Promoting Sustainable Consumption

download Promoting Sustainable Consumption

of 20

Transcript of Promoting Sustainable Consumption

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    1/20

    883

    Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20(10): 883902 (October 2003)

    Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)

    2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.10101

    Promoting SustainableConsumption: Determinantsof Green Purchases by SwissConsumers

    Carmen TannerNorthwestern University

    Sybille Wolfing KastUniversity of Bern

    ABSTRACT

    Given that overconsumption in industrial countries is a main causeof environmental degradation, a shift toward more sustainableconsumption patterns is required. This study attempts to uncoverpersonal and contextual barriers to consumers purchases of greenfood and to strengthen knowledge about fostering green purchases.Survey data are used to examine the influence of distinct categoriesof personal factors (such as attitudes, personal norms, perceivedbehavior barriers, knowledge) and contextual factors (such associoeconomic characteristics, living conditions, and store

    characteristics) on green purchases of Swiss consumers. Resultsfrom regression analysis suggest that green food purchases arefacilitated by positive attitudes of consumers toward (a)environmental protection, (b) fair trade, (c) local products, and(d) availability of action-related knowledge. In turn, green behavioris negatively associated with (e) perceived time barriers and(f) frequency of shopping in supermarkets. Surprisingly, greenpurchases are not significantly related to moral thinking, monetarybarriers, or the socioeconomic characteristics of the consumers.Implications for policy makers and for companies and marketers

    engaged in the promotion and commercialization of green productsare discussed. 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    2/20

    884 TANNER AND KAST

    Over the last decades, a number of environmental problems thatthreaten the environment and human life have been identified; theseinclude global warming, ozone depletion, water and air pollution, lossof species, and farmland erosion. One main cause of these problems isoverconsumption of natural resources, with the industrial nations show-

    ing the highest per-capita consumption. Any remedy will require urgentchanges in human behavior and cultural practices to reduce consump-tion, as well as the development of cleaner and more efficient technol-ogies (Oskamp, 2000). These goals are also captured in the notion ofsustainable development. Since the United Nations Conference on En-vironment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, thisconcept has been acknowledged and emphasized as a superordinate goalthat all nations and peoples should adopt to combat environmental deg-radation and its threat to human welfare.

    Among environmentally significant activities, the production, trade,and consumption of food products have been identified as crucial con-tributors to numerous environmental problems (e.g., Stern, Dietz, Rut-tan, Socolow, & Sweeney, 1997). Recent research has demonstrated thatprocesses involved throughout the entire life cycle of food products, fromproduction to consumption, contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases,farmland erosion, excess sewage, avoidable waste, and loss of species,to name only a few of the negative consequences (Jungbluth, 2000;Jungbluth, Tietje, & Scholz, 2000). Thus, fostering changes in the foodchain, such as changes in production, trade practices, or consumption,

    are crucial steps in the quest for sustainable development.The present research attempts to add knowledge about how to foster

    purchases of green food. In doing this, the focus is on the consumerwhose actions and demands can be powerful signals to retailers andmanufacturers. On the other hand, the extent of consumers environ-mentally friendly behaviors can be facilitated or inhibited by acts ofmarketers or other contextual barriers. For instance, it is obviously farmore difficult to buy environmentally friendly food products when theyare not available at the local market. Traditionally, psychological re-

    search has explored the role of attitudes, values, and knowledge in un-derstanding consumer behavior. However, as other researchers havepointed out (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz,1995), situational factors may also matter. They can block environmen-tally friendly behaviors and undermine the influence of positive atti-tudes or values. The present study is conceptually based on an approachthat holds that human behavior is subjected to numerous barriers (Frey& Foppa, 1986; Tanner, 1998, 1999; see also Gardner & Stern, 1996;McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Barriers to (or facilitators of) a behavior may bepersonal (e.g., ignorance about green products) or contextual (e.g., lack

    of environmentally friendly products locally). This study is designed touncover relevant personal and contextual factors that may inhibit or

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    3/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 885

    facilitate green purchases. Our claim is that there is considerable latentpotential for green consumerism to develop. Detecting factors that re-strict its growth is essential to initialize further developments.

    This leads to the question as to how green products may be defined.In terms of food products, green is often loosely translated to mean sup-

    port for organically grown food. Despite the relevance of this aspect,other crucial product features affecting sustainability are neglected bythis narrow definition. These are, for instance, conservation practice,origin of the product, and packaging. Previous studies are extended bytaking into account research that assessed the environmental impact offood products on resource and energy use, and on the extent of harmfulemissions associated with food production, transportation, and pack-aging. For example, an analysis of the environmental impact of Swissfood products yielded that greenhouse production of vegetables createsmore environmental burdens in terms of energy and resource use thandoes open-air production; in addition, the impact of vegetables shippedto Europe across the Atlantic is eight times more negative than theimpact of domestically grown vegetables (Jungbluth, 2000; Jungbluthet al., 2000). Furthermore, recent literature suggests fair trade (fairprices and working conditions for workers) as another feature of sus-tainability (e.g., Abramovitz et al., 2001). In sum, green food productsare defined this way: They are domestically cultivated rather than im-ported from foreign countries; they are organically rather than conven-tionally grown; they are seasonal and fresh rather than frozen; they are

    not wrapped; and they support fair trade.In the sections below, previous research findings and a theoretical

    framework are outlined. Then, findings of a survey of Swiss householdswill be reported. The surveys focus was on those consumers who werethe primary shoppers in their household, and therefore took the role ofthe gatekeepers (the people who make purchasing decisions and regu-late what the other members of the household eat).

    Theoretical Framework and Research Background

    Previous psychological environmental research has typically focused onthe role of factors within the individual, such as knowledge, environ-mental concern, attitudes, norms, and values (e.g., Hines, Hungerford,& Tomera, 1986/87; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981).Similarly, in the domain of green consumerism, research has examinedthe relation between consumer behavior and consumer attitudes andmotives or has searched for the profile of the green consumer (e.g., Main-ieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Ebreo, Hershey, &Vining, 1999; Roberts, 1996). The specific variables that have been pos-

    ited to have a relevant impact on environmental behavior can be clas-sified into four categories.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    4/20

    886 TANNER AND KAST

    Measures of Specific Attitudes. Research indicates that measures ofspecific attitudes (e.g., judgments about products or behaviors) ratherthan general measures of environmental concern (e.g., judgments aboutenvironmental problems) are likely to manifest in environmental be-havior (Hines et al., 1986/87; Gardner & Stern, 1996; Maloney & Ward,

    1973; Schlossberg, 1991; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). A consumer surveyby Mainieri et al. (1997) clearly supports the suggestion that specificconsumer beliefs predict environmentally friendly consumer behaviormore accurately than does general environmental concern.

    Perceived Barriers. Several studies have posited that notions of per-ceived control or perceived behavioral barriers are additional significantpredictors of environmental behavior (e.g., Axelrod & Lehman, 1993;Grob, 1995; Hines et al., 1986/87; Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas,1999). Likewise, Roberts (1996) suggests that in order to motivate be-havioral changes, consumers must be convinced that their behavior hasan impact on the environment or will be effective in fighting environ-mental degradation.

    Knowledge. Environmental knowledge has been found to be positivelyrelated to environmental behavior, but the literature also reports con-tradictory findings on the question of how ecological knowledge is re-lated to environmental behavior (Arbuthnot & Lingg, 1975; Hines et al.,1986/87; Grob, 1995; Maloney & Ward, 1973). Schahn and Holzer (1990)

    demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between knowledgeabout facts and knowledge about actions. The term factual knowledgerefers to knowledge about definitions and causes/consequences of envi-ronmental problems (e.g., what is the greenhouse effect?), whereas ac-tion-related knowledge is used to refer to information about possibleactions (e.g., which human behaviors are related to the greenhouse ef-fect). Unlike factual knowledge, action-related knowledge is more likelyto affect behavior.

    Personal Norm. Numerous studies have revealed that a personalnorma feeling of moral obligationis a powerful motivator of envi-ronmental behavior (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern & Dietz, 1994;Stern, Dietz, & Black, 1986; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). In a recent studyon recycling and consumerism, Ebreo et al. (1999) found that the degreeto which people feel obliged to recycle is related to conservation-relatedproduct attributes. These investigations suggest that environmentallyfriendly behavior may be characterized as morally demanding.

    Overall, a large body of studies asserts that personal factors are nec-essary and essential to foster behavioral changes, even though the cor-

    respondence between attitudinal variables and behavior is often mod-erate. Other research, however, suggests that contextual factors of thesocial, economic, or physical environment within which people act also

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    5/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 887

    matter and can keep pro-environmental attitudes from being expressedin action (e.g., Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Geller, 1987; Guagnano,Stern, & Dietz, 1995; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Tanner, 1999). Althoughcontextual factors are also very important, they have not received theattention they deserve in psychological research. For example, even if

    a person is motivated to buy green products, he or she cannot buy suchgoods if they are not offered for sale in an accessible location. In thedomain of energy use, research indicates that social structure, ethnicity,and household technology all have a relevant impact on household en-ergy consumption (e.g., Black et al., 1985; Lutzenhiser, 1997). As a con-clusion, studies may benefit from considering both personal and contex-tual variables to advance knowledge about environmental behavior. Theframework adopted here advocates research into both personal and con-textual barriers.

    Research Goals

    The present study is designed to uncover personal and contextual fac-tors that influence green food purchases by Swiss consumers.

    The personal factors incorporated in this study were based upon pre-vious research and on interviews with Swiss consumers. The interviewswere conducted with customers of a Swiss supermarket and an organicfood store (N 27) about their purchasing motives and about productfeatures they take into account in purchase decisions. In accordance

    with previous studies, specific rather than general measures have beendeveloped (Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997). Generally, the per-sonal factors incorporated can be divided into four categories: (a) atti-tudes toward food products, (b) personal norms, (c) perceived barriers,and (d) ecological knowledge.

    As for the contextual factors, the study used the following threegroups of socio-cultural conditions as indicators of external barriers.

    Socioeconomic Characteristics. Previous literature identified edu-

    cation, occupational level (e.g., high rank, low rank), employment status(e.g., full-time, part-time), and income as the classical dimensions ofsocial class in Western industrial societies (see Lamprecht & Stamm,1994). They are indicators of purchasing power and time constraints.

    Living Conditions. Place of residence and household size were usedas two features that may indicate differences in buying opportunitiesand household activities (see e.g., Uusitalo, 1986).

    Store Types. Because different stores necessarily differ in what they

    supply, they are likely to affect consumers purchases. It is assumed thatgreen purchases would be harder to make in a supermarket than inother kinds of stores (e.g., organic food stores). However, in the present

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    6/20

    888 TANNER AND KAST

    case, what is particularly interesting is that prominent Swiss super-markets have recently increased the merchandising of green products.This has raised the question, in the minds of some, as to whether storetype matters (the position here is that it still does).

    Overall, this study is designed to examine the relative importance of

    those variables in facilitating or inhibiting the consumers tendency tomake green purchases.

    METHOD

    Participants and Procedure

    Survey data for rural and urban households in and around the city ofBern were collected in November 1996. For 6500 randomly selected

    households, the households primary shopper was asked to volunteer.Then, 745 questionnaires were sent to those who had returned a consentform (response rate: 12%).1 Of these, a total of 547 German-speakingSwiss adults returned the completed questionnaire. Sixty-eight percentof the respondents were female. Respondents mean age was 47 years(range: 1890 years); 59% lived in the city of Bern, whereas 41% livedin rural settings. Even though representativeness was not the goal (find-ing people holding the role of the gatekeeper was the main goal), thecomposition of this sample was compared with census data from the

    Swiss Statistical Yearbook 1997. This showed quite a good match. Note-worthy differences were related to gender, household size, and educa-tion. Not surprisingly, the proportion of women in our sample (68%) wasfound to be higher than in the Swiss population (51%). This indicatesthat shopping on behalf of the household is still done more by womenthan by men. Compared to the Swiss population, our sample had a some-what smaller percentage of single-person households (20% vs. 32%), anda larger proportion of people with higher education (45% vs. 30%).

    Survey InstrumentAfter two pretests, a final draft of the questionnaire was created to as-sess personal and contextual dimensions.

    Personal Factors. The first section of the questionnaire containedquestions assessing personal dimensions. Usually, respondents indi-cated their level of agreement on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Negatively formulated ques-

    1People were first asked to confirm their participation in the study by sending back a consent form.This procedure was necessary because the research consisted of two parts: a questionnaire and

    a diary study. Permission to keep the participants address was needed. Clearly, the response

    rate is low, but compares favorably with other studies.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    7/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 889

    tions were reversed in coding. Twenty-two items were used to assessattitudes toward food products. They covered six factors: environmentalprotection, genetically engineered food, fair trade, health, regional prod-ucts, and food taste. A set of six items was used to assess two factors ofperceived barriers: perceived time and monetary barriers. Four items

    assessed personal norms. Eleven items served to obtain measures forfactual knowledge, action-related knowledge, and confidence in productlabels. For some knowledge questions, respondents had to choose thecorrect answer from among four choices (including an I dont knowoption). For instance, in one item respondents were presented with sev-eral eco-labels used in Switzerland that represent different ecologicalstandards.2 Respondents were asked which of these labels would reflectthe highest ecological standards. For other knowledge items, the yes/no and I dont know response format was used. The knowledge scaleswere changed into a dichotomous scale (wrong/correct). I dont knowanswers were coded as wrong responses. Finally, the items were usedto obtain respondents level of agreement on confidence in labels, againbased on a 5-point scale.

    Four principal-component analyses with promax rotation were con-ducted to determine the dimensionality of each group of items. Theseanalyses sorted the attitudinal scales neatly into six categories, the per-ceived barriers into two, and the knowledge scales into three categories.The coherence of the personal norm was also confirmed. The factorsaccount for 63%, 57%, 51%, and 49% of the variances, respectively. Com-

    puting the average across the individual item scores created the finalscales. The scale items, along with the scale means, standard deviations,reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha coefficient), and factor loadings are dis-played in Appendix 1.

    Contextual Factors. Ten questions were used as indicators of contex-tual barriers. In terms of stores, participants were asked where theymainly buy milk products, vegetables, and meat. Respondents couldchoose from among several options that constitute a broad array of pos-

    sible shopping opportunities in Switzerland, such as supermarkets andsmaller retailers, organic food stores, farmers markets, farmers, fair-trade stores, and health food stores, as well as food procurement by self-production. The scores were combined in an index of frequency of su-permarket use that ranged from 0 (no supermarket) to 3 (exclusivelysupermarkets). Finally, the questionnaire included questions assessingthe respondents socioeconomic dimensions (education, occupational

    2In general, the various eco-labels of this type used in Switzerland indicate differences in agricul-

    tural practice. The standards differ considerably. Although some labels stand for products that

    are characterized by limited use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, other labels stand for ag-ricultural practices that include the complete avoidance of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and

    greenhouse production. In the case of meat, the logos indicate whether the animals were hu-

    manely kept. Other logos indicate fair trade practices.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    8/20

    890 TANNER AND KAST

    level, employment status, and household income) and household livingconditions (place of residence, household size).

    Extent of the Consumers Green Food Purchases. Most of the itemsincluded in the behavioral measure referred to purchases of food prod-ucts varying in environmentally relevant product characteristics, suchas means of production, packaging, type of preservation, and origin.Respondents were asked how often they buy different kinds of food prod-ucts, such as canned food, products with an eco-label, frozen meat, freshproduce, or local goods. One item addressed the purchase of fair tradeproducts (products that guarantee fair prices and working conditionsfor workers). Respondents were also asked to estimate how many liters(1 liter 1.8 pints) per week they buy of different beverages, such asimported beer or milk bought in bulk.3

    Unlike the previous scales, the present assessment of green pur-chases was based on a probabilistic measurement approach (Raschscale) (Bond & Fox, 2001; Kaiser, 1998; Wright & Masters, 1982). Onemain advantage of this approach is that it allows one to include a broadrange of behavioral items, even with extreme item difficulties. Based onthis approach the behavioral measure is an estimate of number of greenpurchases a consumer has undertaken (more specifically, it is the num-ber of behavior difficulties a person has overcome) (for more details seeKaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). Aggregating across the positivebehaviors reveals the individuals extent of purchases of green foodproducts.

    The original 6-point response format had to be converted into a di-chotomous response format, so that 1 indicated not purchasing envi-ronmentally friendly and 2 indicated purchasing environmentallyfriendly. This measure was advisable because the more sophisticatedresponse format made responses more arbitrary rather than more reli-able.4 With the use of the Rasch dichotomous model, the items on aunidimensional scale were assessed and the misfitting items were thenexcluded. The final measure was composed of 19 items (see Appendix 2)

    with a reliability of 0.70. As mentioned above, the extent of the individ-uals green food purchases was attained by aggregating across the entirerange of specific self-reported purchases of green food products (for moredetails, see Tanner, Kaiser, & Wolfing Kast, in press).

    3Frequency measures (e.g., how often . . .) as behavioral indicators correspond to the measures

    most often used in previous research. One reviewer correctly emphasized that such a measure

    is influenced by frequency of shopping. Using a dichotomous response format reduces this prob-

    lem.4The variety of possible responses was obviously reduced by converting the polytomous response

    format into a dichotomous one. Kaiser and Wilson (2000) found that a polytomous format doesnot necessarily enhance a behavior scales reliability or increase the proportion of fitting partic-

    ipants. Furthermore, using a dichotomous format reduces the problem of confounding frequency

    of purchases with frequency of shopping.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    9/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 891

    RESULTS

    In a first step, simple bivariate correlations were calculated to assessthe association between all variables. Table 1 displays the intercorre-lations of the measures developed in this study. Because some of the

    intercorrelations may indicate possible problems of multicollinearity,the variance inflation factors (VIF) of the predictors were examined, amore subtle test of multicollinearity (Stevens, 1996). These analysesrevealed very low variance influence factors (VIF 2.04), indicatingthat each predictor has only weak associations with the other predictors.

    Next, all subscales were entered into a regression equation to exam-ine the relative contribution of the variables in predicting the extent ofconsumers green food purchases. Because only the best predictors thatmake an essential contribution to the variance explained were of pri-mary interest, a stepwise regression procedure was run. Table 2 dis-plays the major results with the standardized (B) and unstandardizedbeta () coefficients. As expected, the first predictor to enter the modelwas attitude toward environmental protection. That scale alone alreadyaccounted for approximately 19% of the variance. After that, variableswere entered in the following order (incremental gain in R2 is shown inparentheses): frequency of supermarket use (.10), attitude toward fairtrade (.05), perceived time barriers (.02), attitude toward domestic prod-ucts (.02), and finally, action-related ecological knowledge (.03). As awhole, the multiple correlation was .64. Simultaneously, the amount of

    explained variance increased to 41%. (A regression equation containingall variables revealed only a marginal increase of the model. The totalvariance explained by the full model yielded an R of .65 and an R2 of.42.)

    In summary, five personal factors but only one contextual factor werefound to be highly significantly associated with the extent of a con-sumers green food purchases. Specifically, green food purchases werefacilitated by proenvironmental attitudes, by positive attitudes towardfair trade, and by local products. In addition, they were facilitated by

    having adequate knowledge to distinguish between environmentallyfriendly and environmentally harmful products. However, the extent ofpeoples green food purchases decreased when people perceived a needto save time, and when they shopped mainly in supermarkets. None ofthe other personal factors (attitude toward genetically engineered food,food taste, health, factual knowledge, confidence in eco-label, personalnorms, perceived monetary barriers) proved to be a relevant predictor.Particularly surprising is the discovery that personal norms and per-ceived monetary barriers were not significant. Similarly, place of resi-dence and household size were not among the relevant predictors. Nor

    did the analyses reveal that any of the social-economic dimensions, suchas education, occupational level, employment status, and household in-come, were significantly correlated with the extent of green behaviors.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    10/20

    892

    TANN

    ERAND

    KAST

    Table 1. Correlation Matrix of all Subscales.

    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

    1. Environmental protection

    2. Rejection of GE food .34

    3. Fair trade .47 .35

    4. Health .35 .36 .43

    5. Regional products .21 .25 .38 .306. Taste .27 .26 .21 .40 .14

    7. Perceived monetary barrier .58 .23 .39 .24 .23 .17

    8. Perceived time barrier .26 .12 .11 .11

    9. Action-related knowledge .25 .22 .31 .19 .20 .25 .12

    10. Factual knowledge .31 .29 .21 .16 .30 .28

    11. Confidence in label .20 .19 .16 .25 .24

    12. Personal norm 48 .38 .59 .45 .34 .29 .36 .21 .29

    13. Supermarket use .21 .16 .24 .17 .31 .20 .15 .22 .13 .11

    14. Education .16 .15 .13 .18

    15. Employment status .20 .12 .18 .18

    16. Occupational level .12 .32

    17. Place of residence .19 .22 .13 .14 .22 .13 .14

    18. Household size .27 .30 .17 .15 .15 .31

    19. Household income .16 .13 .13 .26 .15 .35 .25

    20. Green purchases .44 .29 .43 .31 .34 .18 .31 .27 .24 .32 .24 .30 .42 .16

    Note: Nof the bivariate correlations between N 360 and N 547. Table contains only correlations p .01.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    11/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 893

    Table 2. Multiple Regression Results with Personal Variables Used toPredict Ones Extent of Green Food Purchases (N 554).

    Predictor B t R2

    Environmental protection 0.61 0.45 10.20 .19

    Frequency of supermarket use 0.31 0.33 7.79 .29

    Fair trade 0.30 0.24 5.43 .34Perceived time barrier 0.18 0.16 3.86 .36

    Local products 0.20 0.16 3.81 .38

    Action-related knowledge 0.48 0.12 3.03 .41

    Note: Only predictors p .01 included.

    DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

    The current study extends previous research about environmental con-sumerism by incorporating personal and contextual dimensions, by in-cluding more features of sustainability, and by adopting a Rasch modelto the measurement of green purchases. Consistent with earlier findings(e.g., Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997), the study confirms thatpersonal attitudes and beliefs are powerful predictors of green pur-chases. First, positive attitudes toward environmental protection, fairtrade, and local production are major facilitators of green purchases.Second, perceived time barriers restrain ones motivation to buy greenproducts. Third, action-related knowledge is an additional predictor of

    green purchases. Even though the relationship between knowledge andbehavior was not strong, the study provides evidence that some sort ofappropriate knowledge is needed for taking appropriate behavior.

    One striking result is that cost does not play an integral role in greenpurchases. Yet it is possible that the potential impact of perceived mon-etary barriers has been covered in this analysis because they are sig-nificantly associated with other predictors. However, as further analy-ses (VIF) revealed, there is absolutely no evidence that multicollinearitywas a problem in this study. Thus, the present results are more likely

    to indicate that people with a high environmental motivation are lesssensitive to price. This is in line with previous studies that indicatedthat consumers who are concerned about the environment are more will-ing to pay a premium for green products (e.g., Bang, Ellinger, Hadji-marcou, & Traichal, 2000). Furthermore, the study revealed no signif-icant association between personal norms and green food purchases.Earlier studies suggested that various categories of environmental be-haviors, such as recycling (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern et al.,1986; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1992) or transportation be-haviors (Tanner, 1999) involve moral thinking. The current study con-

    tradicts the notion that green food purchases reflect a moral standpoint.In regard to the contextual variables, the findings provide little evi-

    dence that differences in social status and income account for behavioral

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    12/20

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    13/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 895

    2. The demand for green products may be encouraged not only byfostering proenvironmental beliefs but also by promoting addi-tional motives, such as preference for domestically produced foodand for products that are traded fairly. Therefore, local and fair-trade products appear to be useful foci for marketing efforts.

    3. Informational interventions should be considered to educate con-sumers, so that they can accurately identify which products areenvironmentally friendly and which are not.

    4. The finding that perceived time barriers reduce purchases of greenfood products implies that there is potential for products that areboth environmentally friendly and time saving (so-called eco-convenience products).

    5. People involved in production and promotion of green products, aswell as policy makers, need to reflect on which products and be-

    haviors have a significant destructive environmental impact.

    Some aspects of these findings deserve comment. First, the resultsapply most directly to the Swiss sample. The concepts and behavioralitems used in the study can be traced, at least partially, to culture-specific factors. Although this limits the generalizability of the results,it simultaneously increases their practical relevance. Research has toaccount for such emic factors in understanding consumption patterns.Second, given the low response rate, the results may reflect biases. This

    response rate is not unusual for environmental and consumer studies;however, further research is needed to determine whether any of thedifferences between these findings and those in other studies stem fromdifferences in the characteristics of the sample. Despite these limita-tions, the study provides additional and generalizable insights to theunderstanding of green purchases. Specifically, focusing on the gate-keepers and examining their beliefs and their contextual conditions,taking account of research that examines which kinds of products orbehaviors are environmentally significant, and uncovering crucial per-sonal and contextual barriers to behaviors are crucial and general stepsto adopt to support sustainable development.

    CONCLUSION

    Given that per-capita consumption in industrial countries is a maincause of environmental degradation, the need for sustainable develop-ment will require alternative consumption patterns. Because of the com-plexity of the factors involved, it is clear that no simple remedies will

    suffice to accomplish the long-term goals. Rather, multifaceted effortwill have to be carried out by a broad coalition of interrelated actors.Alterations in peoples attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors may stimulate

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    14/20

    896 TANNER AND KAST

    changes in the political and economic systems, which in turn might en-courage lifestyle changes. On the other hand, product manufacturerscan affect the market and consumers by encouraging new developments.It seems that there is considerable potential for green consumerism todevelop, but that its growth is inhibited by various barriers. Further-

    more, this research emphasizes to address three questions to initiateexpansion of green purchases:

    1. Who is the gatekeeper? Interventions have to address those actorswho have decisional power and the potential to implementchanges. In this study, the women turned out to have this position.

    2. What are relevant features of green products or environmentallysignificant behaviors? The present study emphasized that agri-cultural practice (such as organically grown products) is only one

    aspect. Green is often translated to mean support for organicallygrown products. However, other features, such as type of conser-vation, packaging, origin of the product, or fair trade are also im-portant. Obviously, addressing sustainable development is notdone by adopting a simple interpretation of green.

    3. What are the relevant personal and contextual barriers to consum-ers green purchases? Green consumerism can be encouraged bysupporting factors that facilitate and by breaking down thebarriers that restrict environmentally friendly behaviors. Thesefindings suggest that addressing several beliefs (attitudes towardenvironmental protection, fair trade, and local production), action-related knowledge, time barriers, as well as store differences cansupport this goal.

    Clearly, more research would be valuable to advance understandingof green behaviors and its consequences on environment, economy, andsociety. However, the belief is that this study provided further insightsabout environmental consumerism and useful implications on how topromote sustainable development.

    REFERENCES

    Abramovitz, J. N., Brown, L. R., Dunn, S., Flavin, C., French, H., Gardner, G.,

    Halweil, B., Hwang, A., Larsen, J., Lenssen, N., Mastny, L., Mattoon, A.,

    McGinn, A. P., Nierenberg, D., Renner, M., Roodman, D. M., Sampat, P.,

    Sheehan, M. O., Young, J. E., & Starke, L. (2001). Vital signs 2001. New

    York: Norton.

    Arbuthnot, J., & Lingg, S. (1975). A comparison of French and American en-

    vironmental behavior, knowledge and attitudes. International Journal of

    Psychology, 10, 411423.

    Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns:

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    15/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 897

    What factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology,

    13, 149 159.

    Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Con-

    sumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An

    application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449

    468.

    Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual

    influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology,

    70, 3 21.

    Bond, T. B., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental

    measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking re-

    cycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Be-

    havior, 31, 107135.

    Frey, B. S., & Foppa, K. (1986). Human behavior: Possibilities explain action.

    Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 137160.

    Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and humanbehavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Geller, E. S. (1987). Applied behavior analysis and environmental psychology:

    From strange bedfellows to a productive marriage. In D. Stokols & I. Altman

    (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 361388). New

    York: Wiley.

    Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior.

    Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209220.

    Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitudebe-

    havior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ-

    ment and Behavior, 27, 699 718.Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and syn-

    thesis of research on environmental behavior. A meta-analysis. Journal of

    Environmental Education, 18, 18.

    Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Nor-

    mative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a communityrecycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195220.

    Jungbluth, N. (2000). Umweltfolgen des nahrungsmittelkonsums: Beurteilungvon produktmerkmalen auf grundlage einer modularen okobilanz. [Environ-

    mental consequences of food consumption: Using a modular life cycle assess-

    ment to evaluate product characteristics]. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Insti-tute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. (2000). The modular LCA: Environmen-

    tal impacts of food purchases from the consumers point of view. International

    Journal of LCA, 5, 134142.Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Ap-

    plied Social Psychology, 28, 395422.Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing peoples general ecological behavior:

    A cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. EuropeanJournal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 4452.

    Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing peoples general ecological be-

    havior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,952978.

    Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    16/20

    898 TANNER AND KAST

    and Ajzens theory of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal

    of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441460.

    Lamprecht, M., & Stamm, H. (1994). Die soziale ordnung der freizeit [The social

    order of leisure]. Zurich: Seismo.

    Lutzenhiser, L. (1997). Social structure, culture, and technology: Modeling the

    driving forces of household energy consumption. In P. C. Stern, T. Dietz,

    V. W. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmental signif-

    icant consumption (pp. 7791). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997).

    Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior.

    The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189204.

    Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Lets hear from the people: An

    objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.

    American Psychologist, 28, 583586.

    McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through commu-

    nity-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531 537.

    Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychologyhelp? American Psychologist, 55, 496508.

    Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications

    for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217231.

    Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern:

    The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and

    Behavior, 22.

    Schlossberg, H. (1991). Green marketing has been planted Now watch it

    grow. Marketing News, 4, 2630.

    Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern.

    Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65 84.Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protec-

    tion: The role of morale norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204222.

    Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V. W., Socolow, R. H., & Sweeney, J. L. (1997).

    Environmentally significant consumption. Washington, DC: National Acad-

    emy Press.Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mah-

    wah, NJ: Erlbaum.Tanner, C. (1998). Die ipsative handlungstheorie: Eine alternative sichtweise

    okologischen handelns. [The theory of ipsative action: An alternative per-

    spective about environmental behavior]. Umweltpsychologie, 2, 3444.Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behavior. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 19, 145157.

    Tanner, C., Kaiser F.G., & Wolfing Kast, S. (in press). Contextual conditions of

    ecological consumerism: A food-purchasing survey. Environment & Behavior.Uusitalo, L. (1986). Environmental impacts of consumption patterns. New

    York: St. Martins Press.Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make

    a difference how its measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651676.Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and

    specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities.

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 15801607.Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement.

    Chicago: MESA.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    17/20

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    18/20

    900 TANNER AND KAST

    APPENDIX 1. (Continued)

    Mean SD Alpha Loadings

    Food taste 3.01 0.83 0.73

    When making purchases I would primarily

    buy products which taste good.

    0.70

    When making purchases, I am guided bywhat I like.

    0.76

    People should eat what they like, even if

    what they eat is unhealthy ()

    0.64

    When making purchases I am guided by my

    taste of gourmet cooking.

    0.81

    Perceived Barriers

    Perceived monetary barriers 2.61 0.84 0.60

    I cannot afford to pay more for organic prod-

    ucts.

    0.71

    Green products are still too expensive. 0.81

    People should buy green products, even

    though they are more expensive ().

    0.77

    Perceived time barrier 2.34 0.96 0.75

    I have too little time for cooking. 0.86

    I have little time available for preparation of

    meals.

    0.60

    Because of lack of time, I am dependent on

    food products that do not need much time

    for preparation.

    0.76

    Personal norm 3.24 0.83 0.64

    Everybody has a responsibility to contribute

    to environmental preservation by avoiding

    packaged food products.

    0.78

    Everybody should make a contribution to

    promoting green food production by buying

    only green products.

    0.82

    Consumers have the right to buy exotic

    fruits.

    0.48

    I feel morally obligated to refrain from eating

    the meat of animals kept inhumanely.

    0.68

    KnowledgeFactual Ecological Knowledgea 1.58 0.29 0.64

    More energy is used for producing and trans-

    porting food products than the body re-

    ceives through nutrition. (yes/no)

    0.75

    Less energy is used for meat production than

    for the equivalent amount of vegetables.

    (yes/no)

    0.55

    What is gray energy? (multiple choice) 0.73

    Action-related ecological knowledgea 1.57 0.34 0.64

    Milk in plastic packaging is more harmful for

    the environment than milk in cardboardcartons (yes/no).

    0.46

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    19/20

    PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 901

    APPENDIX 1. (Continued)

    Mean SD Alpha Loadings

    Which of the following production practices

    follows higher standards regarding agricul-

    ture and animal care? (multiple choice)

    0.65

    Which of the following eco-labels representsthe highest ecological standards regarding

    agricultural practice? (multiple choice)

    0.71

    Which of the following labels represent the

    highest standard regarding the care of ani-

    mals? (multiple choice)

    0.58

    Confidence in product label 3.03 0.91 0.80

    In the store I cannot distinguish between en-

    vironmentally friendly and harmful food

    products. ()

    0.67

    I am insecure about which eco-labels are reli-

    able and which are not. ()

    0.85

    Eco-labels lack credibility. () 0.86

    I do not believe in the quality guarantee of

    eco-labels. ()

    0.81

    Note: () Reversed in coding. Subscales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), except for

    factual and action-related knowledge.aFactual and action-related knowledge scales were changed into a dichotomous response format of 1 (wrong)

    and 2 (correct). Original items were in German.

    APPENDIX 2

    List of Behavioral Items (English Translation of Original Items).

    Purchases of unbottled milk.

    Purchases of fair trade products.

    Purchases of milk in plastic packaging.

    Purchases of milk in a cardboard carton. ()

    Purchases of products with an eco-label.

    Purchases of meat from humanely kept animals.

    Purchases of organically grown food.

    Purchases of open cheese.

    Purchases of packaged cheese. ()

    Purchases of exotic fruits. ()Purchases of fresh, locally grown vegetables.

    Purchases of imported beer. ()

    Purchases of convenience foods. ()

    Purchases of canned food. ()

    Purchases of frozen meat. ()

    Purchases of frozen fish. ()

    Purchases of frozen vegetables in summer. ()

    Purchases of fish in cans. ()

    Purchases of meat in cans. ()

    Note: The items were assessed on a unidimensional scale with the use of the Rasch model. The original 6-

    point scale was converted to a dichotomous response format, with 1 indicating less environmentally friendly

    purchase and 2 indicating more environmentally friendly purchase. The consumers extent of green purchases

    is then based on the aggregation of positive behaviors a person undertakes. Original items were in German. ()

    Reversed in coding.

  • 8/3/2019 Promoting Sustainable Consumption

    20/20

    902 TANNER AND KAST

    This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant

    Nos. 5001-44666 and 8210-61241). The authors are grateful to Niels Jungbluth

    for performing the measurement of the environmental impact of food products,

    and Florian Kaiser for his support regarding the measure of green purchases

    based on the Rasch model. The authors also thank Judith Levi for valuable

    help with the language.

    Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Carmen Tanner, Fal-

    kenhoeheweg 18, 3012 Bern, Switzerland ([email protected]).