consumer awareness, motivations and buying

8/18/2019 Consumer Awareness, Motivations and Buying

1/17

Consumer Awareness, Motivations and Buying

Intention of Eco-Friendly Fast Moving Consumer

Goods: An Empirical Study

Author:

Dr. H.C. Purohit

Reader

Department of Business EconomicsFaculty of Management Studies

VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (UP) India

222001

E-Mail: [email protected]

[email protected]


2/17

Consumer Awareness, Motivations and Buying

Intention of Eco-Friendly Fast Moving Consumer

Goods: An Empirical Study

Dr. H.C. Purohit

Abstract

In recent years, companies have been under increasing pressure to communicate their

sustainability performance to its stakeholders. The corporate social responsibility is oneof the important factors which may influence the market performance of a business

concern. Environmental issues in these days are very common to be addressed and

communicated through their offerings in terms of eco-friendly products to the

communities in which it operates.

PurposeAs awareness of the environmental issues and its impact on our life increases, more

people are willing to change their behaviors and purchasing/consumption habits in order

to help improve the environment.

Design/Methodology/Approach

The consumer’s buying decision of fast moving consumer goods were measured just after

completion of the purchase process at the deals store. The consumer were contactedpersonally their responses were recorded with the help of a structured questionnaire.

FindingsThe paper measures the buying motives of the consumers and their awareness level of

eco-friendly products in fast moving consumer goods category.

Research limitations/implicationsThis paper will make contribution in the product designing and positioning of fast

moving consumer goods. Indian consumer market is one of the largest markets of the

world and designing and positioning of a eco-friendly product as per the expectation ofthe consumer will definitely help them to succeed in the globally competitive market.

Original ValueThis paper provides the empirical support to design the fast moving consumer goods as

per the consumer expectation and desire before launching it in the market.

Paper type: Research paper

Key Words: Green Product, Buying Intention, Green advertisement, Fast MovingConsumer Goods (FMCG).


3/17

Consumer Awareness & Motivations of Green Products

and Buying Intention of Fast Moving Consumer Goods:

An Empirical Study

Introduction

Consumer learning is a branch of consumer behaviour that focuses in the learning

processes of consumers. This area has been of great interest to marketers since this

knowledge represents an important opportunity to teach individuals in their role as

consumers. Marketers can ensure that their products and services will be preferred over

their competitors, by teaching to the consumers (Schiffman et al. 2008). The growing

volume and increasing spread of marketing and advertising is creating a big challenge for

the companies to either create awareness of their new products or keep the interest of

consumers in their current products.

Environmental marketing can be described as a shift in managerial thought from viewing

the natural and physical environment as an external influence on decision making to

viewing it as central to marketing and management strategy (Menon and Menon, 1997).

Product labeling and advertising are two key means of directly influencing consumer

awareness (Shrum et al. 1995, Prakash 2002). Product labeling and advertising have the

potential to impact consumer purchase behaviour in different ways since consumers react

differently to different stimuli (McCarthy et al. 1992).

Laroche et al., (2002) reported that ecologically conscious consumers believe that current

environmental conditions are deteriorating and represent serious problems facing the

security of the world, whereas consumers who are less sensible to ecological issues

perceive that environmental problems will solve themselves. Consumer attitude towards

environmental issues do not necessarily lead to actual environmentally friendly

purchasing behavior (Laroche et al., 2002).

Gan et. al. (2008) found that consumers who are environmentally conscious are more

likely to purchase green products. Traditional product attributes such as price, quality,

and brand are still the most important attributes that consumers consider when making


4/17

green purchasing decision. Product attributes play a very important role in product

development since they affect consumer product choices and they help marketers to

satisfy customers’ needs, wants and demands Gan et. al. (2008). Ottman (1993) found

that all types of consumers both individual and industrial are becoming more concerned

and aware about the natural environment.

Wessells et al. (1999) reported that environmental attributes of a product are more

difficult for a consumer to be compared with other easily observable product attributes.

