European Journal of Marketing

Situational variables and sustainability in multi-attribute decision-making

Bonnie J.K. Simpson Scott K. Radford
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bonnie J.K. Simpson Scott K. Radford , (2014),"Situational variables and sustainability in multi-attribute
decision-making", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 5/6 pp. 1046 - 1069
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2012-0219
Downloaded on: 03 February 2015, At: 16:50 (PT)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 89 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 130 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marie-Cecile Cervellon, Lindsey I. Carey, (2014),"Sustainable, hedonic and efficient: Interaction effects
between product properties and consumer reviews on post-experience responses", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 7/8 pp. 1375-1394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0392
Simona Romani, Silvia Grappi, (2014),"How companies’ good deeds encourage consumers to adopt pro-
social behavior", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 5/6 pp. 943-963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-06-2012-0364
Concepción Varela-Neira, Rodolfo Vázquez-Casielles, Víctor Iglesias, (2014),"Intentionality attributions and
humiliation: The impact on customer behavior", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Iss 5/6 pp. 901-923
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2012-0035

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 573577 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


EJM
48,5/6
1046
Received 15 April 2012
Revised 11 February 2013
Accepted 12 February 2013
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 48 No. 5/6, 2014
pp. 1046-1069
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/EJM-04-2012-0219
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Situational variables and
sustainability in multi-attribute
decision-making
Bonnie J.K. Simpson
DAN Management and Organizational Studies, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and
Scott K. Radford
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine whether consumers demonstrate a
multi-dimensional understanding of sustainability in their decision-making and addresses the
situational influence of confidence and compromise on sustainable product choices.
Design/methodology/approach – Using three choice-based conjoint experiments the authors
examined the importance of sustainability, compromise and confidence to consumers across two
contexts. Two-step cluster analyses were used to segment consumers based on the importance scores.
Findings – Data indicates that the environmental dimension of sustainability is the most influential
followed by economic and social. The responses suggest three distinct segments identified as
self-focused, trend motivated and reality driven that demonstrate significantly different characteristics
in their approach to sustainable products.
Research limitations/implications – Current research tends to focus on the environmental
dimension, while paying little heed to the economic and social dimensions. This research indicates that
consumers consider all three dimensions when making sustainable product choices and highlights that
differences may emerge with respect to product utility.
Practical implications – Firms must be aware that consumers differ in the importance they place on
sustainability. The reality-driven segment is the most attractive segment, as they are highly engaged
and are willing to invest time in understanding the complexities of sustainability. The trend-motivated
segments are more fickle with superficial knowledge, and the self-focused segments are self-serving in
their orientations and use price as a key decision variable.
Originality/value – The paper addresses an important oversight in the sustainability literature. It
provides both a theoretical contribution to advance marketing research and a practical contribution that
may be of interest to those trying to market sustainable products.
Keywords Cluster analysis, Sustainability, Consumer attitudes, Conjoint analysis, Product attributes
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
While successful companies such as Ben and Jerry’s or Patagonia have embraced
sustainable business practices as an important core value, such examples of
sustainability are rare, as they require deep executive commitment to value social and
environmental needs as highly as financial results (Shrivastava and Hart, 1995).
Sustainable business practices focus on long-term viability in three areas:
 environmental, social and economic (Costanza and Patten, 1995; DesJardins, 2007). Situational
Described as the triple bottov line (Elkington, 1997), this approach to business practice
expands traditional financially focused accountability to include social and
variables and
environmental dimensions. Consistent with the triple bottom line, this research sustainability
conceptualizes sustainability as consisting of three dimensions. The social component
relates to the firm’s impact on society and the well-being of people and communities
(Elkington, 1997), including social equity, community relations, charitable partnerships 1047
and workplace ethics. The environmental dimension focuses on a firm’s activities
relative to natural resources (Hart, 1995), and the economic dimensions refer to value
creation and financial performance (Bansal, 2005). In other words, firms that are
operating sustainably are not drawn exclusively by growth and larger profits, but
instead they recognize the full implication of marketing practice on the environment, the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

community and the economy (Prothero et al., 2010). Sustainable business practices can
provide marketers with an opportunity to enhance their image and increase consumer
appreciation (Charter et al., 2002) and gain a competitive advantage by positioning
themselves as sustainable (Hudson, 1996).
Increasingly, consumers are demanding that firms be transparent about their
sustainable practices. Consumers are placing pressure on firms to be more responsible
in their actions, as exhibited by consumer boycotts and non-consumption (Cherrier et al.,
2011; Klein, Smith and John, 2004; Shaw et al., 2006), consumer demand for green
products (Cotte and Trudel, 2009) and the perceived importance of environmental claims
and labels (Kronrod et al., 2012; Thogersen et al., 2010). Pressure from consumers is
becoming a critical driver for firms to take a more sustainable orientation
(Rivera-Camino, 2007). However, consumers are likely to vary in the importance that
they place on sustainability in their consumption decisions. This will range from those
who are willing to make compromises for the sake of sustainable initiatives to those who
are indifferent to sustainability and will not be willing to make any compromises. It is
critical, therefore, that firms understand the response that consumers will have to
sustainable business practices, including marketing, and the value that is derived by
consumers who choose sustainable brands.
Importantly, existing literature on sustainability does not offer an adequate
examination of consumer perceptions of the three pillars of sustainability. This research
addresses this gap by elucidating consumer responses to sustainability through an
examination of the construct in the context of multiple attribute decision-making. This
research provides an assessment of the trade-offs that consumers face as they consider
the relative importance of sustainability dimensions in consumption choices. In doing
so, it develops an understanding about how consumers weigh the importance of
sustainability in their decision-making relative to other attributes. This research, thus,
addresses recent calls to examine the importance of sustainability and the pressure that
consumers may exert on firms to be more sustainable. Kotler (2011, p. 133) notes that
major pressure for changing marketing practices may come from consumers
themselves.
Consumers are the ultimate power brokers. Marketers have viewed consumers as choosing
among brands on the basis of functional (Marketing 1.0) and emotional (Marketing 2.0) criteria.
But many of today’s consumers are adding a third dimension – namely, how the company
meets its social responsibilities (Marketing 3.0).
 EJM The Marketing Science Institute specified in their recent research priorities that
“Research is needed on consumer responses to social issues and regulatory changes as
48,5/6 well as consumers’ expectations regarding corporate behaviour” (Marketing Science
Institute, 2010, p. 3). If consumers are exerting pressure on firms to be more sustainable,
then marketers and researchers need a greater understanding of how consumers
perceive sustainability.
1048 Understanding how consumers perceive sustainable products and practices is, thus,
important for a number of reasons. First, a better understanding of consumer
perceptions will facilitate the design of research that reflects the consumer viewpoint.
Second, for sustainable products and business practices to succeed, firms must base
marketing strategy on the perceptions held by consumers. Third, as consumers are
increasingly powerful and knowledgeable in the marketplace, the importance they place
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

on the dimensions of sustainability may have a greater influence on corporate practices.

Finally, managers must recognize that brand value is increasingly dependent on social
capital that is derived from trust and shared thinking with consumers (Champniss and
Vila, 2011). Firms must, therefore, understand the importance that consumers place on
sustainable business practices if they want to be truly valued.
Using a choice-based conjoint set of experiments to elucidate the importance
consumers place on the dimensions of sustainability and the situational factors of
confidence and compromise, this study finds that all three dimensions of sustainability
are distinctly considered when consumers make sustainable product choices. The
pattern of responses suggests three segments largely identified by their importance
weightings of sustainability and compromise. These segments are identified as
self-focused, trend motivated and reality driven, and we discuss the significant
differences in how they respond to sustainable product attributes.

Literature review
Sustainability
A theoretical understanding of sustainability dates back to the United Nations conference
on the Human Environment and the resultant report Our Common Future (Bridges and
Wilhelm, 2008; Bruntland, 1987). This report defined sustainable development as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (Bruntland, 1987, p. 8). While sustainable
business practices do not view profit as the sole motive, they are not antithetical to
business success; instead, sustainability requires a fundamental shift from a focus
on immediate unfettered growth (the aim to get big) towards longer-term
development (the aim to get better) (Daly, 1996). This is generally accomplished
through attention to the triple bottom line: environment, social equity and economic
prosperity (Elkington, 1997).
Managers have begun to recognize the strategic benefits of sustainability, including
strong brand awareness, enhanced corporate image and attracting, and retaining the
support of customers, employees and investors (Charter et al., 2002). The management
literature has examined implications of sustainable development for corporations
(Bansal, 2005; Shrivastava and Hart, 1995; Walls et al., 2012), impacts of sustainable
business practices on financial performance (Peloza, 2009), influence of long-term
institutional ownership (Neubaum and Zahra, 2006) and stakeholder influence (Sharma
and Henriques, 2005) and developed a “natural resource based” view of firm capabilities
 (Hart, 1995). The relationship of marketing to sustainability is more complicated, as Situational
marketing has, perhaps uniquely, been cast as both a chief villain for its role in
stimulating unsustainable levels of demand and consumption (van Dam and Apeldoorn,
variables and
1996) and also as a promising saviour through the application of marketing mechanisms sustainability
to tackle social, environmental and economic problems (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Peattie
and Peattie, 2009).
There is a broad range of research in marketing that seeks to encourage positive 1049
sustainable change and the term “sustainability” has emerged as an overarching
conceptualization that pulls together research that addresses the physical environment,
society, and the economy. These include topics such as “green marketing”, “ethical
consumption” and “fair trade”. Researchers have largely focused on cultivating the
theoretical relationship between marketing and sustainability to develop a greater
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

understanding of their interconnectedness. The interests of management have been

addressed in research that seeks to conceptualize effective sustainable marketing
strategy (Mitchell et al., 2010; Sheth et al., 2011), to integrate sustainable business
practices and thinking into corporate strategy (Crittenden et al., 2011) and the impact of
brand value (First and Khetriwal, 2010). Consumer behaviours have been frequently
examined as well, including the influence of individual difference variables
(Schlegelmilch et al., 1996; Thøgersen and Olander, 2002) and the willingness of
consumers to pay more for sustainable products (De Pelsmacker et al., 2006) that present
insights for marketers to segment and target consumers. Research on domains such as
materialism (Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008), voluntary simplicity (Shaw and Newholm,
2002; McDonald et al., 2006) and ethical consumption (Eckhardt, Belk and Devinney,
2010) have provided insight into underlying relationships that consumers have with
products and consumption.
While marketing literature is grounded in the triple bottom line conceptualization of
sustainability (environmental, social and economic), much of the existing empirical
work focuses on analyzing, encouraging and cultivating the “green consumer” as a
market segment (Hunt, 2011). Therefore, this work often includes only the
environmental dimension (Choi and Ng, 2011; McDonald and Oates, 2006) and fails to
integrate the social or economic dimensions of sustainability. Environmentally focused
work has consistently lacked explicit clarification that it is, in fact, “environmental
sustainability” that is being examined (McDonald et al., 2009; Simpson and Radford,
2012). However, a complete understanding of sustainability requires that we investigate
the salience of each of these dimensions to consumers when weighing product decisions.

Sustainability as a product attribute

Consumers form attitudes about products as a function of multiple attributes leading to
costs and benefits of differential desirability to individuals in the market (Fishbein,
1967). Overall, these attitudes reflect the net resolution of an individual’s cognitions
about the degree to which objects possess certain attributes weighed by the importance
of each attribute to the individual (Wilkie and Pessemier, 1973). Growing evidence
demonstrates that consumers value sustainability as a product attribute (Cotte and
Trudel, 2009) and ultimately as one of a bundle of attributes that lead to product
preference. Theoretically, this preference may be rooted in the notion that consumption
serves as a vehicle of self-expression (Aaker, 1996) and that consumers choose products
that are consistent with their own self-concept (Sirgy, 1982). Sustainability attributes
 EJM will be particularly relevant to consumers when self-image congruence exists, that is,
when there is a cognitive match between consumers’ self-concept and product image
48,5/6 (Sen and Bahattacharya, 2001; Sirgy, 1982). Therefore, sustainability attributes will
influence buyer behaviour when they add value to the product by providing a positive
and meaningful social identity to consumers (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Choi and Ng,
2011; Mohr and Webb, 2005).
1050 Sustainability as a product attribute is of interest to both consumers and marketers.
One in three consumers say they don’t know how to tell if sustainable product claims are
true, and they seek ways to verify the validity of these intangible product attributes by
reading packaging and turning to research (Green Seal, 2009). In response, firms are
unsure about how to address consumer demand for sustainable products. If consumers
perceive firms as engaging in non-sustainable practices, they may choose not to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

purchase their products. However, when firms actively promote their sustainable
business practices, consumers may interpret these claims as exaggerated or not credible
(Ottman, 1992). The current research examines the importance of the multiple
dimensions of sustainability to consumers and highlights the different priorities of
consumer segments when multiple attributes are considered in a product context.

Compromise and confidence

While sustainability and “green” consumer literature has addressed the individual
differences between consumers, there is much less research that addresses the
situational conditions under which consumers make sustainable product purchase
decisions. Most consumers identify themselves as “green consumers”, that is, when they
are faced with a choice between two products that are identical in all other respects, they
would choose the environmentally superior one (Kardash, 1974). In other words, when
sustainable options require little effort on the part of consumers, most recognize the
value in making these positive contributions. While most consumers identify
themselves as green, in practice, consumers’ willingness to engage in sustainable
choices will be affected by situational factors external to the individual (Peattie, 2001).
Therefore, instead of trying to understand the consumption of sustainable products
solely by understanding the purchaser, we must also put the purchaser in context and
understand the purchase situation. We present two situational variables associated with
the purchase situation that are expected to impact consumer’s willingness to make
sustainable product choices: the compromise required and the level of confidence that the
action will make a difference (Peattie, 2001).
The compromise construct suggests that consumers perceive that they must give
something up with sustainable products (Peattie, 2001), and this compromise may be
financial, performance or convenience. Confidence represents the certainty for the
decision-maker that their action will make a difference in one of three ways:
(1) the product addresses a real problem;
(2) the company’s offering has improved sustainability performance; or
(3) purchasing the product will make some sort of material difference.

The levels of both compromise and confidence that consumers experience in the
purchase situation help elucidate consumers’ purchase behaviour with sustainable
products (McDonald and Oates, 2006; Peattie, 2001). Therefore, we propose that
compromise and confidence will be central factors for consumer decision-making for
 sustainable product choices, and the importance given to these situational factors will Situational
help identify different consumer segments.
This research seeks to provide evidence of the influence that the three dimensions of
variables and
sustainability possess in consumer evaluations of products. We propose that each of the sustainability
three dimensions (environmental, social and financial) will influence consumer
decision-making. We also expect that the extent to which consumers consider the
confidence and compromise in the purchase context will be significant factors in 1051
determining distinguishable consumer segments in response to sustainable product
decisions. Therefore, the objectives or this research are twofold:
(1) to demonstrate the relative contributions of sustainability, compromise and
confidence attributes to the overall evaluation of a sustainable product; and
(2) to cluster potential customers that place differing importance on the attributes to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

identify potential marketable segments.

Study 1A
Method
The purpose of Study 1a was to investigate the relative importance that individuals
place on sustainability, compromise and confidence when making a purchase decision.
Using these relative utilities, we then clustered the participants to identify similarities
that could be used for marketing segmentation. A sample of 161 undergraduate
marketing students (43 per cent female; 93 per cent aged 18-24 years) at a major
Canadian university participated in the study in return for partial course credit.
Participants completed the study on computers in a lab-based experiment setting, with
the stimuli choices randomized using Sawtooth software. The context for the study
focused on transportation within a recreational park setting. Recent reports on efforts by
the National Park Foundation in researching and implementing alternate means of
transit (National Park Foundation, 2012) support the examination of the transportation
context as an important issue for parks in addressing transportation-related issues like
pollution and congestion. In a scenario, participants were told that a park system was
reviewing its transportation options. They completed 15 choice tasks, choosing the
transportation scenario they preferred most from each choice set. Demographic data
were collected and participants completed the new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale as a
measure of environmental attitudes (Dunlap et al., 2000).

Research design
A choice-based conjoint methodology was used to allow participants to weigh the
relative importance of sustainability, compromise and confidence attributes in a
purchase context and conclude which attribute levels were most/least desirable (Green
and Srinivasan, 1990; Carroll and Green, 1995). Conjoint experiments examine the
structure of consumer preferences, such that when a consumer is forced to trade-off
between attributes the consumer’s choices can be broken down into a combination of
part-worth utilities provided by the different attributes of the products (Raghavarao
et al., 2011).
The conjoint choice sets were created with a computer-generated design that
accounts for orthogonality, minimal overlap and level balance (Huber and Zwerina,
1996). A balanced orthogonal approach was used to maintain efficiency in the design
(Sawtooth Software, 2008). Efficient choice-based conjoint designs can estimate
 EJM part-worths with optimal precision, meaning that the standard errors of the estimates
are as small as possible. The research design generated standard errors of ⬍ 0.036,
48,5/6 indicating minimal correlation between attributes (Sawtooth Software, 2008). Each
choice set consisted of two scenarios, and a full-profile design was used with each
scenario containing information on all ten attributes. The design of the stimuli did not
require the identification of prohibited pairs (Hair et al., 2006), as none of the attribute
1052 combinations were unreasonable.
Specific attributes of compromise (financial, performance and convenience) and
confidence (problem recognition, commitment of company offering and perceived
effectiveness) were drawn from Peattie (2001). Three sustainability attributes
(environmental, social and economic dimensions) were drawn from the sustainability
literature. Each attribute was operationalized at three levels:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

(1) low, medium and high (Table I) and the levels were pre-tested for perceived
differences;
(2) the “transportation” attribute was a proxy for choosing the “sustainable” option;
and
(3) with two levels – taking the shuttle bus vs driving one’s own vehicle into the
park.

Analysis
The choice data were analyzed using a hierarchical Bayes estimation method. This
method enables the estimation of individual-level utility functions for participants on
the basis of only a few product choices by each individual, rather than analyzing solely
at the aggregate level (Allenby and Ginter, 1995). Conducting the analysis at the
individual level increases validity and improves the predictive ability of the data
(Sawtooth, 2009). Average part-worth utilities and average importance scores for the
sample were calculated. The importance scores were then used to cluster participants.
Demographic data did not contribute to differences in clustering in any of the three
studies and are, therefore, not discussed further.

Results
The reported importance scores (Table II) were calculated from the range of the
part-worth utilities in each attribute and indicate the level of importance participants
placed on each attribute in making their decision (scale of 0-100, higher numbers denote
greater importance). The results indicate that overall sustainability had the greatest
influence on the participants’ choices, with a total average weight of 47.72. The fact that
environmental is the heaviest weighted dimension of sustainability (22.91) is consistent
with the societal and academic focus in this area. While all three dimensions are valued
quite highly by participants, there is still a large range of weighting across the three
sustainability dimensions (11.29-22.91). The varying importance, thus, provides
evidence that differentiation between the sustainability dimensions is imperative for
marketers and research, as importance placed one dimension to an individual is not
indicative of the level of importance across all dimensions of the construct. This implies,
for instance, that while an individual may place great importance on environmental
sustainability, they might be much less concerned with the economic or social
sustainability aspects. The average importance scores of both the economic (13.52) and
the social (11.29) dimensions of sustainability are strong relative to other attributes in

Attribute
Confidence
Problem recognition
Offering commitment
Perceived effectiveness
Compromise
Financial cost
Convenience
Performance
Sustainability
Environmental sustainability
Social sustainability
Economic sustainability
Transportation options
Table I.
attributes and levels
Study 1a and 1b stimuli
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)
High
Studies have shown that in this park
transportation is a significant contributor
to severe degradation of the park and its
surrounding area
Implementing a new transportation
system is one of many initiatives by this
park to mitigate negative impacts that
park visitors have on the area
Similar systems have been very effective
in other parks in reducing negative
impacts from visitation
Park entry fee is $35 per group
You can stay at each attraction as long as
you like, but movement between
attractions is possible in 30-minute
intervals (due to considerations like the
shuttle schedule and/or parking line ups)
It will take you about 15 minutes to walk
to each attraction from the drop-off points
or parking lots
Have a positive environmental impact on
the park
Have a positive impact on the local
community
Be financially profitable for the park
You would take the park shuttle bus
Medium
Park management presumes that
transportation is a likely contributor
to severe degradation of this park
and its surrounding area
This park is studying the impacts of
its system of transportation on the
surrounding area
Similar systems are thought to be
effective in reducing negative
impacts from park visitation,
although no studies have yet been
conducted
Park entry fee is $25 per group
You can stay at each attraction as
long as you like, but movement
between attractions is possible in
20-minute intervals (due to
considerations like the shuttle
schedule and/or parking line ups)
It will take you about 8 minutes to
walk to each attraction from the
drop-off points or parking lots
Have a neutral environmental impact
on the park
Have little impact on the local
community
Break even financially for the
park
n/a
Low
Transportation (whether by car, shuttle or
other means) in this park may be
contributing to degradation of the park
and its surrounding area
Minimizing impacts through a new
transportation system is currently a low
priority for this park
It is not yet known what impact this
system will have in reducing negative
impacts resulting from park visitation
Park entry fee is $10 per group
You can stay at each attraction as long as
you like, but movement between
attractions is possible in 10-minute
intervals (due to considerations like the
shuttle schedule and/or parking line ups)
It will take you about 2 minutes to walk to
each attraction from the drop-off points or
parking lots
Have a negative environmental impact on
the park
Have a negative impact on the local
community
Operate at a financial loss to the park
You would drive your own vehicle into
the park
1053
sustainability
variables and
Situational
 EJM Study 1a (n ⫽ 161) Study 1b (n ⫽ 175) Study 2 (n ⫽ 164)
48,5/6 Relative Relative Relative
importance importance importance
Attribute Level Utility (per cent) Utility (per cent) Utility (per cent)

Problem recognition High ⫺0.56 4.12 ⫺0.13 5.42 0.75 5.76

Medium 6.18 ⫺3.41 ⫺6.34
1054 Low ⫺5.63 3.54 5.59
Offering commitment High ⫺3.69 4.47 ⫺1.92 6.13 8.23 5.36
Medium 4.79 2.88 3.54
Low ⫺1.10 ⫺0.95 ⫺11.82
Perceived effectiveness High 6.21 3.23 7.76 4.67 17.22 6.20
Medium ⫺5.21 ⫺2.69 ⫺11.52
Low ⫺1.10 ⫺5.07 ⫺5.70
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

Financial cost High ⫺71.36 15.30 ⫺39.71 10.41 ⫺116.28 26.59

Medium ⫺6.91 3.08 1.67
Low 78.27 36.63 114.62
Convenience High ⫺41.72 9.13 4.33 5.98 ⫺23.91 8.44
Medium ⫺3.80 0.62 ⫺10.26
Low 45.51 ⫺4.96 34.17
Performance High ⫺41.08 9.59 ⫺11.30 6.14 ⫺11.03 8.23
Medium 2.76 ⫺5.38 ⫺6.61
Low 38.32 16.68 17.64
High 102.07 22.91 100.54 25.17 58.74 14.70
Medium 18.32 20.00 3.99
Environmental sustainability Low ⫺120.39 ⫺120.54 ⫺62.73
Social sustainability High 37.90 11.29 47.37 14.22 23.50 8.38
Medium 23.11 19.28 1.27
Low ⫺61.02 ⫺66.65 ⫺24.76
Economic sustainability High 51.10 13.52 51.64 16.97 25.27 8.63
Medium 21.49 29.64 13.49
Table II. Low ⫺72.59 ⫺81.28 ⫺38.75
Aggregate results of Transportation Drive 15.15 6.43 ⫺1.34 4.88 9.42 7.71
conjoint analysis Bus ⫺15.15 1.34 ⫺9.42

the study, demonstrating that these are important constructs to individuals in their
evaluation of the product. Overall, the results indicate that each of the three
sustainability dimensions held substantial weight in participant decision-making,
finding support for the argument that research and marketing materials that have
neglected these dimensions of sustainability may be underestimating their importance
to consumers.
Compromise was the second most important construct to participants (34.02). Of the
three dimensions of comprise, financial was weighted the most heavily (15.30), and was
the second ranked attribute overall. This finding supports the attention in the
sustainability literature to constructs such as willingness to pay and pricing (Simpson
and Radford, 2010). However, other dimensions of compromise were also noteworthy in
influencing participant decisions. Performance held slightly more influence than
convenience (fifth and sixth overall was 9.59, 9.13, respectively). These findings support
the contention that the amount of compromise required by consumers is an important
consideration in the purchase context (Peattie, 2001).
 Confidence was the third most important construct to participants (11.82). Each of the Situational
confidence attributes weighed less heavily in participant decisions than many of the
other attributes in the study, ranking seventh (company commitment, 4.47), eighth
variables and
(problem recognition, 4.12) and ninth (perceived effectiveness, 3.23). These findings sustainability
seem to indicate that the level of confidence, regardless of the sub-dimension, is less
influential to participants than sustainability or compromise. The lack of influence of
the confidence construct is surprising, given the established literature supporting the 1055
relevance of concepts such as perceived consumer effectiveness (Kinnear, Taylor and
Ahmed, 1974) and company commitment (McDaniel and Rylander, 1993). It is possible,
however, given the operationalization of the attributes that the confidence attributes
were influenced by a tangibility effect (Horsky et al., 2004), whereby there is a tendency
for tangible attributes to be weighted relatively more heavily than intangible attributes
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

in choice tasks.
The average part-worth utilities of the transportation option indicated that, in
general, participants preferred driving their own vehicles to taking the shuttle
(15.15,-15.14). A market share simulation was used to demonstrate the influence of
sustainability on overall product preference (Table III). A randomized first-choice
simulation method was used to predict preference for the simulated product (Sawtooth,
2008). In total, four products were simulated, differing on the transportation option and
sustainability only, that is, 2(transportation: vehicle vs shuttle) vs 2(sustainability: high
vs low). All confidence attributes were held constant at high and compromise attributes
constant at low. All attributes, with the exception of price, were also corrected for
correlated attribute error (similarity). Results demonstrated that the overall preference
was for driving one’s own vehicle and high sustainability (60.02 per cent), but when
sustainability was lower, the preference sharply decreased (1.80 per cent). These
findings suggest that consumers do, indeed, demonstrate a preference for sustainability
and are willing to make trade-offs to their preferred option when sustainability is
compromised. The market simulation result supports the contention that sustainability
can add value to a product (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Mohr and Webb, 2005) and the
notion that all else being equal, consumers are generally green consumers (Kardash,
1974) and thereby emphasizing the importance of situational factors in sustainable
product decisions.

Study 1a Study 1b Study 2

Share Standard Share Standard Share Standard
Product scenario (100 per cent) error (100 per cent) error (100 per cent) error

Public transit/high
sustainability 37.83 3.08 48.30 2.65 36.62 3.13
Vehicle/high
sustainability 60.02 3.09 42.45 2.72 41.64 3.06
Public transit/low
sustainability 0.35 0.20 4.17 1.15 10.18 1.17 Table III.
Vehicle/low Market simulation shares
sustainability 1.80 0.61 5.07 1.30 11.56 2.26 of preference
 EJM Self-focused Trend motivated Reality driven
48,5/6 (n ⫽ 52, (n ⫽ 45, (n ⫽ 64,
Attribute 32.3 per cent) 28.0 per cent) 39.8 per cent) Significance

Confidence
Problem recognition 3.93 3.10 4.43 0.002
Offering commitment 4.81 3.66 5.12 0.006
1056 Perceived effectiveness 3.42 2.46 3.87 0.000
Compromise
Financial cost 25.36 9.75 13.03 0.000
Convenience 11.18 7.84 8.63 0.003
Performance 13.53 6.69 9.26 0.000
Table IV. Sustainability
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

Study 1a means of Environmental sustainabilitys 15.72 32.89 17.19 0.000

importance on attributes Social sustainability 6.64 13.90 11.92 0.000
by segment Economic sustainability 7.87 15.87 17.22 0.000

Segmenting responses to attributes

Self-image congruence (Sirgy, 1982; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) and situational
elements (Peattie, 2001) are likely to give rise to clearly discernable segments of
consumers, as the degree to which certain attributes are weighted as important and
desirable for the “self” will differ by individual (Wilkie and Pessemier, 1973). The second
stage of analysis used a cluster method (Silayoi and Speece, 2007) to allow for a better
understanding of consumer behaviours by identifying homogenous groups of
consumers. To determine the appropriate number of clusters, a two-stage procedure was
employed (Punj and Stewart, 1983). In Stage 1, a Ward’s method cluster analysis was
conducted (Silayoi and Speece, 2007) using the individual-level importance weights for
each of the dimensions of sustainability, compromise and confidence. This method
computes a range of possible cluster solutions and is ideal for exploratory cluster
analysis. Three distinct clusters were indicated by the dendogram, separated from

70

60

50

40
Self Focused
Trend Motivated
30
Reality Driven
20

Figure 1. 10
Study 1a summed mean
importance weights by 0
segment Confidence Compromise Sustainability
 each other at relatively large distances. To confirm this interpretation, Stage 2 Situational
analyzed the importance scores using a k-means cluster method. Specifying a
three-cluster solution, the cluster centres converged after 12 iterations, with minimal
variables and
change after three iterations, resulting in the final interpretation. Figure 1 shows the sustainability
patterns of importance using the cluster centres across the three segments on
the aggregated sustainability, compromise and confidence attributes included in the
study. Table IV indicates that the segmentation derived from the cluster analysis is 1057
valid, as the F ratios computed via ANOVA revealed that the clusters differ
significantly on each of the nine importance weights. The observed significance
levels indicate three distinct segments largely identified by their weightings of
sustainability and compromise. We have, consequently, named these segments
“self-focused”, “trend motivated” and “reality driven”.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

The self-focused segment of consumers consists of those who are focused on the
potential compromises required of them in a purchase situation and consisted of just
under one-third of the sample (32.3 per cent). These participants placed greater
importance than the other segments on all three dimensions of compromise, indicating
that the impact of their decision on the self, whether cost, convenience or performance is
particularly important. This segment is particularly self-oriented and determines
behaviours based on what is most appealing to the individual irrespective of the benefits
to society (Hardin, 1986). While these participants are not necessarily resistant to
making sustainable choices, their priority is “me first, then the world”, and they weighed
the sustainability dimensions lower than other segments. Participants focused their
attention more on the environment than on social sustainability of the local community
or economic sustainability of the park. This result is not unexpected, given the attention
in the media to environmental sustainability. This segment was also moderately
concerned about confidence in the impact of the action, suggesting that while they, as
individuals, would rather not compromise for sustainable products; if they do
compromise, they want to be sure that this will make an impact. However, confidence
was the least valued attribute for all three segments.
The trend-motivated segment places the greatest weight on environmental
sustainability, and is higher in their consideration of both environmental and social
sustainability relative to other segments. They account for the smallest segment of the
sample at 28.0 per cent. The substantial focus on the environmental dimension indicates
that this segment has a desire to support environmental sustainability with their
actions. However, this segment also focuses the least on compromise and confidence
attributes, signalling a desire to make sustainable choices regardless of compromises
that they must make and the effectiveness of their actions. Taken as a whole, these
results suggest that trend-motivated participants are riding the sustainability
bandwagon, rather than being deeply committed to environmental sustainability. As
noted by Prothero et al. (2010, p. 150) “In many ways, environmental issues have become
trendy, mainstream, and commodified”. Being environmentally responsible no longer
belongs to the fringe and instead is more visible and has more mainstream acceptance.
However, it appears that because of the high visibility, many consumers engage in
sustainable practices because it is the trendy thing to do, and not because of any deeper
underlying interest. Drawing on involvement and persuasion literature (Bloch and
Banjeree, 2001; Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) it would be expected that consumers who are
more concerned with the issue would rely on complex cues like confidence in their
 EJM decision-making. The lack of weight placed on confidence dimensions, therefore,
suggests that those who are trend motivated have accepted the sustainability claims at
48,5/6 face value, and are not questioning the actionable influence of the purchase decision and
may lack depth in their consideration of the more complex elements of the message in
decision-making.
The reality-driven segment was the largest cluster of participants at 39.8 per cent.
1058 While the environmental sustainability of the offering remains strongly influential,
these participants approached product decision-making with a more balanced
representation of the full scope of sustainability. Economic sustainability was important
to the reality-driven segment, suggesting a pragmatic approach to sustainability
through the recognition that the long-term economic sustainability of the park was
valued. Compromise remained central to these participants, although moderately so
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

relative to others. The reality-driven segment demonstrated a willingness to compromise

to attain a more holistically sustainable product. This segment was also the most
concerned with the confidence dimensions, leading to the interpretation that these
consumers value sustainability to the extent that they have (or lack) confidence in the
attribute. This finding implies that the largest segment of consumers are those who had
heightened levels of elaboration in the decision (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984),
demonstrating that they were not taking the claims at face value, and instead were
relying on more complex cues and the difference the actions were likely to make.
Importantly, this segment demonstrates the need to integrate multiple dimensions of
sustainability in future research, as the balanced weight of the dimensions in the largest
participant segment illustrates the evident influence of more than “environmental”
sustainability.
In the final stage of analysis, between-segment differences on the level of preference
for driving one’s own vehicle were examined. The individual importance scores from the
transportation choice attribute were considered as the dependent variable. An ANOVA
reveals significant differences on the importance placed on the transportation option
(F(2,158) ⫽ 9.266, p ⬍ 0.001). Tukey post-hoc tests reveal that self-focused participants
(M ⫽ 7.533) were significantly more likely to drive their own vehicle than the reality
driven (M ⫽ 4.331; p ⬍ 0.05), consistent with their higher importance placed on
convenience and performance. The trend motivated (M ⫽ 9.316) were also significantly
more likely to drive than the reality driven (p ⬍ 0.001), supporting the interpretation that
the trend-motivated segment is more interested in paying “lip service” to sustainability
than incorporating it into their actions. This finding demonstrates a clear behaviour
outcome preference between the segmented groups.
Of note in the analysis is that attempts to include NEP in the cluster analysis did not
provide evidence for the role of enduring environmental values. Including the NEP score
for participants did not alter the cluster membership, nor did it provide a significant
amount of differentiation in ANOVA analysis (F(2, 158) ⫽ 2.03, p ⫽ 0.817) and the
variable was thus removed from the analysis. Given the popularity of this measure as a
proxy for an ecological worldview, one would anticipate that at a basic level those who
were higher in NEP would select the option with the lower ecological footprint. This was
not the case, providing further support for the consideration of situational variables (i.e.
compromise and confidence). Those high in NEP found confidence slightly less
important (3.96 vs 4.59) than those low in NEP. While this may seem counterintuitive, as
one might expect those who are higher in environmental values to focus more on
 indicators of sustainability, it is possible that this indicates consumer cynicism (Helm, Situational
2004). Those with higher environmental values may be more likely to question the
claims made by firms and, therefore, rely less on such information cues when making
variables and
decisions. These findings may also reflect the narrow ecological focus of the measure, sustainability
rather than on multiple dimensions of sustainability.

Study 1B
Study 1b was conducted to replicate the findings from the student sample in Study 1a,
1059
using a general population sample. It is possible that the participants may have some
bias towards sustainability and may not yet have developed a full understanding of the
implications and complexities of their decisions. Therefore, a sample of 175 Canadian
participants was recruited through an online survey panel to complete the web-based
study. The sample was 44 per cent female and ranged in age from 18 to 81 years (M ⫽
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

34.15). The same research design and stimuli were used. The choice based conjoint
consisted of two scenarios, in a full-profile design, with each scenario containing
information on all 10 attributes. The research design generated standard errors of less
than 0.041 for each attribute level, indicating minimal correlation between attributes
(Sawtooth Software, 2008).

Results and discussion

The data were analyzed in the same manner as Study 1a and results are reported in
Table II. The general population sample reveals similar findings to the student sample.
Although the weighting of each of the ten dimensions was different, there was a similar
ordering among the part-worth utility scores. Once again sustainability was the most
important factor for decision making in this context (1, 2 and 3 most important).
Compromise was the second most important overall factor. The one key difference
between the two samples is the decreased weight for financial compromise, which drops
from the second most important factor, to the fourth most important. However, within
the overall compromise measure the same relative order is preserved with financial as
the most important compromise, followed by performance and convenience. It is
possible that this is one artefact of the differences in the sample, as the general
population reports a smaller proportion of participants (N ⫽ 17, 9 per cent) in the lowest
income bracket (⬍ $25,000) than the student sample (N ⫽ 43, 27 per cent) and, therefore,
may be less price sensitive and more willing to make financial compromises when
making sustainable product choices. Finally, for this sample, confidence received
slightly higher importance scores, thus indicating that this sample places more
importance on confidence, however, part-worth utility scores still indicate that
confidence was the least important variable for participants making sustainable
product choices. Overall, the data support the findings from Study 1a and indicate that
the relative importance of each variable is relatively robust and generalizable to
different populations.

Study 2
Study 2 extends the findings from Studies 1a and 1b by replicating the study in a
different purchase situation. We do this because it is possible that the lower importance
placed on financial compromise may be partially because of the sample and partially
because of the context. Study 1b indicated for instance that a general population was
less driven by financial concerns and less price sensitive relative to sustainable product
 EJM decisions. However, this may partially be attributed to the “leisure” context of a vacation
decision, where participants may be less price sensitive. For decisions that participants
48,5/6 make more regularly, it is likely that they will be more price sensitive. Rather than a
discrete, one-time, leisure choice, participants in Study 2 were asked to evaluate a
transportation decision that occurs on a regular basis in the context of everyday
experiences. Past conjoint research has noted that people tend to place different
1060 importance on attributes in a work context than they do in a leisure context (Norman,
1977). Further, commuter transportation remains a critical societal issue for policy makers
and citizens as cities struggle with managing transportation issues that arise from growing
populations, vehicle use and the development of sustainable public transit (Burda, Bailie and
Haines, 2010). Additionally, reports on public transit as an energy conservation and
emission reduction strategy (Litman, 2011) support the operationalization of transit as a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

valuable context for examining the influence of sustainability dimensions on product

choices. The current study thus asked participants to evaluate a commuting scenario that
would occur daily and as such extends the generalizability of the earlier work.

Method
A sample of 175 Canadian participants (51 per cent female; aged 18-68 years) was
recruited through an online survey panel to complete the web-based study. The sample
was 51 per cent female and ranged in age from 18 to 68 years (M ⫽ 33.97). Eleven
participants reported living in rural areas with populations of ⬍ 5,000 and were
excluded from the analysis, as the size of their communities implies that they may not
have access to, or be familiar with, public transportation as a means of commuting,
leaving a final sample of 164.
In the scenario, participants were asked to imagine that they were required to travel
45 minutes to and from work each day and that city administration was reviewing its
transportation policies. The attributes were presented in a manner consistent with
Studies 1a and 1b and adapted for the work commute context (e.g. convenience altered
flexibility in when they could travel; performance altered the length of walk to/from
workplace; problem recognition varied the extent to which transportation issues have
been demonstration as contributing to the degradation of the city). Consistent with
earlier studies, each choice set consisted of two scenarios and the study used a
full-profile design with each scenario containing information about all ten attributes.
Again no prohibited pairs were identified and the research design generated standard
errors of ⬍ 0.041 for each attribute level, indicating minimal correlation between
attributes (Sawtooth Software, 2008). Participants completed 15 choice tasks, choosing
the commuting scenario they preferred most from each choice set. The “transportation”
attribute was again a proxy for choosing the “sustainable” option, with two levels – taking
public transit vs driving one’s own vehicle (Table I). Demographic data were collected and
participants completed the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale as a measure of
environmental attitudes (Dunlap et al., 2000).

Results and discussion

The choice data were analyzed using the same hierarchical Bayes estimation method as
Studies 1a and 1b. The reported importance scores (Table II) were again calculated from
the range of the part-worth utilities in each attribute. A two-stage cluster method was
employed (Punj and Stewart, 1983) using the same procedures as Study 1a. Again three
 distinct clusters were indicated by the dendogram, separated from each other at Situational
relatively large distances. This interpretation was confirmed using a k-means cluster
method which specified a three-cluster solution. The cluster centres converged after 13
variables and
iterations, with minimal change after five iterations, resulting in the final interpretation. sustainability
Figure 2 shows the patterns of importance using the cluster centres across the three
segments, while Table V indicates the F ratios computed via ANOVA demonstrating
the attributes on which the clusters differ significantly in their importance weights. The 1061
cluster interpretation derived from Study 1a, thus, remains relevant and again, the
self-focused place substantially greater importance on the cost (M ⫽ 52.95) than either
the trend-motivated (M ⫽ 10.91) or reality-driven (M ⫽ 28.03) segments.
Interestingly, the most obvious difference between the leisure and work contexts was
the importance of financial trade-offs, which rose for all segments. In this study, an
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

25

20

15
Self Focused
Trend Motivated
10
Reality Driven

5
Figure 2.
Study 2 summed mean
0 importance weights by
Confidence Compromise Sustainability segment

Self-focused Trend motivated Reality driven

(n ⫽ 40, (n ⫽ 72, (n ⫽ 52,
Attribute 24.4 per cent) 43.9 per cent) 31.7 per cent) Significance

Confidence
Problem recognition 3.20 5.99 7.41 0.000
Offering commitment 3.25 6.57 5.32 0.000
Perceived effectiveness 5.22 6.20 6.95 0.025
Compromise
Financial cost 52.95 10.91 28.03 0.000
Convenience 8.50 8.05 8.94 0.671
Performance 8.63 7.96 8.27 0.629
Sustainability
Environmental sustainability 5.09 23.87 9.40 0.000
Social sustainability 3.77 11.45 7.69 0.000 Table V.
Economic sustainability 4.90 11.74 7.20 0.000 Study 2 means of
importance on attributes
Note: Significance ⫽ ANOVA significance of difference between segment means by segment
 EJM everyday expenditure became a more important factor when it was a recurring expense.
This finding is important for two reasons; first, it further supports the contention in this
48,5/6 paper that situational variables will influence sustainable product choices (Peattie, 2001)
and second, it suggests that consumers will make different decisions with respect to
sustainability decisions in different contexts. This has implications for marketers, as
they must consider the consumer’s consumption context, even though the product may
1062 essentially be the same. For example, a travelling salesperson may treat sustainable
initiatives in hotels differently than the once a year vacation traveller. Therefore, a
critical factor in considering the level of compromise is how often the consumer will
engage with the product. This distinction also emerged in the convenience and
performance attributes. While both convenience and performance attributes emerged as
significant contributors to cluster segments in Studies 1a and 1b, in this context the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

attributes were more consistent in their importance across segments and, thus, did not
significantly contribute to differentiation between segments.
Similarly, in the work context, respondents placed considerably less importance on
all three dimensions of sustainability, with environmental sustainability exhibiting the
largest difference. These findings further indicate that sustainability is also partial to
differences in importance when considering the context of the purchase. This was
demonstrated in the market shares of preference (Table III), where driving one’s own
vehicle and high sustainability remained the preferred product scenario (41.64 per cent),
yet the preference for low sustainability options (transit: 10.18 per cent; vehicle: 11.56 per
cent) received much higher market shares than in the leisure contexts.
Including NEP in the cluster analyses once again did not alter cluster membership.
Further, a one-way ANOVA demonstrates that significant differences in NEP between
clusters failed to emerge (self-focused M ⫽ 3.73; trend motivated M ⫽ 3.54; reality driven
M ⫽ 3.65; F(2, 161) ⫽ 1.59; p ⫽ 0.206).

General discussion and implications

As firms strive to integrate sustainability into marketing strategy, they must consider
the way they communicate this attribute to consumers and the potential for varied
perceptions of the construct. This study provides an initial understanding of the
influence of multiple dimensions of sustainability to consumers by exploring the
importance of the individual dimensions in multi-attribute consumer decision-making.
The results have important implications for both researchers and practitioners, as they
demonstrate the relative influences of confidence, compromise and sustainability in
product decisions.

Theoretical implications
This research examines the subjective values that consumers assign to different product
attributes as they integrate these into their decision-making (Anderson, 1981), including
both the attributes of the product and the situation. In particular, we show that both the
compromises made by consumers and the confidence they have about impact of their
actions will play significant roles in consumer decision-making. With these findings, we
emphasize the influence of situational variables and the significant importance they can
have relative to sustainability dimensions in a multi-attribute decision-making context.
Research that explores the extent to which the utility of the product can contribute to
an understanding of how consumers interact with sustainable products and services has
 not yet been developed. Generally established in marketing, however, is that different Situational
types of products can evoke different affective states in consumers (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982). A particular distinction has been made between hedonic products and
variables and
services that are pleasure-oriented in their consumption and motivated mainly by the sustainability
desire for sensual pleasure, fantasy and fun and utilitarian products or services, which
are goal-oriented and motivated mainly by the desire to fill a basic need or accomplish a
task (Strahilevitz, 1999). Our research demonstrates that consumers in a hedonic 1063
(vacation) purchase context placed greater emphasis on sustainability dimensions than
those in a utilitarian (commute to work) context. This is consistent with work in the
domain of charity linked brands where consumers assigned to hedonic products chose
the charity-linked brand more often (Strahilevitz, 1999). The utility of the product might
thus prove a useful construct in future research on sustainable consumer behaviours as
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

our findings indicate considerable differences in the importance consumers place on

product attributes across product types.
Finally, this research importantly provides essential empirical work that is necessary
to support the strong theoretical discourse being developed in the marketing literature.
Recent research in marketing and sustainability has begun to address sustainability
from consumption and corporate marketing perspectives (Mitchell et al., 2010; Sheth
et al., 2011), but has lacked an empirical examination of the relative importance of the
dimensions of sustainability in consumer decision-making. Our research notably aligns
with a review by Chabowski et al. (2011), who emphasize the importance of research that
explores the relative importance of multiple dimensions of sustainability in shaping
consumer behaviour and argue that the clear distinction between social and
environmental dimensions is imperative for the enrichment of the sustainability
literature. While we respond to this need for distinction by examining the relative
importance consumers place on environmental, social and economic dimensions of
sustainability, our research is limited with regards to developing in-depth
understanding of the meaning of these dimensions to consumers in that it does not
examine the underlying values contributing to differing sustainability importance’s
across consumer segments.

Practical implications
The two situational constructs of confidence and compromise offer a basis for marketers
to engage consumers with sustainable products, and to consider that consumers will
differ in the value they assign to each construct. Our analysis draws clear implications
for marketers about how to appeal to the identified segments. For example, appealing
to self-focused consumers would involve minimizing compromises, particularly
emphasizing value through lower costs to the consumer, and focusing on environmental
sustainability, insofar as it is not at the expense of consumer convenience, product
performance or price. For the trend-motivated segment, marketers are likely to see the
greatest benefit by appealing to consumers based primarily on the environmental
sustainability of the product. Finally, for the reality-driven segment an overall
sustainability focus will be most effective addressing the long-term viability for the
company, the community and the natural environment. Instilling consumers with
confidence that the product will make a difference will be central to persuading this
segment.
 EJM The importance of the confidence construct in differentiating the segments should be
of particular interest to practitioners. While segmentation results imply that marketing
48,5/6 a product based on environmental sustainability would be a beneficial strategy, the
small but consistent presence of the confidence construct indicates that firms must
legitimize their sustainability claims and instil confidence about the company’s actions.
Consumers who are inundated with messages of sustainability and “green washing” are
1064 increasingly skeptical of the intentions and impact of sustainable business practices
(Lamonica, 2009). Increasing consumer confidence via communications is one means of
countering some of this skepticism. Each of the three confidence dimensions was
important in consumer decision-making and may offer a means of increasing the
confidence consumers have in sustainable products.
Our market simulation results demonstrate that despite differences in sustainability
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

importance relative to the product context, an overall preference for high sustainability
product options emerges. This finding, thus, emphasizes the weighted importance
consumers place on sustainability dimensions when they are presented with such
information for consideration and supports literature indicating positive brand
associations with sustainable attributes (Charter et al., 2002). The full-profile design of
the conjoint experiments indicates an important implication of the study, however, as it
has long been recognized that most purchase decisions are made with incomplete
information (Johnson and Levin, 1985; Ross and Creyer, 1992). While consumers
increasingly have more options for assessing the relative sustainability of products
(Luchs et al., 2011), the complex nature of sustainable products and subsequent
information availability remains a constraint for consumers to negotiate. While our
research indicates that providing consumers with information about positive (negative)
product sustainability will generate favourable (unfavourable) evaluations, literature
indicates that by withholding information on certain attributes (e.g. sustainability)
marketers can increase the perceived importance of other attributes (e.g. cost; Kivetz and
Simonson, 2000). Thus, in actual purchase situations, a choice of a less sustainable
product might be attributed to the availability of complete and objective information on
price and quantity relative to incomplete subjective information on sustainability
impacts. In future research, it might thus be beneficial to explore the implications of
incomplete information in the domain of sustainable products.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Allenby, G.M. and Ginter, J.L. (1995), “Using extremes to design products and segment markets”,
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 392-403.
Anderson, N. (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory, Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-218.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Bloch, P.H. and Banjeree, S.B. (2001), “An involvement-based framework for the study of
environmentally concerned consumers”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 1-19.
 Bridges, C.M. and Wilhelm, W.B. (2008), “Going beyond green: the “why and how” of integrating Situational
sustainability into the marketing curriculum”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 33-46. variables and
Bruntland, G.H. (1987), “Our common future”, Report of the World Commission on Environment sustainability
and Development, New York, NY.
Burda, C., Bailie, A. and Haines, G. (2010), “Driving down carbon”, The Pembina Institute, Alberta,
available at: www.pembina.org/transportation (accessed 5 February 2013). 1065
Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (1995), “Psychometric methods in marketing research: part 1, conjoint
analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 385-391.
Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A. and Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. (2011), “The structure of sustainability
research in marketing, 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

Champniss, G. and Vila, F.R. (2011), Brand Valued: How Socially Valued Brands Hold the Key to
a Sustainable Future and Business Success, Wiley, West Sussex.
Charter, M., Peattie, K., Ottman, J. and Polonsky, M.J. (2002), Marketing and Sustainability, Centre
for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), Cardiff
University.
Cherrier, H., Black, I.R. and Lee, M. (2011), “Intentional non-consumption for sustainability:
consumer resistance and/or anti-consumption?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45
Nos. 11/12, pp. 1757-1767.
Choi, S. and Ng, A. (2011), “Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price
effects on consumer responses”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 269-282.
Costanza, R. and Patten, B.C. (1995), “Commentary: defining and predicting sustainability”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 15 No. 15, pp. 193-196.
Cotte, J. and Trudel, R. (2009), “Socially conscious consumerism: a systematic review of the body
of knowledge”, Report of the Network for Business Sustainability Knowledge Project
Series, London, Ontario.
Crittenden, V.L. Crittenden, W.F., Ferrell, L.K., Ferrell, O.C. and Pinney, C.C. (2011),
“Market-oriented sustainability: a conceptual framework and propositions”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Daly, H.E. (1996), Beyond Growth: the Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press,
Boston, MA.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2006), “Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness
to pay for fair-trade coffee”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 363-385.
DesJardins, J.R. (2007), Business, Ethics, and the Environment: Imagining a Sustainable Future,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. and Jones, R.E. (2000), “Measuring endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3,
pp. 425-442.
Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R. and Devinney, T.M. (2010), “Why don’t consumers consume ethically?”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 426-436.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals With Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business,
Capstone, Oxford.
First, I. and Khetriwal, D.S. (2010), “Exploring the relationship between environmental orientation
and brand value: is there fire or only smoke”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 90-103.
 EJM Fishbein, M. (1967), “Attitude and the prediction of behavior”, in Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Readings in
Attitude Theory and Measurement, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 477-492.
48,5/6 Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with
implications for research and practice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 3-19.
Green Seal (2009), “2009 Green buying research”, available at: www.greenseal.org/
NewsEventsandInitiatives/MarketResearch.aspx (accessed 21 March 2011).
1066 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hardin, G.J. (1986), Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the
Merely Eloquent, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Hart, S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

Helm, A. (2004), “Cynics and skeptics: consumer dispositional trust”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 31, pp. 345-351.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-101.
Horsky, D., Nelson, P. and Posavac, S.S. (2004), “Stating preference for the ethereal but choosing
the concrete: how the tangibility of attributes affects attribute weighting in value elicitation
and choice”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1–2, pp. 132-140.
Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996), “The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs”,
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 307-317.
Hudson, S. (1996), “The “Greening of ski resorts: a necessity for sustainable tourism, or a
marketing opportunity for skiing communities?”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 167-185.
Hunt, S.D. (2011), “Sustainable marketing, equity, and economic growth: a resource-advantage,
economic freedom approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 7-20.
Johnson, R.D. and Levin, I.P. (1985), “More than meets the eye: the effect of missing information on
purchase evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 74-81.
Kardash, W.J. (1974), “Corporate responsibility and the quality of life: developing the ecologically
concerned consumer”, in Henion, K.E. and Kinnear, T.C. (Eds), Ecological Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Kilbourne, W.E. and Pickett, G. (2008), “How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern,
and environmentally responsible behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 9,
pp. 885-893.
Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), “Ecologically concerned consumers: who are
they”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 20-24.
Kivtez, R. and Simonson, I. (2000), “The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 427-448.
Klein, J.G., Smith, C. and John, A. (2004), “Why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott
participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 92-109.
Kotler, P. (2011), “Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 132-135.
Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A. and Wathieu, L. (2012), “Go green! Should environmental messages be
so assertive?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 95-102.
 Lamonica, M. (2009), “Survey: “Green” tag should be banished”, CNet News (Ed), available at: Situational
http://news.cnet.com/greentech/?keyword⫽greenwashing (accessed 11 January 2009).
Litman, T. (2011), “Evaluating public transit as an energy conservation and emission reduction
variables and
strategy”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, available at: www.vtpi.org/tran_climate.pdf sustainability
(accessed 4 January 2012).
Luchs, M., Naylor, R.W., Rose, R.L., Catlin, J., Gau, R., Kapitan, S., Mish, J., Ozanne, L., Phipps, M.,
Simpson, B., Subrahmanyan, S. and Weaver, T. (2011), “Towards a sustainable 1067
marketplace: expanding options and benefits for consumers”, Journal of Research for
Consumers, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1-12.
McDonald and Oates, C.J. (2006), “Sustainability: consumer perceptions and marketing
strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 157-170.
McDonald and Oates, C.J., Young, C.W. and Hwang, K. (2006), “Toward sustainable consumption:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

esearching voluntary simplifiers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 515-534.
McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P. and McMorland, L. (2009), “Comparing
sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 137-145.
Marketing Science Institute (2010), “Marketing Science Institute research priorities 2010-2012”,
available at: www.msi.org/research/index.cfm?id⫽271 (accessed 12 December 2012).
McDaniel, S.W. and Rylander, D.H. (1993), “Strategic green marketing”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 4-10.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000), “New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: promoting
sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 543-554.
Mitchell, R.W., Wooliscroft, B. and Higham, J. (2010), “Sustainable market orientation: a new
approach to managing marketing strategy”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 160-170.
Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), “The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on
consumer responses”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
National Park Foundation (2012), “Transportation scholars”, available at: www.nationalparks.
org/npf-at-work/our-programs/transportation-scholars/ (accessed 4 January 2012).
Neubaum, D.O. and Zahra, S.A. (2006), “Institutional ownership and corporate social performance:
the moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 108-131.
Norman, K.L. (1977), “Attributes in bus transportation importance depends on trip purpose”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 164-170.
Ottman, J. (1992), Greener Marketing, NTC, Lincolnwood, IL.
Peattie, K. (2001), “Golden goose or wild goose? the hunt for the green consumer”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 187-199.
Peattie, S. (2009), “Social marketing: a pathway to consumption reduction?”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 260-268.
Peloza, J. (2009), “The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate
social performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1518-1541.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1984), “The effects of involvement on responses to argument
quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 69-81.
 EJM Prothero, A., Mcdonagh, P. and Dobscha, S. (2010), “Is green the new black? Reflections on a green
commodity discourse”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 147-159.
48,5/6 Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983), “Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and
suggestions for application”, Journal of Market Research, Vo1. 20 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
Raghavarao, D., Wiley, J.B. and Chitturi, P. (2011), Choiced-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and
Designs, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
1068 Rivera-Camino, J. (2007), “Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos. 11/12, pp. 1328-1358.
Ross, W.T. Jr. and Creyer, E.H. (1992), “Making inferences about missing information: the effects
of existing information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Sawtooth Software (2008), CBC v6.0 Technical Paper, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA.
Sawtooth (2009), The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

Paper, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA.

Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), “The link between green
purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 35-55.
Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsbility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 225-243.
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005), “Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the
Canadian forest products industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 159-180.
Shaw, D. and Newholm, T. (2002), “Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 167-185.
Shaw, D., Newholm, T. and Dickinson, R. (2006), “Consumption as voting: an exploration of
consumer empowerment”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos. 9/10, pp. 1049-1067.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S. (2011), “Mindful consumption: a customer-centric
approach to sustainability”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 21-39.
Shrivastava, P. and Hart, S. (1995), “Creating sustainable corporations”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 154-165.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2007), “The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos. 11/12, pp. 1495-1517.
Simpson, B.J.K. and Radford, S.K. (2010), “Willingness to pay and socially conscious
consumerism”, Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Macromarketing
Society: exploring the Frontiers of Macromarketing”, 9-12 June Laramie, WY, available at:
http://macromarketing.org/?page_id⫽6 (accessed 11 January 2012).
Simpson, B.J.K. and Radford, S.K. (2012), “Consumer perceptions of sustainability: a free
elicitation study”, Journal of Non-Profit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp
272-291.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Strahilevitz, M. (1999), “The effects of product type and donation magnitude on willingness to pay
more for a charity-linked brand”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-241.
Thøgersen and Olander (2002), “Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour”, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 225-236.
 Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P. and Olesen, A. (2010), “Consumer responses to ecolabels”, European Situational
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 11/12, pp. 1787-1810.
van Dam, Y.K. and Apeldoorn, P. (1996), “Sustainable marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing,
variables and
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 45-56. sustainability
Walls, J.L., Berrone, P. and Phan, P.H. (2012), “Corporate governance and environmental
performance: is there really a link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8,
pp. 885-913. 1069
Wilkie, W. L and Pessemier E.A. (1973), “Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute models”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 428-441.

Further reading
Sawtooth (2010), SSI Web v7 User Manual, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WA.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX At 16:50 03 February 2015 (PT)

About the authors

Bonnie Simpson is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the DAN Management and
Organizational Studies. Her current research focuses on the use of sustainability to market
products and engaging consumers in sustainable behaviours. Bonnie J.K. Simpson is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: bonnie.simpson@uwo.ca
Scott K. Radford is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Haskayne School of Business.
His current research is concerned with consumer responses to product design, particularly in the
areas of sustainability, product innovation and mass-customization.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints