Jurnal Internasional

Business Strategy and the Environment
Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 192–210 (2011)

Published online 15 July 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.690
Consumer Eco-Innovation Adoption:

Assessing Attitudinal Factors and Perceived
Product Characteristics
Johan Jansson*
Umeå School of Business, Umeå University, Sweden
ABSTRACT
For business and environmental reasons, increased understanding of green consumer
behavior is essential. This paper addresses consumer adoption and non-adoption of a high
involvement eco-innovation (the alternative fuel vehicle, AFV). The purpose is to integrate
two research streams to explore factors driving and hindering adoption. The factors are
rooted in environmental psychology research and the diffusion of innovation literature.
Survey results on Swedish car owners are reported. The results indicate that adopters and
non-adopters differ on norms, attitudes, novelty seeking and on how innovation attributes
are perceived. Furthermore, the results show that the groups rank car attributes such as
fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions differently. The main contribution of the
paper is the integration of norms and attitudes together with consumer adoption factors
in analyzing green consumer behavior in relation to a high involvement product. The impli-
cations for business and marketing strategy and for environmental policy are discussed.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 19 July 2009; revised 26 May 2010; accepted 3 June 2010

Keywords: alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs); personal norms; social norms; innovativeness; automobiles; innovation characteristics
Introduction
I
N THE MARKETING LITERATURE IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT RESEARCH ON GREEN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR HAS FOCUSED
mostly on non-consumption and post-purchase behaviors due to the lack of environmentally responsible
products available in the past (Follows and Jobber, 2000). However, products marketed as environmentally
friendly are currently becoming widely accessible, offering consumers new ways to express green values and
attitudes. These so-called environmentally friendly products are often innovations that have allegedly less harmful
impacts on the environment than conventional products. They are therefore frequently referred to as eco-innova-
tions (Albino et al., 2009; Pujari, 2006). The importance of eco-innovations for sustainable development has
recently been emphasized by the European Commission in a 2009 call for proposals (European Commission,
2009). According to Beise and Rennings (2005, p. 6), environmental or eco-innovations ‘consist of new or
modified processes, techniques, practices, systems and products to avoid or reduce environmental harms’. In this
paper, eco-innovations as products are in focus. In order to have a positive effect on the environment, these
* Correspondence to: Johan Jansson, Umeå School of Business, Department of Marketing, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
E-mail: johan.jansson@usbe.umu.se
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Consumer Adoption of Alternative Fuel Vehicles 193
eco-innovations need not only be developed and marketed environmentally responsibly, but also adopted by con-
sumers so that conventional, less environmentally friendly products are replaced. In order to facilitate consumer
adoption of eco-innovations, business strategists and policy makers will gain from an increased understanding of
the determinants driving and hindering the consumer adoption decision making process.
The aim of this paper is thus to investigate a set of factors of consumer eco-innovation adoption to distinguish
drivers and barriers of this behavior. The factors are developed based on a literature review on environmental
psychology and marketing literature (specifically the diffusion of innovation, DOI, framework). Within environ-
mental psychology a theory of values, beliefs and norms (VBN theory; Stern, 2000) has been used successfully to
predict green consumer behavior. Since this theory has predominantly been used in the context of non-consumption,
post-purchase, and low involvement consumer behaviors (Kaiser et al., 2005; Steg et al., 2005), the present study
contributes by investigating factors from this theory in a high involvement purchase situation. Similarly, within
the DOI framework (Rogers, 2003), there has been a lack of attention to values and attitudes facilitating consumer
adoption (Daghfous et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2008), and primarily a single trait approach explaining adoption has
been utilized (Hirunyawipada and Paswan, 2006). Thus, by purposefully integrating VBN theory and the DOI
framework, a set of factors of green consumer early adoption behavior are developed and tested on adopters and
non-adopters of a recently introduced eco-innovation. Specifically, the studied empirical case concerns the diffusion
of the alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) in Sweden. AFVs are passenger cars that can be fuelled to some extent by
alternative fuels such as bioethanol, bio/natural gas, and/or electricity.
In order to fulfill the integrative purpose of the paper a literature review of environmental psychology research
is conducted and specific hypotheses developed. Since there is a lack of environmental psychology research in
relation to innovation adoption, the DOI framework is thereafter reviewed and hypotheses developed. Subsequently
the research context, construct development, and measures are presented. Thereafter follow results and a discus-
sion of possible explanations for the findings. The paper ends by outlining the implications for business and
marketing strategy, for environmental policy, and for further research.
Green Consumer Behavior and Innovation Adoption
For environmental and business reasons, an increased understanding of green consumer behavior is fundamen-
tal. From an environmental standpoint, the reduction of negative effects of consumption is essential to fulfill some
of the goals put forth by the international community (OECD, 2002; UNEP, 2007). From business and marketing
perspectives, the development of less ecologically harmful products is of little use without consumers adopting
these greener technologies and lifestyles. Researchers have also argued that the ‘right’ purchasing decision has
the potential to reduce, and even eliminate, environmental harm in the later stages of the consumption cycle
(Thøgersen, 1999). However, the consumer behavior of reducing negative environmental impact (for example,
energy conservation and recycling) has received considerably more attention than the consumer behavior of pur-
chasing products that are marketed as being environmentally responsible. Follows and Jobber (2000) suggest that
this predominant focus on non-consumption and post-purchase behaviors has resulted due to the lack of green
products available in the market previously. In particular, a gap in the understanding of green consumer behavior
in relation to high involvement products marketed as green has been identified (Follows and Jobber, 2000; Minton
and Rose, 1997; Thøgersen, 1999). This means that there is a limited understanding of the consumer factors
driving and hindering the diffusion of green products that have potential to contribute to a more environmentally
sound future. However, a rich understanding has developed on green consumer behavior from other perspectives,
such as environmental psychology, that have potential to be useful in also understanding high involvement pur-
chases. One such area is the influence of norms and attitudes on green consumer behavior.
The Influence of Norms and Attitudes

