GFDGFDG

European Journal of Marketing
The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch Greg M. Bohlen Adamantios Diamantopoulos
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch Greg M. Bohlen Adamantios Diamantopoulos, (1996),"The link between green purchasing decisions
and measures of environmental consciousness", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 35 - 55
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569610118740
Downloaded on: 08 April 2016, At: 10:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11913 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)
(1999),"Green marketing and Ajzens theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 441-460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363769910289550
(2008),"Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp.
573-586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500810902839
(2011),"Investigation of green marketing tools' effect on consumers' purchase behavior", Business Strategy Series, Vol. 12
Iss 2 pp. 73-83 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515631111114877
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:525175 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The link between green

purchasing decisions and
measures of environmental
consciousness
Green
purchasing
decisions
35
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch
The American Graduate School of International Management,
Glendale, Arizona, USA
Greg M. Bohlen and Adamantios Diamantopoulos

European Business Management School, University of Wales,
Swansea, UK
Introduction
The last decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in environmental
consciousness worldwide. One recent survey found that 82 per cent of British
citizens rated the environment as an immediate and urgent problem
(Dembkowski and Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994), while another study established that
69 per cent of the general public believe that pollution and other environmental
damage are impacting on their everyday life (Worcester, 1993). The increase in
environmental consciousness has had a profound effect on consumer behaviour,
with the green product market expanding at a remarkable rate. For example, a
Mintel survey concluded that 27 per cent of British adults were prepared to pay
up to 25 per cent more for green products (Prothero, 1990) and, in the USA,
Green Market Alert estimated a market growth rate for green products of 10.4
per cent in 1993 to $121.5 billion, and have projected that this will reach $154
billion by 1997 (Lawrence, 1993).
In order to position their green product offerings, companies must first
segment the market according to levels of pro-environmental purchase
behaviour and then target the greener consumer segments. However, a review
of the literature indicates that socio-demographic and personality indicators
have had only limited success in profiling consumers according to their proenvironmental purchasing behaviour. The objective of this article is to ascertain
whether variables specific to environmental consciousness are more suitable for
characterizing consumers green purchasing decisions. Specifically, measures
of environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour are linked to two
conceptualizations of the purchasing domain, namely green purchasing
decisions in general and the specific purchasing habits of five green product
categories. The analysis is conducted on two distinct data sets: marketing
students and members of the general public throughout the UK. Although there
have been numerous warnings regarding the use of student samples in applied
European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 30 No. 5, 1996, pp. 35-55.
MCB University Press, 0309-0566
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
36
psychological and behavioural research (Bearden et al., 1993; Permut et al.,

1978; Sears, 1986), US research found marketing students responses to
questions relating to environmental consciousness to be similar to those
recorded by the general public as a whole (Synodinos, 1990). Thus, a secondary
objective is to ascertain if the US findings can be replicated in a UK context and,
thus, to shed some additional light on the student sample controversy.
Background and literature
Characterizing the market for environmental products
The demand for green products has been shown to be uneven across different
market segments (Ottman, 1992; Peattie, 1992). Thus, [f]or organizations to
position green products, or communicate their environmental efforts, to
members of the population who are likely to be concerned about environmental
issues, green consumer segments need to be identified (Bohlen et al., 1993,
p. 415). Over the last 20 years, there have been relatively few attempts to classify
consumers specifically according to levels of green purchasing behaviour.
However, there has been a whole wealth of research, using a variety of
segmentation variables, attempting to profile the environmentally conscious
members of the population in general. The measures that have been used fall
into two distinct categories: socio-demographics, such as sex, age, education
and social class (see Schlegelmilch et al., 1994), and personality measures, such
as locus of control, alienation, conservatism and dogmatism (e.g. Balderjahn,
1988; Crosby et al., 1981; Henion and Wilson, 1976; Kinnear et al., 1974).
Given the relative ease with which socio-demographics can be measured and
applied, it is not surprising these have been the most widely used variables for
profiling purposes. However, recent evidence illustrates that there is very little
value in the use of socio-demographic characteristics for profiling
environmentally-conscious consumers in the UK (Schlegelmilch et al. 1994,
p. 348), with only very weak relationships uncovered on a bivariate basis.
Indeed, focusing specifically on pro-environmental purchasing behaviour,
Schlegelmilch et al. (1994) explained, less than 10 per cent of variation through
multiple regression procedures; this is in line with US studies that have
performed multivariate analyses to link such characteristics to measures of
green behaviour (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980). The limited utility of sociodemographics may be explained by the fact that the environment is no longer a
marginal issue; indeed, environmental concern is becoming the socially
accepted norm (Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991, p. 85). Thus, it perhaps should
not be expected that high levels of green purchasing behaviour would only be
reflected in certain socio-demographic sectors of the consumer base.
Personality variables have been found to have somewhat higher linkages to
individuals environmental consciousness (Kinnear et al., 1974; Schwepker and
Cornwell, 1991). However, while this is true for general environmental
measures, the results are somewhat inconsistent for specific pro-environmental
behaviours, such as green purchasing decisions (see Balderjahn, 1988).
Furthermore, personality variables have been shown to explain only a small
part of the total variability of the behavioural measures used (Webster, 1975,
p. 196). Indeed, Hooley and Saunders (1993; p. 145) suggest that caution should
be taken in using personality variables for market segmentation according to
behavioural criteria: In most instances, personality measures are most likely to
be of use for describing segments once they have been defined on some other
basis. It is quite possible, indeed probable, that behaviour and reasons behind it
will vary within segments defined on the basis of personality characteristics
alone. Moreover, personality variables do not easily lead to segmentation
strategy (Webster, 1975, p. 196) due to the inherently complex processes
involved in their measurement and interpretation.
Given the failures of the above two classes of variables, this article proposes
a new segmentation approach, through an analysis of the linkages between proenvironmental purchase behaviour and measures of environmental
consciousness. The rationale for this approach rests on the fact that consumers
have traditionally been shown to express their environmental consciousness
through the products they purchase. In the first wave of post-war enthusiasm
for environmental protection during the late 1960s and early 1970s, being
environmentally-concerned and being consumerist were seen as mutually
exclusive. During this period, it was thought that the only way to cut down on
pollution and solve the worlds environmental problems, particularly natural
resource depletion, was to cut down on consumption. Throughout the 1970s and
1980s, energy efficiency and pollution control measures appeared to promise a
have your cake and eat it environmentalism (Henley Centre, 1990, p. 24) and,
as a consequence, green issues were not at the forefront of consumer concerns.
However, in recent years when the environment surged in importance, rather
than cut down their consumption of products, consumers began to seek out
environmentally-friendly alternatives in preference to their usual product
purchases. Hence the green consumer was born. Evidence for this change in
purchase behaviour can be found in numerous surveys. For example, in July
1989, a MORI (Market and Opinion Research International) poll revealed that
the proportion of consumers selecting products on the basis of environmental
performance had increased from 19 per cent to 42 per cent in less than a year
(Elkington, 1989) and, by late 1992, a Nielsen study revealed that four out of five
consumers were expressing their opinions about the environment through their
purchasing behaviour (Marketing, 1992). It is likely, therefore, that consumers
who exhibit high levels of environmental consciousness make more green
purchasing decisions than those exhibiting low levels. Thus, it is envisaged that
measures of environmental consciousness will be more closely related to
purchasing habits than either socio-demographics or personality variables.
The environmental consciousness construct
Over the last 25 years, there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize and
operationalize the construct of environmental consciousness. In addition to
the marketing literature (Anderson et al., 1974; Antil, 1984; Van Dam, 1991),
studies have been conducted in a wide range of other disciplines, such as
Green
purchasing
decisions
37
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
38
psychology (e.g. Arbuthnot and Lingg, 1975; Lounsbury and Tornatsky, 1977;
Maloney et al., 1975), sociology (Buttel and Flinn, 1978; Mohai and Twight,
1987; Ray, 1975), political science (e.g. Jackson, 1983), environmental studies
(e.g. Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Scott and Willits, 1994; Vining and Ebreo,
1990) and business research (Balderjahn, 1988).
A number of different instruments have been used in the above efforts to
measure environmental consciousness. On the substantive front, these vary in
the extent to which they incorporate different green issues, such as population
control, natural resources and energy consumption. For example, some studies
have focused on concern about acid rain (Arcury et al., 1987), recycling issues
(Vining and Ebreo, 1990) or pollution (Ramsay and Rickson, 1976), while more
common practices have been to either aggregate items dealing with these
various substantive issues into single environmental measures (e.g. Hackett,
1993; Jackson, 1985; Maloney et al., 1975), or to develop a number of measures,
each covering specific issues (Tognacci et al., 1972; Witherspoon and Martin,
1992). The latter two approaches would seem to provide a more comprehensive
profile of green consumers, however, such approaches have been criticized on
the basis that:
it is unclear whetherthese various substantive issues reflect equally the broader concept of
concern with environmental quality (Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981: p. 653).
Measurement instruments also differ in terms of their implicit or explicit

assumptions regarding the components of the environmental consciousness
construct. For example, some have solely addressed environmental attitudes
(Buttel, 1979), capturing individuals levels of concern/interest about specific or
general aspects of environmental, ecological, or energy-saving phenomena.
Other studies have focused on environmentally-sensitive behaviour (Brooker,
1976), capturing individuals past, current and intentional commitment to
activities that aim to ameliorate societys negative impact on the natural
environment. However, given the controversy of the attitude-behaviour link (see
Foxall, 1984a,b), an analysis of attitudinal components alone may not
accurately predict actual behaviour. Indeed, weak linkages between attitudes
and behaviour have been noted in the environmental and social marketing
literature (Gill et al., 1986; Rothschild, 1979); moreover, in order to be green, it
may be argued that individuals require an understanding of the consequences
of their behaviours (Bohlen et al., 1993, p. 417). In this context, positive
attitudes towards the environment are not necessarily indicative of high levels
of environmental knowledge (see Ramsay and Rickson, 1976). Thus, along with
attitudinal and behavioural components, knowledge items that capture
individuals level of factual information about specific or general aspects of
environmental, ecological or energy-saving phenomena should be contained
within any operationalization of environmental consciousness. However, to
date, measures of environmentalism have included relatively few components
of the entire green semantic domain (Hackett, 1992, p. 3).
In addition to the existing substantive issues and theoretical

conceptualizations, many existing measurement instruments have not been
subjected to rigorous psychometric assessments of dimensionality, reliability
and validity. For example, some studies have merely used internal consistency
measures to assess both the reliability and dimensionality of the employed
items (Buttel, 1979; Jackson, 1985; Tognacci et al., 1972); however, if items are
combined that in reality measure two correlated yet distinct constructs, a
combination of all their items might well yield internal consistency, even though
they reflect two different constructs (Spector, 1992, p. 54). Worse still, some
studies have aggregated items into composite measures without any reliability
or validity checks (Corrado and Ross, 1990; Lowe et al., 1980; Murphy et al.,
1979; Ramsay and Rickson, 1976).
Finally, the vast majority of relevant literature is American (65 US studies
have been uncovered) and European academic research in this area has
been relatively sparse (Schlegelmilch et al., 1994, p. 348). In this context,
there may be certain country-specific factors, such as levels and types of
pollution, environmental legislation and the availability of green products
that will affect the operationalization of the environmental-consciousness
construct.
Given the obvious problems inherent in previous measurement instruments,
to capture levels of environmental consciousness existent in the UK consumer
base, it was decided to develop a new series of summated rating scales,
capturing the entire environmental consciousness domain as it applies to the
UK consumer, namely measures of environmental knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour. The key phases in the scales developmental process are outlined in
the following section.
Methodology
Sample selection
The data for the current investigation was obtained from two distinct samples.
The survey instrument was first administered in a self-completion format to a
sample of 160 undergraduates attending a second-year marketing course at a
UK university. The vast majority of students were British, and were aged
between 19 and 21 years, although approximately 15 per cent were European
exchange students, who tended to be slightly older (21 to 25 years of age).
Questionnaires were distributed at the beginning of a marketing principles
lecture, with the subjects requested to return the questionnaire on their way out
of the lecture theatre. All questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 100 per
cent response rate.
In the social psychology arena, students are generally used as subjects due to
convenience-related factors, and their representativeness of the population of
interest is often overlooked (Bearden et al., 1993; Burnett and Dunne, 1986).
Thus, it has been argued that such samples may be inappropriate surrogates
for many marketing studies (Permut et al., 1978, p. 2). In explaining the
disparity in results from student and public samples, Sears (1986, p. 527)
Green
purchasing
decisions
39
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
40
indicates that students tend to exhibit incompletely formulated senses of self,

