Environmental segmentation study of consumers in Trichy District.

Project Report Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted By

IRFAN AHAMED.K
Reg. No: - 08MBA008 Under the guidance of

Dr. Mr. Bejoy John Thomas MBA., M.PHIL, Ph.D., (NET).

JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous) TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

AUGUST - 2009

JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous)
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Project report entitled “Environmental
segmentation study of consumers on Trichy District.” is a bonafide record of

the work done by IRFAN AHAMED.K. With Register No.08MBA008 in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of MASTER
OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,

affiliated

to

the

Bharathidasan

University, submitted to the Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) during the year 2009-2010.

Member In-Charge

Project Guide

External Examiner

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply indebted to the Principal and Director Dr. M. SHIEK MOHAMED, Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) Trichy, for having given me the opportunity to do this professional course in this institution. I am very much grateful to Dr. BEJOY JOHN THOMAS, Member-inCharge of Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College for giving official permission to do this project work. Words alone cannot express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Bejoy John Thomas MBA.,M.Phil,Ph.D.,(NET), Member-in-Charge, Jamal Institute of Management whose guidance made this project works an enlightening educational experience. I sincerely thank the faculty members, Jamal Institute of Management for their encouragement and support. I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my parents, friends and others who were supported to complete this study and make it a grand success.

K.IRFAN AHAMED

CONTENTS
Page No. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY (i) Introduction of the study (ii) Research Problem (iii) Research Objective (iv) Review of Literature (v) Research Methodology Research Design Nature of Data Universe Method of Data Collection Sample Size Sampling Method Pilot Study Statistical tools used Statistical hypotheses framed (vi) Limitations ANALYSIS • • CHAPTER III Data Tabulation & graphical representation Data Analysis & Interpretation

CHAPTER II

FINDINGS SUGGESTIONS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEXURE

INTRODUCTION

Although environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy. Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing. This paper will attempt to introduce – the terms and concept of green-marketing; about the importance of green marketing; examine some reasons that make the organizations interested to adopt green marketing philosophy; it also highlights some problems that organization may face to implement green marketing and it’s managerial implications along with few case points. Last but not the least the paper “Green Marketing – A Changing Concept In Changing Times”, is a conceptual paper on green marketing, which is an emerging area of interest. There is a need of paradigm shift in the way the 2 management institutes and businesshouses think about their role in attaining sustainable development. Green marketing involves developing and promoting products and services that satisfy customers’ wants and needs for quality, performance, affordable pricing and convenience without having a detrimental impact on the environment. Green marketing is the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. Thus green marketing incorporates a broad range of activities, including product modification, changes to the production process, packaging changes, as well as modifying advertising. THE FOUR P’s OF GREEN MARKETING • PRODUCT Identify customers’environmental needs and develop products to address these needs.Develop environmentally responsible products to have less impact than competitors. • PRICE Most customers will only be prepared to pay a premium if there is a perception of additional product value. Environmental benefits are usually an added bonus but will often be the deciding factor between products of equal value and quality.

• PLACE Very few customers will go out of their way to buy green products merely for the sake of it.Green products, in most cases, positioned broadly in the market place so they are not just appealing to a small green niche market. In-store promotions and visually appealing displays or using recycled materials to emphasise the environmental and other benefits • PROMOTION Includes paid advertising, public relations, sales promotions, direct marketing and on-site promotions. Green marketers will be able to reinforce environmental credibility by using sustainable marketing and communications tools and practices.

The 5 Simple Rules of Green Marketing
When it comes to shining a spotlight on specific sustainability issues, NGOs and consumer groups will target the most respected and trusted brands in the world. It’s the reason why Home Depot was targeted for sustainable harvested wood, Nike for child labor practices, McDonalds for Styrofoam clamshells and now obesity, and why Coke is similarly a target for sugar and packaging. What does this all mean for your business? Simply stated, if you don’t manage your business with respect to environmental and social sustainability, your business will not be sustained! But the converse is true, too: A strong commitment to environmental sustainability in product design and manufacture can yield significant opportunities to grow your business, to innovate, and to build brand equity. All you have to do is get the word out...right? As with any other major business endeavor, easier said than done. Many a responsible company has run into trouble with these very same sustainability-minded NGOs and consumer groups thanks to a poorly planned and crafted marketing message. Protect your company from these common pitfalls and start taking advantage of new opportunities by heeding my Rules of Green Marketing:

