sustainability

Article
Analysis of Socially Responsible Consumption:
A Segmentation of Spanish Consumers
María Manuela Palacios-González 1, * and Antonio Chamorro-Mera 2
1 Department of Financial Economics and Accounting, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
2 Department of Business Management and Sociology, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain;
chamorro@unex.es
* Correspondence: mapalaciosg@unex.es; Tel.: +34-924-289-520




Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 9 October 2020; Published: 13 October 2020


Abstract: The fight against the environmental and social problems faced by humanity requires a
change in the consumption system. A new consumer is required, who takes into consideration that
their acts are part of the cause of these problems, but also part of the solution to them. In order to
design effective campaigns to promote socially responsible consumption, it is valuable to understand
the profile of consumers who are most likely to act in this way. The objective of this work is to
identify and describe segments of consumers according to their degree and type of socially responsible
behavior. To do this, a survey of 415 Spanish consumers was conducted, using a multidimensional
scale to measure socially responsible consumption. Four segments were identified: highly responsible,
sensitive to origin, moderately responsible, and indifferent. Moreover, the individuals from these
segments do not differ from each other due to their sociodemographic characteristics, but rather due
to their attitudes towards these problems. Emotional engagement and the perception of personal
effectiveness are the variables that differentiate the individuals in each segment, whereas the perception
of personal gain is insignificant.

Keywords: socially responsible consumption; sustainable consumption; responsible consumer;

attitudes; social responsibility; perception of personal effectiveness

1. Introduction
The need and urgency to change the current consumption model is increasingly forming part
of the political agenda. The United Nations made this clear in 2012 at the Rio+20 Conference on
Sustainable Development when it promoted the concept of the green economy as an alternative to
the economic system based on the excessive and inefficient consumption of energy and scarce natural
resources [1]. This idea was reinforced by the United Nations itself in the declaration on the 2015–2030
Sustainable Development Goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Encouraging this new consumption model is also one of the key elements of the European
Union’s economic policy. This is clear, for example, in the communication “A resource-efficient
Europe—Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy” [2], stating that “to achieve a
resource-efficient Europe, we need to make technological improvements, a significant transition
in energy, industrial, agricultural, and transport systems, and changes in behavior as producers and
consumers”. This message is also present in the Communication “Closing the loop—An EU action
plan for the Circular Economy” [3] on promoting a circular economy based on meeting the needs of
customers while reducing the consumption and waste of raw materials, water, and energy by extending
the life of products.
Achieving the transition towards a green and circular economy implies socially responsible
consumption becoming generalized and the responsible consumer segment ceasing to be a minority

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418; doi:10.3390/su12208418 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 2 of 15

segment in the market. We can understand a socially responsible consumer to be someone who
translates their concern for social and environmental problems into their purchasing and consumption
actions. They take into account not only traditional purchasing criteria (price, quality, etc.), but also the
social and environmental aspects linked to the product and the company that produces and markets it.
This consumer segment is made up of those people who consider the welfare of the stakeholders who
may be affected by their purchasing decisions [4]. The actions of socially responsible consumption are
very diverse. They can range from rejection to companies linked to bad labor practices or products
with a high negative impact on the natural environment, to the preference for eco-designed products or
solidarity products that donate an amount of money to social causes and charities. Socially responsible
consumption also includes the rejection of mass consumption practices.
However, how can we meet this challenge in the coming years? Even if consumers recognize
that socially responsible consumption is worthwhile, it is difficult for them to practice it in everyday
consumption [5,6]. Among other similar measures, information and awareness campaigns on the
social and environmental impact of consumption are essential.
Knowledge about the socially responsible attitudes and behaviors of consumers will help
public administrations and non-profit organizations to effectively design their campaigns in order to
raise awareness and promote responsible consumption. They will be able to identify the profile of
individuals with a greater predisposition to act, as well as the variables that influence this predisposition.
Similarly, companies wishing to position themselves as socially responsible companies and brands will
understand the aspects that are important when designing their communication policy.
This research is intended to contribute to this knowledge. Its objective is to identify
and describe segments of consumers with different attitudes and behaviors in terms of socially
responsible consumption.
According to the reviews of the literature on green marketing by Chamorro et al. [7] and McDonagh
and Prothero [8], segmentation of consumers according to their environmental awareness has been
an attractive topic for academia since the 1990s. A vast majority of these studies have focused on
specific environmental issues or behavioral domains, such as climate change (Hine et al. [9] identified
over 25 climate change studies employing segmentation methodology), energy (e.g., [10]), waste
management and recycling practices (e.g., [11]), travel and transport behaviors (e.g., [12,13]), food waste
(e.g., [14]), or choice of grocery store format (e.g., [5]). There are abundant studies on the segmentation
of consumers according to their behavior or intentions to buy organic or sustainable food (e.g., [15–19]).
To a lesser extent, studies have been carried out that analyze pro-environmental behavior in a global
way, taking into account different types of environmental actions (e.g., [20,21]).
Some of the environmental segmentation models have been based on a small set of profiling
variables and/or focused on a single topic or domain, which may lead to poorly differentiated and
unidimensional models [20]; therefore, new studies with other approaches are necessary. In our
research, socially responsible consumption is understood as an extension of green consumption. As we
have defined previously, it is a concept that must include actions of different types and does not only
refer to environmental behaviors.
So, this research stems from the idea that socially responsible behavior is multidimensional [4,22–24];
therefore, there is not one unique type of socially responsible consumer. A consumer may have a high,
average. or low commitment to social, ethical, and environmental problems, but it is also true that they
can have different levels of commitment according to the different dimensions. For example, they may
be highly aware of the need to purchase or reject certain products, but have a low predisposition to
reducing their volume of consumption.
In this respect, our research aims to apply the multidimensional scale of socially responsible
consumption by François-Lecompte and Robert [4] in Spain and to verify if the same dimensions
of responsible consumption are obtained. Although similar research has been carried out in recent
decades [25–28], new studies are necessary because the attitudes and behaviors of consumers to these
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 3 of 15

issues are not universal (generalizable to all geographical and cultural contexts) and are also dynamic
(evolve over time).
In addition, our goal is to identify consumer segments with different responsible consumer
behaviors. Of the studies that have applied the François-Lecompte and Robert scale, only the
investigations by François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and by González et al. [26] conducted
some type of consumer segmentation analysis. However, neither of these two previous studies
included attitudinal variables to describe the individuals in each segment. In our study, in addition to
sociodemographic variables, we introduce variables that have been found to be relevant in studies
on ecological behaviors, such as perception of personal gain, perceived consumer effectiveness,
or emotional engagement.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Scales to Measure Socially Responsible Consumption

The concepts of socially responsible consumption and consumers are very broad, as they can
refer to various types of action and behavior linked to social, labor, ethical, and environmental issues.
For this reason, the scales that have been proposed to measure socially responsible consumption are
very heterogeneous in both the approach to the items with which they are measured and the number
of items used to measure them [4,22–24,29–43]. Some scales have focused on ethical issues and others
only on environmental issues, such as participation in recycling processes or purchasing organic
products. However, multidimensional scales have also been developed on the basis that different
types of action or behavior should be measured in addition to focusing on different types of social and
environmental problems.
For example, Morh and Webb [22] measured the willingness of consumers to purchase in a socially
responsible manner through the Socially Responsible Purchase and Disposal Scale, formed by 26 items
grouped into three factors: (1) influence on consumer purchasing of the company’s philanthropic
activities, hiring practices, and treatment of employees; (2) consumer recycling; and (3) consumers’
avoidance and reduction of usage of products that harm the environment.
François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and François-Lecompte and Robert [4] propose the
Socially Responsible Consumption Scale, formed by 20 items that measure aspects related to five
dimensions of responsible consumption: purchasing of products linked to social causes, purchasing
from small businesses, purchasing based on local origin, consideration of the company’s responsible
behavior, and the consumption volume.
Moreover, Yan and She [23] developed the Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior Scale, adapted
to the cultural context of China and formed by 34 items grouped into nine factors: environmental
protection, animal protection, energy conservation, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises,
supporting national brands, monitoring misconduct and claiming consumers’ rights, moderate
consumption, supporting socially responsible businesses, resisting irresponsible businesses.
Durif et al. [24] developed the Socially Responsible Consumer Scale, formed by 49 items grouped
into eight factors: (1) citizen behavior; (2) behavior focusing on protection of the environment;
(3) recycling behavior; (4) composting behavior; (5) local consumption behavior; (6) behavior taking
into account animal protection; (7) deconsumption behavior; (8) sustainable transport behavior.
Although they are similar scales, for this study, we have chosen to use the scale created in France
by François-Lecompte and Roberts [4] and François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29]. This scale was
considered appropriate because it is multidimensional, and has subsequently been contrasted by other
researchers in other countries, such as D’Astous and Legendre [25] in Canada, González et al. [26] in
France, Anuar et al. [27] in Malaysia, and Pérez-Barea et al. [28] in Spain.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 4 of 15

2.2. The Profile of the Socially Responsible Consumer

Of the previous investigations, only References [29] and [26] applied a segmentation methodology
to the scale of socially responsible consumption. Francois-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] identified
five segments: “those who are worried”, “the skeptics”, “those who are against department stores
or anti-distribution”, “the boycotters”, and “those who are not worried”. These authors affirm that
sociodemographic variables play an important role in the field of socially responsible consumption,
especially age, gender, or professional category.
Gonzalez et al. [26] carried out a segmentation of consumers based on their level of socially
responsible consumption and identified four groups: “socially responsible consumers”, “consumers
who prefer to buy local products (locals)”, “consumers who prefer to buy products with cause (good
causers)”, and “indifferent consumers”. The responsible consumers have a high level of socially
responsible consumption, while the “indifferent consumers” have a low level of socially responsible
consumption. The “locals” prefer to buy local and French products, but present a medium or low
level in other dimensions, while the “good causes” are in favor of buying products with a cause,
as well as practicing other forms of socially responsible consumption, such as reducing their volume of
consumption and buying products taking into account the behavior of the company that manufactures
them. Subsequently, these authors describe the individuals of each segment according to personal and
social values using Desjeux’s [44] proposal.
From the two studies cited and from other studies on specific environmental or ethical behaviors,
some conclusions can be drawn about the sociodemographic and attitudinal variables that can help to
identify the profile of consumers with different levels of socially responsible consumption.
The review of the existing research shows that it is difficult to identify a sociodemographic profile
for the socially responsible consumer. These variables are not good explanatory variables of this type
of behavior. The results are very diverse and even contradictory for most of these variables.
With regard to gender, some research links socially responsible behavior to women [4,24,37,38,40,45–50].
However, there are also other studies that have not found an influence of gender on this behavior [42,51–53].
In terms of age, some research shows that socially responsible behavior tends to increase with the
individual’s age [4,24,37,38,51,54–56]. However, other studies find that it is young people who most
possess this behavior [47,48,50,57]. Finally, there are also other studies in which age was unrelated to
this behavior [42,46,58].
With regard to income level, several research works associate socially responsible behavior with a
high income level [59]. However, other studies show that people with a lower income behave in a
more socially responsible manner [37,38,48,54]. Finally, there are also studies that find no significant
differences in the relationship between this variable and socially responsible behavior [24,42,49,56].
In terms of level of education, some research reveals that individuals with a high level of education
behave in a more socially responsible manner [37,38,56]. However, other studies link this behavior to
low levels of education [54]. There are also studies that do not link this variable to socially responsible
behavior [51].
Finally, with regard to political orientation, several research works find that socially responsible
consumption is linked to liberal policies [35,37,38].
In contrast to the sociodemographic variables, the literature review obtains clearer results in
relation to the attitudinal variables. Although different terminology is used, the most analyzed attitudes
were the concern, the perception of personal gain, and the perception of the effectiveness of the action.
Concern is a way of measuring cognitive attitude, which refers to the individual’s opinions or
beliefs on the severity and consequences of social, ethical, and environmental problems. In the field
of socially responsible consumption, it can be measured through the subjective assessment that the
individual gives to issues such as the severity of climate change, the need for urgent action to solve
the problem of plastic waste, or the importance of guaranteeing dignified salaries for workers in
underdeveloped countries. This variable has sometimes been measured as emotional engagement
or attitude. In these cases, the individual’s feelings of indignation, suffering, or frustration caused
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 5 of 15

by social, ethical, and environmental problems are assessed. Thus, the examples given above can be
measured as emotional commitment by asking the individual to assess expressions such as “I am scared
by the consequences of climate change in the coming years”, “I am outraged that governments do not
prohibit the use of plastic packaging”, or “I feel outraged when I hear news about labor exploitation in
the third world.”
Throughout the literature, near unanimity is found with regard to the positive influence of concern
on socially responsible behavior. As an example, it is worth mentioning the research of Antil [35],
Ellen [60], Roberts [37], Straughan and Roberts [38], Martínez and Fraj [61], De Pelsmacker et al. [62],
De Pelsmacker and Janssens [63], Akehurst et al. [42], and Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64].
The perception of personal gain can be defined as the individual’s subjective assessment of
the advantages and disadvantages of socially responsible behavior. It is possible to ask about this
perception in a positive sense, indicating the expected gains, but most research has defined this variable
through items worded in a negative sense, so that they reflect feelings of being harmed (such as paying
higher prices or the need to spend more time on the purchasing process). In the review of the literature,
it can be observed that those individuals who show a high perception of personal gain tend to behave
in a socially responsible way to a greater extent than those who show a low perception [35,60,62,63,65].
Perceived consumer effectiveness is the consumer’s belief in the ability of their individual actions
to solve a certain social or environmental problem. This variable is related to empowerment of
consumers and can be measured by evaluating expressions like “as consumers, we can do a lot to care
for the environment.” There is usually unanimity with regard to the fact that individuals who possess
a high level of perceived consumer effectiveness behave in a more socially responsible manner or have
a greater intention to do so [25,34,35,37–39,42,56,60,62,64–69].

3. Methodology
In order to achieve the objective of the research, a survey was carried out among Spaniards over
18 years of age (Table 1) using face-to-face and online questionnaires. A non-probability convenience
sampling method was used and 415 valid questionnaires were obtained. The face-to-face survey (83.13%
of the sample) was carried out through personal interviews at the respondents’ homes in various
provinces of the Spanish state. The online survey (16.87%) was distributed through the researchers
‘and various pollsters’ social networks in order to reach users from other regions of the country.

Table 1. Technical data for the study.

Tecnical Dates
Population: Consumers over the age of 18.
Sample size: 415 consumers.
Geographical scope: Spain
Sampling: Non-probabilistic, convenience.
Survey type: Face-to-face and online.

The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are similar to the Spanish population (Table 2).
The only exception is age, as a higher percentage of young people participated in the study compared
to the age distribution of the national population.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 6 of 15

Table 2. Description of the sample.

Gender Men Women

44% 56%
Age 18–35 years 36–45 years 46–55 years >55 years
47% 19.5% 24% 9.5%
Level of education Non-university University Post-university
48% 35% 17%
Income <1000 euros 1000–2000 euros >2000 euros
51% 34% 15%
Political orientation Left or center-left Center Right or center-right
46% 30% 34%

To measure socially responsible consumption, the scale created by François-Lecompte and

Valette-Florence [29] and François-Lecompte and Roberts [4] was used. This scale reflects the
multidimensional nature of the socially responsible consumption construct and has been validated
in other subsequent studies [25–28]. The fact of having been applied by other experts, some of them
in environments similar to ours, provides content validity to the scale. It uses 20 items to measure
five different dimensions of responsible consumption: purchasing of products linked to social causes,
purchasing from small companies and shops, purchasing based on local sourcing, consideration of the
company’s responsible behavior, and reducing the purchase volume.
A scale consisting of twelve items was used to measure concern. Seven of these items are obtained
from the scale used by Maloney et al. [70] to measure the individual’s emotional engagement towards
environmental issues. Another three were obtained from those used by Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64] to
measure attitude towards social problems, and the other two items were created expressly for this
research in order to include references to the social problems of disadvantaged groups and today’s
consumerist society.
A scale of four items was used to measure perception of personal gain based on the work of
Ellen [60], reflecting efforts made to consume in a socially responsible manner. In the case of perceived
consumer effectiveness, a scale formed by four items was also used, similar to those used by Roberts [37]
and Izaguirre-Olaizola et al. [64].

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of the Measurement Scales

The principal component factor analysis applied to the socially responsible consumption variable
allowed the 20 items to be reduced to five factors, explaining 69.18% of their variance (Table 3).
It was not necessary to eliminate any of the items initially proposed; the factors coincide with
the five theoretical dimensions of the scale and the results obtained in the studies of François-
Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29], François-Lecompte and Roberts [4], González et al. [26],
and Pérez-Barea et al. [28].
The KMO value is 0.846, a value which, according to the Kaiser scale [71], is deemed good.
The Bartlett test of sphericity (BTS) offers a value of 4.631, with a significance of 0.000. Assessment of
the reliability of this scale was carried out through Cronbach’s alpha, whose value is 0.885, which is
above the minimum level of 0.7 established by Nunnally [72].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 7 of 15

Table 3. Factor analysis of socially responsible consumption.

Items Company Behavior Origin Products Linked to Causes Small Businesses Volume of Consumption
I purchase some products that allocate a proportion of their price
0.2117 0.1655 0.7994 0.0622 0.0988
to a good social cause, such as cancer prevention.
I purchase some products that allocate a proportion of their price
0.2437 0.0800 0.8418 0.0420 0.0786
to third-world humanitarian causes.
I purchase some organic products. 0.0146 0.0838 0.7312 0.1726 −0.0201
I purchase some fair trade products. 0.0855 0.0243 0.6650 0.3207 −0.0251
I avoid making all my purchases at superstores. 0.1677 0.0675 0.0851 0.5722 0.2179
I purchase from small businesses (bakeries, butchers, etc.) as
0.2291 0.1615 0.1374 0.8289 0.0313
often as I possibly can.
I contribute to the survival of small businesses in my
0.1545 0.1323 0.1379 0.8362 0.0823
neighborhood through my purchases.
To the extent of my possibilities, I purchase directly from
0.0574 0.1447 0.3541 0.5392 0.0865
producers, farmers, and craftsmen.
When I have to choose between a Spanish product and a foreign
0.0780 0.8929 0.0571 0.1002 0.0776
product, I choose Spanish.
I prefer to purchase food produced in Spain. 0.1493 0.8941 0.0977 0.0581 0.1434
I try to purchase fruit and vegetables produced in my region. 0.1717 0.7910 0.1471 0.1120 0.1101
I try to purchase from Spanish establishments. 0.2186 0.7612 0.0858 0.2300 0.0068
I try not to purchase products from companies that employ child
0.7972 0.1466 0.0955 0.1779 0.0854
labor.
I try not to purchase products from companies that do not respect
0.8619 0.0893 0.1524 0.1856 0.0917
their employees.
I try not to purchase products from companies or establishments
0.8654 0.1264 0.0515 0.0826 0.0532
with a bad social reputation.
I try not to purchase products from companies that severely harm
0.7992 0.1781 0.1445 0.1418 0.1470
the environment.
I try not to purchase products from companies linked to
0.8122 0.1504 0.1861 0.1224 0.1530
unethical behavior.
I try to only purchase the products that I really need. 0.1691 0.1369 −0.0339 0.0400 0.7855
In general, I try to consume less. 0.0870 0.0985 0.0465 0.0962 0.8341
I try not to purchase things that I can make myself (for example,
0.0963 0.0334 0.0832 0.1725 0.7045
meals, domestic repairs, etc.).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 8 of 15

Table 4 reflects the results of the factor analysis applied to the concern scale. This variable was
reduced to two dimensions, explaining 58.69% of its variance, and it was not necessary to eliminate any
items from the initial scale. The KMO value is 0.908 and BTS value is 2.309, with a significance of 0.000.
The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.899, which is above the minimum level of 0.7 established by Nunnally [72].
The “injustice” dimension covers those items containing the feelings shown by consumers towards
environmental problems and social injustices. The “globalization” dimension reflects these feelings
towards the globalization policies of companies and the repercussions that they have on our society.

Table 4. Factor analysis of concern.

Items Injustice Globalization

I suffer every time a humanitarian disaster happens in the world even though it does not
0.8290 0.1080
directly affect me.
I feel outraged by the deterioration of the environment. 0.7533 0.2998
I worry about the potential effects of pollution on both my family and I. 0.6629 0.1945
When I think about social injustices, I feel frustrated because I cannot do anything. 0.7001 0.2416
I am very sensitive to the problems of disadvantaged groups. 0.7155 0.2634
I feel outraged when I think about how governments are doing nothing to fight against
0.6097 0.3928
social injustice.
I feel outraged when I think about the unethical behavior of companies. 0.6019 0.4913
I worry about the effects of globalization. 0.3560 0.6931
I am outraged at the policies of multinationals in developing countries. 0.4265 0.6477
I worry about the disappearance of small neighborhood shops. 0.1482 0.7438
I am outraged by the working conditions of employees in department stores. 0.1722 0.7916
I do not feel comfortable with today’s consumerist society. 0.2266 0.6770

With regard to the perception of personal gain variable, the factor analysis carried out reduces
this variable to one dimension (Table 5), explaining 58.40% of its variance, and it was not necessary
to eliminate any items. The KMO value (0.744) and BTS value (405, with a significance of 0.000) are
acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha is at a good level (0.761).

Table 5. Factor analysis of the perception of personal gain.

Items Perception of Personal Gain

Behaving in a socially responsible manner means giving up certain comforts. 0.7332
Behaving in a socially responsible manner means paying higher prices. 0.7246
Behaving in a socially responsible manner means dedicating more time to
0.7751
making purchases.
Generally, behaving in a socially responsible manner requires more effort. 0.8201

The factor analysis applied to the perceived consumer effectiveness variable led us to eliminate
one of the four items and a single factor was obtained as a result, explaining 69.96% of its variance
(Table 6). The KMO value is 0.68, the BTS value is 374 (with a significance of 0.000), and Cronbach’s
alpha is 0.78.

Table 6. Factor analysis of perceived consumer effectiveness.

Items Perceived Consumer Effectiveness

My individual actions can be important in promoting sustainable and
0.7790
fair development.
As individuals, our purchasing and consumption decisions influence
0.8722
companies to become more ethical and socially responsible.
I believe that, as citizens, we can influence world events if we organize
0.8552
ourselves.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 9 of 15

4.2. Segmentation
In order to identify the existing segments, a cluster analysis was carried out with the five dimensions
that summarize the “socially responsible consumption” variable. The mean factor scores from the five
dimensions extracted from factor analysis were used in segmentation analysis. A non-hierarchical
classification (k-means clustering) method was used. After evaluating the dendrograms, the final value
used was k = 4.
Table 7 contains the four identified segments. They are differentiated not only due to their
level of socially responsible consumption, but also due to the dimension of this to which they are
most committed.

Table 7. Segment of socially responsible consumers.

Responsible Consumer
Highly Responsible Moderately Responsible Indifferent Consumer
Sensitive to Origin
Consumer (41.06%) Consumer (15.46%) (20.77%)
(22.71%)
Average value of the socially
5.46 5.16 4.84 3.99
responsible consumption items (*)
Company behavior 0.4466 0.2828 0.3775 −1.4728
Origin 0.3330 0.5270 −1.4987 −0.1189
Products linked to a social cause 0.0334 0.0840 0.2623 −0.3531
Small businesses −0.2111 0.2816 0.4416 −0.2190
Volume of consumption 0.6155 −1.1249 −0.0429 0.0448

(*) Rating scale from 1 to 7.

The “highly responsible consumers” segment represents 41% of respondents and has the highest
level of socially responsible consumption. The people comprising it try to only purchase what they
really need, and they also try to purchase products from companies with a good social reputation.
For these people, compared to the other dimensions of socially responsible consumption, it is not as
important to purchase from small businesses.
The “responsible consumers and sensitive to origin” group (23% of the sample) also shows a high
level of socially responsible consumption. These are people who place great importance on purchasing
products that come from their own region and/or country. However, they place very little importance
on reducing their volume of consumption.
The “moderately responsible consumer” segment (15% of the sample) has an average level of
socially responsible consumption. These people try to purchase products that allocate a part of
their price to social or environmental causes, and they also seek to purchase from small businesses.
However, this segment does not place importance on the origin of the products.
The “indifferent consumers” group (21%) possesses the lowest level of socially responsible
consumption, both in overall terms and with regard to each of the five dimensions.
Having identified these segments, each is described below according to sociodemographic variables
and attitudes towards the social responsibility of consumers. Regarding the first, the Chi-square
test shows that there are only statistically significant differences between the segments in terms of
the education level variable (Table 8). The “moderately responsible consumer” segment covers the
consumers with the highest level of education (university and post-university studies), whilst there are
no significant differences between the other three segments.
Table 9 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) carried out to describe the segments depending
on concern, perception of personal gain, and perceived consumer effectiveness. Statistically significant
differences are obtained between the segments for the two concern dimensions and for perceived
consumer effectiveness, but not for perception of personal gain.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 10 of 15

Table 8. Description of the segments according to sociodemographic variables (%).

Responsible Moderately
Highly Responsible Indifferent
Consumer Sensitive Responsible
Consumer Consumer
to Origin Consumer
Male 55.29 51.06 60.94 59.30
Gender
Female 44.71 48.94 39.06 40.70
Under 35 38.82 55.32 53.13 50.00
Between 36 and 45 years of age 21.18 15.96 21.88 17.44
Age
Between 46 and 55 years of age 28.24 18.09 18.75 25.58
Over 56 11.76 10.64 6.25 6.98
Non-university 51.76 51.06 28.13 53.49
Level of education * University 33.53 35.11 50.00 27.91
Post-university 14.71 13.83 21.88 18.60
Less than 1000 EUR 47.02 58.24 44.44 57.83
Level of personal net
Between 1000–2000 EUR 38.10 25.27 42.86 28.92
income per month
Over 2000 EUR 14.88 16.48 12.70 13.25
Left 41.50 43.30 57.40 46.40
Political orientation Center 31.50 28.90 26.20 31.00
Right 27.00 27.80 16.40 22.60
* Values are significant at a 0.05 level.

Table 9. Description of the segments depending on attitudes and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Responsible
Highly Moderately
Consumer Indifferent
Responsible Responsible F P
Sensitive to Consumer
Consumer Consumer
Origin
Concern (Injustices) * 0.1325 −0.0038 0.0920 −0.3195 4.1913 0.0061
Concern (Globalization) * 0.2232 −0.0606 -0.1009 −0.2946 5.8299 0.0007
Perception of Personal Gain −0.0601 0.1137 −0.0235 0.0211 0.6310 0.5954
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness * 0.1591 0.0488 0.0251 −0.3751 5.7455 0.0007
* Values are significant at a 0.01 level; Bold: highest values.

The “highly responsible consumer” segment presents very high levels of indignation about
injustice and also shows high levels of concern about globalization. These consumers also believe that
individuals can influence companies to become more responsible through their purchasing decisions,
as shown in their high level of perceived consumer effectiveness.
In contrast, the “indifferent consumers” segment shows very low levels in the two concern
dimensions and in relation to perceived consumer effectiveness. The other two segments, “responsible
consumer sensitive to origin” and “moderately responsible consumer”, have average values for these
three dimensions where the differences between segments are statistically significant.

5. Discussions
The results of this study firstly reveal that socially responsible behavior is a multidimensional
variable, as initially proposed in the works of François-Lecompte in 2006, and later confirmed by
González et al. [26] and Pérez-Barea et al. [28]. This fact implies that consumers may show their
social commitment in different ways, not placing the same importance on all the types of action that
allow them to show this in purchasing decisions. In other words, consumer behavior will not be
homogeneous and, therefore, there will be different consumer segments not only in relation to their
level of commitment and action for social and environmental issues, but also with regard to which
aspects or dimensions of social responsibility they most take into account in their purchasing decisions.
It could be argued that socially responsible consumption has various nuances and definitions according
to the specific consumer.
In the study carried out, four consumer segments with different behaviors towards socially
responsible consumption were identified. These are segments that, with certain nuances, are similar to
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 11 of 15

those obtained in the studies of François-Lecompte and Valette-Florence [29] and in González et al. [26]
among French consumers.
Of all the sociodemographic variables analyzed, only education level was found to be significant,
it being identified that individuals who possess a higher level of education will show socially responsible
behavior to a greater extent, as observed in previous studies [37,38,56]. In contrast, the results of this
study reveal that gender does not influence socially responsible behavior (in keeping with the results
obtained by [42,51–53]), nor does age (as in the studies by [42,46,58]) or level of income (as suggested
by [24,42,49,56]).
The study also involved testing the effect of some attitudinal variables, allowing us to conclude
that we can work on these to increase responsible consumption. Significant differences were observed
for the concern and perceived consumer effectiveness variables.
The consumer segments with greater socially responsible behavior also have a high level of
concern, as observed in previous studies [35,37,38,42,60,62–64]. Likewise, these segments are also
formed by individuals who possess a high level of perceived consumer effectiveness, as seen in the
results obtained in previous studies [25,34,35,37–39,42,56,60,62,64,66]. However, the level of perception
of personal gain was not found to be relevant, which is a result that contradicts that obtained in previous
studies, such as Antil [35], Ellen [60], De Pelsmacker et al. [62] and De Pelsmacker and Janssens [63].

6. Conclusions and Managerial Implications

It can be argued that three of the four Spanish consumer segments identified in the study translate,
in one way or another, their social and environmental concerns into their consumption decisions.
Given the size of each of these three segments, it can be confirmed that the potential market of socially
responsible consumers may amount to 79% of the sample. That is, only two out of every ten consumers
do not usually take any social responsibility criteria into account when making their decisions. We can
therefore say that there is a suitable social context for promoting socially responsible consumption.
However, in order to start involving individuals who would be part of the indifferent consumer
segment and increasing the level of engagement of individuals who would be part of the medium- and
moderate-level segments, effective information and awareness campaigns are required. Knowledge of
the profile of the most socially responsible consumers (about their sociodemographic and attitudinal
characteristics) provides information that may be very useful to companies (business marketing),
public administrations, and NGOs (social marketing) when designing their campaigns to promote
responsible consumption. This information can especially influence the type of message, the type of
language, and the arguments that are included in the promotional campaign, depending on the target
audience or segment we want to target.
The results obtained reflect that the identified segments of socially responsible consumers are
not differentiated by their sociodemographic characteristics, but by their attitudinal characteristics.
This finding confirms the traditional belief that demographic variables are not good explanatory
variables of ethical and environmental behavior [34,42]. In contrast, the attitudes and beliefs of
individuals do have an effect on their real behavior. According to our study, it can be argued that the
level of emotional engagement and the perception of personal gain act as inhibiting factors or barriers to
socially responsible consumption. The segments showing greater socially responsible behavior have a
higher emotional engagement with the topic and a higher perception of their personal capacity to solve
social problems (perceived consumer effectiveness). This suggests to us that awareness campaigns
should appeal to these two variables in their message.
First, the message in communication campaigns should be designed to generate feelings of
indignation and suffering about the severity of social injustices and environmental problems. This would
increase their level of emotional engagement. By using this focus, the message would be applying a
“sick baby” communication strategy [73].
Second, the message in campaigns to promote socially responsible consumption should also be
designed to highlight the important role of individual consumption choices in solving social and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 12 of 15

environmental problems. The message should empower the consumer in a way that increases their
perception of personal effectiveness. That is, the message must revolve around the idea that the
consumer is part of the problem, but also part of the solution. Now it is necessary that the message is not
focused on increasing concern, but on increasing the intention of a change in consumer behavior [74].
It is necessary to move from a concerned consumer to a pro-active consumer.
The results of the study can be considered an indicative description of socially responsible
consumption in Spain and can serve as a basis for future research. As a limitation of the research, it has
already been indicated that the sample has a biased profile towards young people. The results must
be assessed taking into account the sample size and the use of a non-probability sampling method,
making it difficult for it to be generalized to the entire Spanish population or extrapolated to other
countries. In addition, as occurs in all studies on this topic, there is a “socially correct response bias”,
which means that some responses giving a positive valuation of socially responsible consumption
are overvalued. As previously mentioned, new studies on socially responsible consumption are
necessary in order to complement the results of this research. As socially responsible behavior is not
universal, it may be interesting to replicate this study in other cultural contexts and countries. In other
geographical contexts, it should be checked whether the same five dimensions of the socially responsible
consumption scale are obtained and if the characteristics and size of the consumer segments are similar
to those obtained in this study. It may also be interesting to include in the study new variables to
classify the consumer, such as the place of residence (urban or rural), the level of materialism, or the
consumer’s religious beliefs. Finally, as socially responsible behavior is dynamic, it may be interesting
to replicate this study in other periods of time, because many responsible behaviors, especially those
that involve financial sacrifice, can be affected by economic crises or booms. On the other hand, in the
future, other actions and formats of responsible consumption different from those included in the
François-Lecompte and Roberts scale may acquire more importance, so new approaches to the items
and dimensions of socially responsible consumption may be necessary. Perhaps elements related to the
circular economy and the sharing economy, such as repairing products, buying second-hand products,
or sharing goods and services with other consumers, can be included in a scale for measuring socially
responsible consumption.

Author Contributions: All authors actively contributed to the various phases of the research, such as the design
of the study, the data collection, the analysis of the results, the extraction of conclusions, and the writing of the
paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by Junta de Extremadura and FEDER under
the grant GR18027.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. United Nations Environment Programme. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development
and Poverty Eradication. 2011. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=
view&type=400&nr=126&menu=35 (accessed on 29 July 2020).
2. European Commission. A Resource-Efficient Europe—Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy.
2011. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/a-resource-efficient-europe-flagship
(accessed on 29 July 2020).
3. European Commission. ClosIng the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. 2015.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.
0012.03/DOC_1&format=HTML&lang=EN&parentUrn=COM:2015:614:FIN (accessed on 29 July 2020).
4. François-Lecompte, A.; Roberts, J.A. Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in France.
Mark. Manag. J. 2006, 16, 50–66.
5. Lee, J.-M.; Kim, H.-J.; Rha, J.-Y. Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible
Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1968. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 13 of 15

6. Schlaile, M.P.; Klein, K.; Böck, W. From bounded morality to consumer social responsibility:
A transdisciplinary approach to socially responsible consumption and its obstacles. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 149,
561–588.
7. Chamorro, A.; Rubio, S.; Miranda, F.J. Characteristics of research on green marketing. Bus. Strategy Environ.
2009, 18, 223–239. [CrossRef]
8. McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A. Sustainability marketing research: Past, present and future. J. Mark. Manag.
2014, 30, 1186–1219.
9. Hine, D.W.; Reser, J.P.; Morrison, M.; Phillips, W.J.; Nunn, P.; Cooksey, R. Audience segmentation and climate
change communication: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang.
2014, 5, 441–459. [CrossRef]
10. Sütterlin, B.; Brunner, T.A.; Siegrist, M. Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation
of energy consumers based on energyrelated characteristics. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 8137–8152. [CrossRef]
11. Barr, S.; Guilbert, S.; Metcalfe, A.; Riley, M.; Robinson, G.M.; Tudor, T.L. Beyond recycling: An integrated
approach for understanding municipal waste management. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 39, 67–77.
12. Barr, S.; Prillwitz, J. Green travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Appl. Geogr.
2012, 32, 798–809. [CrossRef]
13. Saleem, M.A.; Eagle, L.; Low, D. Market segmentation based on eco-socially conscious consumers’ behavioral
intentions: Evidence from an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 14–27. [CrossRef]
14. Delley, M.; Brunner, T.A. Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and
suggestions for preventive measure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 172–184. [CrossRef]
15. De Graaf, S.; Vanhonacker, F.; Van Loo, E.J.; Bijttebier, J.; Lauwers, L.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Verbeke, W. Market
Opportunities for Animal-Friendly Milk in Different Consumer Segments. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1302.
[CrossRef]
16. Boccia, F.; Sarno, V. Socially responsible food behaviour: Perspectives from empirical evaluations. Food Res. Int.
2019, 121, 91–96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kamenidou, I.C.; Mamalis, S.A.; Pavlidis, S.; Bara, E.-Z.G. Segmenting the Generation Z Cohort University
Students Based on Sustainable Food Consumption. Behaviour: A Preliminary Study”. Sustainability 2019,
11, 837. [CrossRef]
18. Park, J.; Bonn, M.A.; Cho, M. Sustainable and Religion Food Consumer Segmentation: Focusing on Korean
Temple Food Restaurants”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3035. [CrossRef]
19. Funk, A.; Sütterlinb, B.; Siegrist, M. Consumer Segmentation based on stated Environmentally-friendly
Behaviour in the Food Domain. Sustain. Prod. Consum 2020, 25, 173–186. [CrossRef]
20. Poortinga, W.; Darnton, A. Segmenting for sustainability: The development of a sustainability segmentation
model from a Welsh sample. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 221–232. [CrossRef]
21. González, E.M.; Felix, R.; Carrete, L.; Centeno, E.; Castaño, R. Green shades: A segmentation approach
based on ecological consumer behaviour in an emerging economy. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2015, 23, 287–302.
[CrossRef]
22. Mohr, L.A.; Webb, D.J. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses.
J. Consum. Aff. 2005, 39, 121–147. [CrossRef]
23. Yan, J.; She, Q. Developing a trichotomy model to measure socially responsible behaviour in China. Int. J.
Market. Res. 2011, 53, 253–274. [CrossRef]
24. Durif, F.; Boivin, C.; Rajaobelina, L.; François-Lecompte, A. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and
Implications for Marketing Strategy. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap. 2011, 7, 215–224.
25. D´Astous, A.; Legendre, A. Understanding Consumers’ Ethical Justifications: A Scale for Appraising
Consumers’ Reasons for Not Behaving Ethically. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 255–268. [CrossRef]
26. González, C.; Korchia, M.; Menuet, L.; Urbain, C. How do Socially Responsible Consumers Consider
Consumption? An Approach with the Free Associations Method. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2009, 24, 25–41.
[CrossRef]
27. Anuar, M.M.; Omar, K.; Ismail, R.; Omar, M.W. The Influence of Materialism on Socially Responsible
Consumption. J. Glob. Bus. Econ. 2014, 8, 75–80.
28. Pérez-Barea, J.J.; Montero-Simó, M.J.; Araque-Padilla, R. Measurement of socially responsible consumption:
Lecompte’s scale Spanish version validation. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2015, 12, 37–61. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 14 of 15

29. François-Lecompte, A.; Valette-Florence, P. Mieux connaître le consommateur socialement responsable.

Decis. Mark. 2006, 41, 67–79.
30. Berkowitz, L.; Daniels, L.R. Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: Effects of past help on
the response to dependency relationships. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1964, 68, 275–281. [CrossRef]
31. Berkowitz, L.; Lutterman, K.G. The traditional socially responsible personality. Public Opin. Q. 1968,
32, 169–185. [CrossRef]
32. Anderson, W.T.; Cunningham, W.H. The Socially Conscious Consumer. J. Mark. 1972, 36, 23–31. [CrossRef]
33. Anderson, W.; Henion, K.; Cox, E. Socially vs. ecologically concerned consumers. Am. Mark. Assoc. 1974,
36, 304–311.
34. Webster, F.E. Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. J. Consum. Res. 1975,
2, 188–196. [CrossRef]
35. Antil, J.H. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profiles and Implications for Public Policy. J. Macromark. 1984,
4, 18–39.
36. Roberts, J.A. Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Bus. Horiz. 1996, 39, 79–84.
[CrossRef]
37. Roberts, J.A. Green consumers in the 1990s: Profiles and Implications for Advertising. J. Bus. Res. 1996,
36, 217–231. [CrossRef]
38. Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behaviour
in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575. [CrossRef]
39. Webb, D.J.; Mohr, L.A.; Harris, K.E. A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its
measurement. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 91–98.
40. Lee, K. Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2008, 26, 573–586.
[CrossRef]
41. Lee, K.; Shin, D. Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and
purchase intention. Public Relat. Rev. 2010, 36, 193–195. [CrossRef]
42. Akehurst, G.; Alfonso, C.; Martins Gonçalves, H. Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green
consumer profile: New evidences. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 972–988. [CrossRef]
43. Sudbury-Riley, L.; Kohlbacher, F. Ethically minded consumer behaviour: Scale review, development, and
validation. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2697–2710. [CrossRef]
44. Desjeux, D. La Consummation; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 2006.
45. Roberts, J.A. Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behaviour. Psychol. Rep. 1993, 73, 139–148.
[CrossRef]
46. Ross, W.T.; Robertson, D.C. A typology of situational factors: Impact on salesperson decision-making about
ethical issues. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 46, 213–234. [CrossRef]
47. Sankaran, S.; Bui, T. Ethical attitudes among accounting majors: An empirical study. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 2003,
3, 71–77.
48. Singh, N. Exploring socially responsible behaviour of Indian consumers: An empirical investigation. Soc.
Responsib. J. 2009, 5, 200–211. [CrossRef]
49. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. Diffusion of innovation: The case of ethical tourism behaviour.
J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2711–2720. [CrossRef]
50. Lee, J.; Cho, M. New insights into socially responsible consumers: The role of personal values. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 123–133. [CrossRef]
51. Lund, D.B. An empirical examination of marketing professionals’ ethical behaviour in differing situations.
J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 24, 331–342. [CrossRef]
52. Radtke, R.R. The effects of gender and setting on accountants’ ethically sensitive decisions. J. Bus. Ethics
2000, 24, 299–312. [CrossRef]
53. Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?
J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 560–578.
54. Muncy, J.A.; Vitell, S.J. Consumers Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the final Consumers.
J. Bus. Res. 1992, 24, 297–311. [CrossRef]
55. Kim, S.Y.; Chun, S.Y. A study of marketing ethics in Korea: What do Koreans care about? Int. J. Manag. 2003,
20, 377–383.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8418 15 of 15

56. Zhao, H.; Gao, Q.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X. What affects green consumer behaviour in China? A case study
from Qingdao. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 143–151.
57. Hunt, T.G.; Jennings, D.F. Ethics and Performance: A Simulation Analysis of Team Decision Making.
J. Bus. Ethics 1997, 16, 195–203. [CrossRef]
58. Glover, S.H.; Bumpus, M.A.; Logan, J.E.; Ciesla, J.R. Re-examining the influence of individual values on
ethical decision making. J. Bus. Ethics 1997, 16, 1319–1329. [CrossRef]
59. Ritter, A.M.; Borchardt, M.; Vaccaro, G.L.R.; Pereira, G.M.; Almedia, F. Motivations for promoting the
consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers.
J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 507–520. [CrossRef]
60. Ellen, P.S. Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological
behaviours. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 30, 43–52. [CrossRef]
61. Martínez, E.; Fraj, E. El comportamiento ecológico de los individuos explicado a través de sus características
psicográficas: Un estudio empírico. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2004, 13, 149–168.
62. De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W.; Mielants, C. Consumer values and fair-trade beliefs, attitudes and buying
behaviour. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2005, 2, 50–69.
63. De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W. A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and
quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 75, 361–380. [CrossRef]
64. Izaguirre-Olaizola, J.; Fernández-Saínz, A.; Vicente-Molina, M.A. Antecedentes y barreras a la compra de
productos ecológicos. Univers. Bus. Rev. 2013, 38, 108–127.
65. Lee, M.Y.; Jackson, V.; Miller-Spillman, K.A.; Ferrell, E. Female consumer´s intention to be involved in
fair-trade product consumption in the U.S.: The role of previous experience, product features, and perceived
benefits. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 23, 91–98.
66. Kinnear, T.C.; Taylor, J.R.; Ahmed, S.A. Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? J. Mark. 1974,
38, 20–24. [CrossRef]
67. Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key
constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [CrossRef]
68. Kabadayi, E.T.; Dursun, I.; Alan, A.K.; Tuğer, A.T. Green purchase intention of young Turkish consumers:
Effects of consumer´s guilt, self-monitoring and perceived consumer effectiveness. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.
2015, 207, 165–174.
69. Taljaard, H.; Sonnenberg, N.C.; Jacobs, B.M. Factors motivating male consumers’ eco-friendly apparel
acquisition in the South African emerging market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 461–468. [CrossRef]
70. Maloney, M.P.; Ward, M.P.; Braucht, G.N. A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and
knowledge. Am. Psychol. 1975, 30, 787–790. [CrossRef]
71. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [CrossRef]
72. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
73. Obermiller, C. The baby is sick/the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals. J. Advert.
1995, 24, 55–70. [CrossRef]
74. Bañegil, T.M.; Chamorro, A. El comportamiento de compra de productos ecológicos: Una propuesta modelo.
Estud. Sobre Consumo 2002, 62, 49–62.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).