Consumption Values: Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo, (2001) reported that

Businesses and consumers today have become more concerned with the natural

environment and are realizing that their production and consumption purchasing behavior

will have direct impact on the environment. The studies have categorized the

consumption values of a consumer as follows:

Emotional value: Brown and Reingen, (1987) described that the value which is

associated with consumers’ feelings (e.g., feeling good, excited) and affective states,

resulting in consumer evaluations of a product can be treated as emotional value of the

consumer.

Social value: Social values are one of the consumption motives that consumers hold

beyond a product’s function. Consumers have been found to purchase products for

reasons other than their functional properties, to enhance one’s social self-concept issues

(Leigh and Gabel, 1992). De Marez et al. (2007) explained that the social status and

image is reflected by the use of innovative green products.

Functional value: can be defined as the maximum number of benefits consumers

seeking at the lowest possible costs, and the acquisition of a green product with the

desired physical attributes in order to perform its function. Sweeny and Souter (2001)

defined the Functional value in terms of the attributes like; price value and quality value

of a product.

Price value: is the utility derived from a green product due to the reduction of its

perceived short-term and longer-term costs.

Quality value: Nowlis and Simonson (1996) described that the quality value of a product

is the utility derived from the perceived quality and expected performance of a green

product in comparison of the consumer pre-purchase expectations.


5/17

Researchers have analyzed various stages of the product’s life cycle and developed

methodologies to improve the design of the product from an environmental perspective.

Consequently, eco-design was broken down into many stages including product’smanufacturing, use and end-of-life (EOL). Horvath et al. 1995), suggested three goals of

eco-design; minimize the use of non-renewable resources, effectively manage renewable

resources and minimize toxic releases to the environment.

Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) reported that the eco-sensitive consumer consciously

seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural resources and

minimize resource and energy consumption, use non-toxic substances, reduce waste

production. The researchers described that environmental consciousness is influenced by

two sets of determinants: external determinants like; media, family, culture and internal

determinants includes; demographics, psychology of a consumer, consumer ecological

buying behaviour is influenced by four factors: environmental consciousness, willingness

to pay higher price for eco-proudcts, perceived environmental characteristics of a

product, and company’s environmental reputation. Nurse et. al. (2010), found that

Consumer buying decision of green products depends on attitude perceived social, norms

perceived consumer effectiveness, availability, current purchase behavior (willingness to

pay higher price WTP), and perceived behavior control. Straughan and James A. Roberts

(1999) reported that the attitude or belief of a consumer is referred as perceived consumer

effectiveness (PCE). Laroche et al., (2002) confirmed the indications of positive attitude

towards environmental issues do not necessarily lead to actual environmentally friendly

purchasing behavior.

ObjectivesAfter reviewing the above studies the present study focuses on the following objectives:

1- To study the relationship between environmental values, consumer satisfaction

and Brand loyalty.

2- To analyze the ecological conscious consumer buying behaviour (ECCB).

3- To study the future action of the consumers regarding the purchase of eco-friendly

products.


6/17

Methodology

The survey questionnaire consists of four parts: (1) green consumption value, (2)

satisfaction, (3) loyalty, and (4) information about green products. Green consumptionvalue was measured by using multiple-item scales modified from previous research

studies (Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Scale items for assessing

customer satisfaction were obtained on five-point Likert type scale for respondents

ranging from ‘Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree’. Satisfaction items reflect a person’s

positive, affective reaction to evaluations of consumption experiences (De Wulf et al.,

2001). Customer loyalty of the respondents were measured on Likert type scale ranging

from ‘strongly agree strongly disagree’, in all 19 items were used for the purpose. The

consumer ecological conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) measures the extent to

which individual respondents purchase goods and services believed to have a more

positive (or less negative) impact on the environment (Roberts, 1996b). Roberts (1996b),

reported that the behavioral orientation of the scale helps to mitigate one problem widely

noted in marketing research and green marketing research in particular, that attitudes

often do not translate into behavior. The ECCB construct was measured using the same

30-item scale used in the Roberts (1996b) study. The individual items were on a Likert-

type scale ranging from “Always True' (5) to Never True'' (1), and demographic

information were also obtained

Sampling: The data was collected from the University students a structured

questionnaire consisting of the items related to measure the consumption behavour as

well as Ecological Consciousness of the Consumer Behaviour (ECCB) along with

demographical details was distributed to them. More than 130 questionnaires were

distributed but only 105 questionnaires were found suitable for analysis.