1. Know your customer. If you want to sell a greener product to consumers, you first need to make sure that the consumer is aware of and concerned about the issues that your product attempts to address. (Whirlpool learned the hard way that consumers wouldn’t pay a premium for a CFC-free refrigerator because consumers didn’t know what CFCs were!). 2. Empower consumers. Make sure that consumers feel, by themselves or in concert with all the other users of your product, that they can make a difference. This is called “empowerment” and it’s the main reason why consumers buy greener products. 3. Be transparent. Consumers must believe in the legitimacy of your product and the specific claims you are making. Caution: There’s a lot of skepticism out there that is fueled by the raft of spurious claims made in the “go-go” era of green marketing that occurred during the late 80s–early90s — one brand of household cleaner claimed to have been “environmentally friendly since 1884”! 4. Reassure the buyer. Consumers need to believe that your product performs the job it’s supposed to do — they won't forego product quality in the name of the environment. (Besides, products that don’t work will likely wind up in the trash bin, and that’s not very kind to the environment.) 5. Consider your pricing. If you're charging a premium for your product — and many environmentally preferable products cost more due to economies of scale and use of higherquality ingredients — make sure that consumers can afford the premium and feel it’s worth it. Many consumers, of course, cannot afford premiums for any type of product these days, much less greener ones, so keep this in mind as you develop your target audience and product specifications.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The ecology movement initially focused on pollution and energy conservation. The environmental issues are presently used as a source of competitive advantage in business and politics. The individual and societal concern over environmental issues have become increasingly apparent to the casual observer. Some of the key questions that remind unanswered are, what is the nature of ecologically conscious consumer of the future? Do these consumers differ from the ecologically consumer of the past? And if so how do they differ? Hence the present study tries to segment the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour of students in Trichy District.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To find out the relationship of demographic and psychographic characteristics of consumers with ECCB. To identify the future of ecologically conscious consumption.  SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To identify the relationship of demographic factors namely age, gender, family income, educational qualification with ECCB. To find out the relationship between the psychographic factors namely PCE, EC and Liberalism with ECCB. To find out the future of ecologically conscious consumption by understanding the environmentally conscious consumption of students.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1.Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium
Robert D. Straughan James A. Roberts Looking to the future of green marketing, examines the dynamic nature of ecologically conscious consumer behavior. The study also provides a method of profiling and segmenting college students based upon ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Findings indicate that, despite a significant amount of past research attention, demographic criteria are not as useful a profiling method as psychographic criteria. Consistent with past findings, the study indicates that perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) provides the greatest insight into ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Further, the inclusion of altruism to the profile appears to add significantly to past efforts. Additional constructs examined suggest that environmental segmentation alternatives are more stable than past profiles that have relied primarily on demographic criteria.

2.Green Marketing
By Anurag Tiwari & Manish Thakkar, SGSITS,INDORE People around the world are becoming more aware of the environmental stresses humans are placing on the planet. Newspapers, magazines, television, and other media feature wide coverage of environmental problems, whether they are local (e.g., depleted fisheries and air pollution) or global (e.g., ozone depletion and climate change). Many consumers now display concern about environmental deterioration. Increasingly often they ask how much impact a product will have on the environment during its lifespan or during its disposal. This is the major impetus for green products and green marketing. A closely related reason is the competitive advantage or sales potential that some corporations now see in green products. Green Marketing is an attempt to characterize a product as being environmentally friendly. In general green products are made from recycled content and/or designed for reuse, recycling, or remanufacturing. They are usually non-toxic, energy efficient, and durable. However, green is a relative term and depends on the individual situation.

3. Organic Consumption and the Socio-Ecological Imaginary
by David Goodman and Michael Goodman A central element in the social imaginaries of "sustainable consumption" and "green consumerism" is that the social values and everyday commitments that underpin consumer choice can be changed by the deployment of discursive resources. In this imaginary, changes in worldviews can transform consumption habits and cause significant shifts in market demand, creating profitable commercial opportunities for commodities produced more sustainably. As consumer values and habits of "getting and spending" are re-orientated toward "green" goods and services, producers of these commodities begin to enjoy competitive advantages over their less sustainable rivals. The process of capitalist competition, perhaps reinforced by state incentive policies and codes of ethical investment, will accelerate the transition of productive sectors, industries and, ultimately, capitalist economies to more sustainable development paths.

4.GREEN MARKETING- A CHANGING CONCEPT IN CHANGING
TIME.
Prof. Moloy Ghoshal Although environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy. Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing.

5.DEVELOPING A MEASURE OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION IN FRANCE
AGNES FRANCOIS-LECOMPTE, Pierre Mendes France University JAMES A. ROBERTS, Baylor University The very definition of consumption means to consume, waste, squander, or destroy. However, consumption need not be synonymous with environmental destruction and the squandering of natural resources. Socially responsible consumption (SRC) can promote social and/or environmental causes consumers deem important. The primary objective of the present

study is to develop a scale designed to measure SRC in France. Through the scale development process we attempt to identify whether French consumers share the same ecological and social concerns with their US counterparts as Roberts’ (1995; 1996) work might suggest, or is their SRC more idiosyncratic in nature. Our scale building process led to a five-factor SRC scale. It appears that French consumers do exhibit social and environmental concerns, but ones that differ somewhat from those exhibited by US consumers. The factors generated from our scale building process focused on corporate responsibility, country of origin preferences, shopping at local or small businesses, purchasing cause-related products, and reducing one’s consumption. Implications of the present study’s findings and directions for future research are discussed.

