Mr. Dugger's Science Class - Home · Mr. Dugger's Science Class - Home
(Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt
-
Upload
it-the-official-page -
Category
Marketing
-
view
42 -
download
0
Transcript of (Mr)class a02b group7_presentationppt
AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER’S CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTRIACAL APPLIANCES WITH ENERGY LABEL
SPD3125 Marketing Research Class: A02B Group: 7
Tsang Hei Tung, Anna (13626998S)Wong Wai Kin, Chris (13610687S)
Yeung Wing Shan, Koey (13017542S)Yim Chin Wai, Molly (13625824S)
Yip Hei Man, Michael (13609850S)
Agenda1. Introduction
2.1 Research Objective2. 2 Management Decision Problem & Marketing Research Problem2. 3 Research Question2. 4 Hypothesis
2. Research Design3. 1 Data Collected Method3. 2 Questionnaire Design
3. Data Findings and Analysis4. Conclusions
5. 1 Managerial Implication & Recommendations
5. References6. Appendices
Introduction
Western studies Growing more environment conscious
Green Marketing Create a competitive advantage
A survey of 2,014 U.S aged 18 and older was conducted April,2010→ 67% : consider themselves buyers of green products have retained their level of green purchases.→ 25% : increased their green buying in light
A report of Centre for Retail Research (2010)→ had soared to 56 billion euros ($68.6 billion) in 2009 from 10.3 billion in 2010→2015, they would approximately double to 114 billion euros
Introduction
In Hong Kong, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department runs a voluntary Energy Efficiency Labeling Scheme (EELS) for appliances and equipment, and for petrol-powered vehicles.
→ select more energy-efficient products→ achieve actual energy savings.
Research Objective
To analysis the relationship between green perceived value, green perceived risk, green trust and green purchase intention
Management Decision Problem• How to enhance the penetration of using the electrical appliances with energy label?
Specific Research Objectives• How these factors affect the purchase intention differently or jointly?
Marketing Research Problem1. How do customers decide on purchasing green product?2. What benefit is expected when customers are purchasing green product?3. How green products fulfill the expectation of customers?
Research Question
1. Green Perceived Value(How perceived value affect trust and purchase intention?)
2. Green Perceived Risk(How perceived risk affect trust and purchase intention?)
3. Green Trust (Is trust important for increasing purchase intention?)
4. Green Purchase Intention (How purchase intention being affected?)
Hypothesis
• H1: Green perceived value is positively associated with green trust.
• H2: Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green trust.
• H3: Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions.
• H4: Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase
intentions.
• H5: Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase
intentions.
• H6: Sex and the purchase of the appliances with Energy Efficiency
Labelling are related
Research Design
• Conclusive research design• Cross-sectional design• Advantages:– Easier for testing– Representative sampling
• Primary Data– Survey
• Secondary Data– Journals from Internet
Sampling Design
• Nonprobability sampling– Convenience sampling– Snowball sampling
• 250 participants• Choose the sample to send randomly and ask to forward
Data Collection:• Total returned:250• Excluding 27 with
no relevant experience• Final sample size: 223
Questionnaire Design
Questionnaire
Screening Question
Variables
Personal Information
Construct Table
Construct Table
Construct Table
Construct Table
Data Analysis & Findings
Gender Age
Data Analysis & Findings
Education level Income levels
Data Analysis & Findings
Descriptive Statistic
Perceived Value• Interviewee have the strongest agreement in the electrical appliances with energy
label have an acceptable standard of quality and energy label are economical
Descriptive Statistic
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DeviationValue consistent quality 223 1 7 4.68 1.224
Value reasonably price 222 2 7 4.75 1.063
Value for money 221 2 7 4.69 1.102
value acceptable quality
223 1 7 5.20 1.052
Value economical 216 1 7 5.07 1.061
Valid N (listwise) 216
Data Analysis & Findings
Descriptive Statistic
Perceived Risk• Fewer people agree that they will suffer less on penalty and loss and harm on the
environment
N Minimum Maximum
Mean Std. Deviation
Risk wrong performance
223 1 7 4.21 1.254
Risk wrong design 222 1 7 4.12 1.293
Risk penalty & loss 220 1 6 3.53 1.343
Risk negatively affect environment
219 1 7 3.61 1.447
Valid N (listwise) 216
Descriptive Statistic
Data Analysis & Findings
Descriptive StatisticGreen Trust• People do not have a preference towards one of the factor of trust• An average result towards reliable, dependable, trustworthy, meet customer’s
expectation and keep promises & commitment
Descriptive Statistic
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Trust reliable 223 2 7 4.89 1.027
Trust dependable 222 2 7 4.97 1.024
Trust trustworthy 223 1 7 5.03 0.986
Trust meet expectations 220 1 7 4.91 1.069
Trust keep promises & commitments
220 2 7 5.04 1.057
Valid N (listwise) 216
Data Analysis & Findings
Descriptive Statistic
Green Purchase Intention• People are willing to purchase appliances with energy label and continue purchasing them• They have a relatively lower intention in spending more on appliances with energy labels.
N Minimum Maximum
Mean Std. Deviation
Intension desire to buy
223 1 7 5.15 1.224
Intension spend more
221 1 7 4.95 1.125
Intension continue to buy
220 1 7 5.13 1.128
Intension recommend to others
219 2 7 5.50 0.999
Valid N (listwise) 215
Descriptive Statistic
Data Analysis & Findings
H1: Green perceived value is positively associated with green trust.Correlation
Green Purchase Intention
Green Trust
Green Perceived Risk
Green Perceived Value
Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
1
215
.722**.000209
-.163**.009212
.531**.000209
Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.722**.000209
1
216
-.147*.016210
.576**.000207
Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
-.163**.009212
-.147*.016210
1
216
-.144*.019210
Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.531**.000209
.576**.000207
-.144*.019210
1
213
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
r = 0.576Fair relationshipPositive relationship
p-value=0.01 < 0.01
Accepted the hypothesis
Data Analysis & Findings
H2. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green trust.Correlation
Green Purchase Intention
Green Trust
Green Perceived Risk
Green Perceived Value
Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
1
215
.722**.000209
-.163**.009212
.531**.000209
Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.722**.000209
1
216
-.147*.016210
.576**.000207
Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
-.163**.009212
-.147*.016210
1
216
-.144*.019210
Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.531**.000209
.576**.000207
-.144*.019210
1
213
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
r = -0.147Weak relationshipNegative relationship
p-value=0.016 < 0.05
Accepted the hypothesis
Data Analysis & Findings
H3. Green trust is positively associated with green purchase intentions.Correlation
Green Purchase Intention
Green Trust
Green Perceived Risk
Green Perceived Value
Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
1
215
.722**.000209
-.163**.009212
.531**.000209
Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.722**.000209
1
216
-.147*.016210
.576**.000207
Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
-.163**.009212
-.147*.016210
1
216
-.144*.019210
Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.531**.000209
.576**.000207
-.144*.019210
1
213
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
r = 0.722Strong relationshipPositive relationship
p-value=0.000 < 0.01
Accepted the hypothesis
Data Analysis & Findings
H4. Green perceived value is positively associated with green purchase intentions.
Correlation
Green Purchase Intention
Green Trust
Green Perceived Risk
Green Perceived Value
Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
1
215
.722**.000209
-.163**.009212
.531**.000209
Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.722**.000209
1
216
-.147*.016210
.576**.000207
Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
-.163**.009212
-.147*.016210
1
216
-.144*.019210
Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.531**.000209
.576**.000207
-.144*.019210
1
213
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
r = 0.531Fair relationshipPositive relationship
p-value=0.01 < 0.01
Accepted the hypothesis
Data Analysis & Findings
H5. Green perceived risk is negatively associated with green purchase intentions.
Correlation
Green Purchase Intention
Green Trust
Green Perceived Risk
Green Perceived Value
Green Purchase Intention Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
1
215
.722**.000209
-.163**.009212
.531**.000209
Green Trust Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.722**.000209
1
216
-.147*.016210
.576**.000207
Green Perceived Risk Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
-.163**.009212
-.147*.016210
1
216
-.144*.019210
Green Perceived Value Pearson Correlation Sig, (1-tailed) N
.531**.000209
.576**.000207
-.144*.019210
1
213
Correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
r = -0.163Weak relationshipNegative relationship
p-value=0.009< 0.01
Accepted the hypothesis
Data Analysis & Findings
Regression
• The table showed the relation between green perceived value, green perceived risk and green trust
• R= 0.581 and R Square=0.337• Green perceived value and green perceived risk can only predict 33.7% green trust• → This is not a good predictor
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .581a .337 .331 .61673
Model Summary
a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_risk
Data Analysis & Findings
Regression
• The model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust• → The significant value= 0.000 = Low probability variation• Green perceived value and green perceived risk explains a significant portion of the
variation in green trust• → P=0.000 < 0.001• Change in green perceived value and green perceived risk resulted in changes in green
trust
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 RegressionResidual
Total
38.92176.450
115.372
2201203
19.461.380
51.165 .000a
ANOVAb
a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_risk
b. Dependent Variable: New Green_Trust
Data Analysis & Findings
Regression
1) Green perceived risk can lead to a decrease in green trust→ Negative regression coefficient (B=-0.052), p>0.05, reject the hypothesis.
2) Green perceived value can lead to an increase in green trust → Positive regression coefficient (B=0.587, p<0.01). → The green trust is increased by 58.7%. Accept the hypothesis
Model B Sig.
1 (Constant)
New_Green_Perceived _risk
New_Green_Perceived _Value
2.296
-.052
.587
.000
.231
.000
Coefficients a
a. Dependent Variable: New_Green_Trust
Data Analysis & Findings
Regression
• The correlation coefficient is high at 0.758• R= 0.758 and R Square=0.575• Green perceived value , green perceived risk and green trust can predict 57.5% green
purchase intention• → This is a fair predictor for green purchase intention
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .758a .575 .569 .60128
Model Summary
a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Trust, New Green_Perceived_risk, New Green_Perceived_value
Data Analysis & Findings
Regression
• The model-F can accurately explain variation in green trust→ The significant value= 0.000 = Low probability variation
• Green perceived value and green perceived risk explains a significant portion of the variation in green trust→ P=0.000 < 0.001
• Change in green perceived value and green perceived risk resulted in changes in green trust
ANOVAb
a. Predictors: (Constant), New Green_Trust, New Green_Perceived_value, New Green_Perceived_riskb. Dependent Variable: New Green_Purchase_intentino
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 RegressionResidual
Total
95.90370.860
166.764
3196199
31.968.362
88.423 .000a
Data Analysis & FindingsRegression
• B= -0.057 → Negative• p>0.05 → Reject
Green perceived risk ↓ Green purchase intention
• B=0.253 → Positive• p<0.01 → Accept
Green perceived value ↑ Green purchase intention
• B=0.738 → Positive• p<0.01 → Accept
Green trust ↑ Green purchase intention
Model B Sig.
1 (Constant)
New Green_Perceived _risk
New Green_Perceived _Value
New Green_Trust
.407
-.057
.253
.738
.295
.183
.001
.000
Coefficients a
a. Dependent Variable: New_Green_Purchase_Intention
Data Analysis & Findings
CrosstabH0: Sex and electrical appliances with "energy label" purchase are not relatedH6: Sex and electrical appliances with "energy label" purchase are related
→ Chi-square statistics is 2.55 , Computed p-value is 0.110 >0.05→ Accept:H0 and Reject: H6→ Purchasing electrical appliances with "energy label" is not depends on gender
Chi- Square Tests
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12. 10.b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1- sided)
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correction b
Likelihood RatioFisher’s Exact TestLinear-by-Linear AssociationN of Valid Cases
2.559a
1.9462.546
2.549250
111
1
.110
.163
.111
.110.151 .082
Conclusion
Consumers have an average perception on green trust feel comfort overall to continue buying the product
Construct Relationship Green perceived value and green perceived risk have only affect 33.7% of green trust
Positive relations between green perceived value and trust, green trust and purchase intention, green perceived value and purchase intention
No direct relationship between perceived risk and purchase intention
No relationship between gender and purchase intention
Recommendations
Perceived ValueQ3: The electrical appliances with energy label have consistent qualityQ5: The electrical appliances with energy label offer value for money
Green Purchase IntentionQ18: I am willing to spend a little more money to buy the electrical appliances with energy label
The lowest mean score
We recommend :• Telling the people about the amount of money they can save • Emphasizing the benefit people can enjoy beside saving money• Promoting environmental protection through advertising and other social media channels
References1. Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green
strategies. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(2), 118-128. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421311320997
2. Bruwer, J., Fong, M., & Saliba, A. (2013). Perceived risk, risk-reduction strategies (RRS) and consumption occasions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 369-390. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1370335803?accountid=37289
3. Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489-500. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0)
4. Chen, Y.S. and Chang, C.H. (2012), Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 502 – 520.
5. Durif, F., Roy, J., & Boivin, C. (2012). Could perceived risks explain the 'green gap' in green product consumption? Electronic Green Journal, (33), 0_1, 0_2, 1-15. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1041243559?accountid=37289
6. Government News (2013), ” Voluntary Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme extended to gas cookers”, 14 November 2013, <http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201311/14/P201311140466.htm>
7. Government News (2013)” Voluntary Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme”, August 2013, < http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/environment/energy/efficiencylabel.htm>
References8. Hsin, H. C., & Su, W. C. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention.
Online Information Review, 32(6), 818-841. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/146845208109239539. Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005), Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 500-7.10. Jon F, K & Chris, K. and Bridget, S. (2011). Stakeholder perceptions of green marketing: the effect of
demand and supply integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, pp. 684-696 DOI 10.1108/09600031111154134
11. Kaman Lee (2009), Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior, Journal of Consumer Marketing 26/2 (2009) 87-96.
12. Lee, J., & Song, C. (2013). Effects of trust and perceived risk on user acceptance of a new technology service. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(4), 587-597. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.587
13. Lewis, D. and Weigert, A. (1985), Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 967-85.14. Ling-Yu Melody Wen and Shang-Hui Li (2013), a study on the relationship amidst health
consciousness, ecological affect, and purchase intention of green production, International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 5 Num 4 April 2013.
15. Maha Mourad, Yasser Serag Eldin Ahmed, (2012) "Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative market", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.514 – 537
16. Maha, M. & Yasser, S. (2012). Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative market, European Journal of Innovation Management , pp. 514-537, DOI 10.1108/14601061211272402
References17. Mourad, M., & Yasser Serag, E. A. (2012). Perception of green brand in an emerging innovative
market. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(4), 514-537. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272402
18. Regine, K. M. (2011). Generation Y consumer choice for organic foods. Journal of Global Business Management, 7(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/896548074?accountid=37289
19. Reuters News (2010)” Green spending to double in Europe by 2015”, 30 May 2010,<http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/30/us-europe-retail-green-spending-idUSTRE64T2JK20100530>
20. Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A. and McCarthy, J.D. (2003), The researcher’s dilemma: evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 759-81.
21. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer, R. (1998), Not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404
22. Tseng,S.C., &Hung, S. W. (2013), A framework identifying the gaps between customers' expectations and their perceptions in green products reference, Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 174-184 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.050
23. Yu-Shan, C., & Chang, C. (2012). Enhance green purchase intentions. Management Decision, 50(3), 502-520. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211216250)
24. Zheng, L., Favier, M., Huang, P., & Coat, F. (2012). CHINESE CONSUMER PERCEIVED RISK AND RISK RELIEVERS IN E-SHOPPING FOR CLOTHING. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 255-274. Retrieved from http://lib.cpce-polyu.edu.hk/docview/1034895464?accountid=37289
Q&A