This article was downloaded by: [39.32.60.100]On: 24 March 2015, At: 13:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of International Consumer MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wicm20

Green Consumer Behavior of the Educated Segment inIndiaRajyalakshmi Nittala aa Department of Commerce and Management Studies , Andhra University Visakhapatnam ,IndiaPublished online: 03 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Rajyalakshmi Nittala (2014) Green Consumer Behavior of the Educated Segment in India, Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing, 26:2, 138-152, DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2014.878205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2014.878205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 26:138–152, 2014Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0896-1530 print / 1528-7068 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08961530.2014.878205

Green Consumer Behavior of the Educated Segmentin India

Rajyalakshmi Nittala

ABSTRACT. Green consumption behavior is an essential requirement for long-term sustainabledevelopment of the Earth’s civilization. Several authors have found education to be one of the keyfactors influencing green consumption behavior. This study identifies the factors influencing thewillingness of university teachers to purchase green products and the predictor variables that distinguishteachers who are willing or unwilling to purchase green products. The findings show that productrecycling has a positive influence and comfort, eco-labeling, and lack of information have a negativeinfluence on the willingness of university teachers to purchase green products. Switching products forecological reasons, preference for ecological quality, and a consideration that plastic carry bags aremore convenient and should not be banned are good discriminators between the groups willing to buyand not willing to buy green products. The teachers are aware of environmental activism, even thoughtheir concerns do not always translate into green consumer behavior.

KEYWORDS. Green marketing, green consumer behavior, environment-friendly, eco-labeling,educated consumers

INTRODUCTION

Environmental pollution is one of the mostserious problems facing humanity and otherlife-forms on the earth today. In 2011 Indiawas ranked as the seventh most environmentallyhazardous country in the world, Brazil was foundto be the worst on environmental indicators,and Singapore was the best. The United Stateswas rated second-worst and China third-worst(UNEP 2011). A major consequence of China’sand India’s rapid growth will be an ongoing de-pletion of natural resources. Vital commoditieswill experience severe shortages as aspirationsfor economic progress and better lifestyles ofpeople are met (Czinkota et al. 2009). Many

Rajyalakshmi Nittala is affiliated with the Department of Commerce and Management Studies, AndhraUniversity Visakhapatnam, India.

Address correspondence to Rajyalakshmi Nittala, Professor, Department of Commerce and ManagementStudies, Andhra University Visakhapatnam, India, 530003. E-mail: nittalarl@yahoo.co.in

issues have caused adverse environmental im-pacts in India. The general population here is socarried away by the benefits of industrializationand urbanization that the people avoid thinkingabout the environmental impact.

Today, environmental knowledge is on therise. Many laws have come into force. Even so,the land and forest cover have decreased, freshwater resources are polluted, groundwater levelshave decreased and air pollution increased, lead-ing to a rise in several diseases (Krishna 2011).Vehicle emissions are responsible for 70% ofthe country’s air pollution. According to theSociety of Indian Automobile Manufacturers,annual vehicle sales are projected to increaseto 5 million by 2015 and more than 9 million

138

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 139

by 2020. This may worsen by 2050 as Indiais expected to top the world in car volumeswith approximately 611 million vehicles onthe nation’s roads (Ramanathan 2004). Prabhu(2009), former union environment minister ofIndia, said that the country has stringent laws fordealing with environmental issues, but the lawsare not being enforced. The people alone can’t beblamed; the government is equally responsible.Concerted and decisive actions are lacking onthe part of the government, as larger issues likeclimate change and Asian Brown Cloud are notadequately addressed.

On the basis of data collected between 1995and 2010, the experts panel of the WorldBank certified that India is one of the fastest-progressing countries in the world in terms ofaddressing environmental issues and improvingenvironmental quality (World Bank 2010). Still,India has a long way to go yet to reach theenvironmental quality enjoyed in developedeconomies. The challenge that India faces onthe pollution front is large indeed, and marketershave a great opportunity to develop environmen-tally friendly technologies and products (WorldBank 2011).

A number of countries have developedschemes in which a product that conforms toa set of criteria is granted a recognized sealof approval, better known as an eco-label. In1991 the Union Ministry of Environment andForests (MoEF) of India introduced a scheme tolabel certain consumer products as environmen-tally friendly. Under the scheme, the productsthat are less harmful to the environment andhuman health or have a benign impact on theenvironment through various stages of develop-ment, manufacture, use, packaging, distribution,consumption, disposal, and recycling may beawarded the eco-mark label. The scheme isexecuted with the help of the Central Pollu-tion Control Board and the Bureau of IndianStandards (BIS). The logo is that of an earthenpot, a symbol interwoven in the Indian wayof life. But as of 2013, not a single productcarries this mark. Godrej Soaps was awarded themark for their brand Eezee, but the company hassubsequently allowed its license to lapse (Suneja2010).

GREEN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Technological innovations, such as devel-opment of alternative fuels, energy-efficientappliances, and recycling of waste materialscan reduce environmental degradation and offerremarkable gains in conserving resources andreducing pollution, but many scientists andenvironmentalists hold that solutions to environ-mental problems do not lie in technology alone(Hardin 1993; Stern, Young, and Druckman1992). They suggest that individuals with ahigher level of environmental concern maymore likely engage in ecologically consciousconsumer behavior. To advance a country’sgreen revolution, McGougall (1993) asserts thatthe role of the consumer is essential, as 30%to 40% of environmental degradation has beenbrought about by consumption activities ofprivate households. Consumers need to adoptenvironmentally sound behavior that leads themto use public transportation, reduce the use ofnatural resources, and recycle household wastes.More importantly, if consumers exhibit a highdegree of ecological consciousness, marketerswill be strongly motivated to adopt green mar-keting and opt for eco-labeling. Thus, to betterunderstand the environmental movement of aparticular nation, an examination of how itsconsumers view and feel about ecological issuesultimately affecting their behavior serves as agood starting point (Chan 2001).

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Environmentally concerned behavior hasbeen given various names, e.g., eco-friendlybehavior, socially responsible behavior, etc.,and consumers possessing this behavior havebeen labeled as green consumers, socially con-scious consumers, etc. (Singh 2009). For theenvironmentally concerned consumer, reducingcurrent consumption amounts is not the onlyoption today, as green alternatives for manyproducts are available. Providing knowledge ongreen consumption choices is the onus of themarketers. Although higher price and limitedavailability may discourage consumption of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

140 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

green products (Orten and Atik 2009), there is agrowing amount of evidence showing that con-sumers are choosing products or avoiding othersbased on their impact on the natural environment(Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001).It is also suggested that green consumers arewilling to pay more for ecologically friendlyproducts (Coddington 1993).

Marketers should give clear and factual in-formation about the greenness of their activities(Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey 1995). Amongmothers in the UK who shop at supermarkets,most of them would favor products manufac-tured by greener companies, but they cannoteasily identify greener products (Pickett-Bakerand Ozaki 2008). The green consumer is anopinion leader and a careful shopper who seeksinformation on products from advertising butis also skeptical about advertising. Marketersmight cause consumers to doubt their envi-ronmental claims (Bloom 2008). Due to thecomplexities of green products and businesspractices, marketers do experience difficulty inconvincing consumers (Robert 2010). Environ-mental certification strengthens confidence ina product’s ecological claims. This would alsohelp to improve the brand attitude and brandequity (Rios et al. 2006). Eco-labeling is wellknown and respected among consumers, and itcould be very useful for marketers to differenti-ate themselves. Self-declared eco-labels have apositive effect on market efficiency, and sellersstand to benefit (Bougherara and Piguet 2009).

Generally, consumption is intended to makelife easier and more comfortable, which mayitself act as an impediment to green consumptionas it means sacrificing consumer comforts. Fol-lows and Jobber (2000) opined that the goals ofan individual’s self-indulgence and self-rewardact in a negative way on the environment. Butenvironmental concern need not necessarily bea predictor of attitudes and behavior regardingspecific or isolated acts (Conraud-Koellner andRivas-Tovar 2009). In fact, a person may show afavorable attitude toward the environment and anegative attitude toward recycling, consideringthis process to be uncomfortable. In Westerncountries the directions of local, state, andfederal governments are binding on consumers.But in poorer countries with a lack of a strong

institutional mechanism to act in favor of theenvironment, local citizens need to take upactivity to protect the environment themselves(Sammer and Wustenhagen 2006).

Dıaz and Palacio (2006) concluded that thegender, education, income, domestic conditions,and economical reinforcements can help tofind specific strategies to promote the greenconsumption. In addition, demographics, e.g.,the zone of residence, affect the way in whichconsumers recycle. Domestic conditions andthe existence of legal and economic incentivesalso fomented a slightly indifferent recyclingresponse.

Another important component of environ-mental responsibility is the willingness to act.Willingness to act, inferred as the locus ofcontrol (Hungerford and Yolk 1990; Hines,Hungerford, and Tomera 1987) pervades thearena of green consumption, as green purchasingbehavior depends on the individual’s inten-tion to purchase green products (Chan 1999).Consumers in the U.S. do not always basetheir buying decisions on their attitudes towardthe environment, even though these attitudescan have a fairly strong influence on theirpurchases (Vlosky, Ozanne, and Fontenot 1999)due to situational limitations. Hume (1991), onthe basis of consumers’ self-reported actions,concluded that although many consumers saythey are proenvironment, they often do notact that way. Several studies have been madeinvestigating the relationship between attitudestoward the environment and the buying ofproducts (Schwepker and Cornwell 1991; Rioset al. 2006) or the intentions of use (Alwitt andBerger 1993). It seems that a greater likelihoodto buy green products happens when consumersare more closely involved with the environment(Schuhwerk and Lefkokk-Hagius 1995). Indi-viduals with a strong internal locus of controlfeel more strongly about and are more willingto act to do something to save the environment(Hwang and Kim 2000). There is a positiverelationship between environmental concern andenvironmentally responsible intentions to act(McGuire 1992). Some consumers, however,may be willing to act, but not willing to makepersonal sacrifices (Krause 1993). Consumers’attitudes toward green purchases, in turn, are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 141

also found to affect their actual green purchasebehavior via the mediator role of green purchaseintention. However, one of the other importantfindings suggests that the link between intentionand actual purchase is weak (Mostafa 2007).The emotional bond of consumers toward theenvironment, often called “ecological affect” inthe literature, shows a consistency that supportsthe positive relationship between ecologicalaffect and the intention to buy environmen-tally friendly products in China (Chan 1999).Ling-yee (1997) found that consumers lacking inecological knowledge still have strong emotionabout the intention of buying environmentallyfriendly products. In the U.S., more than half ofall consumers actively consider environmentalsustainability characteristics in their buyingdecisions, but they buy green products in fewerthan a quarter of shopping occasions (Deloitteand GMA 2009).

Education is an important demographic vari-able influencing consumer behavior. The gen-eral perception is that education plays an im-portant role in encouraging change and thateducated consumers are more socially respon-sible. In several studies, a consistent hypothe-sized relationship was found between educationand green consumer behavior (Leonard-Barton1981; Roberts 1995, 1996; Roper 1990, 1992;Van Liere and Dunlap 1981; Zimmer, Stafford,and Stafford 1994; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003).Education is expected to be positively correlatedwith environmental concerns and behavior (Ko-hut and Shriver 1989; Vining and Ebreo 1990),but this relationship appears to be weakening(Gallup and Newport 1990; Hines et al. 1987).Although the results of studies examining edu-cation and environmental issues are somewhatmore consistent than other demographic vari-ables, a definitive relationship between the twovariables has not been established (Straughanand Roberts 1999). Indeed, a study on educationand sustained behavior change in adults showeda 0% correlation (Coradini et al. 2010). Kinnear,Taylor, and Ahmed (1974) had earlier found nosignificant relationship between education andenvironmental attitudes. Interestingly, the oppo-site relationship between education and environ-mental attitudes was also noticed (Samdahl andRobertson 1989). In support of this finding, in

the case of urban respondents in India, an inverserelationship is reported between educationallevel and the means of the quantified SociallyResponsible Consumer Behavior (Singh 2009).Thus, conflicting conclusions are there, and theproblem is wide open.

Education increases knowledge and an aware-ness of the advantages or risks. Universityteachers are one of the most highly educatedgroups segments that should be expected tohave high ecological awareness. This study seeksto extend knowledge about green consumerbehavior of university teachers, where virtuallyno research has been conducted in the realm ofeco-orientation among educated consumers.

THEORETICAL MODEL ANDRESEARCH HYPOTHESES

This study helps to identify the factors thatinfluence the willingness of university teachersto purchase green products and to distinguishbetween the teachers willing to purchase greenproducts and teachers who are not willingto purchase in terms of predictor variables.Figure 1 shows six main variables identifiedfrom the literature to provide further insightsabout willingness to purchase green products:environmental concern, comfort, lack of infor-mation, recycle, green shops, and eco-labeling,with the purpose of eventually applying them inenvironmental marketing strategies.

H1, H4, H5, and H6 are positively associatedwhile H2 and H3 are negatively associatedwith the willingness to purchase greenproducts.

The null hypothesis to distinguish betweenthe teachers willing to purchase green productsfrom teachers not willing to purchase in termsof predictor variables is stated as:

H0: There is no difference between teacherswilling to buy and not willing to buy greenproducts as measured by the relevant set ofenvironmental concern variables.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

142 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

FIGURE 1. Proposed Research Model for Willingness to Purchase Green Products

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

Lack of informa�on Willingness to

purchase green products

Recycle

Comfort

Environmental concern

Green shops

Eco-label

METHODOLOGY

The respondents were selected from theColleges of Arts and Commerce and Scienceand Technology of Andhra University, India.A questionnaire was designed by consideringrelevant questions from previous studies (e.g.,Straughan and Roberts 1999), but most of thequestions were specially developed for thisstudy. A pilot study consisting of 30 respondentswas made prior to designing the final versionof the questionnaire, in two sections. The firstsection is of demographic data, and the secondsection consists of 19 green consumer behavioritems. The method used to collect the data isdelivery and collection.

The teachers served with the questionnairewere 213 Science faculty and 162 Humanitiesfaculty, on rolls in August 2012. Out of the total375 served, a total of 160 teachers participated,that is, 43% of the population. Around a thirdof the participants (31%) are females. All thevariables used in this study are measured on a5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =strongly agree). The scale is reversed for neg-ative statements namely “Plastic carry bags aremore convenient and should not be banned” and“I usually consume the lowest-priced product,regardless of its impact on society.”

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

SPSS (16.0) software was used for analysisof the data. Simple percentages were used foranalysis of demographic data. To assess the re-liability of the collected data, Cronbach’s alphareliability test was performed on all the mea-sured items. Stepwise exploratory factor analysiswas used to determine the factors underlyinggreen consumer behavior of university teachers.The regression analysis was conducted in orderto find out the impact as well as predictorsamong the independent variables, i.e., greenconsumption variables on the willingness topurchase green products. Discriminant analysiswas applied to distinguish between the teacherswilling to purchase green products and teachersnot willing to purchase in terms of predictor, i.e.,independent variables (factors) and their relativeimportance, the dependant variable being thewillingness of the teachers to purchase greenproducts.

RESULTS

Reliability

The 19 items used to measure the awarenessabout the environmental impacts of products and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 143

TABLE 1. Demographic Profile ofRespondents

CharacteristicNumber of

respondents Percentage

Age<30 Years 3 1.930–40 Years 14 8.840–50 Years 39 24.450–60 Years 91 56.9>60 Years 13 8.1

GenderMale 111 69.4Female 49 30.6

Family size1 13 8.12 28 17.53 99 61.94 16 10.05 4 2.5

Monthly family income (Rs.)<50,000 ($1,000) 24 15.050,001–75,000

($1,000–1,500)27 16.9

75,001–1,00,000($1,500–2,000)

61 38.1

1,00,000–1,50,000($2,000–3,000)

1 0.6

1,50,000–2,00,000($3,000–4,000)

14 8.8

>2,00,000 ($4,000) 9 5.6Faculty of the respondents

Sciences 79 49.4Humanities 81 50.6

specific proenvironmental consumption amongthe university teachers had a validated reliabilitymeasure of 0.683 Cronbach’s alpha.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The demographic profile of the 160 respon-dents used in the study is provided in table 1. Amajority of the respondents are males belongingto the age group of 50 to 60 years and havingan average monthly family income between Rs.50,001 ($1,000) and Rs.1,00,000 ($2,000). Mostof them have three members in the family.As the respondents are all university teachers,their education level is PhD. The sample isalmost evenly distributed between sciences andhumanities faculty groups.

TABLE 2. Ranks of Purchasing Criteria

Criterion Price Q A B C EF MRE EE

Rank 2 1 8 4 3 5 7 6

Note. Q = quality; A = advertising; B = brand; C = certification;EF = environmentally friendly; MRE = manufacturers reputation forenvironment; EE = energy efficient.

Consumer Decisions

It is not uncommon to enter a retail outletwith the intention of purchasing a particularbrand but to leave with a different brand oradditional items. Various factors that supplyadditional information influence the consumerdecision. The decision criteria the consumersuse to evaluate and buy a brand or a productare useful data for marketers for segmentation,targeting, and positioning. Respondents wereasked to rank their decision criteria to understandthe importance of environmental concerns intheir purchasing decisions. The ranks given tovarious factors by the respondents are presentedin table 2.

The respondents ranked quality as a primefactor, and price was ranked second in theirconsumer decisions. Environmental concern wasranked fifth. Two-thirds of the respondents saidthat they buy green products, but 34% of therespondents buy the lowest priced productsregardless of their impact on the environment.This shows that there is a visible differencebetween environmental concern and behavior.

Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis was used in this researchto ascertain the factors influencing the greenconsumption behavior of educated consumers.Table 3 illustrates the mean scores of eachstatement of green consumer behavior. It wasfound that the sample respondents are awarethat the consumer behavior of each one of themcan have an impact on the environment andthat they should change to a green lifestyle,but unfortunately, they are too busy to do so.Respondents are moderate in their opinion aboutthe twin assertions of using a shopping bagto avoid plastic carry bags and that the plasticcarry bags are more convenient and should

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

144 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean

Each consumer’s behavior can have an impacton the environment.

4.11

They should change to green lifestyle but aretoo busy to do so.

2.99

Using the shopping bag to avoid plastic carrybags.

3.48

The plastic carry bags are more convenient andshould not be banned.

3.02

Separate shops to sell environmentally friendlyproducts.

3.43

Consider changing consumer durablesfrequently causes damage to the environment(SD = 1.27).

3.57

Switched products for ecological reasons. 3.86To save energy they drive their vehicles as little

as possible.3.94

Try to buy energy-saving efficient householdappliances.

4.14

Purchase the products that can be recycled. 3.79Purchase the lowest-priced product, regardless

of its impact on society.2.71

Whenever possible they purchase the productsin reusable containers.

3.21

They are not sure which products and packingmaterial are recyclable.

2.95

Marketers must advertise the environmentalaspects of their products.

4.20

Respondents trust the eco claims in theadvertisements.

3.91

Government must make eco-labelingmandatory.

4.15

Purchase the products if they are certified byenvironmental organizations.

3.96

not be banned. They feel that there must beseparate shops to sell environmentally friendlyproducts and moderately agree that changingconsumer durables frequently causes damage tothe environment.

Consumer awareness plays an important rolein purchasing behavior. To determine the aware-ness of green products among the respondents,they were asked to select from a list of somegreen consumer products. A majority of respon-dents (82.5%) are aware of all the availableproducts. The rest are aware of the commongreen consumer products, namely paper, cotton,jute bags, and solar-powered products.

The consumers switched products for ecolog-ical reasons. To save energy, they drive theirvehicles as little as possible and try to buyenergy-saving efficient household appliances

and to purchase products that can be recycled.At the same time, they usually purchase thelowest-priced product, regardless of its impacton society. Whenever possible, they purchaseproducts in reusable containers. They are notsure which products and packing materials arerecyclable.

When asked about their information sourcesfor green products, a majority of the respon-dents (33%) identified both internal and ex-ternal sources, followed by print magazinesand TV (25%), friends and relatives (11.9%),past experience (9.4%), advertisements (6.3%),and government agencies (5.6%). Somewhatless useful were websites (3.8%), consumergroups (2.5%), product trials (0.6%), and salespersonnel (0.6%).

University teachers strongly agree that mar-keters must advertise the environmental aspectsof their products, as they (the respondents)trust the eco-claims in the advertisements. Theystrongly consider that government should makeeco-labeling mandatory, as the respondents dogo by the certification from environmental orga-nizations in their purchase behavior.

Results of Factor Analysis

Table 4 presents the summary of factoranalysis. The results of the principal compo-nents factor analysis using varimax rotationyielded eight factors that explained 64.32% ofthe variance. The first three factors, namelyenvironmental concern, eco-labeling, and lackof information, together explain as much ashalf (33.4%) of the variance. The fourth factor,which explains 6.57% of the variance, is labeled“recycle.” The fifth factor, which explained6.56% of the variance, is labeled “comfort.” Thesixth factor, explaining 6.21% of the variance,is labeled “purchasing intention.” The seventhfactor, explaining 5.86% of the variance, islabeled “preference of green outlet.” The eighthfactor, explaining 5.7% of variance, is labeled“awareness of green outlets.”

Multiple Regression Analysis

The regression analysis was conducted to testthe hypotheses to find out the relationship be-tween green consumption variables and the will-ingness of university teachers to purchase green

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 145

TABLE 4. Factors Influencing Green Purchase Behavior

FactorFactor

interpretation% Varianceexplained Loading Variables included in the factor

F1 Environmental 13.3 0.795 I try to buy energy-efficient household appliances.concern 0.690 I try to buy products that can be recycled.

0.676 Each consumer’s behavior can have an impact on theenvironment.

0.653 To save energy, I drive my vehicle as little as possible.0.531 I have switched products for ecological reasons.

F2 Eco-labeling 10.54 0.652 Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusablecontainers.

0.638 I purchase the green products if they are certified byEnvironmental Organization.

0.631 I trust the eco-friendly claims in the advertisements.0.562 Marketers must advertise the environmental aspects of their

products.0.523 Government must make eco-labeling mandatory.

F3 Lack of 9.56 0.741 I have doubts about the true impact of green products.information 0.666 I am not sure which products and packing material are recyclable.

0.656 I do not have the information to be personally involved in greenbehavior.

0.632 I know that I should change to a green lifestyle, but I’m too busy.F4 Recycle 6.57 0.779 Changing the consumer durables (Ex. TV, refrigerator,

computers, etc) frequently causes damage to the environment.0.511 I use shopping bag to avoid plastic carry bags.

F5 Comfort 6.56 0.730 Plastic carry bags are more convenient and should not bebanned.

0.700 I usually purchase the lowest-priced product, regardless of itsimpact on society.

F6 Purchaseintention

6.21 0.818 You or another member of your family buy green products ifavailable.

F7 Preference ofgreen outlet

5.86 0.873 There must be separate shops to sell environmentally friendlyproducts.

F8 Awareness ofgreen outlets

5.70 0.875 Awareness of any exclusive shops for environmentally friendlyproducts.

products in order to strengthen the proposition.The collinearity statistics in table 5 indicate thatthere is no multicollinearity problem since thevariance inflation factor (VIF) is less than 5(Malhotra 1999). The value of adjusted R2 showsthat 58.9% of the variability in willingness topurchase green products is explained by greenconsumption variables. The model also showsthat F value of analysis of variance (ANOVA) is29.455 (p < .000), which indicates that all thevariables are associated with the willingness.

From the regression analysis, comfort, lackof information, recycle, and eco-labeling havelarger positive coefficients and hence signifi-cantly influence willingness, thereby supportingH2, H3, H4, and H6. Hence, these variablesare better taken into consideration in order to

influence the university teachers to purchasegreen products. Unpredictably, eco-labeling hasa significant negative influence on willingness.But environmental concern, preference, andawareness of green outlets (H1 and H5) also havenegative but insignificant coefficients towardgreen purchase behavior. Hence H1 and H5 arenot supported.

Results of Discriminant Analysis

In table 6, Wilks’ lambda, which testedfunction for statistical significance and thestepwise analysis, identified one discriminantfunction that is statistically significant. TheWilks’ lambda associated with discriminantfunction is 0.786, which transforms to a chi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

146 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 5. Multiple Regression Analysis

Model B SE t Sig. Collinearity statistics (VIF)

Constant 1.362 0.031 43.398 0.000Environmental concern −0.010 0.031 −0.198 0.844 1.000Eco-labeling −0.210 0.031 −4.136 0.000 1.000Lack of information 0.173 0.031 3.398 0.001 1.000Recycle 0.259 0.031 5.085 0.000 1.000Comfort 0.652 0.031 12.816 0.000 1.000Preference for green outlets 0.032 0.031 0.623 0.534 1.000Awareness of green outlets −0.022 0.031 −0.437 0.663 1.000

Note. Adjusted R2 = 0.589 for model; F value of ANOVA = 29.455; p value < 0.000.

square of 35.482 with 22 degrees of freedom andis significant at a 0.034 level. It indicated a sig-nificant overall difference between the groups.

The classification results in table 7 show thatthe teachers who are willing to consume greenproducts are the more accurately classified with91.1% of the cases correct. For the teachers notwilling to buy, 43.8% of the cases were correctlyclassified. Overall, the original grouped casesthat were classified correctly are 76.9%, which isa good predictive function. Between the teacherswho are willing and not willing to buy, the classi-fication accuracy is significantly different, beingmuch higher (91.1%) for the willing teachers(cases) than of the unwilling teachers (43.8%).

The results of labeled tests of equality ofgroup means (table 8) show which factorsdiffer between purchasing green products, on aunivariate basis. Among the green consumptionvariables, switching products for ecologicalreasons, preference of ecological quality, plasticcarry bags should not be banned (scale reversed)differ (p < 0.05) for the two groups. Thus thesevariables differ significantly between the twogroups. We see that teachers who are willing tobuy have more favorable consideration of greenproducts.

TABLE 6. Wilks’ Lambda

Test offunction(s)

Wilks’lambda

Chi-square df Sig.

1 0.786 35.482 22 0.034

To consider the variables from a multivariateperspective (discriminant analysis), the pooledwithin groups correlations between discrimi-nating variables and the function shown inthe structure matrix (table 9) were used. Theloadings in the structure matrix are not inter-preted unless they are 0.30 or higher (Hair,Bush, and Ortinau 2006). Switching productsfor ecological reasons, preference of ecologicalquality, and plastic carry bags should not bebanned are the three green consumption vari-ables that help us to predict registering groupmembership.

The group statistics present the distributionof observations into two groups. To furtherinterpret the discriminant function, the groupmeans in the group statistics are used. For allthree variables, switching products for ecolog-ical reasons, preference of ecological quality,and plastic carry bags are more convenientand should not be banned, the teachers whoare willing to buy green products had morefavorable consideration (mean values for thisgroup are all higher). Thus the environmentalissues are significantly more important for thisgroup. This finding can be valuable to thecompanies that initiate green strategies.

The null hypothesis (H0) is not supported, andthere appeared a high degree of discriminationbetween groups.

DISCUSSION

The study found that environmental concernis not significantly associated with willingnessto purchase green products. This contradicts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 147

TABLE 7. Classification Results

Predicted groupmembership

Do you or another member of your family buygreen products if available? Yes No Total

Original Count Yes 102 10 112No 27 21 48

% Yes 91.1 8.9 100.0No 56.3 43.8 100.0

Note. 76.9% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

the earlier studies that concluded that the moreclosely the consumers are involved with theenvironment, the more likely they are to buygreen products (Alwitt and Berger 1993; Schuh-

werk and Lefkokk-Hagius 1995; Vlosky et al.1999; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991; Rios et al.2006). Astonishingly, the university teachers’high education and environmental concern are

TABLE 8. Tests of Equality of Group Means

Wilks’lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

Each consumer’s behavior can have an impact on theenvironment.

0.995 0.800 1 158 0.373

I have switched products for ecological reasons. 0.968 5.29 1 158 0.023To save energy, I drive my vehicle as little as possible. 0.999 0.208 1 158 0.649I try to buy energy-efficient household appliances. 0.998 0.350 1 158 0.555I try to buy products that can be recycled. 0.999 0.172 1 158 0.679I am not sure which products and packing material are

recyclable.0.981 3.058 1 158 0.082

I have doubts about the true impact of green products. 0.980 3.275 1 158 0.072Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable

containers.0.999 0.082 1 158 0.775

Which quality you prefer while purchasing a product? 0.958 6.884 1 158 0.010I use a shopping bag to avoid plastic carry bags. 0.989 1.831 1 158 0.178I usually purchase the lowest-priced product, regardless of

its impact on society.0.997 0.540 1 158 0.464

There must be separate shops to sell environmentallyfriendly products.

0.998 0.324 1 158 0.570

Plastic carry bags are more convenient and should not bebanned.

0.968 5.216 1 158 0.024

Government must make eco-labeling mandatory. 0.994 0.976 1 158 0.325I do not have the information to be personally involved in

green behavior.0.995 0.758 1 158 0.385

Marketers must advertise the environmental aspects of theirproducts.

0.999 0.171 1 158 0.680

I trust the eco-friendly claims in the advertisements. 0.985 2.360 1 158 0.126I purchase the green products if they are certified by

Environmental Organization.0.988 1.892 1 158 0.171

Changing the consumer durables (ex. TV, refrigerator,computers, etc.) frequently causes damage to theenvironment.

0.992 1.223 1 158 0.270

Who is responsible to develop the environmental concernamong consumers?

0.991 1.434 1 158 0.233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

148 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 9. Structure Matrix

Variable Function

1Which quality you prefer while purchasing a product? 0.400I have switched products for ecological reasons. 0.351Plastic carry bags are more convenient and should not be banned. 0.348I have doubts about the true impact of green products. –0.276I am not sure which products and packing materials are recyclable. –0.266I trust the eco-friendly claims in the advertisements. –0.234I know that I should change to a green lifestyle, but I’m too busy. –0.229I purchase the green products if they are certified by Environmental Organization. –0.209I use a shopping bag to avoid plastic carry bags. 0.206Who is responsible to develop the environmental concern among consumers? 0.182Changing the consumer durables (ex. TV, refrigerator, computers, etc.) frequently causes damage to the

environment.–0.168

Government must make eco-labeling mandatory. –0.150Each consumer’s behavior can have an impact on the nvironment. –0.136I do not have the information to be personally involved in green behavior. –0.133I usually purchase the lowest-priced product, regardless of its impact on society. –0.112I try to buy energy-efficient household appliances. 0.090There must be separate shops to sell environmentally friendly products. 0.087To save energy, I drive my vehicle as little as possible. 0.069I try to buy products that can be recycled. 0.063Marketers must advertise the environmental aspects of their products. 0.063Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. 0.044

not reflected in their willingness to purchasegreen products. This supports the studies thatfound either no relationship (Kinnear et al. 1974)or an inverse relationship between education andenvironmental concern (Samdahl and Robertson1989; Coradini et al. 2010; Mostafa 2007; Hume1991).

Comfort of the teachers is found to have anegative association, which indicates that theteachers’ willingness to go for green purchaseis negatively influenced by their comfort asthe teachers feel that the plastic bags are moreconvenient and should not be banned and theypurchase low-priced products regardless of theirimpact on society. The result thus indicatesthat with 65.2% influence, comfort is a moreimportant determinant of the university teach-ers’ willingness to purchase green products.Consumption is expected to make life easierand more comfortable, and it may act as animpediment to green consumption, if it involvessacrificing comfort. This finding is consistentwith several studies in which the consumerswere found to only exhibit lip service andno practical willingness for eco-friendly con-

sumption (Follows and Jobber 2000; Sammerand Wustenhagen 2006; Conraud-Koellner andRivas-Tovar 2009).

Lack of information (17.3%) negatively in-fluences willingness to purchase green products.The university teachers, despite their knowl-edge of the environmental issues, are skepticalabout the environmental claims of marketers.They need information about green productsto evaluate and to commit to green purchase.The marketers should give clear and factualinformation about the greenness of their ac-tivities to promote green shopping. This find-ing supports the earlier studies (Ismail andPanni 2008; Jain and Kaur 2006; Bloom 2008;Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008; Shrum et al.1995).

The strength of association of the variableRecycle is positive, with 25.9% variance inwillingness to purchase green products. In ad-dition to their education and status, domesticconditions and the existence of legal and eco-nomic incentives also foment a slightly differentrecycling response, as explained in the literature(Diaz and Palacio 2006; Deloitte and GMA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 149

2009). The university teachers, despite their higheducation and exalted status in society, haveexpressed skepticism about the true impact ofgreen products and the reusability and recycla-bility of various products.

Unexpectedly, eco-labeling is not associatedwith willingness to purchase green products, andthis contradicts the previous studies that empha-sized the positive influence of eco-labeling onconsumer behavior (Rios et al. 2006; Bougheraraand Piguet 2009). Eco-labeling was introducedin India, but it is neither preferred by companies(Suneja 2010) nor promoted by the government.Consequently teachers are not aware of it. Thereare indeed some teachers whose main concernsare for factors such as price, quality, brand, etc.,of the product rather than the environment. Thereare several quality labels that are issued andpromoted by the Indian government, such asISI, Agmark, BIS, etc., for different products.Over the years, these labels have come to beaccepted by consumers due to quality assurance.But in the case of green products, as there are noeconomic gains involved, the government hasa big task. Making eco-labeling mandatory isone measure in the hands of the government,and realistic appealing to the saner senses of theconsumers on the benefits of green consumptionby the companies are twin steps that can makegreen purchases more popular. Eco-labelingencourages green behavior as the teachers canperceive the green products, and it can be used bymarketers for product differentiation and to gaincompetitive advantage. The 20 years of inactionsince the introduction of the eco-labeling schemeby MoEF needs be rectified.

As the university teachers need environmentalinformation to initiate green purchases, it wasexpected that green shops could satisfy thisneed. Surprisingly, green shops do not showany influence, as preference and availability ofgreen shops do not have significant associationwith willingness to purchase green products.Green marketers need not search for green shopsto sell their products; they can focus on otherpromotional activities.

Teachers believe that frequent change of con-sumer durables causes environmental pollution.To increase the sales of their products, marketersshould convince the teachers to exchange their

products for new ones and that the old productscan be recycled. The exchange benefit offeredshould be above the differential threshold levelso that the teachers (consumers) can perceivethe benefit of exchange of their old product.This reduces teachers’ guilt about causing en-vironmental damage by changing the productsand provides the marketers’ demand for theirproducts.

There is a clear positive response to banplastic carry bags, and the teachers prefer touse their own cloth or jute shopping bags.Proenvironmental associations and media canplay an important role in discouraging usage ofplastic bags by teachers with little effort. Theyhave to use natural materials instead of plastics,and the retailers should encourage customersto bring their shopping bag by charging extrafor carry bags or by giving some discountfor using shopping bags. Recently the Indiangovernment has banned the use of plastic bagsby retailers, but the implementation has not beeneffective.

Teachers are going in for energy-savingpractices so as to save on the energy bill, aswas also found in a previous study (Larocheet al. 2001). Energy saving is an importantfactor indirectly resulting in teachers’ greenbehavior. But this behavior is due to the expectedsavings, i.e., reduced power and water billsrather than environmental concern. Marketingstrategy should incorporate savings informationthat can result from the use of their products.

A third (34%) of the teachers purchaselow-priced products, regardless of their impacton the environment, and it is interesting thateven for this elitist group the members ofwhich realize their responsibility toward theenvironment, price constitutes the second majorbuying criterion, right after quality. As price is abarrier to green consumption, lowering the priceis bound to increase green consumer behavior.Government should play its responsible role byproviding incentives and tax cuts to companiesthat go in for green manufacturing and market-ing, which will result in the prices becomingcompetitive for acceptance by the consumers.

Switching products for ecological reasons,preference of ecological quality, and plasticcarry bags are more convenient and should not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

150 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

be banned are good discriminators that can beused by marketers to identify the prospectiveeducated green segment.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results provide interesting andpotentially useful insights about green consump-tion behavior of the educated segment thatwas not available in earlier studies. Universityteachers understand the challenges currentlyfaced by the environment and are aware of theexistence of environmental activism. But theirconcerns do not always translate into greenpurchase behavior, and they entertain a feeling ofself-responsibility to alter their present behaviorto one of environmentally friendly green con-sumption behavior. In this transformation, theyneed information on availability, reusability,and impact of green products on the environ-ment from marketers. The highest educationof the university teachers does not guarantee agreen purchase decision over quality and price.The government, companies, consumers, andthe organizations working for the protectionof the environment should pool their effortsto inculcate green consumer behavior amongconsumers in general and the educated segmentin particular, as they can establish a trend thatmay be followed by other sections of society.

Future Research

While it is believed that the present surveyhas contributed to understanding the factorscontributing to green consumption by a highlyeducated segment, the results so derived shouldbe interpreted with caution and viewed as a foun-dation for more thorough follow-up research.Many studies need be conducted in various otherhighly educated segments to unravel factors spe-cific to those conditions that lead to willingnessto purchase green products. Comparative studyof green behavior of educated segments in dif-ferent countries is warranted. In-depth studies ofenvironmental concern in each behavioral aspectof different groups of consumers, i.e., searching,purchasing, using, evaluating, and disposingmay help companies assuredly realize their sales

targets. And this would be a win-win situationfor the company-consumer-environment trio.

REFERENCES

Alwitt, L., and I. Berger. 1993. Understanding the linkbetween environmental attitudes and consumer productusage: Measuring the moderating role of attitudestrength. In Advances in consumer research, ed. L.McAlister and M. Rothschild, Vol. 20, 189–194. Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Bloom, J. 2008. Marketers, not consumers, needenvironmental education. Advertising Age, April28. http://adage.com/article/jonah-bloom/marketers-consumers-environmental-education/126658/.

Bougherara, D., and V. Piguet. 2009. Market behaviorwith environmental quality information costs. Journalof Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 7 (2):1–28.

Chan, R. Y. K. 1999. Environmental attitudes and behaviorof consumers in China: Survey findings and implica-tions. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11(4): 25–52.

Chan, R. Y. K. 2001. Determinants of Chinese consumers’green consumer behavior. Psychology and Marketing18 (4): 389–413.

Coddington, W. 1993. Environmental marketing: Positivestrategies for reaching the green consumer. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Conraud-Koellner, E., and L. A. Rivas-Tovar. 2009. Studyof green behavior with a focus on Mexican individuals.iBusiness 1 (2): 124–131. doi:10.4236/ib.2009.12016

Coradini, E. B., W. L. Dortch, L. L. P. Davis, andT. Crawford. 2010. Changing attitudes about green.Electric Light and Power 88 (2): 48–49.

Czinkota, M. R., C. J. Skuba, X. Hu, C. Wang, R. W.Scott, M. Wagreich, and L. Jansa. 2009. Rise of theconsumer: Leaders from business, policy and researchshare concerns about the changing global businessenvironment. Marketing Management 18 (5): 10–11.

Deloitte and GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association).2009. Finding the green in today’s shoppers:Sustainability trends and new shopper insights.https://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Lebanon/Local% 20Assets / Documents / Consumer % 20Business /DeloitteGreenShopperStudy 2009.pdf (accessed onJanuary 10, 2012).

Dıaz, M., and B. Palacio. 2006. El proceso de adopcionde la conducta de reciclado: Modelos explicativosy variables moderadoras [The adoption process ofrecycling behavior: Explanatory models and moderatingvariables]. Cuadernos de Economıa y Direccion de laEmpresa 28:55–86.

Diamantopoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics,and G. M. Bohlen. 2003. Can socio-demographics still

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

Rajyalakshmi Nittala 151

play a role in profiling green consumers? A review ofthe evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal ofBusiness Research 56 (2): 465–480.

Follows, S. B., and D. Jobber. 2000. Environmentallyresponsible purchase behavior: A test of a consumermodel. European Journal of Marketing 34 (5/6):723–746.

Gallup, G., Jr., and F. Newport. 1990. Americans stronglyin tune with the purpose of Earth Day 1990. Gallup PollMonthly 295:5–14.

Hair, J. F., Jr., R. P. Bush, and D. J. Ortinau. 2006. Marketingresearch within a changing information environment.3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hardin, G. 1993. Living within limits: Ecology, economics,and population taboos. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera.1987. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsibleenvironmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journalof Environmental Education 18 (2): 1–8.

Hume, S. 1991. Consumer doubletalk makes companieswary. Advertising Age 62 (46): GR4.

Hungerford, H. R., and T. K. Yolk. 1990. Changing learnerbehavior through environmental education. The Journalof Environmental Education 21 (3): 8–21.

Hwang, H. Y., and S.-I. Kim. 2000. Examining the causalrelationship among selected antecedents of responsibleenvironmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Ed-ucation 31 (4): 19–26.

Ismail, B. H., and M. F. A. K. Panni. 2008. Consumerperceptions on the consumerism issues and its influenceon their purchasing behavior: A view from Malaysianfood industry. Journal of Legal, Ethical and RegulatoryIssues 11 (1): 44–64.

Jain S. K., and G. Kaur. 2006. Role of socio-demographicsin segmenting and profiling green consumers: AnExploratory study of consumers in India. Journalof International Consumer Marketing 18 (3): 107–146.

Kinnear, T. C., J. R. Taylor, and S. A. Ahmed. 1974.Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they?Journal of Marketing 38 (2): 20–24.

Kohut, A., and J. Shriver. 1989. Environment regaininga foothold on the national agenda. Gallup Report285:2–12.

Krause, D. 1993. Environmental consciousness: An empir-ical study. Environment and Behavior 25 (1): 126–142.

Krishna, N. 2011. Awareness up but more green actionneeded. Times of India, December 29.

Laroche, M., J. Bergeron, and G. Barbaro-Forleo. 2001.Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for en-vironmentally friendly products. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 18 (6): 503–520.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1981. Voluntary simplicity lifestylesand energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Re-search 8 (3): 243–252.

Ling-yee, L. 1997. Effect of collectivist orientation andecological attitude on actual environmental commit-ment: The moderating role of consumer demographicsand product involvement. Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing 9 (4): 31–53.

Malhotra, N. K. 1999. Marketing research: An appliedorientation. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

McGougall, G. H. G. 1993. The green movement inCanada: Implications for marketing strategy. Journalof International Consumer Marketing 5:69–87.

McGuire, J. R. 1992. An examination of environmentalattitudes among college students. Master’s thesis, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn-sylvania.

Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). n.d. Homepage. http://envfor.nic.in/ (accessed on January 10,2012).

Mostafa, M. M. 2007. A hierarchical analysis of the greenconsciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychologyand Marketing 24 (5): 445–473.

Orten, T., and D. Atik. 2009. Environmentally friendlyconsumption preferences: Understanding the impact ofconsumption routines. Advances in Consumer Research36:822–824.

Pickett-Baker, J., and R. Ozaki. 2008. Pro-environmentalproducts: Marketing influence on consumer decision.Journal of Consumer Marketing 25 (5): 281–293.

Prabhu, S. 2009. Strict implementation of laws: Need ofthe hour. Times of India, June 9.

Ramanathan, S. K. 2004. India to top in carvolumes by 2050. http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/oct/23car.htm (accessed January 1, 2012).

Rios, F. J. M., T. L. Martınez, F. F. Moreno, and P. C.Soriano. 2006. Improving attitudes toward brands withenvironmental associations: An experimental approach.The Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (1): 26–34.

Robert, K. 2010. Which one is the actual green product?Adweek 51 (16): 10–13.

Roberts, J. A. 1995. Profiling levels of socially responsibleconsumer behavior: A cluster analytic approach andits implications for marketing. Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice 3 (4): 97–117.

Roberts, J. A. 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profileand implications for advertising. Journal of BusinessResearch 36 (3): 217–231.

Roper Organization. 1990. The environment: Public at-titudes and individual behavior. Racine, WI: S. C.Johnson.

Roper Organization. 1992. Environmental behavior, NorthAmerica: Canada, Mexico, and United States. NewYork: S. C. Johnson.

Samdhal, D. M., and R. Robertson. 1989. Social determi-nants of environmental concern: Specifications and testof the model. Environment and Behavior 21 (1): 57–81.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5

152 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Sammer, K., and R. Wustenhagen. 2006. The influenceof eco-labeling on consumer behavior—Results of adiscrete choice analysis for washing machines. BusinessStrategy and the Environment 15:185–199.

Schuhwerk, M., and R. Lefkokk-Hagius. 1995. Green ornongreen? Does type of appeal matter when adver-tising a green product? Journal of Advertising 24:45–55.

Schwepker, C., and T. Cornwell. 1991. An examination ofecologically concerned consumers and their intentionto purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal ofPublic Policy and Marketing 10 (2): 77–101.

Shrum, L. J., J. A. McCarty, and T. M. Lowrey. 1995. Buyercharacteristics of the green consumer and their implica-tions for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising 24(2): 71–82.

Singh, N. 2009. Exploring socially responsible behaviorof Indian consumers: An empirical investigation. SocialResponsibility Journal 5 (2): 200–211.

Stern, P. C., O. R. Young, and D. Druckman (Eds.).1992. Global environmental change: Understandingthe human dimensions. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Straughan, R. D., and J. A. Roberts. 1999. Environmentalsegmentation alternatives: A look at green consumerbehavior in the new millennium. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 16 (6): 558–575.

Suneja, K. 2010. Govt’s eco-mark scheme fails to gainmomentum even after 19 years. Business Standard,August 2.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).2011. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. http://www.unep-wcmc.org (accessed January 14, 2012).

Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap. 1981. Environmentalconcern: Does it make a difference? How it’s measured?Environment and Behavior 13:651–676.

Vining, J., and A. Ebreo. 1990. What makes a recycler? Acomparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environmentand Behavior 22 (1): 55–73.

Vlosky, R., L. Ozanne, and R. Fontenot. 1999. A conceptualmodel of US consumer willingness-to-pay for environ-mental certified wood products. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 16 (2): 122–140.

World Bank. 2010. The little green data book. http://www-wds.worldbank.org / external / default / WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/07/06/000333038 20100706034730/Rendered/PDF/555420PUB0litt1PI19564496001PUBLIC1.pdf (accessed January 14, 2012).

World Bank. 2011. Environment assessment, coun-try data: India. http://data.worldbank.org/country/india(accessed January 14, 2012).

Zimmer, M. R., T. F. Stafford, and M. R. Stafford. 1994.Green issues dimensions of environmental concern.Journal of Business Research 30 (1): 63–74.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

39.3

2.60

.100

] at

13:

34 2

4 M

arch

201

5