Reliability of the scale:

In order to find out the soundness of the scale the reliability was computed and it was

found that the scale is reliable as the Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale is .876 for

consumption behaviour scale and the ecological conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB)

scale was also found reliable with the .755 Cronbach’s alpha (Table-1).


7/17

Table-1

Reliability

Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Scale-1 .876 19

Scale-2 .755 30

Sample Profile:The profile of the respondents as per their demography is presented as follows (Table-2):

Age: An overwhelming majority (83%) of the respondents were from young age group

i.e. 20 years to 24 years while 8% of the respondents were from teen age group and 9% of

the respondents belong to more than 25 years age group.

Education; A great majority (75%) of the respondents were highly educated rest (25%)

of the respondents was having graduation level qualifications.

Gender: A great majority (64%) of the respondents were male.

Family income: One fourth (25%) of the respondents were from low income group i.e.

monthly income upto Rs.10, 000 and more than one third (35%) of the respondents were

from lower higher income group i.e. monthly income Rs.10001 to 50000, around one

fourth (27%) of the respondents were from middle income group i.e. rs.50001 to 100000

and rest (13%) of the respondents were from higher income group i.e. more than Rs.

100001 monthly.

Marital Status: An overwhelming (89%) of the respondents were unmarried.

Occupation: More than half (54%) of the respondents were belonging to service class

family around one fourth (27%) of the respondents’ family were having their own

business and rest 19% of the respondents were from other profession or farming

occupation.

Family Size: More than half (59%) of the respondents were from large families i.e. more

than six members in the family and one third (33%) of the respondents were having

middle size of the family i.e. three to five members in the family, while rest (8%) of

respondents were from small families .i.e. upto two members or single member family.


8/17

Table- 2

Sample Profile

Demography Factors Category Percentage

Age Upto 19 years 8

20 to 24 years 8325 and above 9

Education Under graduate 25

Post graduate 75

Gender Male 64

Female 36

Income Upto Rs10000 25

Rs.10001- 50000 35

Rs.50001-100000 27

Rs.100001 and above 13

Marital Status Married 11

Unmarried 89Occupation Service 54

Business 27

Other (Profession) 19

Family Size Upto 2 Members 8

3 to 5 Members 33

6 and above Members 59

Results

The data obtained with the help of both the scales were analyzed with the help of SPSSand factor analysis of the scale were done and the scale was found significant on KMO

Bartlett’s test and data was explaining 67.212 of variance (Table-3). The factor loading

of the items indicate that all the 19 items are categorized into five factors. These factors

were named as Factor-1 consumer buying decision of green products, Factor-2 consumer

satisfaction, Factor-3 consumer emotional value, Factor-4 product quality and Factor-5

consumer green values. Seven items were loaded in factor one, six items were loaded in

factor two, two items were in factor three, two items were in factor four and two items

were loaded in factor five (Table-4).

The ecological conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) was also found significant on

KMO Bartlett’s test and it was explaining 54.861% variance of the data (Table-5). The

factor analysis of the data was computed and seven factors of all 30 items were obtained

(Table-6).


9/17

Relationship with Consumer Satisfaction

Consumer age was found significant negative relationship with satisfaction but other

demographical factors like; income and family size were not found significant

relationship with the consumer satisfaction. This result indicates that the new generation

consumers are more conscious for their environment and there is no question whether

they belongs to large family size or small family size and they are from lower or higher

income group. Consumer Satisfaction was found significant correlation with consumer

emotional value and green value but there was no relationship with the product quality,

this trend indicate that environmental conscious consumers are not highly concerned with

the quality of the product but they are not willing to compromise with their ecology. The

ECCB factors are also having positive relationship with consumer satisfaction factor 1, 2

5, 6, and 7 was found significant relationship with satisfaction while factor 3 and 4 was

not having significant relationship with the satisfaction of the consumer (Table- 7).

