green consumption for sustainable lifestyle

8/14/2019 Green Consumption for Sustainable Lifestyle

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-consumption-for-sustainable-lifestyle 1/24

Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles?Identifying the sustainable consumer

Andrew Gilg*, Stewart Barr, Nicholas Ford

Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK

Available online 25 January 2005

Abstract

This paper examines green consumption in the context of an increasing focus on sustainable

lifestyles. The authors argue that green buying must be seen in the context of wider debates

surrounding the development of sustainable ways of living that incorporate other environmental

actions in an holistic conceptualisation of sustainable lifestyles. This framework is operationalised in

a study of environmental action in and around the home, in which 1600 households in Devon were

asked questions concerning their everyday environmental actions. These results were manipulated so

as to investigate how the different behaviours related to each other and also whether different groupsof individuals could be identified, conforming to different lifestyles. The results suggest that

conventional forms of green consumption can indeed be related to other forms of environmental

action and that at least four different types of environmentalist can be identified. The implications of

these results for policy makers are discussed at the end of the paper.

q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. The green consumer debate

Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people. In any one

context, there are alternative discourses that surround alternative forms of green buying,

which might pertain to a range of activities, from purchasing fairly traded tea bags to

buying organic meat. In some cases, these behaviours appear to be in conflict: buying local

food to support local producers (a brand of defensive localism identified by Winter [31]),

as compared to purchasing organically farmed produce (a choice based mainly on

ecological principles, as described by Ilbery et al. [11]). This ever-expanding liturgy of

0016-3287/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016

Futures 37 (2005) 481–504

www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C44 1392 26 3350; fax: C44 1392 26 3342.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Gilg).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/futures



activities and products, which can be used as proxies for green consumption has

necessarily diluted the environmental dimension and incorporated numerous alternative

discourses that relate more readily to sustainability in general.

This paper seeks to examine these diverse set of green behaviours within the context of research that has examined the social and psychological bases of sustainable lifestyles,

relating not merely to consumption practices, but also to habitual behaviours within the

home. By evaluating such activities in this way, it is anticipated that a more efficacious

understanding of progress towards sustainable lifestyles can be achieved in line with

similar research aims. For example, work by Green and Vergragt [8] who are examining

how consumers might alter their attitudes via a series of stakeholder workshops. Our

research however, is based on a major questionnaire survey of households and thus

provides a better indication of how widespread the adoption of green behaviours might be.

This paper thus examines a study of forty environmental actions and examines how

activities conventionally defined as green consumptive behaviours interact with otheractivities, and whether individuals can be categorised according to these interactions.

2. The green consumer

Putting aside for a moment the arguments relating to the definition of green consumption,

previous research into green consumerism has been dominated by rural sociologists and

geographers. In the UK this work has mostly been focused on the links between agricultural

production and consumers, particularly the new food economy (e.g. Gilg and Battershill [7])

and the growth in sales of organic produce (Ilbery et al. [11]). However, considerably less

work has been undertaken on the social and psychological bases of green consumption. In

other words, who buys what, when and why? Researchers have identified three sets of

variables that appear to be influential in classifying the green consumer. These focus around

environmental and social values, socio-demographic variables and psychological factors.

2.1. Environmental values and concern

This is a relatively recent area of research in green consumerism and as such definitive

results and conclusions regarding the role of concern and values are lacking. Researchexamining other environmental actions has examined the impact that underlying values

have on behaviour. For example, Steel [27] found compelling evidence to suggest that

high levels of environmental activism were strongly linked to values that considered the

natural environment to be of great importance in someone’s life.

Work on the conceptualisation of environmental values has been given extra impetus in

recent years by the pioneering work of Schwartz [22] who examined the structure of social

values in various nations. He argued that there were essentially two social value

dimensions, pertaining to ‘altruistic—egoistic’ (or pro-social and pro-self) and

‘conservative—open to change’. Stern et al. [28] argued that environmentalists were

more likely to be both altruists and more open to change.This theme runs alongside Inglehart’s [12] theory of post-materialism, where

environmentally concerned individuals are more likely to hold non-material values.

A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504482



Indeed, Leonard-Barton [15] has drawn the distinction between those who like an

‘indulgent’ lifestyle and those who are more frugal. These themes are shown

diagrammatically in Fig. 1, running from top left to bottom right. However, these

continua reflect general social values, rather than specific environmental concerns. Two

further continua can be identified. Firstly, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) which

relates to Dunlap and Van Liere’s [4] and Dunlap et al.’s [5] measure of environmentalvalues. These range from the notions of ‘spaceship earth’ and ‘nature as delicate’ at one

end of the spectrum to ‘no limits to growth’ and ‘man over nature’ at the other end. These

fundamentally relational values (that is, the relationship between humans and nature) can

also be related to a continuum, reflecting O’Riordan’s [18] concepts of ecocentrism and

technocentrism. In this continuum actions taken towards the environment are evaluated

according to whether individuals believe environmental protection is achieved via

working with nature or by changing it by the use of technology.

Within this context, only a small number of research projects have examined the role of

values on green consumer behaviour although there is a growing interest as exemplified by

Thogerson and Olander [29] who tested the hypothesis that sustainable consumption is

influenced by individual value priorities. There is evidence from a study by Karp [13] that

those engaged in green consumer activities were more likely to hold altruistic values. Stern

et al. [28] also examined Schwartz’s [22] value orientations, although they only found a

relationship between green consumption and a general measure of environmental concern.

More compelling evidence has come from studies by Chan [2] and Roberts [20]. In the

former study, Chan [2] found that those who shopped regularly for ‘green’ products and

spent more on green produce in relation to other products, were more likely to score highly

on his measure of biospherism, which related to a ‘man-nature’ orientation. In the latter

study by Roberts [20] there was evidence that those who scored highly on his‘Ecologically Conscious Consumer Scale’ were more likely to believe in ‘limits to

growth’, a ‘spaceship earth’ and an ‘equality with nature’. This provides further evidence

Fig. 1. Conceptualisation of social and environmental values.

A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 483



that those more heavily engaged in green consumption are more likely to hold ecocentric

and biospheric values.

2.2. Socio-demographic variables

Although research into the impact of socio-demographic variables on green

consumption has led to the over-simplification of causative relationships, there is still

the stereotypical view, if not a whole truism, that green consumers are young, female, well

educated, liberal and wealthy (Hines et al. [10]). This evidence is partly substantiated by

specific research studies that have examined the impact of age (Roberts [19]; Hallin [9];

Olli et al. [17]), gender (Eagly [6]; Roberts [19]; Olli et al. [17]), education (Olli et al. [17])

political affliction (Dunlap [3]; Olli et al. [17]) and long working hours (Sanne [21]). Such

research suggests that those in older age groups, who are female, well educated, have a

good income and are politically liberal are more likely to engage in green consumption.

These studies therefore provide general support to the general view of the environmen-

talist as a fairly well off mature individual, although there are debates that surround both

the impact of age and income, with research projects varying in their conclusions.

2.3. Psychological factors

Thirdly, there are what can be termed psychological factors that are personal attitudes

held by the individual concerning the behaviour in question. The psychological influences

relating to green consumption can be categorised into the following groups:

† Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). This examines the extent to which any one

consumer can have an impact on the environment. It has generally been found that a

high level of PCE results in greater levels of green consumerism (Kinnear et al. [14];

Tucker [30]; Roberts [20]);

† Self efficacy, relating to one’s own ability to take part in green consumption

(Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Sparks and Shepherd [26]);

† Social responsibility. The extent to which an individual feels morally responsible to

take part (Tucker [30]; Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Mainerei et al [16]);

†

The interaction of the effects of price, quality and brand loyalty (Schuhwerk andLefkoff-Haguis [23]; Shrum et al [25]; Mainerei et al. [16]).

Given the different factors that potentially influence green consumer activities, the

research reported in this paper sought to examine these influences within the context of

sustainable lifestyles and the way in which different groups of individuals may form

behavioural types that relate to some or all of the qualities listed above.

3. Sustainable lifestyles research in Devon

The research on which this paper is based was undertaken in the summer of 2002 as part

of a large ESRC-funded project examining environmental action in and around the home




in Devon, UK. The research sought to examine how different types of environmental

action, such as energy saving, water conservation, waste management and green

consumption were related and what factors influenced different levels of behavioural

commitment.The study was focused around a fourteen page questionnaire that asked respondents

how often they undertook a series of pre-determined environmental actions, scoring their

responses on a five point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondents were also asked

questions relating to their socio-demographic profile, attitudes and values. The

questionnaire was hand-delivered to 1600 households and collected two to three days

later. Of the 1600 surveys, 400 each were delivered to households in Plymouth, Exeter,

Barnstaple and Mid-Devon, in order to provide a representative sample from both urban

and rural areas. Households were selected by a random procedure developed for sampling

from the Electoral Register. If no response was received at a property, or the householder

declined to participate, the next house was selected.The response rate was 59%, indicating the number of households originally selected

who participated in the survey, but rose to a 79% return rate from respondents who agreed

to take part and returned usable questionnaires.

4. Results

The findings of the research are divided into three sections. First, the relationship that

conventionally defined green consumer behaviours have to other environmental actions is

considered. Second, an analysis of the frequency with which individuals undertook such

activities is examined. Finally, the different levels of behavioural commitment are

examined in the context of the various factors that have been linked to green consumerism,

such as environmental values, socio-demographics and psychological factors.

4.1. Behavioural linkages: what is green consumption?

Given the premise that green consumption has become so widely defined that its

efficacy as a term has become somewhat meaningless, the research was concerned with

examining the extent to which traditionally defined green consumer behaviours werelinked empirically to other activities. A ‘conventional definition’ refers to the behaviours

that are most regularly referred to as being examples of green consumption. In the case of

this research, these were selected from specific advice provided by the county authority in

Devon (Devon County Council), alongside recommendations from district authorities

(Plymouth City Council, Exeter City Council, North Devon and Mid Devon District

Councils). These focused on the following activities:

† Purchasing products, such as detergents, that have a reduced environmental impact;

† Avoiding products with aerosols;

†

Purchasing recycled paper products (such as toilet tissue and writing paper);† Buying organic produce;

† Buying locally produced foods;




† Purchasing from a local store;

† Buying fairly traded goods;

† Looking for products using less packaging;

† Using one’s own bag, rather than a plastic carrier provided by a shop.

The frequency results for the total sample ( N 1265) were compared to those for

alternative behaviours by means of a factor analysis, in order to examine whether green

consumer behaviours were both related to each other and different activities. Factor

analysis is commonly used amongst social scientists in order to evaluate the empirical

links between large numbers of questionnaire items and to establish whether items in a

questionnaire represent an underlying theme or pattern. Table 1 provides the results of the

factor analysis.

Of the three distinct factors to emerge, only one (Purchase decisions) contains the

green consumer items. The other two factors relate either to habitual activities withinthe home or recycling behaviour. However, the purchase decisions factor contains not

only green consumer items as one might expect by convention, but also items

pertaining to energy saving, waste management and also waster conservation.

Accordingly, if one accepts that the factor analysis provides an accurate representation

of the empirical relationships observed, there appears to be a wider behavioural

dimension to green purchasing than merely those activities which have conventionally

been classified as green consumption.

This has particular relevance with regard to the inclusion of energy saving behaviours

(looking for energy efficient appliances and light bulbs). It would appear that behaviours

that relate to a given form of consumption activity are related, which can cross into other

realms, such as energy conservation. This model evidently does not fit as well with the

two items relating to composting activities in the immediate sense. However, this

apparently habitual activity may be related more to consumptive behaviours by virtue not

of the activity itself, but rather the conscious purchase decision that might be required to

buy the materials for composting organic waste. This is different to the relatively

unconscious habitual activities in the habitual factor, relating to switching off lights or

heating.

These data have two significant implications for research on green consumerism and

sustainable lifestyles. First, they suggest that different forms of behaviour are linked suchthat traditional boundaries relating to energy saving, water conservation and so on are

inappropriate in the study of sustainable lifestyles and that a more holistic approach is

required. Second, they provide evidence that green consumption encompasses even more

behaviours than even those mentioned by policy makers. Accordingly, given this finding,

it may be more appropriate to refer to such activities as either sustainable consumption

(referring as this can to purchases from a local shop, for example, which are not

intrinsically green) or sustainable purchasing.

4.2. Sustainable purchasing: who’s buying what?

Although there was a clearly definable ‘purchase decisions’ factor evident in the data,

this did not imply that everyone who undertook these activities did so with the same




regularity. Fig. 2 provides data on the frequency with which individuals undertook each of

the behaviours within the purchase decisions factor. As can be seen, there was wide

variation between the particular activities, with the purchase of energy efficient light bulbs

being the most popular, whilst composting of kitchen waste was the least popular.

Nonetheless, despite these variations, there is one overriding pattern, which is defined by

the low levels of activity in almost all cases. For example, fewer than 5% of the samplealways purchased organic foods and fairly traded products. Although some 20%

sometimes did, almost 60% of the sample either rarely or never did. This is in the context

Table 1

Factor solution for behavioural data

Factor Variables included Variance

(eigenvalue)

Per cent

variance (%)

Cronbach’s

alpha

Purchase

decisions

High efficiency bulbs 4.4 13.3 0.83

Energy efficient appliances

Buy organic

Buy fairtrade

Avoid aerosols

Compost garden waste

Compost kitchen waste

Avoid toxic detergents

Reuse glass

Reuse paper

Buy recycled writing paperBuy recycled toilet paper

Buy locally produced foods

Buy from a local store

Use own bag when shopping

Less packaging

Use plants that need less water

Habits Turn off tap when soaping up 3.9 11.7 0.81

Reduce the number of baths/showers

Reduce toilet flushes

Turn tap off when cleaning teeth

Turn off tap when washing dishes

Reduce heat in unused rooms

Reduce hot water temperature

Keep heating low to save energy

Use a shower rather than bath

Wait until there’s a full load for washing

More clothes instead of more heating

Lights off in unused rooms

Use a sprinkler less in the garden

Recycling Recycle glass 3.5 10.5 0.78

Recycle newspaper

Recycle cans Recycle plastic bottles

Donate furniture to charityDonate clothes to charity

36

Green consumer behaviours shown in bold type.




of a range of supermarkets, most notably Iceland, promoting organics. Indeed, the Co-opgroup has also been keen to promote fairly traded produce, such as tea, coffee, bananas and

chocolate. Even for the more widely available products, such as recycled toilet tissue, only

just over 10% reported always purchasing this. More individuals were engaged in

purchases of local produce and buying from local shops, although it is acknowledged that

both of these could indeed cover a range of (not necessarily sustainable) behaviours.

Whichever way one interprets the data, there is little doubt that sustainable consumption is

not on the minds of the majority of individuals.

In order to investigate whether there were differences between individuals in the sample

according to their consumption habits and to attempt to classify these lifestyles, a cluster

analysis of the data was undertaken. Cluster analysis is a technique that is used by social

scientists in order to classify individuals into a manageable set of groups. The procedure is

based on the premise that at the beginning of the analysis, all individuals in the sample can

be paired into clusters. Individuals are paired and paired again according to the similarity

of their scores on a range of items until there is only one cluster left. At some point that

seems appropriate, a given number of clusters are retained for analysis, This is usually

based on how the data have grouped together and is interpreted using a dendrogram.

In the case of the current research, four clusters were chosen. The behavioural qualities

of these four groups can be seen in Fig. 3. Compared to Fig. 2, there are significant

differences.Committed environmentalists were the most enthusiastic group, who were the most likely

to always compost their waste and were far more likely to ‘usually’ undertake sustainable

Fig. 2. Purchase decisions, Purchase decisions (item order relates to the order in the factor solution in Table 1),

EN1, Purchase high efficiency light bulbs; EN2, Purchase energy efficient items; GC1, Buy organic food; GC2,

Buy FairTrade goods; GC3, Do not purchase aerosols; W1, Compost garden waste; W2, Compost kitchen waste;

GC4, Purchase less harmful detergents; W3, Reuse glass; W4, Reuse paper; GC5, Buy recycled writing paper;

GC6, Buy recycled toilet tissue; GC7, Buy Local produce; GC8, Buy food from a local store; GC9, Use own bag

when shopping; GC10, Look for less packaging; WA1, Use plants that need less water.


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



purchase activities, especially the purchase of local produce and from buying a local store.

However, although this group were indeed more likely to buy organic produce and fairly

traded products, there were still a minority of individuals involved in these activities.

Mainstream environmentalists undertook the range of behaviours with the sameregularity on the whole as committed environmentalists, although they were considerably

less likely to compost their waste.

Fig. 3. Behavioural types, Please see Fig. 2 for explanation of labels, (a) Committed environmentalists (Group 1),

(b) Mainstream environmentalists (Group 2), (c) Occasional environmentalists (Group 3), (d) Non-

environmentalists (Group 4).




This is in contrast to occasional environmentalists who were more likely to either never

or rarely undertake sustainable purchasing behaviours. This was especially the case in

respect of buying organic or fairly traded produce, alongside local purchases.

However, non-environmentalists were the least active, with the majority of individualsnever undertaking almost all of the activities listed. These individuals were clearly not

inclined to undertake any of the behaviours in question.

Fig. 3 (continued )




These four groups represent clear behavioural boundaries that may assist policy makers

to more accurately focus policies that seek to promote green consumption. However, to do

this, they must appreciate the nature and characteristics of the individuals involved.

4.3. Who are the sustainable few?

4.3.1. Demographic profile of the four groups

Table 2 presents demographic information relating to the four groups and the whole

sample. Statistically significant differences between the clusters are indicated by a relevant

test statistic in the far right column. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the major differences

between purchase behaviour types appeared to focus around a definitive split between non-

environmentalists and other groups, with the qualification that there were notable changes

from the ‘committed’ to ‘occasional’ groupings, with lower frequencies in the latter

groups. Briefly, the demographic profile of the different groupings can be summarised as:

† The mean age of committed environmentalists is highest, with the mean age of non-

environmentalists being the lowest;

† There were significantly more males in the non-environmentalist cluster. The gender

balance remains relatively stable in the three remaining clusters;

† Committed and mainstream environmentalists tended to have smaller household sizes

than occasional or non-environmentalists. A significantly large number of households

in these latter groups had more than five individuals in the home;

† Car access fluctuated according to the cluster examined, although this was not

statistically significant;

† Committed environmentalists tended to own their home, whilst a greater proportion of

non-environmentalists were either private tenants or rented their home from a local

authority;

† Committed individuals tended to live in terraced properties, whilst mainstream

environmentalists were more likely to live in semi-detached homes;

† Non-environmentalists were on significantly lower incomes. This was the case for the

lowest income band of under 7500 a year. However, a significantly higher proportion of

committed environmentalists earned between 7500 and 10,000 pounds. The higher

income brackets were equally spread between groups;† Committed environmentalists were less likely to have received any formal education,

but at the same time, were also more likely to have a degree. In the case of non-

environmentalists, a large proportion had received no formal education, with low levels

of GCSE, A-level and degree qualifications. Mainstream and occasional environmen-

talists tended to have GCSE qualifications;

† Non-environmentalists contained a large amount of Labour voters as well as a

significant proportion that did not vote. There were markedly fewer Liberal Democrat

voters amongst this group. Committed environmentalists were more likely to vote

Green and Liberal Democrat. They were also the most likely to vote. Mainstream and

occasional environmentalists represented what one might expect to be the nationalsituation, with Labour the dominant party of choice, followed by the Conservative’s

and Liberal Democrat’s;


http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



Table 2

Demographic characteristics of behavioural clusters

Variable Sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Test statistic and

significance

Cluster

label

Committed

environ-

ment’l

Mainstream

environ-

ment’l.

Occasional

environ-

ment’l.

Non-envir-

onment’l.

No. in

cluster

294 412 505 43

Age

(mean)

49 55 52 46 43 Kruskall-Wallis

HZ59.6

( p!0.05)

Gender Male 35% Male 35% Male 31% Male 38% Male 50% c2Z8.8

( p!0.05)

No. inhome (all

residents)

1 16% 1 17% 1 21% 1 13% 1 11% Chi-SquareZ25.9( p!0.05)2 37% 2 40% 2 40% 2 34% 2 29%

3 18% 3 18% 3 15% 3 21% 3 26%

4 19% 4 17% 4 15% 4 22% 4 17%

5C3% 5C8% 5 9% 5 10% 5 17%

Car

access

(number)

0 20% 0 19% 0 24% 0 17% 0 27% Chi-SquareZ15.1

( pO0.05)1 51% 1 51% 1 52% 1 52% 1 37%

2 24% 2 25% 2 20% 2 26% 2 32%

3C5% 3C5% 3C4% 3C5% 3C4%

Tenancy Owned 74% Owned 83% Owned 74% Owned 71% Owned 62% Chi-SquareZ23.3

( p!0.05)Private

Tenant 11%

Private

Tenant 5%

Private

Tenant11%

Private

Tenant 13%

Private

Tenant 19%

LA 15% LA 12% LA 15% LA 16% LA 19%

House

type

Detached

9%

Detached

4%

Det 12% Det 10% Det 10% Chi-SquareZ63.4

( p!0.05)

S-Detached

24%

S-Detached

16%

S-Det 34% S-Det 24% S-Det 26%

Terrace w

pass 9%

Terrace w

pass 8%

Terr/p 7% Terr/p 10% Terr/p 14%

Terrace 36% Terrace 43% Terr 28% Terr 38% Terr 36%

Flat 22% Flat 29% Flat 19% Flat 20% Flat 14%

Income

(Pounds)

!7.5 k 20% !7.5 k 20% !7.5 k 23% !7.5 k 15% !7.5 k 35% Chi-SquareZ29.9

( p!0.05)7.5–10 k 9% 7.5–10 k

20%

7.5–10 k

10%

7.5–10 k 8% 7.5–10 k 6%

10–15 k

17%

10–15 k

11%

10–15 k

20%

10–15 k

15%

10–15 k 9%

15–20 k

19%

15–20 k

15%

15–20 k

18%

15–20 k

22%

15–20 k

12%

20–30 k

21%

20–30 k

19%

20–30 k

20%

20–30 k

23%

20–30 k

21%

O30 k 14% O30 k 15% O30 k 9% O30 k 17% O30 k 18%

Education

(formal)

None 38% None 51% None 41% None 35% None 53% Chi–SquareZ21.6

( p!0.05)GCSE 27% GCSE 20% GCSE 30% GCSE 29% GCSE 19%

‘A’ level

17%

‘A’ level

18%

‘A’ level

15%

‘A’ level

18%

‘A’ level

16%

Degree 17% Degree 21% Degree 14% Degree 18% Degree 12%

(continued on next page)




† Committed environmentalists were significantly more likely to be a member of a

community organisation, whilst occasional and non-environmentalists were least likely

to be.

Evidently there are more trends that can be described from the table, but for the

purposes of brevity it is interesting to note that those most committed to sustainable

consumption were older, tended to own their home, lived in a terraced property, voted

Green/Liberal Democrat and were members of community groups. In contrast, those whowere non-environmentalists tended to be younger, male, on low incomes, who had

received less formal education, were less involved in the community and were more likely

to be politically apathetic.

These assertions are clearly generalisations. However, they are based on discernible

statistical patterns. What must be noted is that there are not clear distinctions that can be

drawn along a continuum, from ‘committed’ to ‘non-environmentalist’. There are variable

demographic characteristics depending on which cluster one examines. Nonetheless, there

are clear trends that have significant implications for policy makers.

4.3.2. Social and environmental values

The review at the beginning of this paper examined the likelihood that those who were

more likely to engage in sustainable consumption would have more altruistic values, be

more open to change and be more likely to hold both biospheric and ecocentric

environmental values. Questions relating to these were posed in the questionnaire and

were factor analysed in the same way as the behavioural items.

For social values, Table 3 reveals that four factors emerged, relating to altruism,

openness to change, conservative values and egoism. Fig. 4 shows the scores for each

cluster according to the item in each factor. A test statistic (Mood’s median test) is

provided for each factor to signify whether there was any statistically significant differencebetween the scores between each group. Although for the altruistic and openness to change

grouping there appeared to be no statistical difference between the clusters, a general

Table 2 (continued )

Variable Sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Test statistic and

significance

Political

allegiance

Con 16% Con 16% Con 16% Con 15% Con 15% Chi–SquareZ43.3

( p!0.05)Green 3% Green 6% Green 4% Green 2% Green 0%

Lab 22% Lab 18% Lab 22% Lab 25% Lab 32%

LD 14% LD 17% LD 17% LD 12% LD 5%

Oth. 2% Oth. 2% Oth. 1% Oth. 2% Oth. 2%

No vote10% No vote 6% No vote

10%

No vote

12%

No vote

22%

Pass Q 33% Pass Q 35% Pass Q 30% Pass Q 32% Pass Q 24%

Member-

ship of a

commu-

nity group

Yes 11% Yes 17% Yes 10% Yes 8% Yes 8% Chi–SquareZ16.0

( p!0.05)


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



pattern emerges relating to apparent differences between clusters 1–3 and cluster 4. For

example, those in cluster 4 (non-environmentalists) were least likely to regard being

helpful as an important principle in their lives. However, it is with regard to theconservative and egoism factors that substantive differences are observed. Committed

environmentalists were the most likely to feel that unity was important, along with

obedience, alongside placing little emphasis on wealth and personal influence.

With regard to environmental values, Table 4 shows the factorial structure of the three

factors that emerged, conforming to well-known concepts. Fig. 5 provides data on each of the

factors and the scores for each group. Non-environmentalists in this case were the most likely

to believe that there were no limits to growth for the UK and that humankind was created to

rule over nature. Indeed, they were least likely to believe that the balance of nature is delicate,

that the Earth was like a spaceship, or that plants and animals were not solely for human use.

These findings are significant, as they show that those individuals who are less involved

in sustainable purchasing behaviours share significantly different values to those who are

more heavily involved. These range over both social and environmental values and a

variety of these in turn. Clearly, the environmentalist is less concerned with material

wealth and personal influence, alongside holding values that place nature in an equal

position with humans and believing that nature has critical limits which must not be

crossed by human developments.

4.3.3. Psychological variables

Given the nature of the research, a wide range of variables were measured, some of which are not relevant to sustainable consumption. As before, these were factor analysed

to provide a smaller set of variables with which to work. Four of the factors that emerged

Table 3

Social value factors

Factor Variables included Variance (eigenvalue) Per cent variance

Altruistic Loyalty 3.1 20

Honouring parents

Equality

Social justice

Enjoying life

Helpful

Openness to change Varied life 2.5 16

Exciting life

Curious

Conservative Social order 2.1 13

Obedience

AuthorityUnity

Egoism Wealth 1.8 11

Social Power

Influential

Total variance 59

Individuals were asked how important each value was to their own life, rating each from 1 (very unimportant) to 5

(very important).


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



contained variables that have previously been found to influence green consumer

behaviour. These related to response efficacy or perceived consumer effectiveness, the

influence of responsibility, the effect of price sensitivity, and health and safety concerns.

As for environmental and social values above, the individual scores for each variable aregiven for every one of the four behavioural groups.

Fig. 6a provides data relating to the outcome beliefs and response efficacy of the sample.

It is immediately apparent that there is a discernible trend in the data, with committed

Fig. 4. Group properties for social values, Figures on the X -axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), Mood’s

Median statistic computed for each factor, denoting whether there was a statistically significant difference

between the four cluster groups. (a) Altruistic ( M Z5.8; pO0.05), (b) Openness to change ( M Z2.6; pO0.05), (c)

Conservative M Z7.8; p!0.05), (d) Egoistic ( M Z9.8; p!0.05).


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



environmentalists the most likely to believe that environmental actions will have a positive

outcome, whereas non-environmentalists are significantly less likely to have faith in their

actions. This conclusion should be qualified by noting that although statistically there was a

significant difference between the four groups, the majority in all cases agreed that their

actions would be effective. This is encouraging, but also highlights the difficulties policy

makers face in engaging citizens in participation, given that even individuals who are the

least committed report fairly high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness.

Fig. 6b provides evidence for a more discernible difference between committed

environmentalists and non-environmentalists. Whereas 90% of committed environmen-

talists rejected the idea that environmental problems were the government’s responsibility,

only 43% of non-environmentalists agreed with this notion. This is significant, since

previous research into green consumption has made explicit the links betweenpersonalisation of responsibility and effective environmental action. These data therefore

support this assertion. Differences may also be seen with regard to the trust that individuals

Fig. 4 (continued )


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



placed in the different sources of information provided. Whilst three of the four groups

believed that environmental groups provided trustworthy information, more than twice the

number of non-environmentalists stated that they disagreed with this. This might point to a

link between the level of trust in specific information providers and the efficacy of the

arguments in changing behaviours, which that organisation promotes.

The impact of price on sustainable consumption can be seen in Fig. 6c, where it is clear

that committed environmentalists were more likely to purchase products on their

environmental credentials, with price being less of a factor in the purchase decision. In this

case, the trend is almost uniform between the four groups, with attitudes changing

incrementally from committed to non-environmentalist groups. Such data indicate the

different perceptions of price that impact on personal attitudes towards purchasing in a

sustainable way.

Finally, Fig. 6d provides data relating to green consumer beliefs. In this case, the difference

between the committed and non-environmentalist groups are distinctly uniform, with

committed environmentalists stating that health issues, safety concerns, buying locally andbelieving that green consumption helped the environment all scoring over 70% agreement.

Non-environmentalists werethe least concerned with these issues,withunder 40% stating that

Table 4

Environmental value factors

Factor Variables included Label (Fig. 5) Variance

(eigenvalue)

Per cent

variance

Faith in growth:

anthropocentrism

There are no limits to growth

for nations like the UK

No limits to

growth

2.3 24

Modifying the environment

seldom causes serious

problems

Modifying

environment

Science will help us to live

without conservation

Scientific solution

Humans were created to rule

over nature

Humans over

nature

Spaceship Earth:

biospherism

The balance of nature is

delicate and easily upset

Balance of nature 2.2 22

The Earth is like a space ship,

with limited room and

resources

Spaceship earth

Plants and animals do not exist

primarily for human use

Value of nature

One of the most important

reasons for conservation is to

preserve wild areas

Preservation

Ecocentism-tech-

nocentrism

Technology will solve many

environmental problems

Technological

solutions

1.2 12

Exploitation of resources

should be stopped

Stop exploitation

Total variance 58

Individuals were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree).


http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



they felt buying locally was important and only 49% agreeing that green consumption helped

the environment, compared to 83% of committed environmentalists. These data therefore

clearly demonstrate the impact of health and safety concerns in purchase decisions made by

individuals who choose to participate in sustainable consumption.

5. Discussion

The data presented in this paper provide compelling evidence to support the assertion

that green consumption may be more appropriately termed sustainable consumption or

Fig. 5. Environmental Values (please see Table 4 for statement wording) Figures on the X -axis refer to cluster

membership (Fig. 3) (a) Faith in Growth ( M Z12.6; p!0.05)), (b) Spaceship Earth ( M Z10.2; p!0.05), (c)

Ecocentrism-technocentrism ( M Z3.9; pO0.05).




a component of any move towards sustainable lifestyles. Incorporating issues

conventionally conceived as green consumer actions within a framework of environmental

action has demonstrated how sustainable consumption is likely to be a component of a

wider shift in lifestyles that invokes both purchase-related and habitual behaviours in anholistic conceptualisation of everyday living. This is manifested within distinctive

behavioural groups that have their own social, attitudinal and behavioural qualities,

ranging from committed environmentalists, who partake in a considerable variety of

environmental actions, to non-environmentalists who generally never participate in such

behaviours. In regard to the specific qualities of the different groups, reference can be

made to existing research in this field.

5.1. Social and environmental values

The evidence provided in this research supports the work of Stern et al. [28], Roberts

[19] and Chan [2] in their assertions that green consumers tend to hold more pro-

environmental and pro-social values. The data in Figs. 3 and 4 clearly demonstrate that

committed environmentalists valued wealth, personal influence and power less than unity

and other aspects of altruism. In contrast, non-environmentalists scored the lowest on these

measures. Indeed, committed environmentalists were more likely to hold biospheric

and ecocentric values, emphasising equality with nature and a need to work with the

environment, rather than relying on technological solutions. Such data provide a good

basis on which to argue that sustainable lifestyles may be formulated around a distinctive

pro-social ethic, which is open to change and values nature intrinsically. From theperspective of policy, this may provide certain difficulties, since values are not easily

manipulated by conventional policy measures, as perhaps attitudes can be.

Fig. 5 (continued )


http://-/?-

http://-/?-



Fig. 6. Selected social-psychological factors, Figures on the X -axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), (a)

Outcome beliefs ( M Z45.1; p!0.05), Good economics, It makes good economic sense to help the environment,

N Z1245; Energy beliefs, Energy saving in the home helps reduce global warming, N Z1242; Response efficacy,

Each person’s behaviour can have a positive effect on society and the environment, N Z1245; Waste beliefs,

Reducing household waste and recycling saves rubbish being buried in landfill, N Z1241; (b) Trust and

responsibility ( M Z12.3; p!0.05). Government responsibility, Environmental problems are the government’s

responsibility*, N Z1234; Trust in information, The information I receive about environmental issues is

trustworthy, N Z1233; Environmental group information, Environmental groups provide the most accurate

information about the environment, N Z1241; (c) Price ( M Z32.5; p!0.05), Price of eco-friendly products,

Unless environmentally-friendly products come down in price, I will buy normal brands*, N Z1235; Importance

of nature, The price is uppermost in my mind when I buy products*, N Z1241; Prefer eco-friendly produce, I’d

rather buy environmentally-friendly products than purchase cheaper alternatives, N Z1238; Willing to pay more,

Paying higher prices for environmentally-friendly products is worth the extra cost, N Z1241; (d) Green consumer

beliefs ( M Z84.9; p!0./05); Health concerns, The health benefits of certain foods are a key priority when I go

shopping, N Z1241; Safety concerns, Food safety is important when I go shopping, N Z1239; Importance of local

produce, Buying local produce is very important, N Z1238; Green consumer beliefs, Buying green produce helps

the environment, N Z

1241; For all items marked * the raw scores (measured on a scale of 1Z

strongly disagree to5Zstrongly agree) were reverse coded so that in all cases agreement/strong agreement reflects a pro-

environmental position; Mood’s Median test was used to examine any statistically significant differences between

the cluster groups.




5.2. Socio-demographics

Some of the conclusions reached by workers in this field can be substantiated from this

research. Roberts’ [20]) finding that age had a positive impact on green consumption is

supported by the evidence in Table 2, where there was a difference of 12 years in the mean

age of committed and non-environmentalists. Such a finding may support Hallin’s [9]

hypothesis that older age groups are more likely to save and ‘make do’, given that they are

from the Second World War generation. Nonetheless, the incorporation of other variables,

such as fairly traded goods and recycled products may hint at another hypothesis that is as

yet poorly understood.Although gender does not show significant differences except for the non-

environmentalist group, this finding is significant, as it supports Roberts’ [20] assertion

Fig. 6 (continued )




of some gender imbalance. The male dominance (relatively) of this group supports

evidence from other environmental behaviour research (e.g. Barr et al. [1]; Hines et al.

[10]) that males may be less environmentally active. This may relate to Eagly’s [6] theory

of gender role expectations in which males and females seek to aspire to commonlyperceived gender roles and would have to be placed in the context of the division of labour

in households relating to the consumption of certain goods.

Olli et al.’s [17] thesis relating to the effect of income is partly substantiated by this

paper, in which a large proportion of committed environmentalists earned between 7.5 and

10 thousand Pounds. However, a larger proportion of non-environmentalists earned under

7.5 thousand Pounds. Such a position is difficult to interpret and does not appear to fall

within conventional thinking on environmental action (Hines et al. [10] that relates to a

general trend for higher income earning individuals to be more environmentally

conscious.

Finally, in regard to political attitudes, this research supports Dunlap’s [3] initialassertion that liberal individuals were more likely to support environmentalism. More

Green and Liberal Democrat voters were committed environmentalists. However, more

concerning is the level of political apathy that non-environmentalists demonstrated, with a

larger proportion not voting.

A further finding that has not been reported in the literature includes the high proportion

of owner-occupiers in the committed environmentalists group and the high amount of non-

environmentalists in the renting/local authority sector.

From the perspective of policy, these results are important, as they may be able to

provide a means by which to focus specific measures to encourage sustainable living.

These might be demographically based, with emphasis being placed on younger

individuals, such as males. They may also be spatially distributed, focusing on individuals

in certain areas with high levels of renting/local authority tenancy.

5.3. Psychological factors

The literature reviewed above concerning perceived consumer effectiveness,

responsibility, price and health and safety issues can all be substantiated in this paper.

This is not to state that other factors might be significant in differentiating between the four

behavioural groups, but rather that there is strong evidence to support previous evidence.Consumers are likely to purchase in a more sustainable way if they perceive that what they

are buying, be that organic food or fairly traded coffee, is actually going to impact on the

environment and influence future policy. Similarly, personalisation of environmental

issues and a trust in the information provided on the environment is also more likely to

engage citizens. The priorities that are given to various purchases are also likely to be

significant, relating to trade-offs pertaining to price, health, safety, buying locally and

helping the environment.

These findings suggest that policy makers need to market products specifically at

particular market segments, so as to emphasise how a particular product will have a

tangible effect, be that on the natural environment, a developing nation’s economy or thelocal farmer. This information needs to be clear, scientifically presented and ‘believable’.

Indeed, where price is an issue, other credentials of the products should be emphasised,




such as the health and safety benefits, be that for organic produce or locally produced

foods.

6. Conclusion

Any move to sustainability and sustainable lifestyles will be a gradual process, but must

be seen in the context of an holistic move towards new lifestyles, incorporating purchase-

related and habitual elements that cross conventional behavioural boundaries. The

challenges for policy makers wishing to engage in this move relate to both a realigning of

the language of consumption, away from ‘green’ and towards ‘sustainable’, so as to

incorporate activities that do not necessarily have green credentials, but also a greater

focus on who does what. This research has clearly shown that specific demographic

groups, with particular behavioural qualities and attitudes, are engaging in a varied way in

sustainability. If policy makers can use this approach, which can be utilised to target

specific groups, then the move to sustainable lifestyles will be achieved with greater

efficacy.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks the Economic and Social Research Council for

financial assistance in undertaking this research (Grant No. R000239417).

References

[1] S. Barr, A. Gilg, N. Ford, A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards

household waste management, Environment and Planning A 33 (2001) 2025–2048.

[2] R. Chan, Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior, Psychology and Marketing 18

(2001) 389–413.

[3] R. Dunlap, The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions, Environment and

Behavior 7 (1975) 428–453.

[4] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, The new environmental paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1978)10–19.

[5] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, R. Jones, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a

revised NEP scale, Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000) 425–442.

[6] A. Eagly, Sex Differences In Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.

[7] A. Gilg, M. Battershill, Quality food from Europe: a possible alternative to the industrialised food market

and to current agro-environmental policies, Food Policy 23 (1998) 25–40.

[8] K. Green, P. Vergragt, Towards sustainable households: a methodology for developing sustainable

technological and social innovations, Futures 34 (2002) 381–400.

[9] P. Hallin, Environmental concern and environmental behaviour in Foley, a small town in Minnesota,

Environmental and Behavior 27 (1995) 558–578.

[10] J. Hines, H. Hungerford, A. Tomera, Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental

behavior: a meta analysis, Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987) 1–8.

[11] B. Ilbery, L. Holloway, R. Arber, The geography of organic farming in England and Wales in the 1990s,

Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90 (1999) 285–295.




[12] R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Western Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990.

[13] D. Karp, Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior, Environment and Behavior 28 (1996) 111–

133.

[14] T. Kinnear, J. Taylor, S. Ahmed, Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they?, Journal of Marketing

38 (1974) 20–24.

[15] D. Leonard-Barton, Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation, Journal of Consumer Research.

8 (1981) 243–252.

[16] T. Mainerie, E. Barnett, T. Valdero, J. Unipan, S. Oskamp, Green buying: the influence of environmental

concern on consumer behaviour, Journal of Social Psychology 137 (1997) 189–204.

[17] E. Olli, D. Grendstad, D. Wollebark, Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context,

Environment and Behavior 33 (2001) 181–208.

[18] T. O’Riordan, Future directions in environmental policy, Environment and Planning A 17 (1985) 1431–

1446.

[19] J. Roberts, Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behavior, Psychological Reports 73 (1993)

139–148.

[20] J. Roberts, Green consumers in the 1990’s: profile and implications for advertising, Journal of BusinessResearch 36 (1996) 217–231.

[21] C. Sanne, Willing consumers-or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption, Ecological Economics

42 (2002) 273–287.

[22] S. Schwartz, Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20

countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10 (1992) 221–279.

[23] M. Schuhwerk, S. Lefkoff-Hagius, Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a

green product, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 45–54.

[24] C. Schwepker, T. Cornwell, An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to

purchase ecologically packaged products, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991) 77–101.

[25] L. Shrum, J. McCarty, T. Lowrey, Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for

advertising strategy, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 71–82.

[26] P. Sparks, R. Shepherd, Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: the role of identification with‘green consumerism’, Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (1992) 388–399.

[27] B. Steel, Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental attitudes, behaviour and activism, Journal of

Environmental Management 47 (1996) 27–36.

[28] P. Stern, T. Dietz, G. Guagnano, The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context,

Environment and Behavior 27 (1995) 723–743.

[29] J. Thogerson, F. Olander, Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel

study, Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002) 605–630.

[30] L. Tucker, Identifying the environmentally responsible consumer: the role of internal–external control of

reinforcements, Journal of Consumer Affairs 14 (1980) 326–340.

[31] M. Winter, Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism, Journal of Rural Studies 19

(2003) 21–32.


green consumption for sustainable lifestyle

Documents