rather uncrystallized sociopolitical attitudes and behave less emotionally and
impulsively than the general population.
However, Gordon et al. (1984) argue that the question of external validity
can only be assessed through direct comparisons between students and the
public in specific domains; indeed, Landy and Bates (1973) and Bernstein et al.
(1975), contest that limited generalizability from student samples should not
be assumed a priori for any particular social phenomenon. Indeed, previous
research in the US, far from discouraging the use of student samples in the
investigation of environmental consciousness, found marketing students
responses to be very similar to those recorded by the general public as a whole
(Synodinos, 1990). Having said that, data for the latter sample was collected
15 years previously by Maloney et al. (1975) and, thus, Synodinos (1990)
comparison may be subject to history effects. Given that, to the authors best
knowledge, no UK study has yet directly contrasted students with ordinary
consumers on environmental issues, the current research design will also shed
some light on this contentious issue.
For the second sample, a database consisting of 600 addresses of members
of the general public throughout the UK was obtained from a professional
sampling agency (CACI), and a structured mail questionnaire was sent to each
address. Two weeks after the questionnaires were mailed, 100 follow-up
telephone calls were made and 100 letters sent out to non-respondents of the
first wave. A total of 113 usable questionnaires were finally obtained,
representing an effective response rate of 19 per cent. In order to investigate
non-response bias, a comparison of responses to questionnaires received from
the initial mailing to those received after the follow-up was conducted, as
recommended by Armstrong and Overton (1977). This failed to uncover any
significant differences in the variables of interest, thus providing no evidence
of such sample bias (despite the rather low response rate). The sample
composition was slightly over-represented by the higher social classes and
the better educated when compared with the UK population as reported by
Smyth and Browne (1992); this is often the case with mail surveys addressed
to the general public (Moser and Kalton, 1971). The sample also contained a
higher proportion of male respondents possibly because males are more
likely to see themselves as head of the household and, therefore, responsible
for the provision of the required information.
Dependent variables
The dependent variables employed in the analysis all relate to individuals
purchasing habits of environmentally-friendly products (Table I). In
operationalizing the pro-environmental purchasing domain, a conscious effort
was made to exclude items purchased for reasons of energy conservation,
where the latter may not be motivated by individuals environmental
consciousness. For example, while the purchasing of energy efficient light
bulbs is undoubtedly an environmentally-sensitive behaviour, it is a
decision more often driven by personal economics (Hseueh and Gerner, 1993;
Powers et al., 1992). As noted previously, two conceptualizations of the
purchasing domain are included as dependent variables.
General pro-environmental purchasing behaviour was captured with the
general purchasing behaviour scale, a summated measure of responses to three
purchasing statements, namely:
(1) Choose the environmentally-friendly alternative if one of a similar price
is available;
Green
purchasing
decisions
41
(2) Choose the environmentally-friendly alternative regardless of price;

and
(3) Try to discover the environmental effects of products prior to purchase.
Dependent
variables
General purchasing scale
Recycled paper products
Not tested on animals
Environmentally-friendly detergent
Organically-grown fruit and vegetables
Ozone-friendly aerosols
No.
Items
Mean
GP
3
1
1
1
1
1
9.87
3.37
3.53
3.50
2.37
4.60
9.64
3.55
3.67
3.58
2.67
4.26
Standard deviation Range

S
GP
S
GP
2.38
1.02
1.08
1.14
1.05
0.80
2.95
0.77
1.06
1.03
1.02
0.97
3-15
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
3-15
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
Note: In Tables I-III, S = student sample; GP = general public sample
Each item was measured on a 5-point frequency of purchase scale (1 = Never,

5 = Always). Following principal components analysis, unidimensionality
was established, with the single factor accounting for approximately 75 per cent
of the variation in the individual items. A high level of internal consistency for
both the student and general public samples was found, with alpha values of
0.709 and 0.817 for student and general public samples respectively, well above
the acceptable thresholds suggested by Nunnally (1967). In contrast, specific
pro-environmental purchasing behaviour was captured with five variables, all
single-item measures recording purchase frequencies of a number of green
product categories, measured on 5-point scales (1 = Would never buy, 5 =
Would always buy).
Independent variables
As mentioned earlier the domain of environmental consciousness is defined as
a multi-dimensional construct, consisting of cognitive, attitudinal and
behavioural components. Therefore, measures encapsulating all three
dimensions are included as independent variables, using four composite scales
(Bohlen et al., 1993); these include:
Table I.
Summary statistics for
purchasing measures
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
42
(1) A knowledge scale measuring the respondents self-perception of

knowledge on a total of 11 key environmental problems, scored on a fivepoint itemized category format (1 = Know nothing about, 5 = Know a
great deal about).
(2) An attitudes scale consisting of 19 five-point Likert statements aimed at
capturing the respondents concern about environmental quality (1 =
Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
(3) A recycling behaviour scale comprising four items regarding levels and
types of recycling activities, scored on a five-point itemized category
format (1 = Would never do, 5 = Do often).
(4) A political action scale consisting of four politically-motivated activities
in order to combat environmental degradation (e.g. writing to
newspapers or supporting pressure groups), scored on a five-point
itemized category format (1 = Would never do, 5 = Do often).
In developing the scales, established procedures from the measure development
literature were followed (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 1991; Gerbing and Anderson,
1988; Spector, 1992). First, in order to specify the domain of environmental
consciousness, an extensive literature review was undertaken to explore both
green issues in general and previous measurement instruments in particular.
This was coupled with a number of semi-structured interviews with the general
public, in order to capture the types and levels of environmental consciousness
within the mindset of the UK consumer. The second phase of the developmental
process consisted of focus group discussions with both experts on green issues
and business undergraduates. With regards to the former, participants included
university lecturers who have extensive knowledge on green issues and
postgraduate researchers working on environment-related theses. Both sets of
group discussions assisted the generation of items which pertained to each of the
dimensions of the constructs at issue. Finally, once a sample of items had been
generated, a questionnaire was formulated and pilot tested on a sample of 60
business undergraduates. Subsequently, the items pertaining to each construct
were refined and administered to both student and general public samples.
For both sample types, the developed scales were assessed in terms of
dimensionality, reliability and construct validity. Specifically, principal
components analysis ensured that each of the scales was unidimensional in
nature, with each factor extracting a high proportion of variation in the
individual items. Subsequently, the reliability of the various dimensions was
addressed, with all scales exhibiting high levels of internal consistency. Finally,
assessments of within-measure and between-measure construct validation
were undertaken and, again, all scales proved to be adequate in terms of this
psychometric property (see Tables II-IV).
Findings
To assess the strength of the relationships between the measures of
environmental consciousness and pro-environmental purchasing behaviour,
Sample No.
type items
Variables
Mean
SD
Range
Alpha
Min.
Environmental knowledge
scale
S
GP
11
11
34.77
33.78
6.19
8.50
20-52
11-51
0.872
0.940
0.184
0.399
Environmental attitudes
scale
S
GP
19
19
74.37
77.33
9.17
9.45
40-95
49-95
0.887
0.896
0.037
0.086
Recycling behaviour scale
S
GP
4
4
13.34
14.13
2.84
3.44
4-18
4-20
0.743
0.807
0.358
0.423
Political action scale
S
GP
4
4
9.03
9.24
3.02
3.24
6-20
4-17
0.787
0.798
0.399
0.419
Inter-item correlations
Sample No.
type items Min. Max. Mean
Variables
43
Table II.
Mean, range and alpha
statistics for
environmental
consciousness measures
(independent variables)
Item-total correlation
SD
Min.
Max.
Environmental knowledge
scale
S
GP
11
11
0.184
0.399
0.631
0.836
0.386
0.595
0.109
0.092
0.427
0.621
0.654
0.824
Environmental attitudes
scale
S
GP
19
19
0.037
0.086
0.693
0.625
0.305
0.336
0.126
0.114
0.272
0.358
0.650
0.697
S
GP
4
4
0.358
0.423
0.508
0.639
0.422
0.511
0.065
0.089
0.521
0.612
0.547
0.638
S
GP
4
4
0.399
0.419
0.653
0.628
0.503
0.509
0.112
0.085
0.472
0.525
0.704
0.681
Attitudes
Green
purchasing
decisions
Scales
Knowledge
Recycling
Environmental
knowledge scale
1.000 (1.000)
Environmental
attitudes scale
0.401 (0.483)
1.000 (1.000)
Recycling behaviour
scale
0.277 (0.328)
0.450 (0.250)
1.000 (1.000)
0.447 (0.502)
0.625 (0.552)
0.386 (0.327)
Table III.
Inter-item and itemtotal correlations for
environmental
consciousness measures
Politics
1.000 (1.000)
Note:
Figures without parentheses are from the student sample; figures within parentheses are from
the general public sample
Table IV.
Between-measure
correlations for
environmental
consciousness scales
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
44
individual regression analyses were conducted for both student and general
public samples. Prior to analysis, a number of the dependent variables for the
general public sample (recycle paper products, products not tested on animals,
and organically-grown fruit and vegetables) were found to exhibit very skewed
distributions which were dealt with through natural logarithmic
transformations. Forward selection of the predictors was considered to be the
preferred option for equation construction, given the primary concern with
explanatory power and obtaining a parsimonious equation; this also helps
reduce problems of multicollinearity (see Hair et al., 1992). In the forward
selection procedure, the first variable considered for entry into the equation is
the one with the largest positive or negative correlation with the dependent
variable (Norusis, 1988, p. 171).
All regression equations were found to be significant beyond the 0.5 per cent
level for both samples, reflecting the explanatory power of the environmental
consciousness measures. In addition, as anticipated, all the partial regression
coefficients were in the positive direction, demonstrating that the higher the
environmental consciousness scores, the higher the frequency of green
purchasing decisions. To check the stability of the regression results, the
analyses were subsequently re-run using both backward elimination and
stepwise selection; essentially identical results were obtained for both samples,
indicating a high degree of stability of the regression equations.
With regards to the student sample, not all of the general environmental
measures are related to the purchasing measures, as different combinations of
independent variables enter into the equation for each dependent variable
(Table V). Specifically, the environmental attitudes scale has the highest
explanatory power for four of the purchasing measures (the general purchasing
behaviour scale, recycled paper products, products not tested on animals and
ozone-friendly aerosols), the political action scale has the highest explanatory
power for two of the purchasing measures (environmentally-friendly detergents
and organically-grown fruit and vegetables), while for the environmental
knowledge scale, and the recycling behaviour scale, the beta weights in all
equations are much smaller, resulting in only marginal increases in the adjusted
R2s. The greatest proportion of variation explained is observed for the general
purchasing behaviour scale and recycled paper products (approximately 26 per
cent of variation for both variables), whereas only 13-17 per cent of variation is
explained in the remaining purchasing items.
For the general public sample (Table VI), the environmental attitudes scale is
the most important predictor overall and, consistent with the findings for the
former sample, this variable explains the highest proportion of variance in the
general purchasing behaviour scale, recycled paper products, products not
tested on animals and ozone-friendly aerosols. The political action scale again
explains the highest proportion of variance in environmentally-friendly
detergents and organically-grown fruit and vegetables, and it is also entered in
the equation for the general purchasing behaviour scale. In contrast, the
environmental knowledge and recycling behaviour scales contribute towards
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
Recycling
behaviour scale
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
Step
[-]
Cum
R2
[-]
[-]
0.269
0.197 (0.257)
0.238
0.401 (0.232)
[-]
Beta
Recycled paper
products
Notes: Cum R2: = cumulative R2 (adjusted R2 in brackets)

All standardized betas significant beyond p = 0.05
All regression equations significant beyond p = 0.005
Political action
scale
0.264
0.433 (0.256)
Environmental
attitudes scale
[-]
[-]
Environmental
knowledge scale [ - ]
Cum
R2
Beta
Step
Independent
variables
General purchasing
behaviour scale
[-]
[-]
[-]
Step
[-]
Cum
R2
Step
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
Cum
R2
[-]
[-]
0.120
0.258 (0.111)
[-]
[-]
0.153
0.203 (0.137)
Beta
[-]
[-]
Step
[-]
0.152
0.318 (0.145) [ - ]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
0.138
0.371 (0.129)
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
Cum
Cum
R2 Step Beta R2
Ozone-friendly
aerosols
0.174
0.163 (0.159) [ - ]
Beta
Environmentally- Organically-grown
friendly detergents fruit and vegetables
0.173
0.416 (0.165) [ - ]
[-]
Beta
Products not tested

on animals
Dependent variables
Green
purchasing
decisions
45
Table V.
Summary stepwise
forward estimation
regression results for
student sample
Table VI.
Summary stepwise
forward estimation
regression results for
general public sample
[-]
Environmental
attitudes scale
Recycling
behaviour scale
Political action
scale
Cum
R2
[-]
0.579
0.277 (0.566)
[-]
0.435
0.373 (0.430)
0.529
0.278 (0.519)
Beta
[-]
[-]
Step
Cum
R2
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
0.167
0.265 (0.159)
0.224
0.231 (0.207)
Beta
Notes: Cum R2: = cumulative R2 (adjusted R2 in brackets)

All standardized betas significant beyond p = 0.05
All regression equations significant beyond p = 0.005
Environmental
knowledge scale
Step
Recycled paper
products
[-]
[-]
Step
[-]
Cum
R2
[-]
Step
[-]
[-]
0.199
0.226 (0.180)
[-]
[-]
Cum
R2
0.166
0.306 (0.157)
0.242
0.294 (0.225)
[-]
[-]
Beta
Environmentallyfriendly detergents
0.153
0.324 (0.142) [ - ]
[-]
Beta
Products not tested

on animals
[-]
[-]
[-]
Step
0.299
[-]
[-]
[-]
Beta
Ozone-friendly
aerosols
0.088
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
0.296
0.544(0.288)
[-]
Cum
Cum
R2 Step Beta R2
Organically-grown
fruit & vegetables
46
Independent
variables
General purchasing
behaviour scale
Dependent variables
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
the variation in different purchasing items than for the student sample;
specifically, the former contributes to the general purchasing behaviour scale
and recycled paper products, and the latter contributes to products not tested on
animals and organically-grown fruit and vegetables. The explanatory power of
the independent variables for the general public sample also reveals differences
to the findings of the student sample. Regarding the general purchasing
behaviour scale, 57 per cent of variation is explained for the general public
sample by the environmental measures; in fact, for all but one of the specific
purchasing items, the predictive power of the environmental measures is higher
than that for the student sample, with 18-9 per cent of the variation explained.
In contrast, the adjusted R2 for organically-grown fruit and vegetables is just
0.079, suggesting that the environmental measures are rather ineffective for
explaining variation in general public purchases for this particular product
category.
Given the differences in the regression results between the two samples,
multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to test whether, as Synodinos
(1990) suggests, marketing students exhibit similar levels of environmental
consciousness to the general public. With regards to the purchasing behaviour
measures, the summary statistics reveal that both the variances and means are,
as a whole, significantly different between the two samples (Tables VII and
VIII). The univariate variance tests illustrate that two of the purchasing items
have different dispersion characteristics for the two samples, with students
exhibiting a smaller dispersion from the mean for recycled paper products, and
a higher dispersion for ozone-friendly aerosols (see Table I). On the other hand,
the univariate means tests illustrate that the two samples have different average
response levels for three of the purchasing items; the general public purchase
more products not tested on animals and organically-grown fruit and
Dependent variables
General purchasing behaviour scale
Recycled paper products
Products not tested on animals
Environmentally-friendly detergents
Organically-grown fruit and vegetables
Ozone-friendly aerosols
Univariate variance test

F-value
(1.102868) Significance
3.042
11.837
1.780
0.623
0.136
7.776
Notes:
Multivariate variance (Boxs M ) F-value = 21.99517
Multivariate means (Hotellings T 2 ) F-value = 4.209
0.081
0.001
0.182
0.430
0.712
0.005
Green
purchasing
decisions
47
Univariate means test

F-value
(1.198)
Significance
0.010
2.485
4.947
0.153
6.382
6.821
0.920
0.117
0.027
0.696
0.012
0.010
2.080
3.949
0.003
0.001
Table VII.
Comparisons between
student and general
public samples
(dependent variable)
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
48
Table VIII.
Comparisons between
student and general
public samples
Independent variables
Environmental knowledge scale
Environmental attitudes scale
Univariate variance test

F-value
(1.133271) Significance
7.834
0.229
0.127
4.584
Notes:
Multivariate variance (Boxs M ) F-value = 10.206663
Multivariate means (Hotellings T 2 ) F-value = 4.209
0.005
0.633
0.722
0.032
Univariate means test

F-value
(1.212)
Significance
0.818
4.061
0.237
2.887
0.367
0.045
0.627
0.091
2.008
2.587
0.028
0.038
vegetables, while students purchase higher levels of ozone-friendly aerosols (see

Table I).
Regarding the general environmental measures (independent variables), the
summary statistics again reveal that, taken as a whole, the variances and
means are significantly different between the student and general public
samples (Tables VII and VIII). Focusing on the specific disparities between the
two data sets, differences are observed in the variances for the environmental
knowledge scale and recycling behaviour scale, while the general public sample
has a higher variation in response on both measures. Differences are also
identified on the environmental attitudes scale, with students appearing to
exhibit, on average, lower concerns about environmental quality than the
general public.
The results suggest that the differences observed in the regression equations
could be due to discrepancies in the means and variances of both the general
environmental measures and the measures of pro-environmental purchasing
habits between the student and general public samples. Therefore, the US
findings of Synodinos (1990) are not replicated in the UK; i.e. marketing
students exhibit different levels of environmental consciousness to the public as
a whole, and using the former as a proxy for the latter does not seem to be
justified.
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to assess the link between variables
specific to environmental consciousness and pro-environmental purchasing
behaviour. The regression results suggest that such measures may indeed be
more useful than either socio-demographic or personality variables, given that
the latter variable types explain very little variation in responses to
environmental phenomena. Indeed, the environmental consciousness variables
often explain more than 20 per cent of the variation in the purchasing measures.
In addition, all the partial regression coefficients are in the positive direction,
indicating that consumers overall environmental consciousness has a positive

impact on pro-environmental purchasing behaviour. However, the findings
suggest that the strength of the relationships is dependent on three factors.
First, the results vary between sample type; more variation in proenvironmental purchasing behaviour is explained for the general public
sample. Moreover, different environmental measures are observed to be
important explanatory variables for each sample, providing support for Sears
(1986, p. 520) argument that some relationships might hold with ordinary
adults in everyday life but not to any visible degree among college students.
This suggests that the generalization of relationships from student data could
lead to a distorted portrait of the UK green consumer.
Second, the strength of the relationships varies according to the dimension of
purchasing behaviour at issue. Specifically, much more variation is explained
for the general purchasing behaviour scale than for the specific purchasing
items, particularly for the general public sample. This is not a surprising
finding, given the argument that scores on general measures should not be
expected to predict isolated acts (e.g. Fishbein, 1973; Heberlein, 1981). The items
on the composite general purchasing behaviour scale do not relate to specific
products, but to hypothetical buying decisions, i.e. responses to the items may
be based on an artificial purchasing situation, in which all other decision
criteria are held constant. Thus, one would not expect the environmental
measures to explain very high levels of variation in purchasing levels of the
specific items due to the absence of intervening factors (such as price,
convenience, performance, etc.) in the regression model. Finally, results are
inconsistent across the specific purchasing items, particularly for the general
public sample. For instance, approximately four times the variation is explained
in purchasing levels of ozone-friendly aerosols in relation to organically-grown
fruit and vegetables. A possible explanation is that the performance of the
former is similar to aerosols containing CFCs, availability is widespread, and
they are equally as convenient to use; in contrast, Grunert (1991, p. 11) contests
that organic produce is perceived to be of bad appearance and that there is
dissatisfaction with supply and distribution density. Hence, it is possible that
the discrepancies in the strength of the relationships are a consequence of
moderating factors in respondents purchasing decision criteria.
With regards to the independent variables themselves, the findings indicate
that different environmental measures serve as explanatory variables for each
of the purchasing measures. While the environmental attitudes scale is
observed to be the most consistent explanatory variable for both samples, the
remaining environmental variables vary considerably in terms of their
explanatory power. The strong relationships uncovered for the attitudinal
measure is in fact a positive surprise, given the weak linkages uncovered in the
literature between attitudes and behaviour. The environmental knowledge scale
did not manifest strong relationships for either sample. Although this finding is
in line with previous research in the area (see Hines et al., 1987), due to the
inherently subjective nature of the scales operationalization, measuring self-
Green
purchasing
decisions
49
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
50
perception of knowledge may not provide an accurate indication of consumer

knowledge and, hence, the explanatory power of true knowledge may be
higher than that observed in the present study. However, true environmental
knowledge is difficult to capture (Bohlen et al., 1993); additionally, Cope and
Winward (1991) contest that this problem is exacerbated by the fact that
consumers know little about environmental problems and their solutions.
Neither of the two behavioural measures were observed to explain
substantial variation in the purchasing measures. One may have anticipated the
recycling behaviour scale to have entered the regression equation for recycled
paper products in the general public sample too, given that, conceptually, both
behaviours aim to reduce solid waste in landfill sites and conserve natural
resources. However, Vining and Ebreo (1990, p. 70) argue that Recycling is an
activity that demands time, space and resources of the family member who
undertakes it. The latter is not really applicable to the purchasing of paper
products, since such goods are usually clearly labelled to indicate whether or
not they are manufactured from recycled paper or fibres. Thus, it could be
argued that recycling activities would yield more positive relationships with
purchasing decisions that require additional time and effort. Partial support for
this is indicated by the fact that the recycling behaviour scale is entered into the
equation for products not tested on animals for the general public sample; the
purchasing of true cruelty-free products requires considerable effort on the part
of the consumer (Prothero and McDonagh, 1992).
The political action scale is only observed to be an important explanatory
variable for environmentally-friendly detergents and organically-grown fruit
and vegetables. While the latter products are not widely purchased due to their
price, poor appearance and availability constraints (Grunert, 1991), products in
the former category have generally not been accepted by consumers, since they
do not clean as well or as effortlessly as their more toxic counterparts
(Coddington, 1993) and the more well known detergents have not won
acceptance with mainstream consumers because [their] packaging is
unattractive (Wongtada et al., 1992: p. 14). Activities encapsulated in the
political action scale are more likely to be undertaken by consumers who are
highly environmentally-conscious. Therefore, a possible explanation of the high
explanatory power of this scale for the above items is that the latter are
purchased by the extreme consumers who forsake other product benefits to
support the green cause. However, given this argument, one would expect, on
average, that low purchase frequencies be reported for both products and, while
organic produce are bought infrequently, green detergents are bought quite
often (see Table I).
Implications and conclusions
The limitations in the sample size suggest that only tentative conclusions
should be made from the present study. A larger sample of the general public
would seem prudent in order to assess the stability of the current results.
In spite of the above caveat, this study has illustrated that consumers
environmental consciousness may impact on their purchasing decisions,
although the latter are also likely to be influenced by other moderating factors.
The findings suggest that attitudes are the most consistent predictor of proenvironmental purchasing behaviour. Thus, organizations aiming to increase
market penetration for existing green product offerings would be recommended
to develop campaigns directed at increasing concern about environmental
quality in the consumer base (e.g. advertising campaigns, point-of-sale
material). However, given that 63 per cent of consumers are suspicious of
manufacturers green product claims (Toor, 1992), extreme care must be taken
to ensure that claims about products green credentials are based on solid
foundations to prevent the inevitable consumer backlash. Second, organizations
in the process of developing new green product offerings should ensure that
their products perform competitively in other dimensions. If this is achieved,
environmental considerations will no longer take a back seat in purchasing
decisions, since all other evaluative criteria will be relatively stable. For
example, if a new brand of environmentally-friendly detergent was developed
that had attractive packaging and matched other detergents on all other
dimensions, it is likely that the variance explained in the purchasing frequency
of this specific product would be similar to the prediction level of the
hypothetical situation of general pro-environmental purchasing behaviour.
The present study has illustrated that prediction levels, as well as the predictors
themselves, are dependent upon which specific green product group one is
focusing on. However, only five product categories were explored and, given
that some authors now believe that the environment will become the most
important business issue of the decade (e.g. Carson and Moulden, 1991), a wider
variety of environmentally-responsible products and services are likely to filter
through into the marketplace, and will require individual investigation.
Furthermore, the purchasing measures employed in the study are self-reported
and, given that there is a certain amount of social desirability associated with
environmental issues (Amyx et al., 1994), some respondents may have
artificially inflated their actual levels of purchases. Thus, through the use of
techniques such as panel experimentation, future studies should investigate the
consistency between self-reported and actual pro-environmental purchasing
behaviour.
As outlined above, the attitudinal component of the environmental domain
was observed to be the most important predictor of green purchasing decisions.
However, in order to increase consumers attitudes towards environmental
quality, investigations are necessary to ascertain how environmental attitudes
are formed. In this context, a comparison of personal sources (e.g. family and
friends) and impersonal sources (e.g. media channels) of information could form
the basis of preliminary investigations. Secondly, research should investigate
attitudes towards specific products and the believability of green claims
across product categories. Such research is essential for manufacturers/
retailers aiming to incorporate green concerns into their marketing mix. Finally,
Green
purchasing
decisions
51
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
52
replications of this research would be beneficial in order to ascertain if proenvironmental purchasing behaviour can be explained using the same
environmental criteria in other countries. This holds particularly for the EU,
where the existence of the Single Market necessitates organizations to have a
clear understanding of the idiosyncrasies that exist within each countrys green
product base (Du Preez et al., 1994).
References
Amyx, D.A., Dejong, P.F., Lin, X., Chakraborty, G. and Weiner, J.L. (1994), Influencers of purchase
intentions for ecologically safe products: an exploratory study, in Park, C.W. and Smith, D.C.
(Eds), Marketing Theory and Applications: The Proceedings of the 1994 American Marketing
Associations Winter Educators Conference, Vol. 5, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 341-7.
Anderson, W.T. Jr, Henion, K.E. II, and Cox, E.P. (1974), Socially vs. ecologically concerned
consumers, American Marketing Association Combined Conference Proceedings, Vol. 36
(Spring and Fall), pp. 304-11.
Antil, J.A. (1984), Socially responsible consumers: profile and implications for public policy,
Journal of Macromarketing, Fall, pp. 18-39.
Arbuthnot, J. and Lingg, S. (1975), A comparison of French and American environmental
behaviours, knowledge and attitudes, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 275-81.
Arcury, T.A., Scollay, S.J. and Johnson, T.P. (1987), Sex differences in environmental concern and
knowledge: the case of acid rain, Sex Roles, Vol. 16 Nos. 9/10, pp. 463-72.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, August, pp. 396-402.
Balderjahn, I. (1988), Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of
ecologically-responsible consumption patterns, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 17,
pp. 51-6.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Mobley, M.F. (1993), Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multiitem Measures for Marketing and Consumer Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Bernstein, V., Hakel, M.D. and Harlan, A. (1975), The college student as interviewer: a threat to
generalizability?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 266-8.
Bohlen, G.M., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1993), Measuring ecological concern:
a multi-construct perspective, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, October,
pp. 415-30.
Brooker, G. (1976), The self-actualizing socially conscious consumer, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 3, September, pp. 107-12.
Burnett, J. and Dunne, P.M. (1986), An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing
research, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, August, pp. 329-43.
Buttel, F.H. (1979), Age and environmental concern: a multivariate analysis, Youth and Society,
Vol. 10 No. 3, March, pp. 237-56.
Buttel, F.H. and Flinn, W.L. (1978), Social class and mass environmental beliefs: a
reconsideration, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 3, September, pp. 433-50.
Carson, P. and Moulden, J. (1991), Green is Gold: Business Talking to Business about the
Environmental Revolution, Harper Business, Toronto.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Coddington, W. (1993), Environmental Marketing: Positive Strategies for Reaching the Green
Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cope, D. and Winward, J. (1991), Information failures in green consumerism, Consumer Policy
Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, April, pp. 83-6.
Corrado, M. and Ross, M. (1990), Environmental issues in the 1990s: green issues in Britain and
the value of green research data, ESOMAR Annual Congress, Vol. 43, September,
pp. 347-69.
Crosby, L.A., Gill, J.D. and Taylor, J.R. (1981), Consumer/voter behaviour in the passage of the
Michigan container law, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 19-32.
Dembkowski, S. and Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (1994), The environmental attitude-system model: a
framework to guide the understanding of environmentally conscious consumer behaviour, in
Carson, D. et al. (Eds), Marketing: Unity in Diversity. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
the Marketing Education Group, Coleraine, 4-6 July, pp. 232-41.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale development: theory and applications, Applied Social Research
Methods Series, Vol. 26, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K.D. (1978), The new environmental paradigm: a proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary results, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 9,
pp. 10-19.
Du Preez, J.P., Diamantopoulos, A. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1994), Product standardization and
attribute saliency: a three country empirical comparison, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Elkington, J. (1989), Why it pays to be green, Weekend Financial Times, October 14, p. 13.
Fishbein, M. (1973), The prediction of behaviours from attitudinal variables, in Mortenson, C.D.
and Sereno, K.K. (Eds), Advances in Communication Research, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Foxall, G.R. (1984a): Evidence for attitude-behavioural consistency: implications for consumer
research paradigms, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 71-92.
Foxall, G.R. (1984b), Consumers intentions and behaviour, Journal of the Market Research
Society, Vol. 26, pp. 231-41.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25,
May, pp. 361-70.
Gill, J.D., Crosby, L.A. and Taylor, J.R. (1986), Ecological concern, attitudes and social norms in
voting behaviour, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 50, Winter, pp. 537-54.
Gordon, M., Schmitt, N. and Schneider, W. (1984), An evaluation of laboratory research on
bargaining and negotiations, Industrial Relations, Vol. 23, pp. 218-33.
Grunert, S.C. (1991), Everybody seems concerned about the environment: but is this concern
reflected in (Danish) consumers food choice?, paper prepared for a special session at The
ACR Summer Conference, Amsterdam, June.
Hackett, P.M.W. (1992), A conceptual and empirical model of the environmentally concerned
consumer, Working Papers in Consumer Research, CRU/92-02, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham.
Hackett, P.M.W. (1993), Consumers environmental concern values: understanding the structure
of contemporary green world views, in Van Raaij, W.F. and Bamossy, G.J. (Eds), European
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 416-27.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Heberlein, T.A. (1981), Environmental attitudes, Journal of Environmental Policy, Vol. 2,
pp. 241-70.
Henion, K.E. II and Wilson, W.H. (1976), The ecologically concerned consumer and locus of
control, in Henion, K.E. II and Kinnear, T.C. (Eds), Ecological Marketing, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL.
Henley Centre (1990), Rising challenge of green, Marketing, 13 September, p. 24.
Green
purchasing
decisions
53
European
Journal
of Marketing
30,5
54
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (1987), Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behaviour: a meta-analysis, Journal of Environmental Education,
Vol. 18 No. 2, Winter, pp 1-8.
Hooley, G.J. and Saunders, J. (1993), Competitive Positioning: The Key to Marketing Strategy,
Prentice-Hall International, London.
Hseueh, L.M. and Gerner, J.L. (1993), Effect of thermal improvements in housing on residential
energy demand, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
Jackson, E.L. (1985), Environmental attitudes and preferences for energy resource options,
Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 17, pp. 23-30.
Jackson, J.E. (1983), Measuring the demand for environmental quality with survey data, Journal
of Politics, Vol. 45, pp. 335-50.
Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), Ecologically concerned consumers: who are
they?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, April, pp. 20-24.
Landy, F.J. and Bates, F. (1973), Another look at contrast effects in the employment interview,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 141-4.
Lawrence, J. (1993), Green product sprouting again: more focused efforts avoid controversy,
Advertising Age, 10 May, p. 12.
Lounsbury, J.W. and Tournatzky, L.G. (1977), A scale for assessing attitudes toward
environmental quality, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 101, pp. 299-305.
Lowe, G.D., Pinhey, T.K. and Grimes, M.D. (1980), Public support for environmental protection:
new evidence from national surveys, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, October,
pp. 423-45.
Maloney, M.P., Ward, M.P. and Braught, G.N. (1975), A revised scale for the measurement of
ecological attitudes and knowledge, American Psychologist, Vol. 30, July, pp. 787-90.
Marketing (1992), How green is the UK consumer when shopping?, 26 November, p. 16.
Mohai, P. and Twight, B.W. (1987), Age and environmentalism: an elaboration of the Buttel model
using national survey evidence, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 68, December, pp. 798-815.
Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G. (1971), Survey Methods in Social Investigation, 2nd ed., Heinemann,
London.
Murphy, P.E., Laczniak, G.R. and Robinson, R.K. (1979), An attitudinal and a behavioural index
of energy conservation, in Henion, K.H. II and Kinnear, T.C. (Eds), The Conserver Society,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 82-91.
Norusis, M.J. (1988), SPSS-X Introductory Statistics Guide for SPSS-X Release 3, SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ottman, J.A. (1992), Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age,
NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
Peattie, K. (1992), Green marketing, The M + E Handbook Series, Longman, London.
Permut, S.E., Michel, A.J. and Joseph, M. (1978), The researchers sample: a review of the choice
of respondents in marketing research, in Ferber, R. (Ed.), Readings in Survey Research,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 2-13.
Powers, T.L., Swan, J.E. and Lee, S.D. (1992), Identifying and understanding the energy
conservation consumer: a macromarketing systems approach, Journal of Macromarketing,
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Prothero, A. (1990), Green consumerism and the societal marketing concept: marketing
strategies for the 1990s, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 87-103.
Prothero, A. and McDonagh, P. (1992), Producing environmentally acceptable cosmetics? The
impact of environmentalism on the United Kingdom cosmetics and toiletries industry,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, April, pp. 147-66.
Ramsey, C.E. and Rickson, R.E. (1976), Environmental knowledge and attitudes, Journal of
Environmental Education, Vol. 8, pp. 10-18.
Ray, J.J. (1975), Measuring environmentalist attitudes, The Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Sociology, June, pp. 70-71.
Rothschild, M.L. (1979), Marketing communications in non-business situations or why its so
hard to sell brotherhood like soap, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, Spring, pp. 11-20.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Diamantopoulos, A. and Bohlen, G.M. (1994), The value of sociodemographic characteristics for predicting environmental consciousness, in Park, C.W. and
Smith, D.C., Marketing Theory and Applications: The Proceedings of the 1994 American
Marketing Associations Winter Educators Conference, Vol. 5, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 348-9.
Schwepker, C.H. Jr and Cornwell, T.B. (1991), An examination of ecologically concerned
consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically-packaged products, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Scott, D. and Willits, F.K. (1994), Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania survey,
Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 26 No. 2, March, pp. 239-60.
Sears, D.O. (1986), College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on
social psychologys view of human nature, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
51 No. 3, pp. 515-30.
Smyth, M. and Browne, F. (1992), General Household Survey 1990, HMSO, London.
Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated rating scale construction: an introduction, Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-082, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Synodinos, N.E. (1990), Environmental attitudes and knowledge: a comparison of marketing and
business students with other groups, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 161-70.
Tognacci, L.N., Weigel, R.H., Wideen, M.F. and Vernon, D.T.A. (1972), Environmental quality:
how is public concern?, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 4, March, pp. 73-86.
Toor, M. (1992), ISBAs green code delays government legislation, Marketing, 30 January, p. 8.
Van Dam, Y.K. (1991), A conceptual model of environmentally-conscious consumer behavior,
Marketing Thought around the World Proceedings of the 20th European Marketing
Academy Conference, Vol. 2, Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, University College,
Dublin, pp. 463-83.
Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1980), The social bases of environmental concern: a review of
hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44, Summer,
pp. 181-97.
Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1981), Environmental concern: does it make a difference how
its measured?, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 6, November, pp. 651-76.
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990), What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, January, pp. 55-73.
Webster, F.E. (1975), Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer,
Journal of Consumer Research, December, pp. 188-96.
Witherspoon, S. and Martin, J. (1992), What do we mean by green?, British Social Attitudes: The
9th Report, Social and Community Planning Research, Hants, pp. 1-26.
Wongtada, N., Rice, G. and Sammartino, C. (1992), Emerging issues in green marketing: trends
and their implications in Europe, paper presented at The Academy of International Business
Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 20-22 November.
Worcester, R. (1993), Public and Elite Attitudes to Environmental Issues, MORI, London.
Green
purchasing
decisions
55
This article has been cited by:

1. Helena Martins Gonalves, Tiago Ferreira Loureno, Graa Miranda Silva. 2016. Green buying behavior and the theory of
consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research 69, 1484-1491. [CrossRef]
2. S M Fatah Uddin Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Mohammed Naved
Khan Department of Business Administration , Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India . 2016. Exploring green purchasing
behaviour of young urban consumers. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research 5:1, 85-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Sapna A. Narula Department of Business Sustainability, TERI University, New Delhi, India Anupriya Desore Department
of Policy Studies, TERI University, New Delhi, India . 2016. Framing green consumer behaviour research: opportunities and
challenges. Social Responsibility Journal 12:1, 1-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Mansi Mansi, Rakesh Pandey. 2016. Impact of demographic characteristics of procurement professionals on sustainable
procurement practices: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 22, 31-40. [CrossRef]
5. Justin Paul, Ashwin Modi, Jayesh Patel. 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and
reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 29, 123-134. [CrossRef]
6. Professor John Ford and Professor Vicky Crittenden Reto Felix Department of Marketing, The University of Texas Rio
Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA Karin Braunsberger Kate Tiedemann College of Business, University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, Florida, USA . 2016. I believe therefore I care. International Marketing Review 33:1, 137-155. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi. 2016. Evaluation of the impact of Brazil's sustainability on the behavioral intentions of
stakeholders toward the country. Evaluation and Program Planning 54, 135-143. [CrossRef]
8. Shaun A. Bond, Avis Devine. 2016. Certification Matters: Is Green Talk Cheap Talk?. The Journal of Real Estate Finance
and Economics 52, 117-140. [CrossRef]
9. Chen-Yu Lin, Dinara Syrgabayeva. 2016. Mechanism of environmental concern on intention to pay more for renewable
energy: Application to a developing country. Asia Pacific Management Review . [CrossRef]
10. Theresa E. DiDonato, Brittany K. Jakubiak. 2016. Sustainable Decisions Signal Sustainable Relationships: How Purchasing
Decisions Affect Perceptions and Romantic Attraction. The Journal of Social Psychology 156, 8-27. [CrossRef]
11. Hilary A. Sgalitzer, Matthew T.J. Brownlee, Chris Zajchowski, Kelly S. Bricker, Robert B. Powell. 2016. Modelling
travellers philanthropy: tourists motivations to donate at Sweetwater Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Journal of Ecotourism 15:1,
1-20. [CrossRef]
12. Hojjat Mobrezi, Behnaz Khoshtinat. 2016. Investigating the Factors Affecting Female Consumers Willingness toward Green
Purchase Based on the Model of Planned Behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance 36, 441-447. [CrossRef]
13. Jing Shao, Marco Taisch, Miguel Ortega Mier. 2016. Influencing factors to facilitate sustainable consumption: from the
experts' viewpoints. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
14. Brahim Chekima, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Oswald Aisat Igau, Sohaib Chekima, Stephen Laison Sondoh. 2016.
Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing?.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 3436-3450. [CrossRef]
15. Sangkil Moon, Paul K. Bergey, Liliana L. Bove, Stefanie Robinson. 2016. Message framing and individual traits in adopting
innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): Evidence from biofuel adoption. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]
16. Kai-Ying Chan, Leon A.G. Oerlemans, Jako Volschenk. 2015. On the construct validity of measures of willingness to pay for
green electricity: Evidence from a South African case. Applied Energy 160, 321-328. [CrossRef]
17. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2015. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers Green Rhetoric and Purchasing
Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics 132, 311-328. [CrossRef]
18. Sonya Sachdeva, Jennifer Jordan, Nina Mazar. 2015. Green consumerism: moral motivations to a sustainable future. Current
Opinion in Psychology 6, 60-65. [CrossRef]
19. Marie-Ccile Cervellon, Jean Sylvie, Paul-Valentin Ngobo. 2015. Shopping orientations as antecedents to channel choice in
the French grocery multichannel landscape. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 27, 31-51. [CrossRef]
20. Kannan Govindan. 2015. Green sourcing: Taking steps to achieve sustainability management and conservation of resources.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104, 329-333. [CrossRef]
21. gata M. Ritter, Miriam Borchardt, Guilherme L.R. Vaccaro, Giancarlo M. Pereira, Francieli Almeida. 2015. Motivations for
promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. Journal
of Cleaner Production 106, 507-520. [CrossRef]
22. Brbara Leo de Carvalho, Maria de Ftima Salgueiro, Paulo Rita. 2015. Consumer Sustainability Consciousness: A five
dimensional construct. Ecological Indicators 58, 402-410. [CrossRef]
23. Lynn Sudbury-Riley, Florian Kohlbacher. 2015. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and
validation. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]
24. Christina K. C. Lee, Deborah S. Levy, Crystal Sheau Fen Yap. 2015. How does the theory of consumption values contribute
to place identity and sustainable consumption?. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:10.1111/ijcs.2015.39.issue-6,
597-607. [CrossRef]
25. Baris Yilmazsoy Department of Business Administration, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Harald Schmidbauer
Department of Business Administration, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey. Angi Rsch FOM University of Applied
Sciences, Munich, Germany. . 2015. Green segmentation: a cross-national study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:7,
981-1003. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Arpita Khare. 2015. Influence of green self-identity, past environmental behaviour and income on Indian consumers'
environmentally friendly behaviour. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 25, 379-395. [CrossRef]
27. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Thomas A. Fotiadis, Paul Christodoulides, Stavroula Spyropoulou, Constantine S. Katsikeas. 2015.
Environmentally friendly export business strategy: Its determinants and effects on competitive advantage and performance.
International Business Review 24, 798-811. [CrossRef]
28. Jon Bertilsson. 2015. The cynicism of consumer morality. Consumption Markets & Culture 18, 447-467. [CrossRef]
29. Dr Linda L. Price, Prof. Rajiv Vaidyanathan Meghna Rishi Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, New Delhi, India
Vinnie Jauhari Microsoft Corporation, New Delhi, India Gaurav Joshi Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, New
Delhi, India . 2015. Marketing sustainability in the luxury lodging industry: a thematic analysis of preferences amongst the
Indian transition generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32:5, 376-391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Imran Rahman Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Hospitality Management, College of Human Sciences, Auburn
University, Auburn, Alabama, USA Jeongdoo Park Department of Apparel, Design and Hospitality Management, College
of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA Christina Geng-qing
Chi School of Hospitality Business Management, Carlson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington, USA . 2015. Consequences of greenwashing. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
27:6, 1054-1081. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. P. Balogh, A. Bai, J. Popp, L. Huzsvai, P. Jobbgy. 2015. Internet-orientated Hungarian car drivers knowledge and attitudes
towards biofuels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48, 17-26. [CrossRef]
32. Amir Grinstein, Petra Riefler. 2015. Citizens of the (green) world? Cosmopolitan orientation and sustainability. Journal of
International Business Studies 46, 694-714. [CrossRef]
33. Helena Martins Gonalves, Adriana Viegas. 2015. Explaining consumer use of renewable energy: determinants and gender
and age moderator effects. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 25, 198-215. [CrossRef]
34. Eva M. Gonzlez, Reto Felix, Lorena Carrete, Edgar Centeno, Raquel Castao. 2015. Green Shades: A Segmentation
Approach Based on Ecological Consumer Behavior in an Emerging Economy. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23,
287-302. [CrossRef]
35. Rainer Harms, Jonathan D. Linton. 2015. Willingness to Pay for Eco-Certified Refurbished Products: The Effects of
Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge. Journal of Industrial Ecology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
36. Ci-sheng Wu, Xiao-xia Zhou, Meng Song. 2015. Sustainable consumer behavior in China: an empirical analysis from the
Midwest regions. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
37. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Dafnis N. Coudounaris, Olga Kvasova, Paul Christodoulides. 2015. Drivers and Outcomes of
Green Tourist Attitudes and Behavior: Sociodemographic Moderating Effects. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/
mar.2015.32.issue-6, 635-650. [CrossRef]
38. Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, John Thgersen. 2015. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for
Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
39. Dr Anne Wiese, Associate Professor Stephan Zielke and Professor Waldemar Toporowski Yohan Bernard CREGO EA
7317, University of Franche-Comt, Besanon, France Laurent Bertrandias CRM, CNRS UMR 5303 / LGCO, University
of Toulouse 3, Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France Leila Elgaaied-Gambier THEMA, CNRS UMR 8184, University of CergyPontoise, Cergy-Pontoise, France . 2015. Shoppers grocery choices in the presence of generalized eco-labelling. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43:4/5, 448-468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Prashant Kumar Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India Bhimrao M Ghodeswar Department of
Marketing, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India . 2015. Factors affecting consumers green product
purchase decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:3, 330-347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Won-Moo Hur, Jeong-Ju Yoo, Jin Hur. 2015. Exploring the Relationship Between Green Consumption Value, Satisfaction,
and Loyalty to Hybrid Car in Elderly Consumers. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries
25:10.1002/hfm.v25.4, 398-408. [CrossRef]
42. Sigal Segev. 2015. Modelling household conservation behaviour among ethnic consumers: the path from values to behaviours.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:10.1111/ijcs.v39.3, 193-202. [CrossRef]
43. Pirjo Honkanen Nofima (Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research), Troms, Norway James
A. Young Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK . 2015. What determines British consumers
motivation to buy sustainable seafood?. British Food Journal 117:4, 1289-1302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Natascha Loebnitz, Geertje Schuitema, Klaus G. Grunert. 2015. Who Buys Oddly Shaped Food and Why? Impacts of Food
Shape Abnormality and Organic Labeling on Purchase Intentions. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/mar.2015.32.issue-4,
408-421. [CrossRef]
45. Marie von Meyer-Hfer Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural
Products, Georg-August University, Gttingen, Germany Vera von der Wense Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, Georg-August-University, Gttingen, Germany Achim
Spiller Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Marketing for Food and Agricultural Products, GeorgAugust University, Gttingen, Germany . 2015. Characterising convinced sustainable food consumers. British Food Journal
46. Sharmila Pudaruth Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius Thanika Devi Juwaheer
Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius Yogini Devi Seewoo Faculty of Law and
Management, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius . 2015. Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing
patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of female customers. Social Responsibility
Journal 11:1, 179-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Paraschos Maniatis. 2015. Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products. Journal
of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
48. Nora Mustonen, Heikki Karjaluoto, Chanaka Jayawardhena. 2015. Customer Environmental Values and Their Contribution
to Loyalty in Industrial Markets. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
49. Yingkui Yang, Hans Stubbe Solgaard, Wolfgang Haider. 2015. Value seeking, price sensitive, or green? Analyzing preference
heterogeneity among residential energy consumers in Denmark. Energy Research & Social Science 6, 15-28. [CrossRef]
50. Rohit H Trivedi Mudra Institute of Communications Ahmedabad (MICA), Ahmedabad, India Jayesh D Patel V M Patel
Institute of Management, Ganpat University Jignasa R Savalia Shayona Institute of Business Management, Ahmedabad, India .
2015. Pro-environmental behaviour, locus of control and willingness to pay for environmental friendly products. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 33:1, 67-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Heesup Han, Hae Jin Yoon. 2015. Hotel customers environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs
on decision in green consumerism. International Journal of Hospitality Management 45, 22-33. [CrossRef]
52. Aindrila Biswas, Mousumi Roy. 2015. Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging
economies of the East. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 463-468. [CrossRef]
53. Julen Izagirre-Olaizola, Ana Fernndez-Sainz, M. Azucena Vicente-Molina. 2015. Internal determinants of recycling behaviour
by university students: a cross-country comparative analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39, 25-34. [CrossRef]
54. . 2015. The Research on Environmental Conscious and Green Consumption Behavior in China. Service Science and
Management 04, 30-36. [CrossRef]
55. Guiping Hu, Lizhi Wang, Yihsu Chen, Bopaya Bidanda. 2014. An oligopoly model to analyze the market and social welfare
for green manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 94-103. [CrossRef]
56. Laurent Bertrandias IAE Toulouse/Graduate School of Management, Marketing Department, Universit of Toulouse 3,
Toulouse, France Leila Elgaaied-Gambier University of Cergy-Pontoise, Cergy-Pontoise, France . 2014. Others environmental
concern as a social determinant of green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing 31:6/7, 417-429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Lyndsey Scott, Debbie Vigar-Ellis. 2014. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally
friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38, 642-649. [CrossRef]
58. Deimena Kiyak, Agn neiderien. 2014. The integration of corporate social responsibility activities into the value creation
model in pricing. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development 36, 547-560. [CrossRef]
59. Haibin Chen, Yu Yang, Yan Yang, Wei Jiang, Jingcheng Zhou. 2014. A bibliometric investigation of life cycle assessment
research in the web of science databases. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 1674-1685. [CrossRef]
60. Shih-Tse Wang Graduate Institute of Bio-industry Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan .
2014. Consumer characteristics and social influence factors on green purchasing intentions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
61. Jrg Matthes, Anke Wonneberger, Desire Schmuck. 2014. Consumers' green involvement and the persuasive effects of
emotional versus functional ads. Journal of Business Research 67, 1885-1893. [CrossRef]
62. Mitchell C. Olsen, Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, Sandeep R. Chandukala. 2014. Green Claims and Message Frames: How Green New
Products Change Brand Attitude. Journal of Marketing 78, 119-137. [CrossRef]
63. Giulia Miniero, Anna Codini, Michelle Bonera, Elisabetta Corvi, Giuseppe Bertoli. 2014. Being green: from attitude to actual
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-5, 521-528. [CrossRef]
64. Kirsten Cowan, Tammy Kinley. 2014. Green spirit: consumer empathies for green apparel. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-5, 493-499. [CrossRef]
65. Dr Ramendra Singh Prajita Chowdhury Faculty of Management, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology,
Ahmedabad, India. Mercy S Samuel Faculty of Management, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology,
Ahmedabad, India. . 2014. Artificial neural networks: a tool for understanding green consumer behavior. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 32:5, 552-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Katja Mikhailovich Faculty of Education, Institute for Sustainable Communities, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
Robert Fitzgerald Faculty of Education, Institute for Sustainable Communities, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia .
2014. Community responses to the removal of bottled water on a university campus. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education 15:3, 330-342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Martin Grimmer, Meghann Woolley. 2014. Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting
personal versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications 20, 231-250. [CrossRef]
68. Bonnie J.K. Simpson DAN Management and Organizational Studies, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario,
Canada Scott K. Radford Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada . 2014. Situational
variables and sustainability in multi-attribute decision-making. European Journal of Marketing 48:5/6, 1046-1069. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
69. Bryan W. Husted, Michael V. Russo, Carlos E. Basurto Meza, Suzanne G. Tilleman. 2014. An exploratory study of
environmental attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico. Journal of Business Research 67,
891-899. [CrossRef]
70. Michael Polonsky School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia William Kilbourne
Department of Marketing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA Andrea Vocino School of Management and
Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia . 2014. Relationship between the dominant social paradigm,
materialism and environmental behaviours in four Asian economies. European Journal of Marketing 48:3/4, 522-551.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Dr Christos Sarmaniotis and Dr Eugenia Wickens Irene Tilikidou Department of Marketing, TEI of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece Antonia Delistavrou Department of Marketing, TEI of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece . 2014. ProEnvironmental Purchasing Behaviour during the economic crisis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:2, 160-173. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
72. Jrg Matthes, Anke Wonneberger. 2014. The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship Between Green
Consumerism and Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Advertising 43, 115-127. [CrossRef]
73. Khan Taufique, Chamhuri Siwar, Basri Talib, Farah Sarah, Norshamliza Chamhuri. 2014. Synthesis of Constructs for
Modeling Consumers Understanding and Perception of Eco-Labels. Sustainability 6, 2176-2200. [CrossRef]
74. Ratchaneekorn Dansiricha, Opal Suwunnamek. 2014. A Comparison of Thai Consumers Purchasing Behaviour with the
Environmental Characteristics: Electric Appliances Market. Research Journal of Business Management 8, 338-352. [CrossRef]
75. Nicole Koenig-Lewis, Adrian Palmer, Janine Dermody, Andreas Urbye. 2014. Consumers' evaluations of ecological packaging
Rational and emotional approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology 37, 94-105. [CrossRef]
76. Matteo Pedrini, Laura Maria Ferri. 2014. Socio-demographical antecedents of responsible consumerism propensity.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-2, 127-138. [CrossRef]
77. Arminda do Pao, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2014. An analysis of the measurement of the construct
buying behaviour in green marketing. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 11, 55-69. [CrossRef]
78. Ruth Rettie, Kevin Burchell, Chris Barnham. 2014. Social normalisation: Using marketing to make green normal. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour 13:10.1002/cb.v13.1, 9-17. [CrossRef]
79. Arminda do Pao, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2013. A multi-country level analysis of the environmental
attitudes and behaviours among young consumers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56, 1532-1548.
[CrossRef]
80. Mara Azucena Vicente-Molina, Ana Fernndez-Sinz, Julen Izagirre-Olaizola. 2013. Environmental knowledge and other
variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries.
Journal of Cleaner Production 61, 130-138. [CrossRef]
81. Sally Dibb and Marylyn Carrigan Tim Harries Behaviour and Practice Research Group, Marketing Department, Kingston
University London, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK Ruth Rettie Behaviour and Practice Research Group, Marketing
Department, Kingston University London, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK Matthew Studley Department of Engineering,
Design and Mathematics, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK Kevin Burchell Behaviour and Practice Research
Group, Marketing Department, Kingston University London, Kingston-upon-Thames, UK Simon Chambers Department
of Engineering, Design and Mathematics, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK . 2013. Is social norms marketing
effective?. European Journal of Marketing 47:9, 1458-1475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Sun Choi, Il-Han Lee. 2013. Individual's Environmental Concern and Ecotourism Purchase Intention: the Moderation Effect
of Inclusion of nature in the self. Productivity Review 27, 401-427. [CrossRef]
83. Ingo Balderjahn, Mathias Peyer, Marcel Paulssen. 2013. Consciousness for fair consumption: conceptualization, scale
development and empirical validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37, 546-555. [CrossRef]
84. Kavita SharmaDepartment of Commerce, University of Delhi, Delhi, India Monika BansalShri Ram College of Commerce,
University of Delhi, Delhi, India. 2013. Environmental consciousness, its antecedents and behavioural outcomes. Journal of
Indian Business Research 5:3, 198-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Arminda do Pao, Helena Alves, Chris Shiel, Walter Leal Filho. 2013. Development of a green consumer behaviour model.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:10.1111/ijcs.2013.37.issue-4, 414-421. [CrossRef]
86. Erifili Papista, Athanasios Krystallis. 2013. Investigating the Types of Value and Cost of Green Brands: Proposition of a
Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 115, 75-92. [CrossRef]
87. Yingkui Yang, Wolfgang Haider, Hans Stubbe SolgaardAccounting for preference heterogeneity among residential energy
consumers 1-7. [CrossRef]
88. Janet Hoek, Nicole Roling, David Holdsworth. 2013. Ethical claims and labelling: An analysis of consumers' beliefs and
choice behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management 29, 772-792. [CrossRef]
89. Irene TilikidouDepartment of Marketing, Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2013.
Evolutions in the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour in Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business 8:1, 17-35. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
90. Joo Pedro Pereira LuzioDepartment of Marketing, Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Fred
LemkeDepartment of Marketing, Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. 2013. Exploring green consumers'
product demands and consumption processes. European Business Review 25:3, 281-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Angela Paladino, Serena Ng. 2013. An examination of the influences on green mobile phone purchases among young business
students: an empirical analysis. Environmental Education Research 19, 118-145. [CrossRef]
92. Melanie Yeoh, Angela Paladino. 2013. Prestige and environmental behaviors: Does branding matter?. Journal of Brand
Management 20, 333-349. [CrossRef]
93. Yu-Shan Chen, Ching-Hsun Chang. 2013. Utilize structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the influence of corporate
environmental ethics: the mediation effect of green human capital. Quality & Quantity 47, 79-95. [CrossRef]
94. Paul-Valentin Ngobo, Sylvie Jean. 2012. Does store image influence demand for organic store brands?. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 19, 621-628. [CrossRef]
95. Jieun Lee, Heewon Sung. 2012. A Comparative Study of Korean and British Consumers for the Diffusion of Green Fashion
Products. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 36, 1087-1099. [CrossRef]
96. HongYoul HaDepartment of Marketing, Kangwon National University, Chuncheonsi, South Korea Swinder
JandaDepartment of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
2012. Predicting consumer intentions to purchase energyefficient products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:7, 461-469.
97. Lorena CarreteBusiness School, Tecnolgico de Monterrey Campus Toluca, Toluca, Mexico Raquel CastaoEGADE
Business School, Tecnolgico de Monterrey Campus Monterrey, San Pedro Garza Garca, Mexico Reto FelixDepartment
of Business Administration, Universidad de Monterrey, San Pedro Garza Garca, Mexico Edgar CentenoBusiness School,
Tecnolgico de Monterrey Campus Mexico City, Mexico City, Mexico Eva GonzlezBusiness School, Tecnolgico de
Monterrey Campus Guadalajara, Zapopan, Mexico. 2012. Green consumer behavior in an emerging economy: confusion,
credibility, and compatibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:7, 470-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Annie Chen, Norman Peng. 2012. Green hotel knowledge and tourists staying behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 39,
2211-2216. [CrossRef]
99. Bonnie J. K. Simpson, Scott K. Radford. 2012. Consumer Perceptions of Sustainability: A Free Elicitation Study. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 24, 272-291. [CrossRef]
100. Justin PaulNagoya University of Commerce & Business, Nagoya City, Japan, and Foster School of Business, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Jyoti RanaDAV Centenary College, Faridabad, India. 2012. Consumer behavior and
purchase intention for organic food. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:6, 412-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Caroline Fisher, Shristy Bashyal, Bonnie Bachman. 2012. Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase
behaviors. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 20, 172-184. [CrossRef]
102. Ying-Ching Lin, Chiu-chi Angela Chang. 2012. Double Standard: The Role of Environmental Consciousness in Green
Product Usage. Journal of Marketing 76, 125-134. [CrossRef]
103. Juliet Memery, Philip Megicks, Robert Angell, Jasmine Williams. 2012. Understanding ethical grocery shoppers. Journal of
Business Research 65, 1283-1289. [CrossRef]
104. Janine Schipper. 2012. Toward a Buddhist Sociology: Theories, Methods, and Possibilities. The American Sociologist 43,
203-222. [CrossRef]
105. Gary AkehurstDepartment of Management, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK Carolina AfonsoDepartment
of Management, Technical University of Lisbon, ISEG, Lisbon, Portugal Helena Martins GonalvesDepartment of
Management, Technical University of Lisbon, ISEG, Lisbon, Portugal. 2012. Reexamining green purchase behaviour and
the green consumer profile: new evidences. Management Decision 50:5, 972-988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. John Thgersen, Anne-Katrine Jrgensen, Sara Sandager. 2012. Consumer Decision Making Regarding a Green Everyday
Product. Psychology and Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-4, 187-197. [CrossRef]
107. Aye Chan Myae, Ellen Goddard. 2012. Importance of traceability for sustainable production: a cross-country comparison.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:10.1111/ijc.2012.36.issue-2, 192-202. [CrossRef]
108. Thomas Jgel, Kathy Keeling, Alexander Reppel, Thorsten Gruber. 2012. Individual values and motivational complexities in
ethical clothing consumption: A means-end approach. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 373-396. [CrossRef]
109. Lynn Sudbury Riley, Florian Kohlbacher, Agnes Hofmeister. 2012. A cross-cultural analysis of pro-environmental consumer
behaviour among seniors. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 290-312. [CrossRef]
110. Ruth Rettie, Kevin Burchell, Debra Riley. 2012. Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketing.
Journal of Marketing Management 28, 420-444. [CrossRef]
111. Katja Soyez, June N. P. Francis, Maria M. Smirnova. 2012. How individual, product and situational determinants affect the
intention to buy and organic food buying behavior: a cross-national comparison in five nations. der markt 51, 27-35. [CrossRef]
112. ChingHsun ChangDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan YuShan
ChenDepartment of Business Administration, National Taipei University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2012. The determinants
of green intellectual capital. Management Decision 50:1, 74-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Thanika Devi JuwaheerFaculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Sharmila
PudaruthFaculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Marie Monique Emmanuelle
NoyauxMC Design Limited, Port Louis, Mauritius. 2012. Analysing the impact of green marketing strategies on consumer
purchasing patterns in Mauritius. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 8:1, 36-59.
114. Nayeli Manzano, Luis Rivas, George Bonilla. 2012. Explanatory Models of Change of Consumer Behavior Applied to Social
Marketing. iBusiness 04, 246-255. [CrossRef]
115. Saripah Abdul Latif, Mohd Shukri Omar. 2012. Recycling Behaviour in Tioman Island: A Case Study. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 36, 707-715. [CrossRef]
116. Bernadette Stterlin, Thomas A. Brunner, Michael Siegrist. 2011. Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A
segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics. Energy Policy 39, 8137-8152. [CrossRef]
117. Ching-Hsun Chang. 2011. The Influence of Corporate Environmental Ethics on Competitive Advantage: The Mediation
Role of Green Innovation. Journal of Business Ethics 104, 361-370. [CrossRef]
118. Michael Jay PolonskySchool of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia Romana GarmaSchool
of International Business, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia Stacy Landreth GrauNeeley School of Business, Texas
Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 2011. Western consumers' understanding of carbon offsets and its relationship
to behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 23:5, 583-603. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. Elisa D. Wilson, Alicia C. Garcia. 2011. Environmentally Friendly Health Care Food Services: A Survey of Beliefs, Behaviours,
and Attitudes. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research 72, 117-122. [CrossRef]
120. Isaac CheahCurtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia Ian PhauCurtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
2011. Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29:5, 452-472. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
121. Seahee Lee. 2011. Consumers Value, Environmental Consciousness, and Willingness to Pay more toward Green-Apparel
Products. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 2, 161-169. [CrossRef]
122. Satu Reijonen. 2011. Environmentally friendly consumer: from determinism to emergence. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 35:10.1111/ijc.2011.35.issue-4, 403-409. [CrossRef]
123. Victoria K. Wells, Cerys A. Ponting, Ken Peattie. 2011. Behaviour and climate change: Consumer perceptions of responsibility.
Journal of Marketing Management 27, 808-833. [CrossRef]
124. Alma Gutierrez, Rosemary SevaProposed Framework for Integrating Environmental Issues in Ergonomics to Product
Development 201-209. [CrossRef]
125. Tamer A. AwadDepartment of Management and Marketing, University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain. 2011. Environmental
segmentation alternatives: buyers' profiles and implications. Journal of Islamic Marketing 2:1, 55-73. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
126. Nadine C. Sonnenberg, Alet C. Erasmus, Sun Donoghue. 2011. Significance of environmental sustainability issues in
consumers' choice of major household appliances in South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:10.1111/
ijc.2011.35.issue-2, 153-163. [CrossRef]
127. Constantinos N. LeonidouUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK Leonidas C. LeonidouUniversity of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
2011. Research into environmental marketing/management: a bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing 45:1/2,
128. Hee Yeon KimDepartment of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA JaeEun
ChungDepartment of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2011. Consumer purchase
intention for organic personal care products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:1, 40-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Melissa Bopp, Andrew T. Kaczynski, Pamela Wittman. 2011. The Relationship of Eco-friendly Attitudes With Walking and
Biking to Work. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 17, E9-E17. [CrossRef]
130. Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantinos N. Leonidou, Olga Kvasova. 2010. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer
environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management 26, 1319-1344. [CrossRef]
131. Yeong-Dong Hwang, Yuan-Feng Wen, Mu-Chen Chen. 2010. A study on the relationship between the PDSA cycle of
green purchasing and the performance of the SCOR model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21, 1261-1278.
[CrossRef]
132. Kaman Lee. 2010. The Green Purchase Behavior of Hong Kong Young Consumers: The Role of Peer Influence, Local
Environmental Involvement, and Concrete Environmental Knowledge. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 23, 21-44.
[CrossRef]
133. Hae Jin Gam, Huantian Cao, Cheryl Farr, Mihyun Kang. 2010. Quest for the eco-apparel market: a study of mothers'
willingness to purchase organic cotton clothing for their children. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34:10.1111/
ijc.2010.34.issue-6, 648-656. [CrossRef]
134. Katherine T. Smith. 2010. An examination of marketing techniques that influence Millennials' perceptions of whether a
product is environmentally friendly. Journal of Strategic Marketing 18, 437-450. [CrossRef]
135. Somnath ChakrabartiInstitute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, India. 2010. Factors influencing organic food purchase
in India expert survey insights. British Food Journal 112:8, 902-915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Arminda M. Finisterra do Pao, Mrio Lino Barata Raposo. 2010. Green consumer market segmentation: empirical findings
from Portugal. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34:10.1111/ijc.2010.34.issue-4, 429-436. [CrossRef]
137. Dale W. Russell, Cristel Antonia Russell. 2010. Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives:
Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters 21, 65-81. [CrossRef]
138. Hee Won Sung, Doris H. Kincade. 2010. Typology of Korean Eco-sumers: Based on Clothing Disposal Behaviors. Journal
of Global Academy of Marketing Science 20, 59-69. [CrossRef]
139. Hee-Sook Hong, Gi-Eok Kim. 2010. Differences between Purchasers and Non-purchasers of Naturally Dyed-products Usages of Media, Media Programs, and Information Sources-. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 34, 79-91.
[CrossRef]
140. Nelson BarberDepartment of Hospitality Management, The Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA D. Christopher TaylorSchool of Business, Eastern New Mexico University,
Portales, New Mexico, USA Sandy StrickSchool of Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism Management, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 2010. Selective marketing to environmentally concerned wine consumers: a case
for location, gender and age. Journal of Consumer Marketing 27:1, 64-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Tahir Albayrak, Meltem Caber, afak Aksoy. 2010. Clustering Consumers According to Their Environmental Concerns and
Scepticisms. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 1, 136-139. [CrossRef]
142. Tahir Albayrak, Meltem Caber, afak Aksoy. 2010. Clustering Consumers According to Their Environmental Concerns and
Scepticisms. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 1, 84-88. [CrossRef]
143. Clodia Vurro, Angeloantonio Russo, Francesco Perrini. 2009. Shaping Sustainable Value Chains: Network Determinants of
Supply Chain Governance Models. Journal of Business Ethics 90, 607-621. [CrossRef]
144. Miao-Ling Wang, Tsai-Chi Kuo, Jia-Wen Liu. 2009. Identifying target green 3C customers in Taiwan using multiattribute
utility theory. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 12562-12569. [CrossRef]
145. Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Jose-Rodrigo Cordoba-Pachon, Gonzalo Wandosell Fernandez de Bobadilla. 2009. Creating
environmental knowledge through green communities in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. The Service Industries Journal
29, 1745-1761. [CrossRef]
146. Robert E. CarterAssistant Professor based at the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 2009. Will consumers
pay a premium for ethical information?. Social Responsibility Journal 5:4, 464-477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
147. Nicole Bieak KreidlerAssistant Professor and Chair, School of Professions, Interior Design, La Roche College, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA Sacha JosephMathewsAssistant Professor, Eberhardt School of Business, University of the Pacific,
Stockton, California, USA. 2009. How green should you go? Understanding the role of green atmospherics in service
environment evaluations. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 3:3, 228-245. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
148. Gonzalo Daz Meneses. 2009. Non-response to the recycling promotion technique of blockleader and commitment. The
Journal of Socio-Economics 38, 663-671. [CrossRef]
149. Ming-Ji James Lin, Ching-Hsun ChangThe positive effect of green relationship learning on green innovation performance:
The mediation effect of corporate environmental ethics 2341-2348. [CrossRef]
150. Liesbeth Van de Velde, Wim Verbeke, Michael Popp, Jeroen Buysse, Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Perceived importance
of fuel characteristics and its match with consumer beliefs about biofuels in Belgium. Energy Policy 37, 3183-3193. [CrossRef]
151. Souad H'MidaFactors contributing in the formation of consumers' environmental consciousness and shaping green purchasing
decisions 957-962. [CrossRef]
152. Alain dAstous, Amlie Legendre. 2009. Understanding Consumers Ethical Justifications: A Scale for Appraising Consumers
Reasons for Not Behaving Ethically. Journal of Business Ethics 87, 255-268. [CrossRef]
153. Arminda do PaoResearch Unit NECE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Covilh,
Portugal Mrio RaposoResearch Unit NECE, Department of Business and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Covilh,
Portugal. 2009. Green segmentation: an application to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
154. Amir Grinstein, Udi Nisan. 2009. Demarketing, Minorities, and National Attachment. Journal of Marketing 73, 105-122.
[CrossRef]
155. Berenice Maldonado-Hernndez, Eva Conraud-Koellner, Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar. 2008. Evaluation of the programs of
environmental marketing in the Metropolitan Zone of the city of Mexico. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing 5, 141-166. [CrossRef]
156. Jonas Nilsson. 2008. Investment with a Conscience: Examining the Impact of Pro-Social Attitudes and Perceived Financial
Performance on Socially Responsible Investment Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83, 307-325. [CrossRef]
157. Arminda M. Finisterra do Pao, Mrio Lino Barata Raposo. 2008. Determining the characteristics to profile the green
consumer: an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 5, 129-140. [CrossRef]
158. Ari Paloviita, Pentti Jrvi. 2008. Environmental value chain management of laundry detergents in the use phase. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-6, 607-612. [CrossRef]
159. Kaman LeeSchool of Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong. 2008.
Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 26:6, 573-586. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
160. Paromita Goswami. 2008. Is the urban Indian consumer ready for clothing with eco-labels?. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-5, 438-446. [CrossRef]
161. Peter J. McGoldrick, Oliver M. Freestone. 2008. Ethical product premiums: antecedents and extent of consumers' willingness
to pay. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18, 185-201. [CrossRef]
162. Nadia A. Tzschentke, David Kirk, Paul A. Lynch. 2008. Going green: Decisional factors in small hospitality operations.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, 126-133. [CrossRef]
163. Efthimia TsakiridouDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Christina BoutsoukiDepartment of Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Yorgos
ZotosDepartment of Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Kostantinos MattasDepartment
of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2008. Attitudes and behaviour towards
organic products: an exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36:2, 158-175. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
164. Irene Tilikidou, Antonia Delistavrou. 2008. Types and influential factors of consumers' non-purchasing ecological behaviors.
Business Strategy and the Environment 17:10.1002/bse.v17:1, 61-76. [CrossRef]
165. Caner DincerGalatasaray University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business
Administration Banu DincerGalatasaray University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of
Business Administration. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility: Future Prospects in the Turkish Context. Social Responsibility
Journal 3:3, 44-49. [Abstract] [PDF]
166. Vinnie JauhariHewlett Packard, IndiaKamal ManaktolaSchool of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Institute for
International Management & Technology, Haryana, India Vinnie JauhariSchool of Hospitality & Tourism Management,
Institute for International Management & Technology, Haryana, India. 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour
towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:5,
167. Irene Tilikidou. 2007. The effects of knowledge and attitudes upon Greeks' pro-environmental purchasing behaviour.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14:10.1002/csr.v14:3, 121-134. [CrossRef]
168. Alhassan G. Abdul-Muhmin. 2007. Explaining consumers? willingness to be environmentally friendly. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 31:10.1111/ijc.2007.31.issue-3, 237-247. [CrossRef]
169. Florence de Ferran, Klaus G. Grunert. 2007. French fair trade coffee buyers purchasing motives: An exploratory study using
means-end chains analysis. Food Quality and Preference 18, 218-229. [CrossRef]
170. Patrick HartmannUniversidad del Pas Vasco University of the Basque Country, Vizcaya, Spain Vanessa Apaolaza
IbezUniversidad del Pas Vasco University of the Basque Country, Vizcaya, Spain. 2006. Green value added. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 24:7, 673-680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
171. John Connolly, Deirdre Shaw. 2006. Identifying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14, 353-368.
[CrossRef]
172. Athanassios Krystallis, Christos Fotopoulos, Yiorgos Zotos. 2006. Organic Consumers' Profile and Their Willingness to Pay
(WTP) for Selected Organic Food Products in Greece. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 19, 81-106. [CrossRef]
173. Pirjo Honkanen, Bas Verplanken, Svein Ottar Olsen. 2006. Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour 5:10.1002/cb.v5:5, 420-430. [CrossRef]
174. Efthimia Tsakiridou, Yorgos Zotos, Konstantinos Mattas. 2006. Employing a Dichotomous Choice Model to Assess
Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Organically Produced Products. Journal of Food Products Marketing 12, 59-69. [CrossRef]
175. Sanjay K. Jain, Gurmeet Kaur. 2006. Role of Socio-Demographics in Segmenting and Profiling Green Consumers. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing 18, 107-146. [CrossRef]
176. Seonaidh McDonald, Caroline J. Oates. 2006. Sustainability: Consumer Perceptions and Marketing Strategies. Business
Strategy and the Environment 15:10.1002/bse.v15:3, 157-170. [CrossRef]
177. Antonio Chamorro, Toms M. Baegil. 2006. Green marketing philosophy: a study of Spanish firms with ecolabels. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13:10.1002/csr.v13:1, 11-24. [CrossRef]
178. Mark TadajewskiDepartment of Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex, Colchester, UK Sigmund
WagnerTsukamotoManagement Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 2006. Anthropology and consumer research:
qualitative insights into green consumer behavior. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 9:1, 8-25. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
179. Caner DincerGalatasaray University, Turkey Banu DincerGalatasaray University, Turkey. 2006. Has Environmental
Investment a Marketing Effect in Turkish Banking Industry?. Social Responsibility Journal 2:1, 88-95. [Abstract] [PDF]
180. Gonzalo Daz MenesesUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, The Canary Islands, Spain Asuncin Beerli
PalacioUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, The Canary Islands, Spain. 2006. Different kinds of consumer response
to the reward recycling technique: similarities at the desired routine level. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 18:1,
181. Charles Dennis and Lisa HarrisKen PeattieCardiff University, Cardiff, UK Andrew CraneUniversity of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK. 2005. Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy?. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal 8:4, 357-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
182. Steve V. WaltonGoizueta Business School, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Chris E. GaleaGerald Schwartz School
of Business, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2005. Some considerations for applying business
sustainability practices to campus environmental challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6:2,
183. Patrick HartmannDepartamento de Economa de la Empresa y Financiacin, Universidad del Pas Vasco, Bilbao, Spain Vanessa
Apaolaza IbezDepartamento de Economa de la Empresa y Financiacin, Universidad del Pas Vasco, Bilbao, Spain F. Javier
Forcada SainzDepartamento de Economa de la Empresa y Financiacin, Universidad del Pas Vasco, Bilbao, Spain. 2005.
Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23:1,
184. Clare D'SouzaDepartment of Accounting and Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia. 2004. Ecolabel
programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 9:3, 179-188.
185. Michael GetznerDepartment of Economics, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria Sonja GrabnerKruterDepartment
of Marketing and International Management, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria. 2004. Consumer preferences and
marketing strategies for green shares. International Journal of Bank Marketing 22:4, 260-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
186. Pierre Berthon, Agnes Nairn, Arthur Money. 2003. Through the Paradigm Funnel: A Conceptual Tool for Literature
Analysis. Marketing Education Review 13, 55-66. [CrossRef]
187. Garland Keesling, Shohreh A. Kaynama. 2003. An Exploratory Investigation of the Ecologically Conscious Consumers Efforts
to Control Water Contamination: Lawn Care and the Use of Nitrogen Fertilizers and Pesticides. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice 11, 52-61. [CrossRef]
188. Simon Hudson, Brent Ritchie. 2001. Tourist Attitudes Towards the Environment. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism
1, 1-18. [CrossRef]
189. Simon Hudson, J. R. Brent Ritchie. 2001. Crosscultural tourist behavior: An analysis of tourist attitudes towards the
environment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10, 1-22. [CrossRef]
190. Deirdre ShawLecturer, Department of Consumer Studies, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Ian
ClarkeBooker Professor of Retail Marketing, Durham University Business School, Durham, UK. 1999. Belief formation in
ethical consumer groups: an exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17:2, 109-120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
191. Lalit M. JohriAssociate Professor at the School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani,
Thailand Kanokthip SahasakmontriRetail Network Strategic Planning Assistant, Shell Companies in Thailand, Klongtoey,
Bangkok, Thailand. 1998. Green marketing of cosmetics and toiletries in Thailand. Journal of Consumer Marketing 15:3,
192. Joseph D. Brown, Russell G. Wahlers. 1998. The Environmentally Concerned Consumer: An Exploratory Study. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 6, 39-47. [CrossRef]
193. Jeen Wei Ong, Choon Yih Goh, Marianne Shing Mei Too, Gerald Guan Gan Goh, Lee Pheng GohPremium Price for
Environmentally Friendly Products in the Malaysian Market 33-46. [CrossRef]

GFDGFDG

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GFDGFDG

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

European Journal of Marketing

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The link between green

Greg M. Bohlen and Adamantios Diamantopoulos

European Journal of Marketing,

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

psychological and behavioural research (Bearden et al., 1993; Permut et al.,

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Measurement instruments also differ in terms of their implicit or explicit

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

In addition to the existing substantive issues and theoretical

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

indicates that students tend to exhibit incompletely formulated senses of self,

(2) Choose the environmentally-friendly alternative regardless of price;

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

(3) Try to discover the environmental effects of products prior to purchase.

Standard deviation Range

Note: In Tables I-III, S = student sample; GP = general public sample

Each item was measured on a 5-point frequency of purchase scale (1 = Never,

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

(1) A knowledge scale measuring the respondents self-perception of

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Recycling behaviour scale

Political action scale

Recycling behaviour scale

Political action scale

Political action scale

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Notes: Cum R2: = cumulative R2 (adjusted R2 in brackets)

Products not tested

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Notes: Cum R2: = cumulative R2 (adjusted R2 in brackets)

Products not tested

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Univariate variance test

Univariate means test

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Univariate variance test

Univariate means test

vegetables, while students purchase higher levels of ozone-friendly aerosols (see

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

indicating that consumers overall environmental consciousness has a positive

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

perception of knowledge may not provide an accurate indication of consumer

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by SENAC SP At 10:16 08 April 2016 (PT)