Relationship with Consumer Buying Decision

The demographical variables like; age, family income and family size were not having

any positive significant relationship with consumer buying decision. This confirms that

the consumer age, income and family size is not a criterion for making a buying decision

of eco-friendly products. Consumer buying decision was having significant relationship

with satisfaction, emotional value and green value of the consumers but it was not found

significant relationship with product quality. This indicates that the quality of a product is

not the determinant of consuming a green product. The consumer may ignore the quality

if it is eco- friendly, but they are having brand loyalty regarding the consumption of the

green products. Further, consumer buying decision was also found significant

relationship with the five factors of ECCB except two factors i.e. factor one and factor six

these factors were found significant relationship with buying decision of a consumer

(Table- 7).

Prediction of Consumer Buying Decision

Consumer satisfaction along with consumption value as well as ECCB was having 42%

contribution in the buying decision of the consumers this trend indicates that the

consumer in the society are ecological conscious and they wish to consume such products

which are eco-friendly or less harmful to the environment this support of the findings of


10/17

Klein (1990), that 60 to 90 percent of consumers in North America are concerned about

the environmental impact of their purchases. The factor-1, 3 and 4 of ECCB were found

significant with consumer buying decision, while the other factors are not having

significant relationship with the buying decision (Table-8).

ConclusionThe result confirms that the consumer buying and consumption decision is eco-conscious

the young generation is highly concerned with their ecology. As growing age of the

consumer is having negative relationship with their satisfaction level which indicates that

the younger generation is more satisfied with the eco-friendly products this may be

because of the high promotion campaign and excessive product positioning of the eco-

products which has created awareness and change the cognition of the target customer’s

mind. But the age was not found any significant relationship with buying decision whichconfirms that the consumer buying decision is based on the product performance it is not

concerned with the demography of the consumer. If the performance is satisfactory then

only the consumer’s will intend to buy the same product again in future. The family

income and family size was also not found any relationship with satisfaction and buying

decision of the consumers, this supports the finding consumer perceived product

performance is the factor to satisfy the consumer and satisfaction leads to brand loyalty

(Bearden and Teel 1983, Miller 1972 and Oliver 1980).

Consumer satisfaction having positive significant relationship with buying decision of

green products and consumer consumption value like; emotional and green value along

with the ECCB factors except the two factors were having significant relationship with

the satisfaction of the consumer. This indicates that the consumers are emotionally

attached with the green products where the quality may be ignored at the cost of the

environment but they wish to consume green products and save their environment. The

marketers are required to identify the green attributes of their product as it is more

difficult in comparison to observable product attributes (Wessells et al. 1999) and

accordingly position that eco-friendly nature of their product to address or target the

consumer then only they will be able to succeed in this globally competitive ecological

conscious market.


11/17

Table-3

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .797

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 954.111

df 171Sig. .000

Table-4

Factor Analysis (Consumption Behaviour)

Factors

1 2 3 4 5

I would absolutely consider buying those products that areenvironmental friendly

.833

Everything considered how likely are you in the future to purchase

another new environmental friendly product

.792

I would absolutely plan to buy the environmental friendly products .786

I definitely expect to buy those products that are environmental

friendly

.784

I would definitely intend to buy those products that are

environmental friendly

.753

There is a feeling of individuality about the eco-friendly products. .730

Would you recommend those products that are environmental

friendly to a friend or relative?

.612

I feel proud about my product. .830

My product was a smart choice. .817

Eco-friendly products are exciting. .680

How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your

environmental friendly products?

.501

Overall, how would you judge your satisfaction with your

environmental friendly products?

.486

I am satisfied with my purchase decision of environmental friendlyproducts

.458

There is a feeling of freedom in recycled products. .807

My product is environmental and technical innovative. .695

My vehicle reflects a sense of success. .835

My product is environmental friendliness. .807

There is a feeling of power in my green products. .777


12/17

There is a sense of prestige about my product. .641

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

Table-5

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .536

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 1154.823

df 435

Sig. .000

Table-6

Factor Analysis (ECCB)

Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I have switched products for ecological reasons. .682

I have convinced members of my family or friends not to

buy some products which are harmful to the environment.

.627

I do not buy products in aerosol containers. .624

I have replaced light bulbs in my home with those of

smaller wattage so that I will conserve on the electricity I

use

.520

I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is

ecologically irresponsible.

.487

To save energy, I drive my car as little as possible. .485

I do not buy household products that harm the

environment.

.699

I make every effort to buy paper products made from

recycled paper.

.696

I try to buy energy efficient household appliances. .532

I use a recycling center or in some way recycle some of my

household trash.

.375


13/17

I buy Kleenex made from recycled paper. .778

I buy paper towels made from recycled paper. .591

I usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of

its impact on society.

.577

I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. .528

Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable

containers.

.781

I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of

products that are made of or use scarce resources.

.691

When I have a choice between two equal products, I

always purchase the one which is less harmful to other

people and the environment.

.473

When there is a choice, I always choose that product which

contributes to the least amount of pollution.

.441

To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as

little as possible.

.832

I try only to buy products that can be recycled. .686

I have purchased a household appliance because it uses

less electricity than other brands.

.394

When I purchase products, I always make a conscious

effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants.

.778

If I understand the potential damage to the environment

that some products can cause, I do not purchase these

products.

.513

I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy. .506

I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher,

washer and dryer) before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m.

-.476

I have purchased light bulbs that were more expensive but

saved energy.

.628

I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I

use.

.566

I will not buy products which have excessive packaging. -.528

I have purchased products because they cause lesspollution.

.513

I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry. -.463

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 18 iterations.


14/17

Table-7

Relationship with Demography, Consumption Behaviour and ECCB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age 1

Family

Income

-.101 1

family Size .204* .207* 1

Buying

Decision

.048 .099 .076 1

Satisfaction -.460** .119 -.106 .480** 1

Emotional

Value

-.205* -.157 -.140 .256** .383** 1

Product

Quality

.054 -.102 .087 .141 .150 .211* 1

Green

Value

-.060 -.170 -.153 .379** .471** .292** .280** 1

Factor-1 -.236* .006 .111 .003 .263** .206* .088 .002 1

Factor-2 -.080 .096 .067 .393** .369** .087 .166 .124 .233* 1

Factor-3 .189 .003 -.007 .274** .176 .006 .016 .074 .216* .265** 1

Factor-4 -.048 -.182 .116 .257** .103 .101 .129 .238* .343** .311** .108 1

Factor-5 -.054 -.034 -.213* .341** .276** .070 .141 .319** .154 .324** .255** .216* 1

Factor-6 -.086 -.011 -.309** .180 .273** .254** -.230* .138 .268** .131 .303** .190 .125 1

Factor-7 .066 .004 .039 .223* .297** -.002 -.065 .214* .462** .387** .230* .363** .378** .306**

Table-8

Prediction of Consumer Buying Decision

Model Beta t Sig. R2

F

1 .418 6.084

Satisfaction .320 3.024** .003

Emotional Value .130 1.391 .167

Product Quality -.002 -.021 .983

Green Value .072 .702 .484


15/17

Factor-1 -.276 -2.764** .007

Factor-2 .169 1.749 .084

Factor-3 .174 1.977* .051

Factor-4 .184 1.979* .051

Factor-5 .116 1.257 .212Factor-6 -.009 -.094 .925

Factor-7 .027 .252 .801

References:

Bearden, William O. and Jess E. Teel (1983). "Selected Determinants of ConsumerSatisfaction and Complaint Reports." Journal of Marketing Research 20 (February) pp

21-28.

Brown, J., and P. Reingen (1987), "Social Ties and Word-Of-Mouth Referral Behavior",

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 350-362.

De Marez, L., Vyncke, P., Berte, K., Schuurman, D., and K. De Moor, (2007), "Adopter

Segments, Adoption Determinants and Mobile Marketing", Journal of Targeting,Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 16(1), pp. 78-95.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., and D. Iacobucci, (2001), "Investments inconsumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross Industry Exploration", Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 65(4), pp. 33-50.

Gan Christopher Han Yen Wee, Lucie Ozanne, Tzu-Hui Kao, (2008), “Consumers’purchasing behavior towards green products in New Zealand”, Innovative Marketing,

Volume 4, Issue 1,pp 93-102.

Horvath, A., & C. T. Hendrickson, (1995). “Performance measurement for

environmentally conscious manufacturing”, proceedings of the 1995 ASME International

Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, San Francisco, CA.

Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally

and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior”? Environmental Education

Research, 8, pp 239-260.

Klein E. (1990), “The Selling of Green”, D&B Reports, Vol. 38, September/October,

pp30-1.


16/17

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Tomiul, M., and Barbaro-Forleo G. (2002). “Cultural

differences in Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of CanadianConsumers”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19 (3) pp 267-283.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Tomiul, M., and Barbaro-Forleo G. (2001). “Targeting

consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products”, Journalof Consumer Marketing, 18 (6), 503-520.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Tomiul, M., and Barbaro-Forleo G. (2002). “Cultural

differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of Canadian

consumers”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19 (3), pp 267-283.

Leigh, J.H., and T.G. Gabel, (1992),"Symbolic Interactionism: Its Effects on Consumer

Behavior and Implications for Marketing Strategy", The Journal of Consumer Marketing,

Vol. 9(1), pp. 27-38.

Menon A, Menon A. (1997), “Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence ofcorporate environmentalism as market strategy”, Journal of Marketing 61(1):pp 51–67.

Nowlis, S M. and I. Simonson, (1996), "The Effect of New Product Features on Brand

Choice", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33(1), pp. 36-46.

Nurse Gretchen, Yuko Onozaka, and Dawn Thilmany McFadden, (2010),

“Understanding the Connections between Consumer Motivations and Buying Behavior:

The Case of the Local Food System Movement”, Presented in a Conference at theSouthern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, February

6-9.

Oliver L-Richard, (1980), “A cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Satisfaction Decision”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-69.

Olshavsky, R. W. and Miller, J.A. (1972), “Consumer expectations, product performance

and perceived product quality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 pp 19-21.

Ottman, Jacquelyn. (1993). Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the NewMarketing Age. Lincolnwood, Illinois: NTC Business Books.

Prakash, A. (2002), “Green marketing, Public Policy and Managerial Strategies”,Business Strategy and the Environment 11, pp 285–297.

Roberts, J.A. (1996b), ``Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications foradvertising'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-31.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and B.L. Gross, (1991), "Why We Buy What We Buy: ATheory of Consumption Values", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22(2), pp. 159-170.


17/17

Shrum, L.J., J.A. McCarthy and T.M. Lowrey. (1995) “Buyer Characteristics of the

Green Consumers and their Implications for Advertising Strategy”. Journal ofAdvertising 121 pp 71–82.

Straughan, Robert D. and James A. Roberts, (1999), “Environmental segmentation

alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium”, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6 pp. 558-575.

Sweeney, J. C., and G.N, Soutar, (2001), "Consumer Perceived Value: The Development

of a Multiple Item Scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77(2), pp. 203-220.

Sweeney, J. C., and G.N, Soutar, (2001), "Consumer Perceived Value: The Development

of a Multiple Item Scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77(2), pp. 203-220.

Wessells, C.R., Johnston, R.J., and Donath, H. (1999). “Assessing consumer preferencesfor ecolabeled seafood: The influence of species, certifier and household attributes”,

American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 81 (5) pp1084-1089.

Books

McCarthy, E.J., S.J. Shapiro and W.D. Perreault, Jr. (1992) Basic Marketing: Sixth

Canadian Edition. Irwin, Boston, pp 812.

Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., OCass, A., Paladino, A., Ward, S., Kanuk, L. (2008).Consumer Behaviour. 4th Edition. Pearson Education Australia pp 664.

consumer awareness, motivations and buying

Documents