6.Increasing Environmental Sensitivity Via Workplace Experiences
Ida E. Berger and Vinay Kanetkar The authors examine the extent to which environmentally sensitive behavior at the workplace facilitates the translation of proenvironmental attitudes into consumer choices.They take advantage of a naturally occurring quasi-experiment in workplace experience and use a conjoint choice task to measure consumer behavior. The results indicate that (I) consumers are influenced by environmental attributes, (2) experience and level of concem moderate the influence of environmental attributes, (3) the effects of experience and concern are more than just additive, and (4) experience can facilitate environmentally conscious behavior among those with high levels of environmental concem by reducing their sensitivity to the effect of brand name. The authors conclude with implications for activists, public policymakers, and marketing managers.

7. Environmentally Responsible Food Choice Stefano Boccaletti (Catholic University of Piacenza)
The purpose of this paper is to review and assess the role of relevant explanatory variables that influence individual purchase decisions for “environmentally responsible” food consumption. In particular, we provide a detailed review of the key empirical studies in the area of consumer demand for those foods which can be broadly considered as environmentally responsible products (ERPs). We give this definition because the choice of ERPs is a consequence of individual concerns towards environmental and health issues and consumers are directly and indirectly responsible for the environmental and health effects of their food

consumption choices. The decision to purchase ERPs should reduce negative environmental effects from intensive agricultural practices, helping to preserve a public good like the environment. Consumption of ERPs should also curb health risks from chemicals for all the household members eating the food purchased in the shops. Therefore, the choice of ERPs reflects both “public” and “private” demands. Private demand for quality attributes associated with food choices and which are linked to the environment is a tangible signal that people increasingly value production processes that provide environmental services, i.e. that contribute to improving the quality of the environment. The income elasticity of demand for environmental quality in OECD countries is thought to be significantly positive, implying that as income grows, demand for environmental quality increases. At the same time, the stock and quality of natural capital in OECD countries may decrease with higher income and aggregate demand. In the presence of uninternalised externalities, this clearly introduces a “public” reason for supporting the demand of ERPs.

8. The Supply Chain Response to Environmental Pressures
Julie Paquette Supply chains represent the integration of hundreds of decisions, each with discrete economic and environmental implications. While delivering the “right product at the right time” and unprecedented corporate profitability, supply chains have operationalized a linear production path that extracts resources, uses energy, releases emissions, and produce wastes at volumes and rates that place increasing burdens on the natural environment. However, as supply chains mature into sophisticated networks of material and information flow, so does the ability to carefully trace the environmental impacts of individual products along the supply chain and address these impacts proactively. Today, supply chains must respond to an array of environmental pressures, including regulations, consumer demands, and limited resource availability. This response involves the development of distinct operating models, objectives, and new supply chain processes that are expanding the scope of supply chain management within organizations. This discussion paper draws from supply chain and environmental management literature as well as industry case studies to characterize the current state of supply chain environmental activity and form a basis for future research.

Research Methodology

Research Design
Descriptive research design was adopted for the study because the study attempts to obtain complete and accurate description of the consumer perception on green products.

Nature of Data
Primary and Secondary data were used for the collection of information for the study. Primary data The Primary data was collected from the college students in Trichy using a questionnaire. Secondary data Secondary data relating to review of literature was online journals such as “EBSCOhost business source elite”, Emerald and Proquest at IIT Chennai and at JIM. The secondary data relating green marketing was taken from websites such as google, yahoo, scribd, wikipedia, and search.com.

UNIVERSE
The universe for the study consist of all college students studying in Trichy.

Method of Data Collection
The researcher collected primary data using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire consist of 25 ECCB items, 4 PCE items, 12 EC items and 6 Liberalism items. The questionnaire also contained questions relating to the demographic of the respondents.

Sample Size
The sample size for my research consist of 211 college students.

Sampling Method.
The sampling method used for the study is quota sampling.

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted among 12 students and based on the suggestions given by the students suitable modifications were made in the questionnaire.

Statistical tools used
The statistical tools used in the study are  T-test  Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlation  Multiple Regression

Statistical hypotheses framed
Null Hypotheses H0 : There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the despondence. H0 : There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the despondence.

Limitations

There are two limitations that must be taken into account when considering the findings presented here. First, the study is cross-sectional in nature. While causality may in fact exist, the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it difficult to infer this from a single study. Such efforts are, however, commonly reported both in the environmental literature and the marketing literature. A second problem relates to the sample used. The objective of the study was to examine profiling opportunities among those consumers who represent the future of the green marketing movement. The sample, however, was a convenience sample consisting of college students only.

ANALYSIS

Data Tabulation & graphical representation

Table 1 To save energy, I drive my car as little as possible
Frequency Valid COMPLETLY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETLY AGREE Total 15 32 22 75 67 211 Percent 7.1 15.2 10.4 35.5 31.8 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above table indicates that 35.5% of rspondence are somewhat agree and 31.8% completely agree to drive little to save energy.

Table 2 I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 11 68 57 49 26 211 Percent 5.2 32.2 27.0 23.2 12.3 100.0

The above tables indicates that 32.2% of respondents somewhat disagree and 27% of respondents either agree nor disagree with the concept to make conscious effort to limit use of products that are made of or use scarce resources.

Table 3 I will not buy products which have excessive packaging.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 51 79 36 26 19 211 Percent 24.2 37.4 17.1 12.3 9.0 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of

respondents are disagree and 24.2% of them

completely disagree to buy low priced products without caring its impact on social.

Table 4 When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the Least amount of pollution
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 2 5 29 60 115 211 Percent .9 2.4 13.7 28.4 54.5 100.0

The above table indicates that when there is a choice, 54.5% consumers give importance to the products which causes less pollution and 28.4% of them give preference to that.

Table 5 I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I use.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 10 13 31 95 62 211 Percent 4.7 6.2 14.7 45.0 29.4 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers tried to reduce electricity they use and 29.4% of them try hard to reduce.

Table 6 If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 9 8 51 101 42 211 Percent 4.3 3.8 24.2 47.9 19.9 100.0

The above table shows that 47.9% of consumers are taking care on not to buy the products which potentially damage the environment and 24.2% of consumers neither agree nor disagree to the concept.

Table 7 I have switched products for ecological reasons.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 7 16 37 115 36 211 Percent 3.3 7.6 17.5 54.5 17.1 100.0

The above table indicates that 54.5% of consumers make thinking about ecological reaction of product and 17.5% of them neither agree nor disagree and 17.1% completely agree to the concept.

Table 8

I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 8 42 95 44 22 211 Percent 3.8 19.9 45.0 20.9 10.4 100.0

The above table shows that 45% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 20.9% of them somewhat agree to take effort to buy paper products made from recyle paper.

Table 9 I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less electricity than other brands.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 15 36 33 95 32 211

Percent 7.1 17.1 15.6 45.0 15.2 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.1% of consumers somewhat disagree to purchase household appliance which uses less electricity than other brands.

Table 10 I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 12 22 92 45 16 187 24 211

Percent 5.7 10.4 43.6 21.3 7.6 88.6 11.4 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 21.3% of them somewhat agree to use low-phosphate detergent or soap.

Table 11 I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products

which are harmful to the environment.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 7 17 31 116 40 211 Percent 3.3 8.1 14.7 55.0 19.0 100.0

The above table denotes that 55% of consumers somewhat agree and 19% of them completely agree to convince members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are harmful to the environment.

Table 12 I have replaced light bulbs in my home with those of smaller wattage so that I will conserve on the electricity I use.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 4 30 104 47 26 211

Percent 1.9 14.2 49.3 22.3 12.3 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 49.3% of consumers neither agree nor disagree to replace light bulbs with smaller wattage.

Table 13 I have purchased products because they cause less pollution.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 11 15 101 54 30 211

Percent 5.2 7.1 47.9 25.6 14.2 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 25.6% of them somewhat agree to purchase products by giving importance to less polluted products.

Table 14 I do not buy products in aerosol containers.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 21 42 64 55 14 196 15 211

Percent 10.0 19.9 30.3 26.1 6.6 92.9 7.1 100.0

Valid Percent 10.7 21.4 32.7 28.1 7.1 100.0

The above table shows that 30.3% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 26.1% of them somewhat agree, not to buy products in aerosol containers.

Table 15 Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 12 21 21 78 79 211

Percent 5.7 10.0 10.0 37.0 37.4 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of consumers completely agree and 37% of them somewhat agree to buy products packaged in reusable containers.

Table 16 When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 6 19 32 117 37 211

Percent 2.8 9.0 15.2 55.5 17.5 100.0

The above table indicates that 55.5% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.5% of them completely agree to always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants.

Table 17 When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less harmful to other people and the environment.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 4 13 22 71 101 211

Percent 1.9 6.2 10.4 33.6 47.9 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers completely agree and 33.6% of them somewhat agree to the concept, that is When they have a choice between two equal products,they always purchase the one which is less harmful to the environment.

Table 18 I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 3 32 29 63 84 211

Percent 1.4 15.2 13.7 29.9 39.8 100.0

The above table indicates that 39.8% of consumers completely agree and 29.9% of them somewhat agree not to buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.

Table 19 I have purchased light bulbs that were more expensive but saved energy.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 76 75 19 16 25 211

Percent 36.0 35.5 9.0 7.6 11.8 100.0

The above table shows that 36% of consumers completely disagree and 35.5% of them somewhat disagree to purchase light bulbs that were more expensive but save energy.

Table 20 I try only to buy products that can be recycled.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 41 71 43 36 20 211

Percent 19.4 33.6 20.4 17.1 9.5 100.0

The above table indicates that 33.6% of consumers somewhat disagree and 20.4% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept, that is try only to buy products that can be recycled.

Table 21 To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing NO AWARNESS NOT APPLICABLE Total Total 35 56 53 29 20 193 5 13 18 211

Percent 16.6 26.5 25.1 13.7 9.5 91.5 2.4 6.2 8.5 100.0

Valid Percent 18.1 29.0 27.5 15.0 10.4 100.0

The above table shows that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 25.1% of them neither agree nor disagree to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.

Table 22 I usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its impact on society.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 18 56 90 36 11 211

Percent 8.5 26.5 42.7 17.1 5.2 100.0

The above table indicates that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 42.7% of them neither agree nor disagree that they usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its impact on society.

Table 23 I do not buy household products that harm the environment.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 6 23 32 93 57 211

Percent 2.8 10.9 15.2 44.1 27.0 100.0

The above table shows that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them completely agree not to buy household products that harm the environment.

Table 24 I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 7 11 57 92 44 211

Percent 3.3 5.2 27.0 43.6 20.9 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept given, that is buying high efficiency light bulbs to save energy.

Table 25 It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything about pollution.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 102 58 13 27 11 211

Percent 48.3 27.5 6.2 12.8 5.2 100.0

The above table denotes that 48.3% of consumers completely agree and 27.5% of them somewhat agree that it is worthless for individual consumer to do anything about pollution.

Table 26 When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment and other consumers.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 9 29 75 77 21 211

Percent 4.3 13.7 35.5 36.5 10.0 100.0

From the above table we find that 36.5% of consumers somewhat agree that When they buy products, they try to consider how their use of them will affect the environment and other consumers and 35.5% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept given.

Table 27 Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any difference what I do.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 40 62 67 34 8 211

Percent 19.0 29.4 31.8 16.1 3.8 100.0

The above table shows that 31.8% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 29.4% of them somewhat agree to the concept that is Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any difference what I do.

Table 28 Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by socially responsible companies.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 17 30 44 68 52 211

Percent 8.1 14.2 20.9 32.2 24.6 100.0

The above table indicates that 32.2% of consumers somewhat agree to the concept that is each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by socially responsible companies and 24.6% of them completely agree to the concept.

Table 29 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 24 61 39 51 36 211

Percent 11.4 28.9 18.5 24.2 17.1 100.0

The above table denotes that 28.9% of consumers somewhat disagree and 24.2% of them somewhat agree that Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Table 30 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 5 22 39 93 52 211

Percent 2.4 10.4 18.5 44.1 24.6 100.0

The above table indicates that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them completely agree that they are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

Table 31 To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 14 28 60 85 14 201 10 211 Percent 6.6 13.3 28.4 40.3 6.6 95.3 4.7 100.0 Valid Percent 7.0 13.9 29.9 42.3 7.0 100.0

The above table denotes that 40.3% of consumers somewhat agree and 28.4% of them neither agree nor disagree that To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled.

Table 32 The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 9 52 8 109 33 211 Percent 4.3 24.6 3.8 51.7 15.6 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 51.7% of consumers somewhat agree that the earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources and 24.6% of them somewhat disagree to the concept given.

Table 33 Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 34 69 52 44 12 211 Percent 16.1 32.7 24.6 20.9 5.7 100.0

The above table shows that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them neither agree nor disagree that Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.

Table 34 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 12 53 62 59 11 197 14 211 Percent 5.7 25.1 29.4 28.0 5.2 93.4 6.6 100.0 Valid Percent 6.1 26.9 31.5 29.9 5.6 100.0

The above table indicates that 29.4% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 28% of them somewhat agree to the concept given , that is there are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.

Table 35 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 17 36 55 82 21 211 Percent 8.1 17.1 26.1 38.9 10.0 100.0

From the above table, we find that 38.9% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of them neither agree nor disagree that the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

Table 36 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 7 20 31 127 26 211 Percent 3.3 9.5 14.7 60.2 12.3 100.0

The above table shows that 60.2% of consumers somewhat agree and 14.7% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept, that is when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.

Table 37 Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 5 12 26 119 49 211 Percent 2.4 5.7 12.3 56.4 23.2 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 56.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 23.2% of consumers are completely agree that, Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.

Table 38 Mankind is severely abusing the environment.
Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 13 17 10 30 141 211 Percent 6.2 8.1 4.7 14.2 66.8 100.0

The above table indicates that 66.8% of consumers completely agree that Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

Table 39 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 51 81 26 34 19 211

Percent 24.2 38.4 12.3 16.1 9.0 100.0

The above table indicates that 38.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.2% of consumers are completely agree that Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

Table 40 Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 12 69 53 55 22 211

Percent 5.7 32.7 25.1 26.1 10.4 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of consumers are somewhat disagree to the concept, Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.

Table 41 The profits of the big industries should be controlled by the government.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 22 42 87 38 21 210 1 211

Percent 10.4 19.9 41.2 18.0 10.0 99.5 .5 100.0

Valid Percent 10.5 20.0 41.4 18.1 10.0 100.0

The above table indicates that 41.2% of consumers are neither agree nor disagree and 23.2% of consumers are somewhat disagree that the profits of the big industries should be controlled by the government.

Table 42 I am for a federal health insurance program covering men and women of all ages.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total Missing Total NO AWARNESS 16 14 62 77 32 201 10 211

Percent 7.6 6.6 29.4 36.5 15.2 95.3 4.7 100.0

Valid Percent 8.0 7.0 30.8 38.3 15.9 100.0

The above table shows that 36.5% of consumers are somewhat agree and 29.4% of the consumers neither agree nor disagree that I am for a health insurance program covering men and women of all ages.

Table 43 If unemployment is high, the government should spend to create jobs.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 8 9 13 90 91 211

Percent 3.8 4.3 6.2 42.7 43.1 100.0

The above table indicates that 43.1% of consumers are completely agree and 42.7% of the consumers somewhat agree that if unemployment is high, the government should spend to create jobs.

Table 44 A government administered health insurance program is necessary to insure that everyone receives adequate medical care.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 7 24 46 93 41 211

Percent 3.3 11.4 21.8 44.1 19.4 100.0

From the above table we find that 44.1% of consumers are somewhat agree and 21.8% of the consumers neither agree nor disagree that A government administered health insurance program is necessary to ensure that everyone receives adequate medical care.

Table 46 I am for less government regulation of business.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE COMPLETELY DISAGREE Total 43 77 65 21 5 211

Percent 20.4 36.5 30.8 10.0 2.4 100.0

The above table indicates that 36.5% of consumers somewhat agree and 30.8% of consumers neither agree nor disagree that the respondent is for less government regulation of business.

Table 47 I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes.

Frequency Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE COMPLETELY AGREE Total 26 32 32 66 55 211

Percent 12.3 15.2 15.2 31.3 26.1 100.0

The above table indicates that 31.3% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of consumers completely agree that the consumer is for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes.

Table 48 Age in years

Frequency Valid 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total 8 31 47 48 51 16 7 3 211

Percent 3.8 14.7 22.3 22.7 24.2 7.6 3.3 1.4 100.0

The above table shows that most of the respondense are about 20-22 years old.

Table 49 Gender

Frequency Valid Male Female Total 136 75 211

Percent 64.5 35.5 100.0

The above table shows that 64.5% of the respondence are MALE and 35.5% of the respondents are FEMALE.

Table 50 Family income

Frequency Valid Under 100,000 100,000 - 2,00,000 200,000 - 300,000 300,000 - 400,000 Total 92 97 20 2 211

Percent 43.6 46.0 9.5 .9 100.0

The above table shows that the family income of most of the respondense are upto 2,00,000.

Table 51 Education Qualification

Frequency Valid Under Graduation Post Graduation M.Phil Professional Course Total 87 56 7 61 211

Percent 41.2 26.5 3.3 28.9 100.0

The above table shows that 41.2% of the despondence are doing under graduation and 28.9% of the respondese are doing professional course.

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Descriptive statistics of ECCB and other Psychographic factors of consumers Table 52
N Statistic ECCB PCE EC LIBERALISM Valid N (listwise) 211 211 211 211 211 Minimum Statistic 2.12 1.00 1.92 1.33 Maximum Statistic 4.71 4.25 4.17 4.33 Statistic 3.3750 2.8519 3.3009 3.3160 Mean Std. Error .03021 .03847 .02660 .04082 Std. Deviation Statistic .43883 .55874 .38636 .59292

The above table indicates that the respondents have more than average ECCB, EC, and Liberalism scores. The table also indicates that the respondents have average PCE score.

Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlation
Definition Correlation co-efficient between two random variables X and Y, usually denoted by r(X,Y), is a numerical measure of linear relationship between them formula r(X,Y) = cov (X,Y) σ xσ y Bivariate karl pearson’s co-eff of correlation for ECCB, Demographic factors and Psychographic factors of consumers.

Table 53
Correlations AGE IN ECCB ECCB Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N AGE IN YEARS Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Gender Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Family Income Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Educational Qualification Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N PCE Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N EC Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N LIBERALISM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 211 .018 .796 211 .009 .898 211 .038 .579 211 .353** .000 211 .358** .000 211 211.000 -.130 .059 211 .171* .013 211 .171* .013 211 .335** .000 211 .061 .376 211 -.069 .322 211 -.098 .158 211 211.000 .073 .288 211.00 .206** .003 211 .150* .029 211 .157* .022 211 -.015 .832 211 -.101 .144 211 211.000 .312** .000 211 .071 .306 211 -.059 .392 211 .064 .351 211 211.000 .119 .084 211 211.00 -.021 .758 211 -.136* .049 211 .042 .544 211 211.00 -.069 .319 211 .397** .000 211 211.000 1.000 YEARS -.130 .059 211 1.000 Gender .171* .013 211 .073 .288 211 1.000 Family Income .018 .796 211 .171* .013 211 .206** .003 211 1.000 211 .312** .000 211 1.000 Educational Qualification .009 .898 211 .335** .000 211 .150* .029 PCE .038 .579 211 .061 .376 211 .157* .022 211 .071 .306 211 .119 .084 211 1.000 EC .353** .000 211 -.069 .322 211 -.015 .832 211 -.059 .392 211 -.021 .758 211 .042 .544 211 1.000 LIBERALI SM .358** .000 211 -.098 .158 211 -.101 .144 211 .064 .351 211 -.136* .049 211 -.069 .319 211 .397** .000 211 1.000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The above table indicates that there is significant low positive correlation between ECCB and Gender. The table also indicates that there is significant moderate positive correlation between ECCB and the psychographic factors that is EC and Liberalism.

Multiple Regression Definition
Regression analysis is a mathematical measure of the average relationship between two or more variables in terms of the orginal units of the data.

Formula
Regression of X on Y X=a+bY Regression of Y on X Y=a+bX Multiple Regression model of ECCB as dependent variable and demogrphic and psychograpic factors as prdictor variables. Table 54
Model Summaryb Std. Error of the Model 1 R .486a R Square .236 Adjusted R Square .210 Estimate .39010

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational Qualification b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the R square value is .236 which shows that 24% of the variation of the dependent variable is explained by the demographic and psychographic factors.

Table 55
ANOVAb Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 9.549 30.892 40.441 df 7 203 210 Mean Square 1.364 .152 F 8.965 Sig. .000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational Qualification b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the significance value of F is 0.000 which shows that the regression model is statistically significant at a confident level of 100%.

Table 56
Coefficientsa Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) AGE IN YEARS Gender Family Income Educational Qualification PCE EC LIBERALISM a. Dependent Variable: ECCB B 2.233 -.035 .188 -.020 .018 .014 .264 .213 Std. Error .492 .019 .058 .043 .018 .049 .077 .051 -.120 .205 -.032 .070 .017 .233 .287 Coefficients Beta t 4.538 -1.836 3.209 -.475 1.018 .278 3.441 4.167 Sig. .000 .068 .002 .636 .310 .781 .001 .000

The above table indicates that the regression model can be written as follows Y = a +b1 x1+ b2 x2+ b3 x3+ b4 x4+ b5 x5+b6 x6 +b7 x7 ECCB = 2.233-0.035*age in years +0.188*gender-0.020*family income + 0.018*educational qualification +0.014*PCE +0.264*EC + 0.213*Liberalism. The table also indicates that the t-test value for the significance of the independent variables that is the demographic and psychographic factors. The significance value indicates only gender in the demogrphic factor is significant at 1%. Also EC and Liberalism in psychographic factors are significant at 1% level.

Chart

T-Test

A t-test is any statistical hypothesis test in which the test statistic has a Student's t distribution if the null hypothesis is true. It is applied when sample sizes are small enough that using an assumption of normality and the associated z-test leads to incorrect inference This equation is only used when the two sample sizes (that is, the n or number of participants of each group) are equal.

Where s is the grand standard deviation (or pooled sample standard deviation), 1 = group one, 2 = group two. The denominator is the standard error of the difference between two means. For significance testing, the degrees of freedom for this test is 2n − 2 where n = # of participants in each group. Independent sample T-test of ECCB based on the gender of the responden Null Hypothesis(Η ο ). There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the respondense. Table 57
Group Statistics Gender ECCB Male Female N 136 75 Mean 3.3195 3.4756 Std. eviation .42234 .45298 Std. Error Mean .03622 .05231

Table 58
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2F ECCB Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed -2.452 143.836 .015 -.15601 .06362 -.28176 -.03026 .037 .848 -2.503 209 .013 -.15601 .06234 -.27890 -.03311 Sig. t df Mean Std. Error Difference Lower Upper

tailed) Difference Difference

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample Ttest is 0.013 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the ECCB differs according to the gender of the respondence.

T-Test
Independent sample T-test of PCE based on the gender of the respondents Null Hypothesis(Η ο ) There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the respondense. Table 59
Group Statistics Gender PCE Male Female N 136 75 Mean 2.7868 2.9700 Std. Deviation .56399 .53265 Std. Error Mean .04836 .06151

Table 60
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances Sig. (2F PCE Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .213 Sig. .645 t -2.303 df 209 tailed) .022

-2.342

160.220

.020

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample T-test is 0.022 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the PCE differs according to the gender of the respondents.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) items. • When the students are having chance to choose, the always prefer environmentally responsible products. • When the students are having any immediate the prefer environmentally responsible products. • When there is big effect to the environment they prefer environmentally responsible products. • Students do not bother about environment when they are having so much need of environmentally polluted products. • Students do not want to try more for environment. Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items:• Students understand, everybody should take action to control pollution. • They also understand, purchasing social responsible products will create possitive effect on society. Environmental concern (EC) items :• In the environmental concern items students understand and accept the concept like, to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled, when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences, Humans must live in harmony with nature. • And they also thought that Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature and Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. Liberalism items :• Students have moderate liberalism items. • They know the real fact of living along with society. • They are ready to work along with society. Demographic measures:Most of the respondents were about 20-22 years old. Nearly two third of the respondents were MALE and one third of the respondents were FEMALE. The family income of most of the respondents were up to 2,00,000. Most of the respondents are doing under graduation and the next highest number of the respondents are doing professional course.

SUGGESTIONS

• Consumer clubs in schools & colleges must be encouraged to conduct programmes on “Environment friendly consumption in day to day lives” for schools & college students. • Social organisations like lions club & rotract club can also conduct awareness camps regarding the importance of conserving energy for the country. • CSR activities of companies manufacturing products using scarce resources can focus on creating awareness among public about the optimum usage of the products

CONCLUSION

The media colleges , corporates & social organisations must work together to increase environmental concern & societal concern of the next generation consumers. The organisations must also strive to change the perception existing among the next generation that individuals cannot do anything towards environment protection. These efforts taken by organisations will help in increasing the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour among the “Generation Next”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robert D. Straughan,Assistant Professor of Marketing, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA James A. Roberts,Associate Professor of Marketing and W.A. Mays Professor of Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA

Anderson, W.T. Jr and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), ``The socially conscious consumer'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, July, pp. 23-31.

Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), ``Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors'', Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-88.

Hume, S., Strand, P., Fisher, C., Fitzgerald, K. and Freeman, L. (1989), ``Consumers go green'', Advertising Age, September 25, pp. 3-5.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1971), ``Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air pollution'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July, pp. 61-5.

Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), ``Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they?'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, April, pp. 20-4.

Lepisto, L.R. (1974), ``An empirical study of the effect of environmental product attributes, convenience, and price on product preference and socially responsible consumer behavior'', Doctoral dissertation, Department of Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University.

ANNEXURE

Answer the following statements by putting a tick mark according to your level of agreement or disagreement. The numbers indicate the meaning given below 1-completely disagree 4-some what agree 2-some what disagree 3-neither agree nor disagree 5-completely agree

Ecologically conscious consumer behavior (ECCB) items
01. To save energy, I drive my bike as little as possible 02. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources 03. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging 04. When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the least amount of pollution 05. I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I use. 06. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products. 07. I have switched products for ecological reasons 08. I use a recycling center or in some way recycle some of my household trash. 09. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper. : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : : 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1.2 3 4 5 : : 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 :
1 2 3 4 5

10. I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less electricity than other brands. 11. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry. 12. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are harmful to the environment. 13. I have replaced light bulbs in my home with those of smaller wattage so that I will conserve : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5

on the electricity I use. 14. I have purchased products because they cause less pollution. 15. I do not buy products in aerosol containers 16. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers. 17. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants 18. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less harmful to other people and the environment. 19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible 20. I have purchased light bulbs that were more expensive but saved energy. 21. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. 22. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car or bike as little as possible. 23. I usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its impact on society.

:

1 2

3

4 5

: :

1 2 1 2

3 3

4 5 4 5

:

1 2 3

4

5

:

1 2 3

4

5

:

1 2

3

4

5

:

1 2

3

4

5

: 1 : 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

:

1 2 3 4 5

:

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

24. I do not buy household products that harm the environment : 25. I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy. :

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items
1. It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything about pollution. 2. When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment and other consumers. 3. Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any difference what I do : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5

4. Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by socially responsible companies. : 1 2 3 4 5

Environmental concern (EC) items
01. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. 02. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 03. To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled : 04. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources. 05. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs. 06. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand. 07. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 08. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 09. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive 10. Mankind is severely abusing the environment. 11. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 12. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. : : 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 5 : : 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : : 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 2 3 4 5

4 5

Liberalism items
01. The profits of the big industries should be controlled by the government. 02. I am for a federal health insurance program covering : 1 2 3 4 5

men and women of all ages. 03. If unemployment is high, the government should spend to create jobs. 04. A government administered health insurance program is necessary to insure that everyone receives adequate medical care. 05. I am for less government regulation of business. 06. I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes.

:

1

2

3 4 5

:

1

2

3 4 5

: :

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

:

1 2 3 4 5

Demographic measures
Your age: _______ years Sex: Male ____ Female ____ Check the category which best fits your total family income in the last year. Under 100,000 400,000 - 499,999 100,000 - 199,999 500,000 and above. 200,000 - 299,999 300,000 - 399,999

Educational qualification
Under Graduation Post Graduation M.Phil Ph.D Professional Course

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful