Environmental Segmentation Study of Consumers - Social Marketing

Environmental segmentation study of consumers in

Trichy District.

Project ReportSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Submitted By

IRFAN AHAMED.K

Reg. No: - 08MBA008

Under the guidance of

Dr. Mr. Bejoy John Thomas MBA., M.PHIL, Ph.D., (NET).

JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous)

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

AUGUST - 2009

JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous)

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project report entitled “Environmental

segmentation study of consumers on Trichy District.” is a bonafide record of

the work done by IRFAN AHAMED.K. With Register No.08MBA008 in

partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of MASTER

OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, affiliated to the Bharathidasan

University, submitted to the Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) during

the year 2009-2010.

Member In-Charge Project Guide

External Examiner

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply indebted to the Principal and Director Dr. M. SHIEK MOHAMED,

Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) Trichy, for having given me the opportunity to do

this professional course in this institution.

I am very much grateful to Dr. BEJOY JOHN THOMAS, Member-in-

Charge of Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College for giving

official permission to do this project work.

Words alone cannot express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Bejoy John Thomas

MBA.,M.Phil,Ph.D.,(NET), Member-in-Charge, Jamal Institute of Management whose

guidance made this project works an enlightening educational experience. I sincerely thank the

faculty members, Jamal Institute of Management for their encouragement and support.

I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my parents, friends and others

who were supported to complete this study and make it a grand success.

K.IRFAN AHAMED

CONTENTS

Page No.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY(i) Introduction of the study(ii) Research Problem(iii) Research Objective(iv) Review of Literature (v) Research Methodology

Research DesignNature of DataUniverseMethod of Data CollectionSample SizeSampling MethodPilot Study

Statistical tools used Statistical hypotheses framed

(vi) Limitations

CHAPTER II ANALYSIS

Data Tabulation & graphical representation

Data Analysis & Interpretation

CHAPTER III FINDINGS

SUGGESTIONS

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANNEXURE

INTRODUCTION

Although environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic

disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been

inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education

level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance

is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy.

Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the

author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most

relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing.

This paper will attempt to introduce – the terms and concept of green-marketing; about

the importance of green marketing; examine some reasons that make the organizations

interested to adopt green marketing philosophy; it also highlights some problems that

organization may face to implement green marketing and it’s managerial implications along

with few case points. Last but not the least the paper “Green Marketing – A Changing Concept

In Changing Times”, is a conceptual paper on green marketing, which is an emerging area of

interest. There is a need of paradigm shift in the way the 2 management institutes and business-

houses think about their role in attaining sustainable development.

Green marketing involves developing and promoting products and services that satisfy

customers’ wants and needs for quality, performance, affordable pricing and convenience

without having a detrimental impact on the environment. Green marketing is the marketing of

products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. Thus green marketing incorporates a

broad range of activities, including product modification, changes to the production process,

packaging changes, as well as modifying advertising.

THE FOUR P’s OF GREEN MARKETING

• PRODUCT Identify customers’environmental needs and develop products to address these

needs.Develop environmentally responsible products to have less impact than competitors.

• PRICE Most customers will only be prepared to pay a premium if there is a perception of

additional product value.

Environmental benefits are usually an added bonus but will often be the deciding factor

between products of equal value and quality.

• PLACE Very few customers will go out of their way to buy green products merely for the sake of

it.Green products, in most cases, positioned broadly in the market place so they are not just

appealing to a small green niche market.

In-store promotions and visually appealing displays or using recycled materials to

emphasise the environmental and other benefits

• PROMOTION Includes paid advertising, public relations, sales promotions, direct marketing and on-site

promotions.

Green marketers will be able to reinforce environmental credibility by using sustainable

marketing and communications tools and practices.

The 5 Simple Rules of Green Marketing

When it comes to shining a spotlight on specific sustainability issues, NGOs and

consumer groups will target the most respected and trusted brands in the world. It’s the reason

why Home Depot was targeted for sustainable harvested wood, Nike for child labor practices,

McDonalds for Styrofoam clamshells and now obesity, and why Coke is similarly a target for

sugar and packaging. What does this all mean for your business? Simply stated, if you don’t

manage your business with respect to environmental and social sustainability, your business

will not be sustained! But the converse is true, too: A strong commitment to environmental

sustainability in product design and manufacture can yield significant opportunities to grow

your business, to innovate, and to build brand equity. All you have to do is get the word

out...right? As with any other major business endeavor, easier said than done. Many a

responsible company has run into trouble with these very same sustainability-minded NGOs

and consumer groups thanks to a poorly planned and crafted marketing message. Protect your

company from these common pitfalls and start taking advantage of new opportunities by

heeding my Rules of Green Marketing:

1. Know your customer. If you want to sell a greener product to consumers, you first need to

make sure that the consumer is aware of and concerned about the issues that your product

attempts to address. (Whirlpool learned the hard way that consumers wouldn’t pay a premium

for a CFC-free refrigerator because consumers didn’t know what CFCs were!).

2. Empower consumers. Make sure that consumers feel, by themselves or in concert with all

the other users of your product, that they can make a difference. This is called “empowerment”

and it’s the main reason why consumers buy greener products.

3. Be transparent. Consumers must believe in the legitimacy of your product and the specific

claims you are making. Caution: There’s a lot of skepticism out there that is fueled by the raft

of spurious claims made in the “go-go” era of green marketing that occurred during the late

80s–early90s — one brand of household cleaner claimed to have been “environmentally

friendly since 1884”!

4. Reassure the buyer. Consumers need to believe that your product performs the job it’s

supposed to do — they won't forego product quality in the name of the environment. (Besides,

products that don’t work will likely wind up in the trash bin, and that’s not very kind to the

environment.)

5. Consider your pricing. If you're charging a premium for your product — and many

environmentally preferable products cost more due to economies of scale and use of higher-

quality ingredients — make sure that consumers can afford the premium and feel it’s worth it.

Many consumers, of course, cannot afford premiums for any type of product these days, much

less greener ones, so keep this in mind as you develop your target audience and product

specifications.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The ecology movement initially focused on pollution and energy conservation. The

environmental issues are presently used as a source of competitive advantage in business and

politics. The individual and societal concern over environmental issues have become

increasingly apparent to the casual observer. Some of the key questions that remind

unanswered are, what is the nature of ecologically conscious consumer of the future? Do these

consumers differ from the ecologically consumer of the past? And if so how do they differ?

Hence the present study tries to segment the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour of

students in Trichy District.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE:

To find out the relationship of demographic and psychographic characteristics of

consumers with ECCB.

To identify the future of ecologically conscious consumption.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

To identify the relationship of demographic factors namely age, gender, family

income, educational qualification with ECCB.

To find out the relationship between the psychographic factors namely PCE, EC

and Liberalism with ECCB.

To find out the future of ecologically conscious consumption by understanding

the environmentally conscious consumption of students.

REVIEW OF

LITERATURE

1.Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium

Robert D. Straughan

James A. Roberts

Looking to the future of green marketing, examines the dynamic nature of ecologically

conscious consumer behavior. The study also provides a method of profiling and segmenting

college students based upon ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Findings indicate that,

despite a significant amount of past research attention, demographic criteria are not as useful a

profiling method as psychographic criteria. Consistent with past findings, the study indicates

that perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) provides the greatest insight into ecologically

conscious consumer behavior. Further, the inclusion of altruism to the profile appears to add

significantly to past efforts. Additional constructs examined suggest that environmental

segmentation alternatives are more stable than past profiles that have relied primarily on

demographic criteria.

2.Green MarketingBy Anurag Tiwari & Manish Thakkar, SGSITS,INDORE

People around the world are becoming more aware of the environmental stresses

humans are placing on the planet. Newspapers, magazines, television, and other media feature

wide coverage of environmental problems, whether they are local (e.g., depleted fisheries and

air pollution) or global (e.g., ozone depletion and climate change). Many consumers now

display concern about environmental deterioration. Increasingly often they ask how much

impact a product will have on the environment during its lifespan or during its disposal. This is

the major impetus for green products and green marketing. A closely related reason is the

competitive advantage or sales potential that some corporations now see in green products.

Green Marketing is an attempt to characterize a product as being environmentally

friendly. In general green products are made from recycled content and/or designed for reuse,

recycling, or remanufacturing. They are usually non-toxic, energy efficient, and durable.

However, green is a relative term and depends on the individual situation.

3. Organic Consumption and the Socio-Ecological Imaginary by David Goodman and Michael Goodman

A central element in the social imaginaries of "sustainable consumption" and "green

consumerism" is that the social values and everyday commitments that underpin consumer

choice can be changed by the deployment of discursive resources. In this imaginary, changes in

worldviews can transform consumption habits and cause significant shifts in market demand,

creating profitable commercial opportunities for commodities produced more sustainably.

As consumer values and habits of "getting and spending" are re-orientated toward "green"

goods and services, producers of these commodities begin to enjoy competitive advantages

over their less sustainable rivals. The process of capitalist competition, perhaps reinforced by

state incentive policies and codes of ethical investment, will accelerate the transition of

productive sectors, industries and, ultimately, capitalist economies to more sustainable

development paths.

4.GREEN MARKETING- A CHANGING CONCEPT IN CHANGING TIME.

Prof. Moloy GhoshalAlthough environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic

disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been

inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education

level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance

is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy.

Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the

author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most

relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing.

5.DEVELOPING A MEASURE OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION IN FRANCE

AGNES FRANCOIS-LECOMPTE, Pierre Mendes France UniversityJAMES A. ROBERTS, Baylor University

The very definition of consumption means to consume, waste, squander, or destroy.

However, consumption need not be synonymous with environmental destruction and the

squandering of natural resources. Socially responsible consumption (SRC) can promote social

and/or environmental causes consumers deem important. The primary objective of the present

study is to develop a scale designed to measure SRC in France. Through the scale development

process we attempt to identify whether French consumers share the same ecological and social

concerns with their US counterparts as Roberts’ (1995; 1996) work might suggest, or is their

SRC more idiosyncratic in nature. Our scale building process led to a five-factor SRC scale. It

appears that French consumers do exhibit social and environmental concerns, but ones that

differ somewhat from those exhibited by US consumers. The factors generated from our scale

building process focused on corporate responsibility, country of origin preferences, shopping at

local or small businesses, purchasing cause-related products, and reducing one’s consumption.

Implications of the present study’s findings and directions for future research are discussed.

6.Increasing Environmental Sensitivity Via Workplace ExperiencesIda E. Berger and Vinay Kanetkar

The authors examine the extent to which environmentally sensitive behavior at the

workplace facilitates the translation of proenvironmental attitudes into consumer choices.They

take advantage of a naturally occurring quasi-experiment in workplace experience and use a

conjoint choice task to measure consumer behavior. The results indicate that (I) consumers are

influenced by environmental attributes, (2) experience and level of concem moderate the

influence of environmental attributes, (3) the effects of experience and concern are more than

just additive, and (4) experience can facilitate environmentally conscious behavior among

those with high levels of environmental concem by reducing their sensitivity to the effect of

brand name. The authors conclude with implications for activists, public policymakers, and

marketing managers.

7. Environmentally Responsible Food Choice Stefano Boccaletti (Catholic University of Piacenza)

The purpose of this paper is to review and assess the role of relevant explanatory

variables that influence individual purchase decisions for “environmentally responsible” food

consumption. In particular, we provide a detailed review of the key empirical studies in the

area of consumer demand for those foods which can be broadly considered as environmentally

responsible products (ERPs). We give this definition because the choice of ERPs is a

consequence of individual concerns towards environmental and health issues and consumers

are directly and indirectly responsible for the environmental and health effects of their food

consumption choices. The decision to purchase ERPs should reduce negative environmental

effects from intensive agricultural practices, helping to preserve a public good like the

environment. Consumption of ERPs should also curb health risks from chemicals for all the

household members eating the food purchased in the shops. Therefore, the choice of ERPs

reflects both “public” and “private” demands.

Private demand for quality attributes associated with food choices and which are linked

to the environment is a tangible signal that people increasingly value production processes that

provide environmental services, i.e. that contribute to improving the quality of the

environment. The income elasticity of demand for environmental quality in OECD countries is

thought to be significantly positive, implying that as income grows, demand for environmental

quality increases. At the same time, the stock and quality of natural capital in OECD countries

may decrease with higher income and aggregate demand. In the presence of uninternalised

externalities, this clearly introduces a “public” reason for supporting the demand of ERPs.

8. The Supply Chain Response to Environmental PressuresJulie Paquette

Supply chains represent the integration of hundreds of decisions, each with discrete

economic and environmental implications. While delivering the “right product at the right

time” and unprecedented corporate profitability, supply chains have operationalized a linear

production path that extracts resources, uses energy, releases emissions, and produce wastes at

volumes and rates that place increasing burdens on the natural environment. However, as

supply chains mature into sophisticated networks of material and information flow, so does the

ability to carefully trace the environmental impacts of individual products

along the supply chain and address these impacts proactively. Today, supply chains must

respond to an array of environmental pressures, including regulations, consumer demands, and

limited resource availability. This response involves the development of distinct operating

models, objectives, and new supply chain processes that are expanding the scope of supply

chain management within organizations. This discussion paper draws from supply chain and

environmental management literature as well as industry case studies to characterize the

current state of supply chain environmental activity and form a basis for future research.

Research Methodology

Research DesignDescriptive research design was adopted for the study because the study attempts to

obtain complete and accurate description of the consumer perception on green products.

Nature of Data Primary and Secondary data were used for the collection of information for the study.

Primary data

The Primary data was collected from the college students in Trichy using a

questionnaire.

Secondary data

Secondary data relating to review of literature was online journals such as “EBSCO-

host business source elite”, Emerald and Proquest at IIT Chennai and at JIM. The secondary

data relating green marketing was taken from websites such as google, yahoo, scribd, wiki-

pedia, and search.com.

UNIVERSE

The universe for the study consist of all college students studying in Trichy.

Method of Data CollectionThe researcher collected primary data using a structured questionnaire. The

questionnaire consist of 25 ECCB items, 4 PCE items, 12 EC items and 6 Liberalism items.

The questionnaire also contained questions relating to the demographic of the respondents.

Sample SizeThe sample size for my research consist of 211 college students.

Sampling Method.

The sampling method used for the study is quota sampling.

Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted among 12 students and based on the suggestions given by the students suitable modifications were made in the questionnaire.

Statistical tools used

The statistical tools used in the study are

T-test

Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlation

Multiple Regression

Statistical hypotheses framed

Null Hypotheses

H0 : There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the

despondence.

H0 : There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the

despondence.

Limitations

There are two limitations that must be taken into account when considering the findings

presented here. First, the study is cross-sectional in nature. While causality may in fact exist,

the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it difficult to infer this from a single study. Such

efforts are, however, commonly reported both in the environmental literature and the

marketing literature. A second problem relates to the sample used. The objective of the study

was to examine profiling opportunities among those consumers who represent the future of the

green marketing movement. The sample, however, was a convenience sample consisting of

college students only.

ANALYSIS

Data Tabulation & graphical

representation

Table 1To save energy, I drive my car as little as possible

Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETLY DISAGREE 15 7.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 32 15.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE22 10.4

SOMEWHAT AGREE 75 35.5

COMPLETLY AGREE 67 31.8

Total 211 100.0

INTERPRETATION:The above table indicates that 35.5% of rspondence are somewhat agree and 31.8%

completely agree to drive little to save energy.

Table 2I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use

scarce resources

Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE57 27.0


COMPLETELY AGREE 26 12.3

Total 211 100.0

The above tables indicates that 32.2% of respondents somewhat disagree and 27% of

respondents either agree nor disagree with the concept to make conscious effort to limit use of

products that are made of or use scarce resources.

Table 3I will not buy products which have excessive packaging.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE36 17.1



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of respondents are disagree and 24.2% of them

completely disagree to buy low priced products without caring its impact on social.

Table 4When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the

Least amount of pollution

Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 2 .9


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE29 13.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that when there is a choice, 54.5% consumers give importance to the

products which causes less pollution and 28.4% of them give preference to that.

Table 5I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I use.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE31 14.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers tried to reduce electricity they use and 29.4%

of them try hard to reduce.

Table 6If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause,

I do not purchase these products.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE51 24.2



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 47.9% of consumers are taking care on not to buy the products

which potentially damage the environment and 24.2% of consumers neither agree nor disagree

to the concept.

Table 7I have switched products for ecological reasons.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE37 17.5



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 54.5% of consumers make thinking about ecological reaction

of product and 17.5% of them neither agree nor disagree and 17.1% completely agree to the

concept.

Table 8

I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE95 45.0



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 45% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 20.9% of them

somewhat agree to take effort to buy paper products made from recyle paper.

Table 9I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less electricity than other brands.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE33 15.6



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.1% of consumers

somewhat disagree to purchase household appliance which uses less electricity than other

brands.

Table 10I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE92 43.6



Total 187 88.6

Missing NO AWARNESS 24 11.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 21.3% of them

somewhat agree to use low-phosphate detergent or soap.

Table 11I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products

which are harmful to the environment.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE31 14.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 55% of consumers somewhat agree and 19% of them completely

agree to convince members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are

harmful to the environment.

Table 12I have replaced light bulbs in my home with those of smaller wattage

so that I will conserve on the electricity I use.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE104 49.3



Total 211 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 49.3% of consumers neither agree nor disagree to

replace light bulbs with smaller wattage.

Table 13I have purchased products because they cause less pollution.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE101 47.9



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 25.6% of

them somewhat agree to purchase products by giving importance to less polluted products.

Table 14I do not buy products in aerosol containers.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 21 10.0 10.7

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 42 19.9 21.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE64 30.3 32.7

SOMEWHAT AGREE 55 26.1 28.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 14 6.6 7.1

Total 196 92.9 100.0


Total 211 100.0


somewhat agree, not to buy products in aerosol containers.

Table 15Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE21 10.0



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of consumers completely agree and 37% of them

somewhat agree to buy products packaged in reusable containers.

Table 16When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products

that are low in pollutants

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE32 15.2



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 55.5% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.5% of them

completely agree to always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in

pollutants.

Table 17When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less

harmful to other people and the environment.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE22 10.4



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers completely agree and 33.6% of them

somewhat agree to the concept, that is When they have a choice between two equal

products,they always purchase the one which is less harmful to the environment.

Table 18I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE29 13.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 39.8% of consumers completely agree and 29.9% of them

somewhat agree not to buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.

Table 19I have purchased light bulbs that were more expensive but saved energy.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE19 9.0



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 36% of consumers completely disagree and 35.5% of them

somewhat disagree to purchase light bulbs that were more expensive but save energy.

Table 20I try only to buy products that can be recycled.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE43 20.4



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 33.6% of consumers somewhat disagree and 20.4% of them

neither agree nor disagree to the concept, that is try only to buy products that can be recycled.

Table 21To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.




NEITHER AGREE NOR




Total 193 91.5 100.0


NOT APPLICABLE 13 6.2

Total 18 8.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 25.1% of them neither

agree nor disagree to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.

Table 22I usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its impact on society.

Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 18 8.5


NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE90 42.7


COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 42.7% of them

neither agree nor disagree that they usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its

impact on society.

Table 23I do not buy household products that harm the environment.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE32 15.2



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them completely

agree not to buy household products that harm the environment.

Table 24I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE57 27.0



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them neither

agree nor disagree to the concept given, that is buying high efficiency light bulbs to save

energy.

Table 25It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything about pollution.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE13 6.2



Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 48.3% of consumers completely agree and 27.5% of them

somewhat agree that it is worthless for individual consumer to do anything about pollution.

Table 26When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect

the environment and other consumers.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE75 35.5



Total 211 100.0

From the above table we find that 36.5% of consumers somewhat agree that When they buy

products, they try to consider how their use of them will affect the environment and other

consumers and 35.5% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept given.

Table 27Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it

doesn't make any difference what I do.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE67 31.8



Total 211 100.0


somewhat agree to the concept that is Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution

and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any difference what I do.

Table 28Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products

sold by socially responsible companies.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE44 20.9



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 32.2% of consumers somewhat agree to the concept that is each

consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by

socially responsible companies and 24.6% of them completely agree to the concept.

Table 29Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE39 18.5



Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 28.9% of consumers somewhat disagree and 24.2% of them

somewhat agree that Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Table 30We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE39 18.5



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them

completely agree that they are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can

support.

Table 31To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state economy where

industrial growth is controlled




NEITHER AGREE NOR




Total 201 95.3 100.0


Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 40.3% of consumers somewhat agree and 28.4% of them neither

agree nor disagree that To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state

economy where industrial growth is controlled.

Table 32The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE8 3.8



Total 211 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 51.7% of consumers somewhat agree that the earth is

like a spaceship with only limited room and resources and 24.6% of them somewhat disagree

to the concept given.

Table 33Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because

they can remake it to suit their needs.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE52 24.6



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them neither

agree nor disagree that Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can

remake it to suit their needs.

Table 34There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.




NEITHER AGREE NOR




Total 197 93.4 100.0


Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 29.4% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 28% of them

somewhat agree to the concept given , that is there are limits to growth beyond which our

industrialized society cannot expand.

Table 35The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE55 26.1



Total 211 100.0

From the above table, we find that 38.9% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of them

neither agree nor disagree that the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

Table 36When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE31 14.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 60.2% of consumers somewhat agree and 14.7% of them neither

agree nor disagree to the concept, that is when humans interfere with nature, it often produces

disastrous consequences.

Table 37Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE26 12.3



Total 211 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 56.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 23.2% of

consumers are completely agree that, Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to

survive.

Table 38Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE10 4.7



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 66.8% of consumers completely agree that Mankind is severely

abusing the environment.

Table 39Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE26 12.3



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 38.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.2% of consumers

are completely agree that Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their

needs.

Table 40Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE53 25.1



Total 211 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of

consumers are somewhat disagree to the concept, Mankind was created to rule over the rest of

nature.

Table 41The profits of the big industries should be controlled by the government.




NEITHER AGREE NOR




Total 210 99.5 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 1 .5

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 41.2% of consumers are neither agree nor disagree and 23.2% of

consumers are somewhat disagree that the profits of the big industries should be controlled by

the government.

Table 42I am for a federal health insurance program covering men and women of all ages.




NEITHER AGREE NOR




Total 201 95.3 100.0


Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 36.5% of consumers are somewhat agree and 29.4% of the

consumers neither agree nor disagree that I am for a health insurance program covering men

and women of all ages.

Table 43If unemployment is high, the government should spend to create jobs.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE13 6.2



Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 43.1% of consumers are completely agree and 42.7% of the

consumers somewhat agree that if unemployment is high, the government should spend to

create jobs.

Table 44A government administered health insurance program is necessary to insure

that everyone receives adequate medical care.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE46 21.8



Total 211 100.0

From the above table we find that 44.1% of consumers are somewhat agree and 21.8% of the

consumers neither agree nor disagree that A government administered health insurance

program is necessary to ensure that everyone receives adequate medical care.

Table 46I am for less government regulation of business.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE65 30.8



Total 211 100.0


neither agree nor disagree that the respondent is for less government regulation of business.

Table 47I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls more heavily on

corporations and persons with large incomes.

Frequency Percent



NEITHER AGREE NOR

DISAGREE32 15.2



Total 211 100.0


completely agree that the consumer is for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls

more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes.

Table 48Age in years

Frequency Percent

Valid 18 8 3.8

19 31 14.7

20 47 22.3

21 48 22.7

22 51 24.2

23 16 7.6

24 7 3.3

25 3 1.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that most of the respondense are about 20-22 years old.

Table 49Gender

Frequency Percent

Valid Male 136 64.5

Female 75 35.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 64.5% of the respondence are MALE and 35.5% of the respondents

are FEMALE.

Table 50Family income

Frequency Percent

Valid Under 100,000 92 43.6

100,000 - 2,00,000 97 46.0

200,000 - 300,000 20 9.5

300,000 - 400,000 2 .9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that the family income of most of the respondense are upto 2,00,000.

Table 51Education Qualification

Frequency Percent

Valid Under Graduation 87 41.2

Post Graduation 56 26.5

M.Phil 7 3.3

Professional Course 61 28.9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 41.2% of the despondence are doing under graduation and 28.9%

of the respondese are doing professional course.

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Descriptive statistics of ECCB and other Psychographic factors of consumers Table 52

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic

ECCB 211 2.12 4.71 3.3750 .03021 .43883

PCE 211 1.00 4.25 2.8519 .03847 .55874

EC 211 1.92 4.17 3.3009 .02660 .38636

LIBERALISM 211 1.33 4.33 3.3160 .04082 .59292

Valid N (listwise) 211

The above table indicates that the respondents have more than average ECCB, EC, and

Liberalism scores. The table also indicates that the respondents have average PCE score.

Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlationDefinition

Correlation co-efficient between two random variables X and Y, usually denoted by

r(X,Y), is a numerical measure of linear relationship between them

formula r(X,Y) = cov (X,Y)

x yBivariate karl pearson’s co-eff of correlation for ECCB, Demographic factors and

Psychographic factors of consumers.

Table 53

Correlations

ECCB

AGE IN

YEARS Gender

Family

Income

Educational

Qualification PCE EC

LIBERALI

SM

ECCB Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.130 .171* .018 .009 .038 .353** .358**

Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .013 .796 .898 .579 .000 .000

N 211.000 211 211 211 211 211 211 211

AGE IN YEARS Pearson Correlation -.130 1.000 .073 .171* .335** .061 -.069 -.098

Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .288 .013 .000 .376 .322 .158

N 211 211.000 211 211 211 211 211 211

Gender Pearson Correlation .171* .073 1.000 .206** .150* .157* -.015 -.101

Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .288 .003 .029 .022 .832 .144

N 211 211 211.00 211 211 211 211 211

Family Income Pearson Correlation .018 .171* .206** 1.000 .312** .071 -.059 .064

Sig. (2-tailed) .796 .013 .003 .000 .306 .392 .351

N 211 211 211 211.000 211 211 211 211

Educational

Qualification

Pearson Correlation .009 .335** .150* .312** 1.000 .119 -.021 -.136*

Sig. (2-tailed) .898 .000 .029 .000 .084 .758 .049

N 211 211 211 211 211.000 211 211 211

PCE Pearson Correlation .038 .061 .157* .071 .119 1.000 .042 -.069

Sig. (2-tailed) .579 .376 .022 .306 .084 .544 .319

N 211 211 211 211 211 211.00 211 211

EC Pearson Correlation .353** -.069 -.015 -.059 -.021 .042 1.000 .397**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .322 .832 .392 .758 .544 .000

N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211.00 211

LIBERALISM Pearson Correlation .358** -.098 -.101 .064 -.136* -.069 .397** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .158 .144 .351 .049 .319 .000

N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211.000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).The above table indicates that there is significant low positive correlation between

ECCB and Gender. The table also indicates that there is significant moderate positive

correlation between ECCB and the psychographic factors that is EC and Liberalism.

Multiple Regression

Definition Regression analysis is a mathematical measure of the average relationship between two

or more variables in terms of the orginal units of the data.

Formula Regression of X on Y

X=a+bY

Regression of Y on X

Y=a+bX

Multiple Regression model of ECCB as dependent variable and demogrphic and psychograpic

factors as prdictor variables.

Table 54Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .486a .236 .210 .39010

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN

YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational Qualification

b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the R square value is .236 which shows that 24% of the variation

of the dependent variable is explained by the demographic and psychographic factors.

Table 55

The above table indicates that the significance value of F is 0.000 which shows that the

regression model is statistically significant at a confident level of 100%.

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 9.549 7 1.364 8.965 .000a

Residual 30.892 203 .152

Total 40.441 210

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational

Qualification

b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

Table 56

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.233 .492 4.538 .000

AGE IN YEARS -.035 .019 -.120 -1.836 .068

Gender .188 .058 .205 3.209 .002

Family Income -.020 .043 -.032 -.475 .636

Educational Qualification .018 .018 .070 1.018 .310

PCE .014 .049 .017 .278 .781

EC .264 .077 .233 3.441 .001

LIBERALISM .213 .051 .287 4.167 .000

a. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the regression model can be written as follows Y = a +b1 x1+ b2 x2+ b3 x3+ b4 x4+ b5 x5+b6 x6 +b7 x7ECCB = 2.233-0.035*age in years +0.188*gender-0.020*family income +

0.018*educational qualification +0.014*PCE +0.264*EC + 0.213*Liberalism.

The table also indicates that the t-test value for the significance of the independent variables

that is the demographic and psychographic factors. The significance value indicates only

gender in the demogrphic factor is significant at 1%. Also EC and Liberalism in psychographic

factors are significant at 1% level.

Chart

T-Test

A t-test is any statistical hypothesis test in which the test statistic has a Student's t

distribution if the null hypothesis is true. It is applied when sample sizes are small enough that

using an assumption of normality and the associated z-test leads to incorrect inference

This equation is only used when the two sample sizes (that is, the n or number of participants

of each group) are equal.

Where s is the grand standard deviation (or pooled sample standard deviation),

1 = group one,

2 = group two.

The denominator is the standard error of the difference between two means. For significance

testing, the degrees of freedom for this test is 2n − 2 where n = # of participants in each group.

Independent sample T-test of ECCB based on the gender of the responden Null Hypothesis().

There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the respondense.

Table 57

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. eviation Std. Error Mean

ECCB Male 136 3.3195 .42234 .03622

Female 75 3.4756 .45298 .05231

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Estimating_population_standard_deviation_from_sample_standard_deviation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

Table 58Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

ECCB Equal

variances

assumed

.037 .848 -2.503 209 .013 -.15601 .06234 -.27890 -.03311

Equal

variances

not

assumed

-2.452 143.836 .015 -.15601 .06362 -.28176 -.03026

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample T-

test is 0.013 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the

ECCB differs according to the gender of the respondence.

T-Test

Independent sample T-test of PCE based on the gender of the respondents

Null Hypothesis()There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the respondense.

Table 59

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

PCE Male 136 2.7868 .56399 .04836

Female 75 2.9700 .53265 .06151

Table 60

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

PCE Equal variances

assumed.213 .645 -2.303 209 .022

Equal variances

not assumed-2.342 160.220 .020

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample T-test is

0.022 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the PCE

differs according to the gender of the respondents.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) items.

• When the students are having chance to choose, the always prefer

environmentally responsible products.

• When the students are having any immediate the prefer environmentally

responsible products.

• When there is big effect to the environment they prefer environmentally

responsible products.

• Students do not bother about environment when they are having so much need of

environmentally polluted products.

• Students do not want to try more for environment.

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items:-

• Students understand, everybody should take action to control pollution.

• They also understand, purchasing social responsible products will create possitive

effect on society.

Environmental concern (EC) items :-

• In the environmental concern items students understand and accept the concept

like, to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled,

when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences,

Humans must live in harmony with nature.

• And they also thought that Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature and

Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Liberalism items :-

• Students have moderate liberalism items.

• They know the real fact of living along with society.

• They are ready to work along with society.

Demographic measures:-

Most of the respondents were about 20-22 years old. Nearly two third of the

respondents were MALE and one third of the respondents were FEMALE. The family income

of most of the respondents were up to 2,00,000. Most of the respondents are doing under

graduation and the next highest number of the respondents are doing professional course.

SUGGESTIONS

• Consumer clubs in schools & colleges must be encouraged to conduct programmes on

“Environment friendly consumption in day to day lives” for schools & college students.

• Social organisations like lions club & rotract club can also conduct awareness camps

regarding the importance of conserving energy for the country.

• CSR activities of companies manufacturing products using scarce resources can focus

on creating awareness among public about the optimum usage of the products

CONCLUSION

The media colleges , corporates & social organisations must work together to increase

environmental concern & societal concern of the next generation consumers. The

organisations must also strive to change the perception existing among the next generation

that individuals cannot do anything towards environment protection. These efforts taken by

organisations will help in increasing the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour among

the “Generation Next”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robert D. Straughan,Assistant Professor of Marketing, Hankamer School of Business,

Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA

James A. Roberts,Associate Professor of Marketing and W.A. Mays Professor of

Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA

Anderson, W.T. Jr and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), ``The socially conscious consumer'',

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, July, pp. 23-31.

Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), ``Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others

as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors'', Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-88.

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

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

Kassarjian, H.H. (1971), `Ìncorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air

pollution'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July, pp. 61-5.

Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), `Ècologically concerned consumers:

who are they?'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, April, pp. 20-4.

Lepisto, L.R. (1974), `Àn empirical study of the effect of environmental product attributes,

convenience, and price on product preference and socially responsible consumer behavior'',

Doctoral dissertation, Department of Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University.

ANNEXURE

Answer the following statements by putting a tick mark according to your level of agreement

or disagreement. The numbers indicate the meaning given below

1-completely disagree 2-some what disagree 3-neither agree nor disagree

4-some what agree 5-completely agree

Ecologically conscious consumer behavior (ECCB) items

01. To save energy, I drive my bike as little as possible : 1 2 3 4 5

02. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use

of products that are made of or use scarce resources : 1 2 3 4 5

03. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging : 1 2 3 4 5

04. When there is a choice, I always choose that product

which contributes to the least amount of pollution : 1 . 2 3 4 5

05. I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity

I use. : 1 2 3 4 5

06. If I understand the potential damage to the environment

that some products can cause, I do not purchase

these products. : 1 2 3 4 5

07. I have switched products for ecological reasons : 1 2 3 4 5

08. I use a recycling center or in some way recycle some

of my household trash. : 1 2 3 4 5

09. I make every effort to buy paper products made from

recycled paper. : 1 2 3 4 5

10. I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less

electricity than other brands. : 1 2 3 4 5

11. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for

my laundry. : 1 2 3 4 5

12. I have convinced members of my family or friends not

to buy some products which are harmful to

the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5

13. I have replaced light bulbs in my home with

those of smaller wattage so that I will conserve

on the electricity I use. : 1 2 3 4 5

14. I have purchased products because they cause

less pollution. : 1 2 3 4 5

15. I do not buy products in aerosol containers : 1 2 3 4 5

16. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged

in reusable containers. : 1 2 3 4 5

17. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious

effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants : 1 2 3 4 5

18. When I have a choice between two equal products,

I always purchase the one which is less harmful to

other people and the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5

19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it

is ecologically irresponsible : 1 2 3 4 5

20. I have purchased light bulbs that were more

expensive but saved energy. : 1 2 3 4 5

21. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. : 1 2 3 4 5

22. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my

car or bike as little as possible. : 1 2 3 4 5

23. I usually purchase the lowest priced product,

regardless of its impact on society. : 1 2 3 4 5

24. I do not buy household products that harm the environment : 1 2 3 4 5

25. I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy. : 1 2 3 4 5

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items

1. It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything

about pollution. : 1 2 3 4 5

2. When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them

will affect the environment and other consumers. : 1 2 3 4 5

3. Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution

and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any

difference what I do : 1 2 3 4 5

4. Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on

society by purchasing products sold by socially

responsible companies. : 1 2 3 4 5

Environmental concern (EC) items

01. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. : 1 2 3 4 5

02. We are approaching the limit of the number of people

the earth can support. : 1 2 3 4 5

03. To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop

a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled : 1 2 3 4 5

04. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room

and resources. : 1 2 3 4 5

05. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because

they can remake it to suit their needs. : 1 2 3 4 5

06. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized

society cannot expand. : 1 2 3 4 5

07. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. : 1 2 3 4 5

08. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces

disastrous consequences. : 1 2 3 4 5

09. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order

to survive : 1 2 3 4 5

10. Mankind is severely abusing the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5

11. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment

to suit their needs. : 1 2 3 4 5

12. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. : 1 2 3 4 5

Liberalism items

01. The profits of the big industries should be controlled by

the government. : 1 2 3 4 5

02. I am for a federal health insurance program covering

men and women of all ages. : 1 2 3 4 5

03. If unemployment is high, the government should

spend to create jobs. : 1 2 3 4 5

04. A government administered health insurance program is

necessary to insure that everyone receives

adequate medical care. : 1 2 3 4 5

05. I am for less government regulation of business. : 1 2 3 4 5

06. I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden

falls more heavily on corporations and persons with

large incomes. : 1 2 3 4 5

Demographic measures

Your age: _______ years Sex: Male ____ Female ____

Check the category which best fits your total family income in the last year.

Under 100,000 100,000 - 199,999 200,000 - 299,999 300,000 - 399,999

400,000 - 499,999 500,000 and above.

Educational qualification

Under Graduation Post Graduation M.Phil Ph.D Professional Course

Documents

Environmental Segmentation Study of Consumers - Social Marketing