire comprised five sections of established scales and a section ondemographic information. Section A consisted of items measuring consumer valuesorientation of collectivism and individualism adapted from Laroche et al. (2001) andMcCarty and Shrum (1994), and a consumer interpersonal influence scale adapted fromBearden et al. (1989). The 12 items reflected two correlated dimensions of susceptibility tointerpersonal influence, namely normative and informational influence. Section Bconsisted 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 tothe environment, such as the severity of environmental problems, the importance of beingenvironmentally friendly, the level of responsibility of corporations and the inconvenienceof being environmentally friendly. The questions also implied a variety of personal andsocietal issues. Section C consisted of a modified version of Sharma et al.’s (1995) scale ofperceived product necessity. The section measured a range of 15 products differing intheir level of necessity. Section D replicated Sharma et al.’s (1995) methodology and wasadapted for the purchasing of environmentally friendly products. The section measuredthe “willingness to buy” an environmentally friendly alternative of each of the 15 productslisted in the previous section (Section C). Section E adapted Laroche et al.’s (2001) work inmeasuring “ecoliteracy” – the respondent’s knowledge of the environment – throughnine environmentally related questions, each worth one mark. The respondents’ answersindicated how much they knew about environmental issues. The total score achieved byeach of the respondents was rated as 1-3 (very un-ecoliterate), 4-6 (fairly ecoliterate) and7-9 (very ecoliterate). All the responses were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, with1 – “strongly disagree” and 7 – “strongly agree”.

Analysis and resultsSampleResponses from non-Australians and incomplete survey forms were discarded, resultingin a useable sample of 256 Australian individuals (a response rate of 43 per cent). Thesample comprised 112 males and 144 females. The majority of the respondents wereaged between 18 and 24 years (82.4 per cent), and 131 respondents were in their first yearof university, with 61 per cent enrolled in business studies. Most respondents(59.8 per cent) had an annual income of less than AUD10,000.

MIP29,5

460

ReliabilityThe CEA scale was first factor analysed using principal component analysis andvarimax rotation to test for its uni-dimensionality. The result for Bartlett’s test ofsphericity was 0.000 and the KMO value 0.82, meeting the assumption for factorability(Coakes and Steed, 2003). A high reliable alpha coefficient of 0.84 was recorded and iscomparable with the reliabilities reported in Laroche et al. (2001). The remainingreliabilities for the various scales are: normative susceptibility (0.89), informationalsusceptibility (0.66), collectivism (0.81) and individualism (0.66). These values supportthe acceptance of high reliability (Nunnally, 1987). The Appendix provides all theloadings for each of these constructs.

Hypotheses testingThe results for the Pearson correlation between ecoliteracy and CEA are statisticallysignificant and positive (r ¼ 0.188, p , 0.05), which indicates that individuals withhigh ecoliteracy are more likely to form favourable attitudes toward environmentallyfriendly products. The findings support H1. The correlation between normativesusceptibility and CEA is significantly negative (r ¼ 20.341, p , 0.05), while thecorrelation of informational susceptibility and CEA is not significant (r ¼ 20.021,p . 0.05). The findings partially support H2. Finally, a significant correlation existsbetween both collectivism and CEA (r ¼ 0.191, p , 0.05) and individualism and CEA(r ¼ 20.120, p , 0.05). Thus, the findings support H3. These results mirror those ofAaker and Bagozzi (1982), Roberts (1995), Zarnikau (2003) and Zimmer et al. (1994).Informational susceptibility, normative susceptibility and individualism are individualconstructs proven either to have a negative effect or to be non-significant predictors ofattitudes toward the environment. The results and conclusions of the correlationmatrix are based mutually on one- and two-tailed tests, as both methods confirmedsimilar correlation ratings. Table I shows the Pearson correlation analysis for therelationship between the constructs.

The study includes linear regression analysis to test the relationship between CEAand WTB-EFP. Despite the low R 2 value, the regression model is statisticallysignificant (R 2 value of 0.12). Table II provides the results of the linear regressionanalysis. This finding confirms the hypothesis that consumers with favourableattitudes towards the environment are more likely to buy environmentallyfriendly products, supporting H4. The results reflect those of previous studies by

Regression statisticsMultiple R 0.421R 2 0.177Adjusted R 2 0.161SE 0.81045Observations 256

Coefficients SE t-stat. p-valueEcoliteracy 0.169 0.077 2.915 0.004Informational susceptibility 0.063 0.041 1.042 0.299Normative susceptibility 20.345 0.041 25.661 0.000Collectivistic values 0.126 0.072 1.980 0.049Individualistic values 20.043 0.047 20.677 0.499

Table I.Multiple regression of

antecedents against CEA


461

Kinnear et al. (1974), McCarty and Shrum (1994), Roberts (1996), Roberts and Bacon(1997) and Van Liere and Dunlap (1981).

In order to test H5, hierarchical moderated regression analysis was undertaken toanalyse the moderation effects of perceived product necessity on the relationshipbetween the CEA and WTB constructs. Table III provides means and standarddeviations for the 15 products tested. The table orders these products in terms of theirnecessity to maintaining daily life. It also provides the regression results testing themoderating effect of product necessity. Separate regression analyses were conductedfor all 15 products by including three terms in the hierarchical moderated regressions:product necessity, CEA and the interaction between these variables. The WTB-EFPalternative of each individual product is the dependent variable for all the analyses.Moderation is indicated when the interaction term between attitudes towards theenvironment 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 statisticallysignificant, thereby supporting H5. Specifically, the effect of favourable attitudeson purchase behaviour is stronger for products perceived as unnecessary in contrast toproducts perceived as necessary. Thus, the findings marginally support H5.

Regression statisticsR 2 0.124Adjusted R 2 0.120SE 0.92857Observations 256

Coefficients SE t-stat. p-valueCEA 0.352 0.066 5.945 0.000

Table II.Linear regression of CEAagainst willingness tobuy environmentallyfriendly products(WTB-EFP)

Product Meana SD

Greeting cards 2.0 1.43Honey 2.4 1.50Soft drink 2.4 4.99Jewelry 2.6 1.65Shopping bags 2.8 1.54Hairstyling/colouring product 3.1 1.91Cosmetic 3.5 2.01Shampoo 4.6 1.95Mobile phone 4.9 1.76Kitchen utensil 5.5 1.31Personal computer 5.6 1.41T-shirt 5.9 1.25Refrigerator 6.1 1.18Medicine 6.1 1.39Toilet roll 6.3 1.21

Note: aLarger numbers indicate greater perceived product necessity

Table III.Means and standarddeviations for productnecessity scores

MIP29,5

462

Discussion and concluding commentsThis is one of the pioneering studies in defining and examining the nature ofecologically conscious consumers and the purchase behaviour of environmentallyfriendly products in an Australian context. This research and its theoretical basis holdvaluable implications for the growing literature on attitude formation and consumers’purchase behaviour tendencies, which form an important individual-level construct forbetter understanding green marketing dynamics.

This study makes three main findings. First, regarding the antecedent relationships,the CEA construct shows a positive correlation between ecoliteracy and collectivisticvalues, but a negative correlation between normative susceptibility, interpersonalinfluence and individualistic tendencies. These results correspond to a number offindings in previous studies. Laroche et al. (1996) suggested that an individual’sknowledge about the environment plays a multifaceted role in influencing his or herbehaviour. Furthermore, Bandura’s (1977, 1986, 1989) social cognitive theory supportsthe findings, which reflect the triadic relationship between personal, environmental andbehavioural factors. The findings show that the level of ecoliteracy significantly

Product Necessity (N) Attitudes (Att) N £ Att R 2

Greeting cards 0.132a 0.232 20.0240.036b 0.000 0.930 0.068c

Honey 0.274 0.282 20.380 0.1600.000 0.000 0.172

Soft drink 0.171 20.035 1.88 0.0560.006 0.586 0.009

Jewelry 0.199 0.309 21.005 0.1690.002 0.000 0.001

Shopping bags 20.164 0.348 0.076 0.1250.009 0.000 0.794

Hairstyling/coloring product 0.217 0.179 20.361 0.0810.001 0.005 0.282

Cosmetic 0.209 0.306 20.378 0.1410.001 0.000 0.261

Shampoo 0.142 0.185 20.673 0.0620.024 0.003 0.158

Mobile phone 0.363 0.170 20.646 0.1680.000 0.004 0.112

Kitchen utensil 0.217 0.296 20.850 0.1430.000 0.000 0.116

Personal computer 0.158 0.216 20.261 0.0720.011 0.000 0.601

T-shirt 0.020 0.244 20.356 0.0610.755 0.000 0.532

Refrigerator 0.092 0.309 20.633 0.1080.143 0.000 0.261

Medicine 20.010 0.215 20.647 0.0500.871 0.001 0.270

Toilet roll 20.085 0.271 0.628 0.0860.174 0.000 0.233

Notes: aStandardized regression parameter; bp-level; cR 2 (N £ Att)

Table IV.Moderated regression

results for productnecessity scores


463

correlates with a consumer’s attitudes and behavioural tendencies (Aaker and Bagozzi,1982; Laroche et al., 1996, 2001; Roberts and Bacon, 1997).

The findings reiterate that if a consumer has knowledge about the environment andpollution promulgation, the causes and impacts upon the environment, then theirawareness levels will increase and, thus, will potentially promote a favourable attitudetowards green products (Laroche et al., 1996). Therefore, it is crucial for both marketingand public relations practitioners to disseminate information or educate consumersabout the environment either through communication initiatives such as environmentalsupport campaigns, symbols or claims on labels (D’Souza et al., 2006) as to the types ofenvironmental benefits the product has to offer, in order for consumers to form morefavourable opinions of the firm’s products, specifically their environmentally friendlyproducts. However, it is important to note that if a consumer has increased literacy aboutenvironmental issues it does not necessarily mean that he or she will make a greenpurchase. A green purchase intention, arguably, depends on a consumer’s altruism andthe way in which he or she can be motivated. With regard to a consumer’s susceptibilityto interpersonal influence and attitudes toward the environment, the inverse findingsdeviate from studies such as Bearden et al. (1989) and Stafford and Cocanougher (1977).This means that interpersonal influence from peers and norms will not have a significanteffect on a consumer’s attitude towards the environment.

This may create possible barriers and additional challenges for corporate andpublic policy makers and governmental groups with regard to environmental issues,especially compulsions for firms to conform to environmental legislation and greenpressures exerted on them by environmental lobbies, whilst formulating communicationstrategies and programmes designed to reach out and induce favourable environmentalattitudes and behaviours. In terms of consumer value orientation, McCarty and Shrum(1994) and Triandis (1993) propose that collectivist consumers tend to be friendliertoward the environment, while individualistic consumers tend to be more unfriendly.The results of this study also reflect the literature, indicating that it is important tocustomise strategies to reach out to the appropriate segment of consumers.

Second, the relationship between CEA and WTB is significant and positive,indicating that consumers with favourable environmental attitudes are more willing tobuy environmentally friendly products. This echoes previous results in other studiessuch as McCarty and Shrum (1994), Meneses and Palacio (2006) and Roberts and Bacon(1997). Underpinned by Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action, the abovefindings can help formulate effective communication initiatives and appeals leading toother increasing eco-marketing opportunities. The adoption and enhancement ofvarious environmentally conscious product strategies and eco-design-related concepts,such as environmentally friendly product packaging, design, quality, features, labellingand positioning, can encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly products(D’Souza et al., 2006; Pujari and Wright, 1995; Taghian and D’Souza, 2005). Otherresearchers suggest the construction of green brands and the promotion of greenattributes within a brand (Hartmann et al., 2005; Hoek et al., 2002; Oyewole, 2001;Polonsky, 1995). This may improve a brand’s position relative to other brandsand further heighten consumers’ perception of that brand. By doing so, the brandjustifies the higher pricing strategy for environmentally friendly products.

Third, the results show that perceived product necessity moderates the relationshipbetween CEA and WTB-EFP. The findings observe a significant difference in

MIP29,5

464

consumers’ willingness to buy environmentally friendly products when they have toevaluate high- and low-necessity products. Furthermore, if consumers consider theenvironmentally friendly products as non-essential, they will tend to purchase theproducts. In addition, the self-image congruity theory (Rosenberg, 1979; Sirgy, 1982)supports this finding, which advocates the relationship between one’s self-image andone’s image of a product or service. This correlates with the notion that product choiceis based on consistency with the actual self, while other purchases help to reach thestandard set by the ideal self, thus exemplifying the concept of “the looking-glass self”or the view of “taking the role of the other”.

This research connects these traits and consumer behaviour (e.g. consumerpurchase evaluation) to assist marketers with the formulation of suitable marketingstrategies for environmentally friendly products (Cummings, 2008; Ginsberg and Bloom,2004; Polonsky and Rosenberger, 2001). For instance, the use of sponsorships andendorsements can contribute to improving green marketing communication initiatives.Moreover, the portrayal of product consumption in social situations and the use ofprominent or attractive spokespersons endorsing environmentally friendly products or abrand with a green image are important considerations (Branthwaite, 2002; Goldsmithet al., 2000; Grace and O’Cass, 2002). Therefore, businesses should select endorsers orspokespeople to support their products not purely because of their status or popularity,but basing the decision on their ability to bond with the target audience and the productimage. For example, Planet Ark’s “National Tree Day” in July included celebrity-likesupporters such as Olivia Newton-John, Kelly Preston and Jamie Durie, who contributedtheir time to support this annual event (Billington, 2008; Planet Ark, n.d.). In addition, otherhigh-profile celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Robert Redford, Orlando Bloom, LeonardoDiCaprio and James Taylor have volunteered as international eco-endorsers. Theseinternationally renowned individuals have contributed to the environment by makingdonations, holding press conferences and talk shows and supporting variousenvironmental campaigns such as the “Stop Global Warming” movement (Tilden, 2007).

The study has a number of limitations, which are areas to consider for furtherresearch. First, the lack of examination of socio-demographic effects in the model testedis a potential shortcoming of the interpretation of the findings. Demographically,environmentally friendly Australian consumers and shoppers were found to bediversely spread along all the income ranges, age brackets, education levels and varioushousehold sizes; however, on average, they tended to be older, have a higher income andbe more educated (Straughan and Roberts, 1999; Ha, 2008; Palmer, 2008). Nonetheless,socio-demographic statistics can be seen to fluctuate quite considerably with respect tothe individual consumer group segment, especially in terms of generation gaps(Moisander and Pesonen, 2002; Cohen, 2007). For example, the leading-edge boomers(age 55-64) and younger-cohort boomers (age 45-54) are identified as “ultra-green”individuals who are the driving force of environmentalism (Volsky et al., 1999); on theother hand, GenX (age 25-39) and potentially GenY (age 18-24) consumers are segmentedas emerging green consumers and potential future market participants (D’Souza, 2004).

Although true that most findings surrounding the impact of consumers’ demographiccharacteristics on their environmentally conscious behaviour are contradictory (Roberts,1996), it is clear that they exert a significant influence. However, most authors agree thatthe predictive power of demographic and socioeconomic variables is generally lowcompared with knowledge, values and/or attitudes in explaining ecologically friendly


465

behaviour (Banerjee and McKeage, 1994; Chan, 1999; Webster, 1975). Therefore, thiswould imply the notion that a “typical green consumer” continues to be elusive, mainlybecause of the complexity or problematic nature of socio-demographics in explainingenvironmental attitudes and behaviour; in other words, green consumers are hard todefine demographically and the focus on “greenness” extends throughout the populationto varying degrees (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Ottman, 1993).

Second, basing the study on a cross-sectional perspective limits the information onthe long-term impact of the variables and factors reviewed. Suchard and Polonsky(1991) advise that a probability of significant difference occurs between studies thatare of a longitudinal nature and those of a cross-sectional nature. In addition to this,further research comparing the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of the Australianmarket with similar research conducted in European and American contexts should beconsidered.

The antecedent constructs in this study are not exhaustive. Other variables thatrelate to attitude formation, such as personal norms (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969; East,1991) and past experience (Bentler and Speckart, 1979; Bagozzi, 1981) are areas toconsider for future research. Besides product necessity, other factors that maymoderate the effect of attitudinal tendencies, such as product involvement, pricingconcepts and perceived quality, are worthy of examination. An apparent weakness ofthis study is the narrow measurement of environmentally oriented behaviours. Theemployment of a much wider range of behavioural indicators should produceadditional or more reliable findings. The area of green electronics and similar productsor services is still a “grey” area that is slowly growing in acceptance in both the socialmarketing literature and with pragmatic consumption. By applying the conceptualmodel developed in this study to other research settings, such as the consumer and/orthe business electronics and services industry, can potentially serve as an avenue forfuture research. This is because these settings’ specifics warrant further investigationin order for businesses to evaluate comparably the effect on more traditional productsand services, as well as to discern their advantages and disadvantages.

References

Aaker, D.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (1982), “Attitudes toward public policy alternatives to reduce airpollution”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp. 85-94.

Aaker, D.A. and Keller, D.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal ofMarketing, 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 toTheory 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 ofpurchase intentions for ecologically safe products”, AMA Winter Educators’ ConferenceProceedings, 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: consumerresponses towards counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-35.

MIP29,5

466

Antil, J.H. (1978), “The construction and validation of an instrument to measure sociallyresponsible consumer behaviour: a study of the socially responsible consumer”, doctoraldissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

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”, Journalof 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 ofMarketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 461-75.

Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, PsychologicalReview, 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 betweenenvironmentalism 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 ofenvironmental advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 21-34.

Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate environmentalism: antecedentsand 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 tointerpersonal 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”, PsychologicalReview, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 452-64.

Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), “Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others asmoderators of environmentally responsible behaviors”, Journal of Public Policy andMarketing, 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. 5No. 3, pp. 164-71.

Brown, D. (2008), “It is good to be green: environmentally friendly credentials are influencingbusiness outsourcing decisions”, Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, Vol. 1No. 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 greenmarketing”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 223-39.

Chan, K. (1999), “Market segmentation of green consumers in Hong Kong”, Journal ofInternational 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.


467

Coddington, W. (1990), “It’s no fad: environmentalism is now a fact of corporate life”, MarketingNews, October, p. 7.

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.

Cummings, L.F. (2008), “Managerial attitudes toward environmental management withinAustralia, the People’s Republic of China, and Indonesia”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 16-29.

DelVecchio, D. (2000), “Moving beyond fit: the role of brand portfolio characteristics in consumerevaluations 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), “Cansocio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidenceand an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 465-80.

D’Souza, C. (2004), “Ecolabels programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective”, CorporateCommunication: 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 ofenvironmental labels on consumers”, Corporate Communications: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 162-73.

East, R. (1991), “Beyond the blip: the 15 brand experiment”, Journal of the Market ResearchSociety, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 57-9.

Ellen, P.M., Wiener, J.L. and Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991), “The role of perceived consumereffectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors”, Journal of Public Policyand Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 102-17.

Ginsberg, J.M. and Bloom, P.N. (2004), “Choosing the right green marketing strategy”, MIT SloanManagement Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 79-84.

Goldsmith, E.R., Lafferty, A.B. and Newell, J.S. (2000), “The impact of corporate credibility andcelebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands”, Journal ofAdvertising, 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 Ibanez, V. and Forcada Sainz, J. (2005), “Green branding effects onattitude: 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 CategorizationAnalysis, 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’sbehavior?”, 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-culturalresearchers”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-48.

MIP29,5

468

Kahle, L.R. (1996), “Social values and consumer behaviour: research from the list of values”,The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 135-50.

Karna, J., Hansen, E. and Juslin, H. (2003), “Social responsibility in environmental marketingplanning”, 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.

Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), “Ecologically concerned consumers: who arethey?”, 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 paymore for environmentally friendly products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18No. 6, pp. 503-20.

Laroche, M., Toffoli, R., Chankon, K. and Muller, T. (1996), “The influence of culture onpro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a Canadian perspective”, Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 196-202.

McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.G. (1994), “The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, valueorientations and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Manaktola, K. and Jauhari, V. (2007), “Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards greenpractices in the lodging industry in India”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality 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 rewardrecycling technique: similarities at the desired routine level”, Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing and Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-60.

Moisander, J. and Pesonen, S. (2002), “Narratives of sustainable ways of living: constructingthe 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 Canadas, P. (2006), “Improving attitudes toward brandswith environmental associations: an experimental approach”, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 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 greenmarketing”, 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 amongreferents, opportunity, rewards, and punishments in consumer attitudes towardrecycling: a structural equations approach”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 60-74.


469

Phau, I. and Ong, D. (2007), “An investigation of the effects of environmental claims inpromotional messages for clothing brands”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25,pp. 772-88.

Pickett-Baker, J. and Ozaki, R. (2008), “Pro-environmental products: marketing influence onconsumer 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/(accessed 7 January 2009).

Polonsky, M.J. (1994), “An introduction to green marketing”, Electronic Green Journal, Vol. 1No. 2, pp. 388-412.

Polonsky, M.J. (1995), “A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketingstrategy”, 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 strategicapproach”, Business Horizons, September/October, pp. 21-30.

Pujari, D. and Wright, G. (1995), “Strategic product planning and ecological imperatives-towardsa taxonomy of strategy, structure and process: a multi case study of companies in theUK 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 analyticapproach 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 environmentalconcern 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 greenpurchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal ofMarketing, 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 andmoderators”, 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 inMarketing Science, Proceedings of the Academy ofMarketing 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.

MIP29,5

470

Stafford, J.E. and Cocanougher, B.A. (1977), “Reference group theory”, Selected Aspects ofConsumer Behavior, Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office,Washington, DC, pp. 361-80.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993), “Value orientations, gender, and environmentalconcern”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 322-48.

Straughan, R. and Roberts, J. (1999), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at greenconsumer behaviour in the new millennium”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16No. 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),AMASummer 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 ofadvertising themes”,Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing and Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 51-66.

Taghian, M. and D’Souza, C. (2008), “It’s not easy being green: attracting the environmentallyaware 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”, PsychologicalReview, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 506-20.

Triandis, H.C. (1993), “Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes”, Cross-CulturalResearch, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 155-80.

Van Liere, K. and Dunlap, R. (1981), “The social bases of environmental concern: a review ofhypotheses, 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 consumerwillingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products”, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 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 retailcompetition: an early assessment report”, prepared by Lawrence Berkeley NationalRenewable 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 ofenvironmental 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 TalkBusiness, Vol. 123, November.


471

Appendix

Corresponding authorIan Phau can be contacted at: [email protected]

Items Factor loadings

Interpersonal influenceNormative (a ¼ 0.89)

When buying products, I generally purchase those brands that I think others willapprove of 0.82It is important that others like the products and brands I buy 0.82If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expectme to buy 0.79I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others 0.79I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands thatothers buy 0.77I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brandsthey purchase 0.76If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the brands that they buy 0.66I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve ofthem 0.64

Informational (a ¼ 0.67)If I have little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product 0.85I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy 0.83

Value orientationCollectivism (a ¼ 0.82)

Being a cooperative participant in group activities 0.87Working hard for the goals of your group 0.86Readily helping others in need of help 0.74

Individualism (a ¼ 0.66)Self-respect 0.77Self-fulfilment 0.76Independence 0.73

CEA (a ¼ 0.84)Our country has so many trees that there is no need to recycle paper 0.82Since we live in such a large country, any pollution we create is easily spread out andtherefore is no concern to me 0.80With so much water in this country, I do not see why people are worried about leakyfaucets and flushing toilets 0.77Trying to control pollution is much more trouble than it is worth 0.73Recycling is too much trouble 0.69There is nothing the average citizen can do to help stop environmental pollution 0.68In Australia, we have so much electricity that we do not have to worry aboutconservation 0.61Table AI.

MIP29,5

472

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints