Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer Andrew Gilg * , Stewart Barr, Nicholas Ford Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK Available online 25 January 2005 Abstract This paper examines green consumption in the context of an increasing focus on sustainable lifestyles. The authors argue that green buying must be seen in the context of wider debates surrounding the development of sustainable ways of living that incorporate other environmental actions in an holistic conceptualisation of sustainable lifestyles. This framework is operationalised in a study of environmental action in and around the home, in which 1600 households in Devon were asked questions concerning their everyday environmental actions. These results were manipulated so as to investigate how the different behaviours related to each other and also whether different groups of individuals could be identified, conforming to different lifestyles. The results suggest that conventional forms of green consumption can indeed be related to other forms of environmental action and that at least four different types of environmentalist can be identified. The implications of these results for policy makers are discussed at the end of the paper. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. The green consumer debate Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people. In any one context, there are alternative discourses that surround alternative forms of green buying, which might pertain to a range of activities, from purchasing fairly traded tea bags to buying organic meat. In some cases, these behaviours appear to be in conflict: buying local food to support local producers (a brand of defensive localism identified by Winter [31]), as compared to purchasing organically farmed produce (a choice based mainly on ecological principles, as described by Ilbery et al. [11]). This ever-expanding liturgy of 0016-3287/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016 Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures * Corresponding author. Tel.: C44 1392 26 3350; fax: C44 1392 26 3342. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Gilg).
Transcript
Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles?Identifying the sustainable consumer
Andrew Gilg*, Stewart Barr, Nicholas Ford
Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK
Available online 25 January 2005
Abstract
This paper examines green consumption in the context of an increasing focus on sustainablelifestyles. The authors argue that green buying must be seen in the context of wider debatessurrounding the development of sustainable ways of living that incorporate other environmentalactions in an holistic conceptualisation of sustainable lifestyles. This framework is operationalised ina study of environmental action in and around the home, in which 1600 households in Devon wereasked questions concerning their everyday environmental actions. These results were manipulated soas to investigate how the different behaviours related to each other and also whether different groupsof individuals could be identified, conforming to different lifestyles. The results suggest thatconventional forms of green consumption can indeed be related to other forms of environmentalaction and that at least four different types of environmentalist can be identified. The implications ofthese results for policy makers are discussed at the end of the paper.q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. The green consumer debate
Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people. In any onecontext, there are alternative discourses that surround alternative forms of green buying,which might pertain to a range of activities, from purchasing fairly traded tea bags tobuying organic meat. In some cases, these behaviours appear to be in conflict: buying localfood to support local producers (a brand of defensive localism identified by Winter [31]),as compared to purchasing organically farmed produce (a choice based mainly onecological principles, as described by Ilbery et al. [11]). This ever-expanding liturgy of
0016-3287/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
activities and products, which can be used as proxies for green consumption hasnecessarily diluted the environmental dimension and incorporated numerous alternativediscourses that relate more readily to sustainability in general.
This paper seeks to examine these diverse set of green behaviours within the context ofresearch that has examined the social and psychological bases of sustainable lifestyles,relating not merely to consumption practices, but also to habitual behaviours within thehome. By evaluating such activities in this way, it is anticipated that a more efficaciousunderstanding of progress towards sustainable lifestyles can be achieved in line withsimilar research aims. For example, work by Green and Vergragt [8] who are examininghow consumers might alter their attitudes via a series of stakeholder workshops. Ourresearch however, is based on a major questionnaire survey of households and thusprovides a better indication of how widespread the adoption of green behaviours might be.This paper thus examines a study of forty environmental actions and examines howactivities conventionally defined as green consumptive behaviours interact with otheractivities, and whether individuals can be categorised according to these interactions.
2. The green consumer
Putting aside for amoment the arguments relating to the definition of green consumption,previous research into green consumerism has been dominated by rural sociologists andgeographers. In the UK this work has mostly been focused on the links between agriculturalproduction and consumers, particularly the new food economy (e.g. Gilg andBattershill [7])and the growth in sales of organic produce (Ilbery et al. [11]). However, considerably lesswork has been undertaken on the social and psychological bases of green consumption. Inother words, who buys what, when and why? Researchers have identified three sets ofvariables that appear to be influential in classifying the green consumer. These focus aroundenvironmental and social values, socio-demographic variables and psychological factors.
2.1. Environmental values and concern
This is a relatively recent area of research in green consumerism and as such definitiveresults and conclusions regarding the role of concern and values are lacking. Researchexamining other environmental actions has examined the impact that underlying valueshave on behaviour. For example, Steel [27] found compelling evidence to suggest thathigh levels of environmental activism were strongly linked to values that considered thenatural environment to be of great importance in someone’s life.
Work on the conceptualisation of environmental values has been given extra impetus inrecent years by the pioneering work of Schwartz [22] who examined the structure of socialvalues in various nations. He argued that there were essentially two social valuedimensions, pertaining to ‘altruistic—egoistic’ (or pro-social and pro-self) and‘conservative—open to change’. Stern et al. [28] argued that environmentalists weremore likely to be both altruists and more open to change.
This theme runs alongside Inglehart’s [12] theory of post-materialism, whereenvironmentally concerned individuals are more likely to hold non-material values.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504482
Indeed, Leonard-Barton [15] has drawn the distinction between those who like an‘indulgent’ lifestyle and those who are more frugal. These themes are showndiagrammatically in Fig. 1, running from top left to bottom right. However, thesecontinua reflect general social values, rather than specific environmental concerns. Twofurther continua can be identified. Firstly, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) whichrelates to Dunlap and Van Liere’s [4] and Dunlap et al.’s [5] measure of environmentalvalues. These range from the notions of ‘spaceship earth’ and ‘nature as delicate’ at oneend of the spectrum to ‘no limits to growth’ and ‘man over nature’ at the other end. Thesefundamentally relational values (that is, the relationship between humans and nature) canalso be related to a continuum, reflecting O’Riordan’s [18] concepts of ecocentrism andtechnocentrism. In this continuum actions taken towards the environment are evaluatedaccording to whether individuals believe environmental protection is achieved viaworking with nature or by changing it by the use of technology.
Within this context, only a small number of research projects have examined the role ofvalues on green consumer behaviour although there is a growing interest as exemplified byThogerson and Olander [29] who tested the hypothesis that sustainable consumption isinfluenced by individual value priorities. There is evidence from a study by Karp [13] thatthose engaged in green consumer activities were more likely to hold altruistic values. Sternet al. [28] also examined Schwartz’s [22] value orientations, although they only found arelationship between green consumption and a general measure of environmental concern.More compelling evidence has come from studies by Chan [2] and Roberts [20]. In theformer study, Chan [2] found that those who shopped regularly for ‘green’ products andspent more on green produce in relation to other products, were more likely to score highlyon his measure of biospherism, which related to a ‘man-nature’ orientation. In the latterstudy by Roberts [20] there was evidence that those who scored highly on his‘Ecologically Conscious Consumer Scale’ were more likely to believe in ‘limits togrowth’, a ‘spaceship earth’ and an ‘equality with nature’. This provides further evidence
Fig. 1. Conceptualisation of social and environmental values.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 483
that those more heavily engaged in green consumption are more likely to hold ecocentricand biospheric values.
2.2. Socio-demographic variables
Although research into the impact of socio-demographic variables on greenconsumption has led to the over-simplification of causative relationships, there is stillthe stereotypical view, if not a whole truism, that green consumers are young, female, welleducated, liberal and wealthy (Hines et al. [10]). This evidence is partly substantiated byspecific research studies that have examined the impact of age (Roberts [19]; Hallin [9];Olli et al. [17]), gender (Eagly [6]; Roberts [19]; Olli et al. [17]), education (Olli et al. [17])political affliction (Dunlap [3]; Olli et al. [17]) and long working hours (Sanne [21]). Suchresearch suggests that those in older age groups, who are female, well educated, have agood income and are politically liberal are more likely to engage in green consumption.These studies therefore provide general support to the general view of the environmen-talist as a fairly well off mature individual, although there are debates that surround boththe impact of age and income, with research projects varying in their conclusions.
2.3. Psychological factors
Thirdly, there are what can be termed psychological factors that are personal attitudesheld by the individual concerning the behaviour in question. The psychological influencesrelating to green consumption can be categorised into the following groups:
† Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). This examines the extent to which any oneconsumer can have an impact on the environment. It has generally been found that ahigh level of PCE results in greater levels of green consumerism (Kinnear et al. [14];Tucker [30]; Roberts [20]);
† Self efficacy, relating to one’s own ability to take part in green consumption(Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Sparks and Shepherd [26]);
† Social responsibility. The extent to which an individual feels morally responsible totake part (Tucker [30]; Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Mainerei et al [16]);
† The interaction of the effects of price, quality and brand loyalty (Schuhwerk andLefkoff-Haguis [23]; Shrum et al [25]; Mainerei et al. [16]).
Given the different factors that potentially influence green consumer activities, theresearch reported in this paper sought to examine these influences within the context ofsustainable lifestyles and the way in which different groups of individuals may formbehavioural types that relate to some or all of the qualities listed above.
3. Sustainable lifestyles research in Devon
The research on which this paper is based was undertaken in the summer of 2002 as partof a large ESRC-funded project examining environmental action in and around the home
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504484
in Devon, UK. The research sought to examine how different types of environmentalaction, such as energy saving, water conservation, waste management and greenconsumption were related and what factors influenced different levels of behaviouralcommitment.
The study was focused around a fourteen page questionnaire that asked respondentshow often they undertook a series of pre-determined environmental actions, scoring theirresponses on a five point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondents were also askedquestions relating to their socio-demographic profile, attitudes and values. Thequestionnaire was hand-delivered to 1600 households and collected two to three dayslater. Of the 1600 surveys, 400 each were delivered to households in Plymouth, Exeter,Barnstaple and Mid-Devon, in order to provide a representative sample from both urbanand rural areas. Households were selected by a random procedure developed for samplingfrom the Electoral Register. If no response was received at a property, or the householderdeclined to participate, the next house was selected.
The response rate was 59%, indicating the number of households originally selectedwho participated in the survey, but rose to a 79% return rate from respondents who agreedto take part and returned usable questionnaires.
4. Results
The findings of the research are divided into three sections. First, the relationship thatconventionally defined green consumer behaviours have to other environmental actions isconsidered. Second, an analysis of the frequency with which individuals undertook suchactivities is examined. Finally, the different levels of behavioural commitment areexamined in the context of the various factors that have been linked to green consumerism,such as environmental values, socio-demographics and psychological factors.
4.1. Behavioural linkages: what is green consumption?
Given the premise that green consumption has become so widely defined that itsefficacy as a term has become somewhat meaningless, the research was concerned withexamining the extent to which traditionally defined green consumer behaviours werelinked empirically to other activities. A ‘conventional definition’ refers to the behavioursthat are most regularly referred to as being examples of green consumption. In the case ofthis research, these were selected from specific advice provided by the county authority inDevon (Devon County Council), alongside recommendations from district authorities(Plymouth City Council, Exeter City Council, North Devon and Mid Devon DistrictCouncils). These focused on the following activities:
† Purchasing products, such as detergents, that have a reduced environmental impact;† Avoiding products with aerosols;† Purchasing recycled paper products (such as toilet tissue and writing paper);† Buying organic produce;† Buying locally produced foods;
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 485
† Purchasing from a local store;† Buying fairly traded goods;† Looking for products using less packaging;† Using one’s own bag, rather than a plastic carrier provided by a shop.
The frequency results for the total sample (N 1265) were compared to those foralternative behaviours by means of a factor analysis, in order to examine whether greenconsumer behaviours were both related to each other and different activities. Factoranalysis is commonly used amongst social scientists in order to evaluate the empiricallinks between large numbers of questionnaire items and to establish whether items in aquestionnaire represent an underlying theme or pattern. Table 1 provides the results of thefactor analysis.
Of the three distinct factors to emerge, only one (Purchase decisions) contains thegreen consumer items. The other two factors relate either to habitual activities withinthe home or recycling behaviour. However, the purchase decisions factor contains notonly green consumer items as one might expect by convention, but also itemspertaining to energy saving, waste management and also waster conservation.Accordingly, if one accepts that the factor analysis provides an accurate representationof the empirical relationships observed, there appears to be a wider behaviouraldimension to green purchasing than merely those activities which have conventionallybeen classified as green consumption.
This has particular relevance with regard to the inclusion of energy saving behaviours(looking for energy efficient appliances and light bulbs). It would appear that behavioursthat relate to a given form of consumption activity are related, which can cross into otherrealms, such as energy conservation. This model evidently does not fit as well with thetwo items relating to composting activities in the immediate sense. However, thisapparently habitual activity may be related more to consumptive behaviours by virtue notof the activity itself, but rather the conscious purchase decision that might be required tobuy the materials for composting organic waste. This is different to the relativelyunconscious habitual activities in the habitual factor, relating to switching off lights orheating.
These data have two significant implications for research on green consumerism andsustainable lifestyles. First, they suggest that different forms of behaviour are linked suchthat traditional boundaries relating to energy saving, water conservation and so on areinappropriate in the study of sustainable lifestyles and that a more holistic approach isrequired. Second, they provide evidence that green consumption encompasses even morebehaviours than even those mentioned by policy makers. Accordingly, given this finding,it may be more appropriate to refer to such activities as either sustainable consumption(referring as this can to purchases from a local shop, for example, which are notintrinsically green) or sustainable purchasing.
4.2. Sustainable purchasing: who’s buying what?
Although there was a clearly definable ‘purchase decisions’ factor evident in the data,this did not imply that everyone who undertook these activities did so with the same
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504486
regularity. Fig. 2 provides data on the frequency with which individuals undertook each ofthe behaviours within the purchase decisions factor. As can be seen, there was widevariation between the particular activities, with the purchase of energy efficient light bulbsbeing the most popular, whilst composting of kitchen waste was the least popular.Nonetheless, despite these variations, there is one overriding pattern, which is defined bythe low levels of activity in almost all cases. For example, fewer than 5% of the samplealways purchased organic foods and fairly traded products. Although some 20%sometimes did, almost 60% of the sample either rarely or never did. This is in the context
Table 1Factor solution for behavioural data
Factor Variables included Variance
(eigenvalue)
Per cent
variance (%)
Cronbach’s
alpha
Purchase
decisions
High efficiency bulbs 4.4 13.3 0.83
Energy efficient appliancesBuy organicBuy fairtradeAvoid aerosolsCompost garden wasteCompost kitchen waste
Avoid toxic detergents
Reuse glassReuse paper
Buy recycled writing paperBuy recycled toilet paperBuy locally produced foodsBuy from a local storeUse own bag when shoppingLess packagingUse plants that need less water
Habits Turn off tap when soaping up 3.9 11.7 0.81
Reduce the number of baths/showers
Reduce toilet flushesTurn tap off when cleaning teeth
Turn off tap when washing dishes
Reduce heat in unused rooms
Reduce hot water temperatureKeep heating low to save energy
Use a shower rather than bath
Wait until there’s a full load for washing
More clothes instead of more heatingLights off in unused rooms
of a range of supermarkets, most notably Iceland, promoting organics. Indeed, the Co-opgroup has also been keen to promote fairly traded produce, such as tea, coffee, bananas andchocolate. Even for the more widely available products, such as recycled toilet tissue, onlyjust over 10% reported always purchasing this. More individuals were engaged inpurchases of local produce and buying from local shops, although it is acknowledged thatboth of these could indeed cover a range of (not necessarily sustainable) behaviours.Whichever way one interprets the data, there is little doubt that sustainable consumption isnot on the minds of the majority of individuals.
In order to investigate whether there were differences between individuals in the sampleaccording to their consumption habits and to attempt to classify these lifestyles, a clusteranalysis of the data was undertaken. Cluster analysis is a technique that is used by socialscientists in order to classify individuals into a manageable set of groups. The procedure isbased on the premise that at the beginning of the analysis, all individuals in the sample canbe paired into clusters. Individuals are paired and paired again according to the similarityof their scores on a range of items until there is only one cluster left. At some point thatseems appropriate, a given number of clusters are retained for analysis, This is usuallybased on how the data have grouped together and is interpreted using a dendrogram.
In the case of the current research, four clusters were chosen. The behavioural qualitiesof these four groups can be seen in Fig. 3. Compared to Fig. 2, there are significantdifferences.
Committed environmentalistswere the most enthusiastic group, who were the most likelyto always compost their waste and were far more likely to ‘usually’ undertake sustainable
Fig. 2. Purchase decisions, Purchase decisions (item order relates to the order in the factor solution in Table 1),
EN1, Purchase high efficiency light bulbs; EN2, Purchase energy efficient items; GC1, Buy organic food; GC2,
GC6, Buy recycled toilet tissue; GC7, Buy Local produce; GC8, Buy food from a local store; GC9, Use own bag
when shopping; GC10, Look for less packaging; WA1, Use plants that need less water.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504488
purchase activities, especially the purchase of local produce and from buying a local store.However, although this group were indeed more likely to buy organic produce and fairlytraded products, there were still a minority of individuals involved in these activities.
Mainstream environmentalists undertook the range of behaviours with the sameregularity on the whole as committed environmentalists, although they were considerablyless likely to compost their waste.
Fig. 3. Behavioural types, Please see Fig. 2 for explanation of labels, (a) Committed environmentalists (Group 1),
This is in contrast to occasional environmentalistswho were more likely to either neveror rarely undertake sustainable purchasing behaviours. This was especially the case inrespect of buying organic or fairly traded produce, alongside local purchases.
However, non-environmentalists were the least active, with the majority of individualsnever undertaking almost all of the activities listed. These individuals were clearly notinclined to undertake any of the behaviours in question.
Fig. 3 (continued )
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504490
These four groups represent clear behavioural boundaries that may assist policy makersto more accurately focus policies that seek to promote green consumption. However, to dothis, they must appreciate the nature and characteristics of the individuals involved.
4.3. Who are the sustainable few?
4.3.1. Demographic profile of the four groupsTable 2 presents demographic information relating to the four groups and the whole
sample. Statistically significant differences between the clusters are indicated by a relevanttest statistic in the far right column. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the major differencesbetween purchase behaviour types appeared to focus around a definitive split between non-environmentalists and other groups, with the qualification that there were notable changesfrom the ‘committed’ to ‘occasional’ groupings, with lower frequencies in the lattergroups. Briefly, the demographic profile of the different groupings can be summarised as:
† The mean age of committed environmentalists is highest, with the mean age of non-environmentalists being the lowest;
† There were significantly more males in the non-environmentalist cluster. The genderbalance remains relatively stable in the three remaining clusters;
† Committed and mainstream environmentalists tended to have smaller household sizesthan occasional or non-environmentalists. A significantly large number of householdsin these latter groups had more than five individuals in the home;
† Car access fluctuated according to the cluster examined, although this was notstatistically significant;
† Committed environmentalists tended to own their home, whilst a greater proportion ofnon-environmentalists were either private tenants or rented their home from a localauthority;
† Committed individuals tended to live in terraced properties, whilst mainstreamenvironmentalists were more likely to live in semi-detached homes;
† Non-environmentalists were on significantly lower incomes. This was the case for thelowest income band of under 7500 a year. However, a significantly higher proportion ofcommitted environmentalists earned between 7500 and 10,000 pounds. The higherincome brackets were equally spread between groups;
† Committed environmentalists were less likely to have received any formal education,but at the same time, were also more likely to have a degree. In the case of non-environmentalists, a large proportion had received no formal education, with low levelsof GCSE, A-level and degree qualifications. Mainstream and occasional environmen-talists tended to have GCSE qualifications;
† Non-environmentalists contained a large amount of Labour voters as well as asignificant proportion that did not vote. There were markedly fewer Liberal Democratvoters amongst this group. Committed environmentalists were more likely to voteGreen and Liberal Democrat. They were also the most likely to vote. Mainstream andoccasional environmentalists represented what one might expect to be the nationalsituation, with Labour the dominant party of choice, followed by the Conservative’sand Liberal Democrat’s;
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 491
Table 2Demographic characteristics of behavioural clusters
Variable Sample Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Test statistic and
significance
Cluster
label
Committed
environ-ment’l
Mainstream
environ-ment’l.
Occasional
environ-ment’l.
Non-envir-
onment’l.
No. in
cluster
294 412 505 43
Age(mean)
49 55 52 46 43 Kruskall-WallisHZ59.6
(p!0.05)
Gender Male 35% Male 35% Male 31% Male 38% Male 50% c2Z8.8(p!0.05)
† Committed environmentalists were significantly more likely to be a member of acommunity organisation, whilst occasional and non-environmentalists were least likelyto be.
Evidently there are more trends that can be described from the table, but for thepurposes of brevity it is interesting to note that those most committed to sustainableconsumption were older, tended to own their home, lived in a terraced property, votedGreen/Liberal Democrat and were members of community groups. In contrast, those whowere non-environmentalists tended to be younger, male, on low incomes, who hadreceived less formal education, were less involved in the community and were more likelyto be politically apathetic.
These assertions are clearly generalisations. However, they are based on discerniblestatistical patterns. What must be noted is that there are not clear distinctions that can bedrawn along a continuum, from ‘committed’ to ‘non-environmentalist’. There are variabledemographic characteristics depending on which cluster one examines. Nonetheless, thereare clear trends that have significant implications for policy makers.
4.3.2. Social and environmental valuesThe review at the beginning of this paper examined the likelihood that those who were
more likely to engage in sustainable consumption would have more altruistic values, bemore open to change and be more likely to hold both biospheric and ecocentricenvironmental values. Questions relating to these were posed in the questionnaire andwere factor analysed in the same way as the behavioural items.
For social values, Table 3 reveals that four factors emerged, relating to altruism,openness to change, conservative values and egoism. Fig. 4 shows the scores for eachcluster according to the item in each factor. A test statistic (Mood’s median test) isprovided for each factor to signify whether there was any statistically significant differencebetween the scores between each group. Although for the altruistic and openness to changegrouping there appeared to be no statistical difference between the clusters, a general
pattern emerges relating to apparent differences between clusters 1–3 and cluster 4. Forexample, those in cluster 4 (non-environmentalists) were least likely to regard beinghelpful as an important principle in their lives. However, it is with regard to theconservative and egoism factors that substantive differences are observed. Committedenvironmentalists were the most likely to feel that unity was important, along withobedience, alongside placing little emphasis on wealth and personal influence.
With regard to environmental values, Table 4 shows the factorial structure of the threefactors that emerged, conforming towell-known concepts. Fig. 5 provides data on each of thefactors and the scores for each group. Non-environmentalists in this case were the most likelyto believe that there were no limits to growth for the UK and that humankind was created torule over nature. Indeed, theywere least likely to believe that the balance of nature is delicate,that the Earth was like a spaceship, or that plants and animals were not solely for human use.
These findings are significant, as they show that those individuals who are less involvedin sustainable purchasing behaviours share significantly different values to those who aremore heavily involved. These range over both social and environmental values and avariety of these in turn. Clearly, the environmentalist is less concerned with materialwealth and personal influence, alongside holding values that place nature in an equalposition with humans and believing that nature has critical limits which must not becrossed by human developments.
4.3.3. Psychological variablesGiven the nature of the research, a wide range of variables were measured, some of
which are not relevant to sustainable consumption. As before, these were factor analysedto provide a smaller set of variables with which to work. Four of the factors that emerged
Table 3Social value factors
Factor Variables included Variance (eigenvalue) Per cent variance
Altruistic Loyalty 3.1 20
Honouring parents
EqualitySocial justice
Enjoying life
Helpful
Openness to change Varied life 2.5 16Exciting life
Curious
Conservative Social order 2.1 13Obedience
Authority
Unity
Egoism Wealth 1.8 11Social Power
Influential
Total variance 59
Individuals were asked how important each value was to their own life, rating each from 1 (very unimportant) to 5
(very important).
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504494
contained variables that have previously been found to influence green consumerbehaviour. These related to response efficacy or perceived consumer effectiveness, theinfluence of responsibility, the effect of price sensitivity, and health and safety concerns.As for environmental and social values above, the individual scores for each variable aregiven for every one of the four behavioural groups.
Fig. 6a provides data relating to the outcome beliefs and response efficacy of the sample.It is immediately apparent that there is a discernible trend in the data, with committed
Fig. 4. Group properties for social values, Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), Mood’s
Median statistic computed for each factor, denoting whether there was a statistically significant differencebetween the four cluster groups. (a) Altruistic (MZ5.8; pO0.05), (b) Openness to change (MZ2.6; pO0.05), (c)
environmentalists the most likely to believe that environmental actions will have a positiveoutcome, whereas non-environmentalists are significantly less likely to have faith in theiractions. This conclusion should be qualified by noting that although statistically there was asignificant difference between the four groups, the majority in all cases agreed that theiractions would be effective. This is encouraging, but also highlights the difficulties policymakers face in engaging citizens in participation, given that even individuals who are theleast committed report fairly high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness.
Fig. 6b provides evidence for a more discernible difference between committedenvironmentalists and non-environmentalists. Whereas 90% of committed environmen-talists rejected the idea that environmental problems were the government’s responsibility,only 43% of non-environmentalists agreed with this notion. This is significant, sinceprevious research into green consumption has made explicit the links betweenpersonalisation of responsibility and effective environmental action. These data thereforesupport this assertion. Differences may also be seen with regard to the trust that individuals
Fig. 4 (continued )
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504496
placed in the different sources of information provided. Whilst three of the four groupsbelieved that environmental groups provided trustworthy information, more than twice thenumber of non-environmentalists stated that they disagreed with this. This might point to alink between the level of trust in specific information providers and the efficacy of thearguments in changing behaviours, which that organisation promotes.
The impact of price on sustainable consumption can be seen in Fig. 6c, where it is clearthat committed environmentalists were more likely to purchase products on theirenvironmental credentials, with price being less of a factor in the purchase decision. In thiscase, the trend is almost uniform between the four groups, with attitudes changingincrementally from committed to non-environmentalist groups. Such data indicate thedifferent perceptions of price that impact on personal attitudes towards purchasing in asustainable way.
Finally, Fig. 6d provides data relating to green consumer beliefs. In this case, the differencebetween the committed and non-environmentalist groups are distinctly uniform, withcommitted environmentalists stating that health issues, safety concerns, buying locally andbelieving that green consumption helped the environment all scoring over 70% agreement.Non-environmentalistswere the least concernedwith these issues,with under 40%stating that
Table 4Environmental value factors
Factor Variables included Label (Fig. 5) Variance
(eigenvalue)
Per cent
variance
Faith in growth:
anthropocentrism
There are no limits to growth
for nations like the UK
No limits to
growth
2.3 24
Modifying the environment
seldom causes serious
problems
Modifying
environment
Science will help us to livewithout conservation
Scientific solution
Humans were created to rule
over nature
Humans over
nature
Spaceship Earth:
biospherism
The balance of nature is
delicate and easily upset
Balance of nature 2.2 22
The Earth is like a space ship,
with limited room andresources
Spaceship earth
Plants and animals do not exist
primarily for human use
Value of nature
One of the most importantreasons for conservation is to
preserve wild areas
Preservation
Ecocentism-tech-nocentrism
Technology will solve manyenvironmental problems
Technologicalsolutions
1.2 12
Exploitation of resources
should be stopped
Stop exploitation
Total variance 58
Individuals were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree).
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 497
they felt buying locally was important and only 49% agreeing that green consumption helpedthe environment, compared to 83% of committed environmentalists. These data thereforeclearly demonstrate the impact of health and safety concerns in purchase decisions made byindividuals who choose to participate in sustainable consumption.
5. Discussion
The data presented in this paper provide compelling evidence to support the assertionthat green consumption may be more appropriately termed sustainable consumption or
Fig. 5. Environmental Values (please see Table 4 for statement wording) Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster
a component of any move towards sustainable lifestyles. Incorporating issuesconventionally conceived as green consumer actions within a framework of environmentalaction has demonstrated how sustainable consumption is likely to be a component of awider shift in lifestyles that invokes both purchase-related and habitual behaviours in anholistic conceptualisation of everyday living. This is manifested within distinctivebehavioural groups that have their own social, attitudinal and behavioural qualities,ranging from committed environmentalists, who partake in a considerable variety ofenvironmental actions, to non-environmentalists who generally never participate in suchbehaviours. In regard to the specific qualities of the different groups, reference can bemade to existing research in this field.
5.1. Social and environmental values
The evidence provided in this research supports the work of Stern et al. [28], Roberts[19] and Chan [2] in their assertions that green consumers tend to hold more pro-environmental and pro-social values. The data in Figs. 3 and 4 clearly demonstrate thatcommitted environmentalists valued wealth, personal influence and power less than unityand other aspects of altruism. In contrast, non-environmentalists scored the lowest on thesemeasures. Indeed, committed environmentalists were more likely to hold biosphericand ecocentric values, emphasising equality with nature and a need to work with theenvironment, rather than relying on technological solutions. Such data provide a goodbasis on which to argue that sustainable lifestyles may be formulated around a distinctivepro-social ethic, which is open to change and values nature intrinsically. From theperspective of policy, this may provide certain difficulties, since values are not easilymanipulated by conventional policy measures, as perhaps attitudes can be.
Fig. 5 (continued)
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 499
Fig. 6. Selected social-psychological factors, Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), (a)
Outcome beliefs (MZ45.1; p!0.05), Good economics, It makes good economic sense to help the environment,NZ1245; Energy beliefs, Energy saving in the home helps reduce global warming, NZ1242; Response efficacy,
Each person’s behaviour can have a positive effect on society and the environment, NZ1245; Waste beliefs,
Reducing household waste and recycling saves rubbish being buried in landfill, NZ1241; (b) Trust and
responsibility (MZ12.3; p!0.05). Government responsibility, Environmental problems are the government’sresponsibility*, NZ1234; Trust in information, The information I receive about environmental issues is
trustworthy, NZ1233; Environmental group information, Environmental groups provide the most accurate
information about the environment, NZ1241; (c) Price (MZ32.5; p!0.05), Price of eco-friendly products,
Unless environmentally-friendly products come down in price, I will buy normal brands*, NZ1235; Importanceof nature, The price is uppermost in my mind when I buy products*, NZ1241; Prefer eco-friendly produce, I’d
rather buy environmentally-friendly products than purchase cheaper alternatives, NZ1238; Willing to pay more,
Paying higher prices for environmentally-friendly products is worth the extra cost, NZ1241; (d) Green consumerbeliefs (MZ84.9; p!0./05); Health concerns, The health benefits of certain foods are a key priority when I go
shopping,NZ1241; Safety concerns, Food safety is important when I go shopping,NZ1239; Importance of local
produce, Buying local produce is very important, NZ1238; Green consumer beliefs, Buying green produce helps
the environment, NZ1241; For all items marked * the raw scores (measured on a scale of 1Zstrongly disagree to5Zstrongly agree) were reverse coded so that in all cases agreement/strong agreement reflects a pro-
environmental position; Mood’s Median test was used to examine any statistically significant differences between
the cluster groups.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504500
5.2. Socio-demographics
Some of the conclusions reached by workers in this field can be substantiated from thisresearch. Roberts’ [20]) finding that age had a positive impact on green consumption issupported by the evidence in Table 2, where there was a difference of 12 years in the meanage of committed and non-environmentalists. Such a finding may support Hallin’s [9]hypothesis that older age groups are more likely to save and ‘make do’, given that they arefrom the Second World War generation. Nonetheless, the incorporation of other variables,such as fairly traded goods and recycled products may hint at another hypothesis that is asyet poorly understood.
Although gender does not show significant differences except for the non-environmentalist group, this finding is significant, as it supports Roberts’ [20] assertion
Fig. 6 (continued)
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 501
of some gender imbalance. The male dominance (relatively) of this group supportsevidence from other environmental behaviour research (e.g. Barr et al. [1]; Hines et al.[10]) that males may be less environmentally active. This may relate to Eagly’s [6] theoryof gender role expectations in which males and females seek to aspire to commonlyperceived gender roles and would have to be placed in the context of the division of labourin households relating to the consumption of certain goods.
Olli et al.’s [17] thesis relating to the effect of income is partly substantiated by thispaper, in which a large proportion of committed environmentalists earned between 7.5 and10 thousand Pounds. However, a larger proportion of non-environmentalists earned under7.5 thousand Pounds. Such a position is difficult to interpret and does not appear to fallwithin conventional thinking on environmental action (Hines et al. [10] that relates to ageneral trend for higher income earning individuals to be more environmentallyconscious.
Finally, in regard to political attitudes, this research supports Dunlap’s [3] initialassertion that liberal individuals were more likely to support environmentalism. MoreGreen and Liberal Democrat voters were committed environmentalists. However, moreconcerning is the level of political apathy that non-environmentalists demonstrated, with alarger proportion not voting.
A further finding that has not been reported in the literature includes the high proportionof owner-occupiers in the committed environmentalists group and the high amount of non-environmentalists in the renting/local authority sector.
From the perspective of policy, these results are important, as they may be able toprovide a means by which to focus specific measures to encourage sustainable living.These might be demographically based, with emphasis being placed on youngerindividuals, such as males. They may also be spatially distributed, focusing on individualsin certain areas with high levels of renting/local authority tenancy.
5.3. Psychological factors
The literature reviewed above concerning perceived consumer effectiveness,responsibility, price and health and safety issues can all be substantiated in this paper.This is not to state that other factors might be significant in differentiating between the fourbehavioural groups, but rather that there is strong evidence to support previous evidence.Consumers are likely to purchase in a more sustainable way if they perceive that what theyare buying, be that organic food or fairly traded coffee, is actually going to impact on theenvironment and influence future policy. Similarly, personalisation of environmentalissues and a trust in the information provided on the environment is also more likely toengage citizens. The priorities that are given to various purchases are also likely to besignificant, relating to trade-offs pertaining to price, health, safety, buying locally andhelping the environment.
These findings suggest that policy makers need to market products specifically atparticular market segments, so as to emphasise how a particular product will have atangible effect, be that on the natural environment, a developing nation’s economy or thelocal farmer. This information needs to be clear, scientifically presented and ‘believable’.Indeed, where price is an issue, other credentials of the products should be emphasised,
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504502
such as the health and safety benefits, be that for organic produce or locally producedfoods.
6. Conclusion
Any move to sustainability and sustainable lifestyles will be a gradual process, but mustbe seen in the context of an holistic move towards new lifestyles, incorporating purchase-related and habitual elements that cross conventional behavioural boundaries. Thechallenges for policy makers wishing to engage in this move relate to both a realigning ofthe language of consumption, away from ‘green’ and towards ‘sustainable’, so as toincorporate activities that do not necessarily have green credentials, but also a greaterfocus on who does what. This research has clearly shown that specific demographicgroups, with particular behavioural qualities and attitudes, are engaging in a varied way insustainability. If policy makers can use this approach, which can be utilised to targetspecific groups, then the move to sustainable lifestyles will be achieved with greaterefficacy.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks the Economic and Social Research Council forfinancial assistance in undertaking this research (Grant No. R000239417).
References
[1] S. Barr, A. Gilg, N. Ford, A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards
household waste management, Environment and Planning A 33 (2001) 2025–2048.[2] R. Chan, Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior, Psychology and Marketing 18
(2001) 389–413.
[3] R. Dunlap, The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions, Environment andBehavior 7 (1975) 428–453.
[4] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, The new environmental paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1978)
10–19.
[5] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, R. Jones, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: arevised NEP scale, Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000) 425–442.
[6] A. Eagly, Sex Differences In Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.
[7] A. Gilg, M. Battershill, Quality food from Europe: a possible alternative to the industrialised food market
and to current agro-environmental policies, Food Policy 23 (1998) 25–40.[8] K. Green, P. Vergragt, Towards sustainable households: a methodology for developing sustainable
technological and social innovations, Futures 34 (2002) 381–400.
[9] P. Hallin, Environmental concern and environmental behaviour in Foley, a small town in Minnesota,
Environmental and Behavior 27 (1995) 558–578.[10] J. Hines, H. Hungerford, A. Tomera, Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental
behavior: a meta analysis, Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987) 1–8.
[11] B. Ilbery, L. Holloway, R. Arber, The geography of organic farming in England and Wales in the 1990s,Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90 (1999) 285–295.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 503
[12] R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Western Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990.[13] D. Karp, Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior, Environment and Behavior 28 (1996) 111–
133.
[14] T. Kinnear, J. Taylor, S. Ahmed, Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they?, Journal of Marketing
38 (1974) 20–24.[15] D. Leonard-Barton, Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation, Journal of Consumer Research.
8 (1981) 243–252.
[16] T. Mainerie, E. Barnett, T. Valdero, J. Unipan, S. Oskamp, Green buying: the influence of environmentalconcern on consumer behaviour, Journal of Social Psychology 137 (1997) 189–204.
[17] E. Olli, D. Grendstad, D. Wollebark, Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context,
Environment and Behavior 33 (2001) 181–208.
[18] T. O’Riordan, Future directions in environmental policy, Environment and Planning A 17 (1985) 1431–1446.
[19] J. Roberts, Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behavior, Psychological Reports 73 (1993)
139–148.
[20] J. Roberts, Green consumers in the 1990’s: profile and implications for advertising, Journal of BusinessResearch 36 (1996) 217–231.
[21] C. Sanne, Willing consumers-or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption, Ecological Economics
42 (2002) 273–287.[22] S. Schwartz, Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20
countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10 (1992) 221–279.
[23] M. Schuhwerk, S. Lefkoff-Hagius, Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a
green product, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 45–54.[24] C. Schwepker, T. Cornwell, An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to
purchase ecologically packaged products, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991) 77–101.
[25] L. Shrum, J. McCarty, T. Lowrey, Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for
advertising strategy, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 71–82.[26] P. Sparks, R. Shepherd, Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: the role of identification with
‘green consumerism’, Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (1992) 388–399.
[27] B. Steel, Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental attitudes, behaviour and activism, Journal of
Environmental Management 47 (1996) 27–36.[28] P. Stern, T. Dietz, G. Guagnano, The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context,
Environment and Behavior 27 (1995) 723–743.
[29] J. Thogerson, F. Olander, Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panelstudy, Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002) 605–630.
[30] L. Tucker, Identifying the environmentally responsible consumer: the role of internal–external control of
reinforcements, Journal of Consumer Affairs 14 (1980) 326–340.
[31] M. Winter, Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism, Journal of Rural Studies 19(2003) 21–32.
![Sustainable University – a status quo [Sustainable University – eine Bestandsaufnahme]](https://static.documents.page/doc/80x56/636265b440b666b8ec0e5d15/sustainable-university-a-status-quo-sustainable-university-eine-bestandsaufnahme.jpg)
