Charles Darwin University

Demographics of sustainable technology consumption in an emerging market

the significance of education to energy efficient appliance adoption

Nguyen, Ninh; Greenland, Steven; Lobo, Antonio; Nguyen, Hoang Viet

Published in:Social Responsibility Journal

DOI:10.1108/SRJ-11-2018-0312

Published: 02/09/2019

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Nguyen, N., Greenland, S., Lobo, A., & Nguyen, H. V. (2019). Demographics of sustainable technologyconsumption in an emerging market: the significance of education to energy efficient appliance adoption. SocialResponsibility Journal, 15(6), 803-818. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2018-0312

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 24. Dec. 2021

1

Demographics of sustainable technology consumption in an emerging market: The significance of education to energy efficient appliance adoption Dr. Ninh Nguyen Department of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Marketing, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. ninh.nguyen@latrobe.edu.au Professor Steven J. Greenland* Chair of Business, College of Business & Law, Charles Darwin University, Darwin Waterfront, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. steven.greenland@cdu.edu.au (*Corresponding Author) Professor Antonio Lobo Department of Management and Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. alobo@swin.edu.au Hoang Viet Nguyen Department of Research Administration, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam. nhviet@tmu.edu.vn Cite as: Nguyen, N., Greenland, S.J., Lobo, A. & Nguyen, H.V., (2019). Demographics of sustainable technology consumption in an emerging market: The significance of education to energy efficient appliance adoption, Social Responsibility Journal, published online first.

2

Abstract

Purpose – This study addresses gaps in the sustainable technology literature by evaluating the

demographics of energy efficient appliance consumption in Vietnam. Sustainable technologies can

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address environmental problems such as air quality and

climate change. Opportunity is greatest in emerging markets, where population growth has

triggered dramatic rises in electricity consumption. However, their adoption of energy efficient

appliances has been slow and understanding why is limited.

Design/methodology/approach – Following a literature review, a questionnaire was designed to

capture sustainable consumption attitudes and behaviours. 682 interviews were conducted

among Vietnamese electrical appliance consumers to investigate the influence of demographics

on sustainable technology consumption.

Findings – While many respondents were aware of the sustainable benefits of energy efficient

appliances, this did not generally translate into responsible purchase behaviour. Of the

demographic variables, education had the strongest relationship with sustainability. Those with

higher incomes and more children were also more likely to exhibit sustainable consumption

attitudes and behaviours. Gender and age were weaker sustainability predictors.

Originality/value – This study is relevant to a wide range of sustainable technology contexts. The

literature shows contrary findings regarding relationships between demographics and sustainable

consumption, and the value of demographics to sustainable consumer segmentation and targeted

behaviour change campaigns has been contested by some researchers. This research highlights

education as the most significant demographic predictor of sustainable consumption and reveals

the consistency of this finding with many other studies. The implications of this for promoting

future sustainability are discussed.

Keywords: sustainable consumption, sustainable technology, energy efficiency, environmentally

responsible consumption, energy efficient appliances, emerging market

Introduction

Mounting concern about the damage caused by human activity has fuelled social responsibility

research seeking to improve environmental sustainability and societal wellbeing (Castaneda et al.,

3

2015). Climate change caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the most urgent

sustainability challenges (World Bank, 2018a), as well as air quality which is a major environmental

threat to public health particularly in emerging markets (Environmental Performance Index, 2018).

Research that informs GHG emission reduction in emerging markets is therefore imperative.

Sustainable technologies such as energy efficient appliances can ameliorate climate change and

improve air quality by reducing domestic GHG emissions (Seifi et al., 2012). However, such

technologies often experience slow adoption rates, with penetration of energy efficient appliances

far below optimum in many countries (de la Rue du Can et al., 2014). While many consumers

perceive themselves as environmentally friendly and socially responsible, this frequently does not

to translate into sustainable consumption behaviour such as via energy efficient appliance

purchases (Gaspar et al., 2017). The positive impact of sustainable technologies is subsequently

not realised (Weiss and Bonvillian, 2013).

Emerging markets present the greatest challenge for reducing GHG emissions. Their rapid

population growth and burgeoning middle classes with newfound spending power have fuelled a

dramatic rise in electricity consumption. Yet many of these consumers face economic and social

hardships that mean they attach less importance to environmental sustainability than those in

developed countries (Mostafa 2007). Thus, promoting sustainable technologies in these emerging

markets offers a primary opportunity for reducing global GHG emissions. For example, Parikh and

Parikh (2016) estimated that the adoption of energy efficient appliances by Indian households

would reduce domestic CO2 emissions by 40%. Yet an understanding of sustainable consumption

in emerging markets is limited, with further research urgently required on how to promote

sustainable behaviour among these consumers (Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016).

This study makes a substantial contribution via its survey and literature review, to consolidate

knowledge about the demography of sustainable consumption in emerging markets. It addresses a

gap in the literature by investigating the extent that demographics (e.g. gender, age, education,

income and number of children) affect the purchase of energy efficient appliances among

Vietnamese consumers. Such understanding is essential for designing effective energy saving

behaviour change programs (Gaspar et al., 2017).

4

Research context

Improving the purchase of energy efficient appliances in Vietnam is of utmost importance. Like

other Southeast Asian emerging markets, Vietnam is experiencing unprecedented GHG emissions

due to population growth, a burgeoning middle class, and dramatic rises in electricity

consumption. Its population grew from 80.3m in 2000 to 95.5m in 2017, and will soon exceed

100m (World Bank, 2018b). Between 1990 and 2016 its GDP grew by more than 3000%, only

surpassed by China (Trines, 2017), and between 2000 and 2014 its electricity consumption

increased 495%, with CO2 emissions rising 270%. Vietnam consequently performs poorly on

environmental health, and is ranked 159 out of 185 countries in terms of air quality

(Environmental Performance Index, 2018).

By extending current knowledge about sustainable technology consumption attitudes and

behaviours in Vietnam, including ways to accelerate adoption of energy efficient appliances, this

research can inform the sustainability strategies of Vietnam and other emerging market

economies.

Sustainable consumption based on demographics

Various terms are used in the literature to relate environmentally and socially responsible

consumption, including ‘socially responsive’ (e.g. Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016), ‘green’ (e.g., Narula

and Desore, 2016), ‘pro-ecological’ (e.g. Fraijo-Sing et al., 2013) and ‘pro-environmental’ (e.g.

Meyer, 2015). Sustainable consumption is another term often used that is particularly appropriate

for energy efficient appliances (Tanner and Kast, 2003).

Sustainable consumption comprises both attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Patel et al., 2017). The

attitudes include beliefs about the environment and green products (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003),

while corresponding behaviours are motivated by such attitudes that translate into action

(Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker, 2016). Sustainable consumption behaviours include recycling,

reducing household waste, energy conservation and sustainable purchase decisions. In the context

of this research, sustainable consumption relates specifically to the consumption of energy

efficient household appliances.

Considerable research has investigated the characteristics of sustainable consumers (Straughan

and Roberts, 1999) and the drivers of sustainable consumption. Some researchers have suggested

5

demographics are of limited value, preferring behavioural and psychographic variables (e.g.

Akehurst et al., 2012; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), while others believe demographics like

gender, age, education, occupation/income and household are key determinants of sustainable

consumption and highlight the necessity of further relevant research (e.g. Li et al., 2017; Narula

and Desore, 2016). Furthermore, the accessibility of demographics can enable more effective

consumer segmentation for better targeted behaviour change campaigns. This is particularly

relevant in emerging markets, where consumer segmentation is often challenging (Greenland and

Rayman-Bacchus, 2014).

In relation to energy conservation, Gaspar et al. (2017) stressed the relevance of identifying

sustainable consumer characteristics to help understand the impediments to sustainable

consumption. While prior studies have profiled energy consumption (e.g. Gaspar and Antunes,

2011; Sutterlin et al., 2011), understanding relationships between consumer characteristics and

energy conservation has not been adequate enough (Gaspar et al., 2017) to be able to tailor

behaviour change programs for specific consumer groups. Such targeted approaches have

commonly been recognised in the marketing literature as more effective (e.g. Kotler et al., 2009).

Sustainability research has previously been conducted in both developed and emerging markets,

with most in the former (Yadav and Pathak, 2016), as has relationships between sustainability and

consumer demographics (Kilbourne and Beckmann, 1998). However, there are conflicting findings

with regard to the significance and directions of these relationships (Aoyagi-Usui et al., 2003).

For example, in the context of gender and sustainable consumption, Schwartz and Rubel (2005)

suggested men and women think and behave differently due to differences in biology,

socialisation and values. Yet Chan (2000) found no significant differences between men’s and

women’s sustainable consumption behaviour, and López-Mosquera et al. (2015) uncovered

inconsistent results, with women exhibiting more sustainable behaviour than men in relation to

car use, but not for other types of sustainable behaviours. In contrast, Shields and Zeng (2012)

identified greater environmental concern among male consumers in China, while Aoyagi-Usui et

al. (2003) found women in the Netherlands were less likely than men to exhibit energy saving

behaviour. Yet other studies pinpointed women as exhibiting more sustainable attitudes and

behaviours (e.g. Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Lee, 2009; Patel et al., 2017; Xiao & Hong 2010). For

6

example, Gaspar and Antunes (2011) found women were more likely to consider energy efficiency

characteristics in their appliance choice decision-making.

Conflicting findings are also evident with regards to the influence of age on sustainable

consumption. For example, Werner and Makela (1998) found no such relationship, while others

reported that sustainable consumption increased with age (e.g. Abeliotis et al., 2010; Otto and

Kaiser, 2014; Torgler and García-Valiñas, 2007). Additional studies noted younger consumers as

more likely to exhibit sustainable attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Botetzagias et al., 2015;

Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; do Paço et al., 2013; Jain and Kaur, 2006).

With regard to education, some researchers associated higher levels of education with lower

environmental (e.g. Cottrell 2003; Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016; Gaspar and Antunes, 2011). In

contrast, other studies highlighted a positive relationship between higher levels of education and

sustainable attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Blomquist and Whitehead 1998; Botetzagias et al.,

2015; do Paço and Raposo 2009; Meyer, 2015; Patel et al., 2017; Torgler and García-Valiñas, 2007;

Xiao et al., 2013).

Furthermore, Cottrell (2003) reported that in addition to education, income is also inversely

related to environmental concerns and socially responsible consumption, as supported by others

(e.g. Abrahamse and Steg, 2009; Abeliotis et al., 2010; Akehurst et al., 2012; Brochado et al.,

2017). Yet numerous other studies associated higher income with stronger pro-environmental

concern and behaviour (e.g. Arbués and Villanúa, 2016; Awad, 2011; do Paço and Raposo, 2009;

Khare, 2014).

With respect to the household demographic, in their study of developed and emerging countries,

Melgar et al. (2013) rejected the value of household size on sustainable consumption. In contrast,

other researchers observed strong relationships between household size (Sidique et al., 2010) or

the number of children in a household (Fisher et al., 2012; Grunert, 1993) and sustainable

consumption attitudes and behaviours.

Given the contrasting findings of such studies, it was clear that greater investigation including

more cross-cultural studies were required to understand the relationship between demographics

7

and sustainable consumption (López-Mosquera et al., 2015), particularly in emerging markets

(Yadav and Pathak, 2016).

3. Methods

Following the literature review, a questionnaire was used to measure consumer attitudes and

behaviours relating to the purchase of energy efficient appliances. Four attitude items and seven-

point rating scales were adapted from McCarty and Shrum (1994) and Tanner and Kast (2003).

These gathered respondent perceptions of purchasing household appliances in relation to the

importance of environmental protection, energy efficiency for reducing air pollution, energy

efficiency for conserving natural resources, as well as purchasing energy efficient appliances over

conventional ones. These four items have been extensively cited in other sustainability studies

across developed and emerging countries (e.g. Ha and Janda, 2012; Mohd Suki and Mohd Suki,

2015).

Sustainable purchase behaviour including commitment to purchasing energy efficient appliances

were measured here using Li’s (1997) two items and seven-point rating scales relating to the

purchase of sustainable products and switching to more energy efficient models. These two

measures have been validated in other sustainability studies including for emerging markets (e.g.

Bhuian et al., 2018; Chan and Lau, 2000; Mostafa, 2007). The questionnaire also captured

demographic data for gender, age, education, monthly household income and number of children

living at home, adopting similar question formats from previous similar studies (e.g. Bhuian et al.,

2018; Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016).

Pre-testing of the questionnaire was then used to eliminate potential problems associated with

adapting questions from other studies for the Vietnam market. This piloting occurred in a focus

group setting with eight Vietnamese business academics from a local university, followed by 16 in-

depth interviews with electrical appliance consumers. Improvements to the questionnaire were

then made based on this piloting phase.

The questionnaire was then administered to consumers in five electronic appliance stores, the

main distribution channel for such appliances in Vietnam (Euromonitor International, 2016a), in

the urban centres of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Experienced researchers identified eligible

respondents that were at least 18 years of age, and that had previously purchased electrical

8

appliances and intended to purchase another in the next six months. To minimise any social

desirability bias, respondents were assured there were no right or wrong answers, as well as the

confidentiality of their responses (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In total, 682 questionnaires were

completed.

The subsequent analytical approach was similar to other sustainability studies (e.g. Gandhi and

Kaushik, 2016; Gaspar and Antunes, 2011) in that it evaluated differences between demographic

groups regarding their sustainable attitudes and purchase behaviours. Independent samples t-test

were deemed appropriate “to test for a statistically significant difference between two

independent sample means” (Allen et al., 2014, p. 47). One-way ANOVA was also used to test for

statistically significant differences between the means of demographic variables with three or

more categories (Heiberger and Neuwirth, 2009).

4. Results and analysis

Respondent profiling

Respondents’ demographic profiles are presented in Table 1 below. Given the research design,

while the sample consisted of adult consumers shopping in electrical stores in Vietnam’s two

major cities, this was determined as broadly generalisable to the overall population.

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents

Variables Consumer groups % n

Gender Female

Male

50.7

49.3

346

336

Age Younger (18-39 years)

Older (40 years and above)

54.1

45.9

369

313

Education No tertiary education (high school or lower)

Tertiary education (university, college, vocational training)

38.7

61.3

264

418

Monthly household income*

Lower income ($430 and under)

Middle income ($430-860)

Higher income (>$860)

28.8

41.1

30.1

197

280

205

Number of children at home

No children (0)

One child (1)

Two or more children (2 – 5)

32.1

33.1

34.8

219

226

237

*For reporting purposes, Vietnamese currency converted to US Dollar equivalent

9

Construct validity

The mean scores and standard deviations of the sustainable attitude and behaviour items are

presented in Table 2 below. The Cronbach alpha value for sustainable attitude construct was 0.81,

and 0.73 for sustainable behaviour. These are above the threshold of 0.7, confirming these

measures are internally consistent (Churchill, 1979) and that observations of relationships using

these variables are valid (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955).

Table 2. Sustainable attitudes and behaviours mean scores, standard deviations and construct reliability

Construct and items M SD

Sustainable attitudes (α = 0.81) (7 point Importance rating scale used)

Importance of environmental protection considerations when purchasing household electrical appliances

4.89 1.29

Importance of energy efficient appliances for reducing air pollution 4.94 1.29

Importance of energy efficient appliances for saving natural resources used in energy production (e.g. coal, gas, oil)

4.91 1.37

Preference for choosing energy efficient over conventional appliances 4.88 1.35

Sustainable behaviours (α = 0.73)

I … (1 = never; 7= always) buy energy efficient appliances 4.95 1.35

I ... (1 = never; 7= always) switch to models/brands of electrical appliances that are more energy efficient

4.89 1.32

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; α: Cronbach alpha

Gender

Independent samples t-tests compared the mean scores of the sustainable attitude and behaviour

constructs reported by this study’s male and female respondents. In both instances, neither the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov nor the Shapiro-Wilk statistics were significant; hence, the assumption of

normality was not violated (Allen et al., 2014). In addition, Levene’s test was significant, indicating

that equal variances were not assumed (Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016). Welch’s t-test was

consequently used.

10

Table 3. Effect of gender on sustainable attitudes and behaviours

Male Female p-value

Mean SD Mean SD

Sustainable attitudes 5.00 0.98 4.81 1.11 0.016

Sustainable behaviours 5.01 1.14 4.84 1.22 0.058

(independent sample t-tests, equal variance not assumed – Welch’s test)

Table 3 shows that the female respondents had a significantly lower sustainable attitude score

compared to males, at the 95% level (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference was

observed between gender in relation to purchase behaviour.

Age

In the independent sample t-test analyses between the two age groups and the sustainable

attitude and behaviour scores, neither the Kolmogorov-Smirnov nor the Shapiro-Wilk statistic was

significant; hence, the assumption of normality was ensured. In addition, Levene’s test was also

non-significant; thus equal variances were assumed.

As shown in Table 4 below, the younger respondents’ (18-39 years) sustainable attitudes were

significantly greater than those of the older respondents (40 years and above) at the 99% level (p <

0.01). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the age groups for

sustainable behaviours.

Table 4. Effect of age on sustainable attitudes and behaviour

Younger (18-39)

Older (40 & above) p-value

Mean SD Mean SD

Sustainable attitudes 5.02 0.98 4.77 1.11 0.001

Sustainable behaviours 4.94 1.25 4.90 1.11 0.632

(Independent samples t-tests, equal variance assumed - Levene’s test)

11

Education

In the analyses comparing the sustainable attitude and behaviour scores for respondents with and

without tertiary education, Levene’s test revealed that equal variances were not assumed; hence,

Welch’s t-test was used.

Table 5. Effect of tertiary education on sustainable attitudes and behaviour

No tertiary education

Tertiary education p-value

Mean SD Mean SD

Sustainable attitudes 4.67 1.13 5.05 0.96 0.000

Sustainable behaviours 4.16 1.20 5.40 0.88 0.000

(Independent samples t-tests, equal variance not assumed - Welch’s test)

As shown in Table 5, both t-test results were statistically significant at the 99.9% level (p < 0.001).

That is, respondents with tertiary education were significantly more likely to have sustainable

attitudes and be more committed to purchasing energy efficient appliances.

Household income

One-way ANOVA measured the impact of income on sustainable attitudes and behaviours. Prior to

interpreting the ANOVA, assumptions of normality and homogeneity were checked. The skewness,

kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics indicated that normality was not violated for each of the three

income groups. In addition, Levene’s statistic was not significant, assuring homogeneity of

variances. The ANOVA analyses were statistically significant, indicating that respondents’

sustainable attitudes (F (2, 679) = 44.371, p < 0.001, two-tailed) and behaviours (F (2, 679) =

303.864, p < 0.001, two-tailed) were affected by income. Table 6 below presents the results of

post hoc analyses employing Tukey’s honest significant difference test, (HSD).

As indicated in Table 6, the mean scores for the sustainable attitudes and behaviour were 4.53

and 3.76 respectively for the lowest monthly household income group (<USD$430), 4.76 and 5.04

for middle income (USD$430-860), and 5.45 and 5.86 for highest income (>USD$860). The analysis

shows that respondents’ sustainable attitudes and behaviours were affected by income level. That

12

is, those with lower and middle incomes had significantly lower sustainable attitudes and

behaviours than those with higher incomes. For sustainable attitudes, the difference was

significant at the 95% (p < 0.05) level of significance between lower and middle income groups,

and at 99.9% (p < 0.000) between higher and middle income. For sustainable behaviours, the

difference was significant at 99.9% across all income groups, further confirming that sustainable

behaviours increase alongside household income.

Table 6. Effect of income on sustainable attitudes and behaviours

Dependent variable

Income group (I)

Mean rating

Income group (J)

Difference in means (I-J)

SD p-value

Sustainable attitudes

Lower 4.53 Middle -0.23 0.091 0.028

Higher -0.92 0.098 0.000

Middle 4.76 Lower 0.23 0.091 0.028

Higher -0.69 0.090 0.000

Higher 5.54 Lower 0.92 0.098 0.000

Middle 0.69 0.090 0.000

Sustainable behaviours

Lower 3.76 Middle -1.28 0.08 0.000

Higher -2.10 0.09 0.000

Middle 5.04 Lower 1.28 0.08 0.000

Higher -0.82 0.79 0.000

Higher 5.86 Lower 2.10 0.09 0.000

Middle 0.82 0.79 0.000

(Multiple comparisons using ANOVA)

Number of children

Prior to interpreting ANOVA in relation to the impact of children living at home on sustainable

attitudes and purchase behaviours, assumptions of normality and homogeneity were checked. For

both constructs the skewness, kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics assured the assumption of

normality for each of the three children at home groups, and the Levene’s statistic was not

significant, ensuring homogeneity of variances. The ANOVA analyses showed statistically

significant differences, indicating that respondents’ sustainability attitudes (F (2, 679) = 20.593, p <

0.001, two-tailed) and behaviours (F (2, 679) = 360.681, p < 0.001, two-tailed) were affected by the

13

number of children living at home. Table 7 below presents the results of the post hoc analyses

employing Tukey’s HSD.

These results in Table 7 demonstrate that households without children or with only one child had

significantly lower sustainable attitude scores than households with two or more children –

statistically significant at the 99.9% level (p < 0.001). However, the difference between the

attitudes of those in households without children and those with just one child was not significant.

Thus, the findings do not fully support the effect of number of children on sustainable attitudes.

The effect of the number of children was more clearly defined for sustainable behaviours, at the

99.9% level (p < 0.001) across the three groups; with more children indicating stronger sustainable

behaviour. That is, respondents in households without children were significantly less committed

towards purchasing energy efficient appliances compared to those with one or more children.

There was also a significant difference between those with one child and those with two or more

children.

Table 7. Effect of number of children on sustainable attitudes and behaviours

Dependent variable

Children # (I)

Mean rating

Children # (J)

Difference in means (I-J)

SD p-value

Sustainable attitudes

0 4.68 1 -0.09 0.097 0.640

2 or more -0.57 0.096 0.000

1 4.77 0 0.09 0.097 0.640

2 or more -0.48 0.095 0.000

2 or more 5.25 0 0.57 0.096 0.000

1 0.48 0.095 0.000

Sustainable behaviours

0 3.83 1 -0.09 0.097 0.000

2 or more -0.57 0.096 0.000

1 4.95 0 0.09 0.097 0.000

2 or more -0.48 0.095 0.000

2 or more 5.91 0 0.57 0.096 0.000

1 0.48 0.095 0.000

(Multiple comparisons using ANOVA)

14

Summary and discussion of findings

Table 8. Summary of demographic effects on sustainable attitudes and behaviours, compared with

other studies

Demo-graphic

Level of significance

Effect on sustainable attitudes / behaviours

Examples of other studies supporting the observed effect / relationship

Examples of other studies opposing the observed effect / relationship

Gender 95% Men have stronger sustainable attitudes compared with women

Aoyagi-Usui et al., 2003; Patel et al., 2017; Shields and Zeng, 2012

Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Gaspar and Antunes, 2011; Lee, 2009; Patel et al., 2017; Xiao and Hong 2010

ns No difference between men and women for sustainable behaviours

Chan 2000; Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016; López-Mosquera et al., 2015

Age 99% Younger consumers have stronger sustainable attitudes compared to those 40 years and over

Botetzagias et al., 2015; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; do Paço et al., 2013; Jain and Kaur, 2006

Abeliotis et al., 2010; Otto and Kaiser, 2014; Torgler and García-Valiñas, 2007

ns No difference between younger and older consumers in sustainable behaviours

Chan, 2000; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Werner and Makela, 1998; Wiidegren, 1998

do Paço and Raposo, 2009; Straughan and Roberts, 1999

Education 99.9% Those with some tertiary education have stronger sustainable attitudes compared to those without

Blomquist and Whitehead 1998; Botetzagias et al., 2015; do Paço and Raposo, 2009; Jain and Kaur, 2006; López-Mosquera et al., 2015; Meyer, 2015; Patel et al., 2017; Torgler and García-Valiñas, 2007; Xiao et al., 2013

Cottrell, 2003; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016; Gaspar and Antunes, 2011

99.9% Tertiary educated consumers are more likely to purchase energy efficient appliances (sustainable products)

Income 95% Those with higher incomes have more positive sustainable attitudes compared to those with lower incomes

Arbués and Villanúa, 2016; Awad, 2011; do Paço and Raposo, 2009, Khare, 2014; López-Mosquera et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2008

Abrahamse and Steg 2009; Akehurst et al., 2012; Abeliotis et al., 2010; Brochado et al., 2017; Cottrell, 2003 99.9% Those with higher incomes are

more likely to purchase energy efficient appliances (sustainable products) Children 99.9%

(partial support only)

Households with two or more children have stronger sustainable attitudes compared to those with one or no children

Fisher et al., 2012; Grunert, 1993; Makki et al., 2015; Sidique et al., 2010

Melgar et al., 2013

99.9% The more children in a household, the greater the likelihood of purchasing energy efficient appliances (sustainable products)

15

Table 8 presents a summary of the relationships identified in this research between demographic

characteristics and sustainability, as well as comparisons with other studies that support or

oppose these findings.

In relation to gender, numerous previous studies have found that women exhibit stronger

sustainable attitudes and behaviours compared with men (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Gaspar

and Antunes, 2011; Lee, 2009; Patel et al., 2017; Xiao and Hong 2010). Schwartz and Rubel (2005)

suggest this is because women tend to be more altruistic and less motivated by personal

outcomes. Yet in this study, men exhibited the stronger sustainable attitudes associated with

energy efficient appliances, although no significant difference was observed in terms of

behaviours.

Some other studies have also reported that men have stronger sustainable attitudes (e.g. Aoyagi-

Usui et al., 2003; Patel et al., 2017; Shields and Zeng, 2012), as well as behaviours (e.g. Chan 2000;

Gandhi and Kaushik, 2016; López-Mosquera et al., 2015). Jain and Kaur (2006) suggested men are

more outgoing and more aware of environmental problems, compared to women who pay more

attention to household budgets and money saving opportunities. Hence, women may be less

concerned about the environmental benefits of energy efficient appliances, which are generally

more expensive than ‘conventional’ products (Ha and Janda, 2012). In their study of Chinese

consumers, Shields and Zeng (2012) attributed higher environmental concern among men to a

gender gap relating to the lower education and economic standing of Chinese women, which is

also likely to be relevant to other emerging markets.

In relation to age, some studies have noted older people as more sustainable consumers (e.g.

Abeliotis et al., 2010), which has been attributed to their broader exposure to environmental

issues, as well as their higher financial resources to cover the costs often associated with

sustainable products (e.g. Otto and Kaiser, 2014; Torgler & García-Valiñas, 2007). Yet in this study,

younger respondents (18-39 years) had significantly higher sustainable attitudes scores, which

concurs with the negative relationship between age and environmental attitudes commonly

observed in the literature (e.g. Botetzagias et al., 2015; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; do Paço et

al., 2013; Jain and Kaur, 2006). That is younger people are considered more willing to support

environmental reform and more accepting of environmental ideologies(Van Liere and Dunlap,

16

1980). It may also be that since sustainability has received increasing attention in more recent

times (Castaneda et al., 2015), there is a greater chance of younger consumers having been

exposed to sustainability topics in school.

However, despite this study observing stronger sustainable attitudes for younger consumers, this

did not translate into significantly higher commitment to purchasing energy efficient appliances.

This finding echoes others studies conducted in Sweden (Wiidegren, 1998), Hong Kong (Chan,

2000) and the UK (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). One explanation for this disconnect between

sustainable attitudes and behaviours could be the financial constraints facing most young

consumers, which could prevent them from purchasing eco-friendly products that are typically

more expensive (Jain and Kaur, 2006).

In this study, education produced the highest level of statistically significant difference (99.9%) for

both sustainable attitudes and behaviours. That is, Vietnamese consumers with tertiary education

had stronger sustainable attitudes than those with none (M = 5.05 and M = 4.67 respectively – see

Table 5). This also translated into higher scores for sustainable behaviours (M = 5.40 and M = 4.16

respectfully). This is a positive result for the Vietnamese Government given that the proportion of

Vietnamese with at least some tertiary level education has risen substantially over the past

decade; in 2015, 2.12 million Vietnamese were studying in higher education institutions (General

Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2015; Trines, 2017).

Despite a few exceptions (e.g. Cottrell 2003; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Gandhi and Kaushik,

2016; Gaspar and Antunes, 2011), many studies of both developed and emerging markets have

also observed a strong relationship between education and sustainable attitudes and behaviours

(e.g., Blomquist and Whitehead 1998; Botetzagias et al., 2015; do Paço and Raposo 2009; Jain and

Kaur 2006; López-Mosquera et al., 2015; Meyer, 2015; Patel et al., 2017; Torgler and García-

Valiñas, 2007; Xiao et al., 2013). This is logical since those with higher education gain more

knowledge (Chen et al., 2011) and have a deeper understanding of the relationship between the

ecosystem and human beings (Jain and Kaur 2006). More educated consumers are therefore more

aware of the consequences of human action and better able to understand complex sustainability

issues (Brochado et al., 2017), and are more willing to pay for sustainable products (Blomquist and

Whitehead, 1998).

17

In addition, this research also found that Vietnamese consumers with higher incomes had

significantly stronger sustainable behaviours (M = 5.86) at the 99.9% significance level compared

to those with middle (M = 5.04) and those with lower incomes (M = 3.76). A similar finding was

observed for sustainable attitudes, but only at the 95% level of statistical significance. While there

are studies that have found the opposite effect – i.e. no significant difference between income and

sustainable consumption (e.g. Abeliotis et al., 2010; Abrahamse and Steg, 2009; Akehurst et al.,

2012; Brochado et al., 2017, Cottrell, 2003) – many support this research finding. For example,

Awad (2011), Chan (2000) and Khare (2014) found the same effect of income on sustainable

consumption in other emerging markets, while Wang et al. (2008) asserted that energy efficient

products are too expensive for households with low incomes. For many consumers, economic

hardship means they are reluctant to pay premium prices for energy efficiency (Weiss and

Bonvillian, 2013).

Furthermore, Vietnamese consumers living in households with two or more children had

significantly stronger sustainable attitudes (M = 5.25) than those with only one child (M = 4.77) or

without children (M = 4.68). However, the difference in such attitudes between consumers in

households with one child and those without children was not significant. Hence, the number of

children in a household is not entirely helpful in predicting consumers’ attitudes towards

sustainable energy efficient appliances.

In contrast, the relationship with sustainable behaviour was more pronounced for this

demographic, showing that the higher the number of dependent children, the more committed

the energy efficient appliance purchase behaviour. According to a recent consumer report

(Euromonitor International, 2016b), children are the key drivers of household spending in

Vietnam, with parents willing to spend more to ensure their future and wellbeing. This may

suggest a cultural influence relating to parental duty and raising children to be responsible adults.

However, while some of the other studies support the effect of number of children in a household

on sustainable consumption (e.g. Fisher et al., 2012; Grunert, 1993; Makki et al., 2015; Sidique et

al., 2010), others like Melgar et al. (2013) have contended that this does not affect consumers’

environmental concerns in both developed and emerging countries.

18

5. Conclusions and implications

Sustainable technologies like energy efficient appliances can reduce GHG emissions to help

address urgent global environmental problems such as air pollution and climate change.

Opportunity for reducing emissions is greatest in emerging markets like Vietnam, where rapid

population growth is escalating electricity consumption. To date, adoption of energy efficient

appliances has been slow in these markets. Furthermore, there is often limited understanding

about sustainable technology consumption in emerging markets, which hinders sustainable

behaviour change campaigns.

This study’s investigation of Vietnamese energy efficient appliance consumption has made an

important contribution by profiling sustainable consumers and identifying significant determinants

of sustainability. It has also uncovered demographic variables with the most potential for market

segmentation, for effective targeted sustainable behaviour change strategies. In particular the

significance of education to energy efficient appliance adoption has been highlighted.

Some other studies have recommended investigating behavioural and psychographic

determinants of sustainable consumption, rather than demographic, due to the inconsistent

relationships often seen in the literature between demographic characteristics and sustainable

attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Akehurst et al., 2012; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). However, the

use of demographics should not be underestimated (e.g. Li et al., 2017), particularly in emerging

markets where consumer segmentation can be complex (Greenland and Rayman-Bacchus, 2014).

Compared to behavioural and psychographic segmentation approaches, demographics are often

more readily accessible and identifiable in these markets, and therefore present a more practical

option.

With respect to demographics, this study identified gender and age as weaker predictors of

sustainable consumption, based on their inconsistent effects on attitudes and behaviours – this is

supported by others (e.g. Chan, 2000; Wiidegren, 1998). Cronin et al. (2011) previously pointed

out how sustainable attitudes not translating into sustainable behaviours is commonplace, and

that it is often due to consumers’ limited environmental knowledge. Improving their

understanding through education initiatives would therefore appear to be a logical approach.

19

The number of children in the household was determined as a more useful predictor in this study,

although its effect on sustainable attitudes was only partially observed. In comparison, the effect

of household income on sustainable consumption was stronger, although the significance of this

relationship for sustainable attitudes was only at the 95% level. The higher significance of

household income as an influence on sustainable behaviours emphasises the importance of

reducing economic costs of energy efficient appliances via government incentives for both citizens

and businesses.

Lastly, tertiary education was shown to have the most significant impact on both sustainable

attitudes and behaviours in this study, at the 99.9% level. The literature review also confirmed

higher education as the most significant demographic determinant of sustainable attitudes and

behaviours. This finding has important implications and like in Vietnam, governments should strive

to increase the availability of tertiary education to their citizens, for higher sustainable

consumption and more socially responsible behaviours.

The importance of education for promoting global sustainability has gained increasing recognition

(e.g. Adomßent et al., 2014; Barth et al., 2014; Gombert-Courvoisier et al., 2014; Reyes-Solórzano,

2018; Stanszus et al., 2017). Yet previously few studies have highlighted the central role that

education should play in growing sustainable consumption. To optimise and help evaluate the

impact of education on sustainable consumption, education stakeholders, including universities

and governments, should develop strategic goal-oriented targets with tangible outcomes, such as

specific targets relating to the uptake of energy efficient appliances. Government policy and

university governance are key to ensuring appropriate investment in such education-related

sustainability initiatives. Both governments and universities have important roles to play in

maximising sustainable consumption, including undertaking appropriate research to support the

development and widespread adoption of more sustainable technologies, and installing

sustainability education curriculum into degree offerings. Other potential strategies include using

university alumni to disseminate sustainability education to a wider audience and to generate

further sustainability focused research sponsorship. In addition greater university community

engagement via public lectures, company training courses and local school initiatives could be

used to impart knowledge of sustainability issues and to arouse a sense of moral obligation to

increase sustainable consumption.

20

In summary, while this research has focused on energy efficient appliances in Vietnam, its findings

should be of relevance to other sustainable technology contexts. Furthermore, the significant

influence of education on sustainable consumption highlights that future research should

investigate ways to optimise this.

References

Abeliotis, K., Koniari, C. and Sardianou, E. (2010), “The profile of the green consumer in Greece”,

International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 153-160.

Abrahamse, W. and Steg, L. (2009), “How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to

households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 30

No. 5, pp. 711-720.

Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig, C., Otte, I., Rieckmann, M. and Timm, J. (2014),

“Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development - management

education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe”, Journal

of Cleaner Production, Vol. 62 No. 1.

Akehurst, G., Afonso, C. and Goncalves, H.M. (2012), “Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the

green consumer profile: New evidences”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 972-988.

Allen, P.J., Bennett, K. and Heritage, B. (2014), SPSS Statistics Version 22: A Practical Guide, Cengage

Learning Australia, South Melbourne.

Aoyagi-Usui, M., Vinken, H. and Kuribayashi, A. (2003), “Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: An

international comparison”, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-31.

Arbués, F. and Villanúa, I. (2016), “Determinants of behavior toward selective collection of batteries in

Spain. A bivariate probit model”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 106, pp. 1-8.

Awad, T.A. (2011), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: Buyers' profiles and implications”, Journal

of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-73.

Barbarossa, C. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2016), “Positive and negative antecedents of purchasing eco-

friendly products: A comparison between green and non-green consumers”, Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 229-247.

Barth, M., Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Richter, S. and Rieckmann, M. (2014), “Learning to change

universities from within: A service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable consumption in

higher education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 72-81.

21

Bhuian, S.N., Sharma, S.K., Butt, I. and Ahmed, Z.U. (2018), “Antecedents and pro-environmental

consumer behavior (PECB): The moderating role of religiosity”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,

Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 287-299.

Blomquist, G.C. and Whitehead, J.C. (1998), “Resource quality information and validity of willingness to

pay in contingent valuation”, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 179-196.

Botetzagias, I., Dima, A-F. and Malesios, C. (2015), “Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior in the

context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of demographic predictors”, Resources,

Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 95, pp. 58-67.

Brochado, A., Teiga, N. and Oliveira-Brochado, F. (2017), “The ecological conscious consumer behaviour:

are the activists different?”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 138-146.

Castaneda, M.G., Martinez, C.P., Marte, R. and Roxas, B. (2015), “Explaining the environmentally-

sustainable consumer behavior: A social capital perspective”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 11

No. 4, pp. 658-676.

Chan, K. (2000), “Market segmentation of green consumers in Hong Kong”, Journal of International

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 7-24.

Chan, R.Y.K. and Lau, L.B.Y. (2000), “Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China”, Journal of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 338-357.

Chen, X., Peterson, M.N., Hull, V., Lu, C., Lee, G.D., Hong, D. and Liu, J. (2011), “Effects of attitudinal and

sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in urban China”, Environmental

Conservation, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-52.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm of developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 16, pp. 64-73.

Cottrell, S.P. (2003), “Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible

environmental behavior among recreational boaters”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3,

pp. 347-375.

Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. (1955), “Construct validity in psychological tests”, Psychological Bulletin,

Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 281-302.

Cronin, J.J., Smith, J.S., Gleim, M.R., Ramirez, E. and Martinez, J.D., (2011), “Green marketing strategies:

an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present”, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 158–174.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003), “Can socio-

demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an

empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 465-480.

22

do Paço, A., Alves, H., Shiel, C. and Filho, W.L. (2013), “A multi-country level analysis of the environmental

attitudes and behaviours among young consumers”, Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1532-1548.

do Paço, A. and Raposo, M. (2009), “‘Green‘ segmentation: An application to the Portuguese consumer

market”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 364-379.

de la Rue du Can, S., Leventis, G., Phadke, A. and Gopal, A. (2014), “Design of incentive programs for

accelerating penetration of energy-efficient appliances”, Energy Policy, Vol. 72, pp. 56-66.

Euromonitor International (2016a), “Consumer appliances in Vietnam”, available at:

http://www.euromonitor.com/consumer-appliances-in-vietnam/report (accessed 23 August

2018).

Euromonitor International (2016b), Consumer Lifestyles in Vietnam, Euromonitor International Ltd,

London.

Environmental Performance Index (2018), Environmental Performance Index: Global metrics for the

environment: Ranking country performance on high-priority environmental issues, Yale Centre for

Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT.

Fisher, C., Bashyal, S. and Bachman, B. (2012), “Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly

purchase behaviors”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 20 No.

3, pp. 172-184.

Fraijo-Sing, B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Tapia-Fonllem, C. and Durón-Ramos M.F. (2013), “Assessing

Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: A Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and

Equitable Actions”, Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 711-723.

Gandhi, M. and Kaushik, N. (2016), “Socially responsive consumption behaviour – an Indian perspective”,

Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-102.

Gaspar, R., Antunes, D., Faria, A. and Meiszner, A. (2017), “Sufficiency before efficiency: Consumers'

profiling and barriers/facilitators of energy efficient behaviours”, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Vol. 165, pp. 134-142.

Gaspar, R. and Antunes, D. (2011), “Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in Europe: Consumer

profiles and choice determinants“, Energy Policy, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 7335-7346.

General Statistics Office of Vietnam (2015), “Population and housing survey”, available at:

https://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=782 (accessed 23 August 2018).

Gill, C. and Lang. C. (2018), “Learn to conserve: The effects of in-school energy education on at-home

electricity consumption”, Energy Policy, Vol. 118, pp. 88-96.

23

Gombert-Courvoisier, S., Sennes, V., Ricard, M. and Ribeyre, F. (2014), “Higher education for sustainable

consumption: Case report on the Human Ecology Master's course (University of Bordeaux, France)

”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 82-88.

Greenland, S.J. and Rayman-Bacchus, L. 2014, “Ethnography-photography: A visual approach to

segmentation and living standard evaluation in emerging markets”, Market and Social Research,

Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 9-21.

Grunert, S.C. (1993), “Everybody seems concerned about the environment: But is this concern reflected in

(Danish) consumers' food choice?”, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 428-433.

Heiberger, R.M. and Neuwirth, E. (2009), R Through Excel: A Spreadsheet Interface for Statistics, Data

Analysis, and Graphics, Springer, New York.

Ha, H. and Janda, S. (2012), “Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energy-efficient products”,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 461-469.

Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2006), “Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green consumers“,

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 107-146.

Khare, A. (2014), “Consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence as a determining factor of

ecologically conscious behaviour”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-20.

Kilbourne, W. and Beckmann, S.C. (1998), “Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and

the environment”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 513-532.

Kotler P., Keller K.L. and Burton S. (2009), Marketing Management, Pearson Australia, Sydney.

Lee, K. (2009), “Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers' green purchasing behavior”,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 87-96.

Li, L.Y. (1997), “Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual environmental

commitment”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 31-53.

Li, Q., Long, R. and Chen, H. (2017), “Empirical study of the willingness of consumers to purchase low-

carbon products by considering carbon labels: A case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.

161, pp. 1237-1250.

López-Mosquera, N., Lera-López, F. and Sánchez, M. (2015), “Key factors to explain recycling, car use

and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: A comparative perspective”, Resources,

Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 99, pp. 29-39.

Makki A.A., Stewart R.A., Beal C.D. and Panuwatwanich K. (2015), “Bottom-up urban waterdemand

forecasting model: Revealing the determinants, drivers and pre-dictors of residential indoor end-

use consumption”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 95(C), pp. 15-37.

24

McCarty, J.A. and Shrum, L.J. (1994), “The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations,

and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior”, Journal of Business Research,

Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Melgar, N., Mussio, I. and Rossi, M. (2013), Environmental Concern and Behavior: Do Personal Attributes

Matter?, Department of Economics-dECON, Uruguay.

Meyer, A. (2015), “Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe”,

Ecological Economics, Vol. 116, pp. 108-121.

Mohd Suki, N. and Mohd Suki, N. (2015), “Does religion influence consumers’ green food consumption?

Some insights from Malaysia”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 551-563.

Mostafa, M.M. (2007), “A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer”,

Article, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 445-473.

Narula, S.A. and Desore, A. (2016), “Framing green consumer behaviour research: Opportunities and

challenges', Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Otto, S. and Kaiser, F.G. (2014), “Ecological behavior across the lifespan: Why environmentalism increases

as people grow older”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 331-338.

Patel, J., Modi, A. and Paul, J. (2017), “Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an

emerging market”, Asian Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 189-214.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science

research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp.

539-569.

Parikh, K.S. and Parikh, J.K. (2016), “Realizing potential savings of energy and emissions from efficient

household appliances in India”, Energy Policy, Vol. 97, pp. 102-111.

Reyes-Solórzano, S.J. (2018), “The environmental education from the perspective of the managerial social

responsibility”, Maestro Y Sociedad, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 3-14.

Schwartz, S.H. and Rubel, T. (2005), “Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod

studies”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1010-1028.

Seifi, S., Zulkifli, N., Yusuff, R. and Sullaiman, S. (2012), “Information requirements for sustainable

consumption”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 433-441.

Shields T. and Zeng K. (2012), “The reverse environmental gender gap in China: Evidence from 'The China

Survey'”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Sidique, S., Lupi, L. and Joshi, S. (2010), “The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling

activities”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 163-170.

25

Straughan, R.D. and Roberts, J.A. (1999), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green

consumer behavior in the new millennium”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp.

558-575.

Stanszus, L., Fischer, D., Böhme, T., Frank, P., Fritzsche, J., Geiger, S., Harfensteller, J.,

Grossman, P. and Schrader, U. (2017), “Education for sustainable consumption through mindfulness

training: Development of a consumption-specific intervention”, Journal of Teacher Education for

Sustainability, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Sutterlin, B., Brunner, T.A. and Siegrist, M. (2011), “Who puts the most energy into energy conservation?

A segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics”, Energy

Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 8137-8152.

Tanner, C. and Kast, S.W. (2003), “Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases

by Swiss consumers”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 883-902.

Torgler, B. and García-Valiñas, M.A. (2007), “The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards

preventing environmental damage”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 536-552.

Trines, S. (2017), “Education in Vietnam World Education News and Reviews”, available at:

https://wenr.wes.org/2017/11/education-in-vietnam, (accessed 23 August 2018).

Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1980), “The social bases of environmental concern: A review of

hypotheses, explanations and empirical avidence”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp.

181-197.

Wang, G., Wang, Y. and Zhao, T. (2008), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers to energy saving in

China”, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1879-1889.

Werner, C. and Makela, E. (1998), “Motivations and behaviors that support recycling”, Journal of

Environmental Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 373-386.

Weiss, C. and Bonvillian, W.B. (2013), “Legacy sectors: Barriers to global innovation in agriculture and

energy”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1189-1208.

Wiidegren, Ö. (1998), “The new environmental paradigm and personal norms”, Environment and

Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-100.

World Bank (2018a), Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2018: World Development Indicators, World

Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank (2018b), “World Bank open data – Vietnam, the World Bank Group”, available at:

https://data.worldbank.org/country/vietnam?view=chart (accessed 23 August 2018).

Xiao, C., Dunlap, R.E. and Hong, D. (2013), “The nature and bases of environmental concern among

Chinese citizens”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 672-690.

26

Xiao, C. and Hong, D. (2010), “Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China”, Population and

Environment, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 88-104.

Yadav, R. and Pathak, G.S. (2016), “Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers:

Evidences from a developing nation”, Appetite, Vol. 96, pp. 122-128.