Several researchers have emphasized that green consumer behavior is multiply determined, depending on type of
behavior and involvement with the product and behavior (Cleveland et al., 2005; Roberts and Bacon, 1997). Accord-
ing to Stern (2000), there are four general categories of determinants of environmentally significant consumer
behaviors: attitudinal factors, personal capabilities (such as financial situation), habits or routines, and contextual
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 192–210 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
194 J. Jansson
forces. Research within environmental psychology has focused primarily on attitudinal factors due to their useful-
ness in explaining green consumer behavior across contexts and segments of the population. Thus, attitudinal
factors have been found to explain consumer behaviors to a much higher degree than, for example, socio-
demographic variables such as age and income (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). The attitudinal factors within envi-
ronmental psychology research are frequently conceptualized in the value–belief–norm theory (VBN; Stern, 2000).
The VBN theory highlights that the relationship between fundamental values and actual behavior is mediated by
personal moral norms. Thus, when individuals become aware of an environmental problem and form beliefs of
consequences of action (or inaction), a personal moral obligation is formed. In this way values, beliefs and norms
together have been found to influence the acceptability of energy policies (Steg et al., 2005), household energy use
(Poortinga et al., 2004), conservation behavior (Kaiser et al., 2005) and a variety of other low to medium involve-
ment behaviors (Nordlund and Garvill, 2003; Thøgersen, 2002). Personal norms are formed based on the funda-
mental personal value system and can be likened to decision heuristics, i.e. shortcuts, in making decisions (Biel
and Thøgersen, 2007). It has been found that personal norms have a positive effect on the use of environmentally
friendly travel modes (Hunecke et al., 2001; Nordlund and Garvill, 2003), purchases of low involvement green
products (Minton and Rose, 1997) and willingness to pay higher prices for proenvironmental food (Widegren,
1998). Based on this research and the fact that environmentalists have been found to purchase hybrid vehicles to
a higher degree than non-environmentalists (Kahn, 2007), the following hypothesis is developed concerning per-
sonal norms.
H01: Adopters of AFVs exhibit a higher level of environmentally related personal norms than non-adopters.
Since it is assumed that personal norms are rooted in values, but also to some extent are influenced by perceived
social norms, the importance of the individual’s social network comes into focus. Given that people are social
beings, they have been found to want to comply with the perceived social norms and present a positive image of
themselves to others (Ajzen, 1991; Schwartz, 1977). Social norms imply that people should adhere (or not) to a
prescribed behavior. Furthermore, social norms often guide behavior in specific contexts (Biel and Thøgersen,
2007; Thøgersen, 2006). Thus, whereas personal norms are functional for an individual in making decisions,
social norms are functional on a group level. In this way, personal and social norms interact in forming the behav-
ior of an individual. As such, social norms have been found to have a direct influence on conservation behavior
(Goldstein et al., 2008), car use (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003) and travel mode choice (Hunecke et al., 2001). This
research background leads to the following hypothesis.
H02: Adopters of AFVs are more influenced by environmentally related social norms than non-adopters.
Closely related to personal and social norms are attitudes (Thøgersen, 2002). Attitudes are distinct from norms
in that they consist of a positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object. For example, Eagly and Chaiken (1993)
define a consumption attitude as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular consumption-
related entity with some degree of favor or disfavor. According to Brunsø et al. (2004), because consumption
attitudes are specific to the consumption domain, they are more predictive of consumption behavior than other
more general factors. In this conceptualization, consumption attitudes are consumer context-specific dispositions
that link personal values to actual consumption behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). Attitudes have been found
to be predictive of many types of environmentally sensitive behavior such as intent to purchase single serve pack-
ages (Alwitt and Berger, 1993), socially responsible investment (Nilsson, 2008), ecological buying and use of
products (Balderjahn, 1988), and potential adoption and price mark-up tolerance for green electricity (Gerpott and
Mahmudova, 2009; Rowlands et al., 2003).
H03: Adopters of AFVs show more positive attitudes to cars that are classified as environmentally friendly
than non-adopters do.
In addition to green personal norms, social norms, and attitudes, other psychological characteristics influence
specific types of behavior in different contexts. When an innovation is introduced on the market, consumers have
DOI: 10.1002/bse
been found to go through the innovation adoption decision-making process, which is different from the conven-
tional decision-making process and thus has other types of determinant (Rogers, 2003).
Consumer Innovation Adoption

The diffusion of innovations and consumer adoption of new products, practices, and ideas have received consider-
able attention in the consumer and marketing literature. The attention is justified considering the key role con-
sumer adoption plays in triggering an innovation’s diffusion (Im et al., 2003). Understanding consumer’s new
product adoption behavior helps organizations and companies identify target markets, position products, and
design communication strategies (Wang et al., 2008). Rogers (2003) claims that it is important to study consumer
adoption behavior during the process where the innovation diffuses on the market, and not just after the innova-
tion has been widely adopted (which is most commonly done). Innovation adoption behavior has been defined as
the degree to which an individual adopts a new product or innovation earlier than other members in a given social
system (Rogers, 2003). According to the DOI framework there are five stages in the innovation-decision process:
initial knowledge of the innovation, persuasion (attitude formation), decision, implementation (use of the innova-
tion), confirmation of the innovation decision by continued use of it. The first two stages are essential in under-
standing adoption behavior since they entail attitude formation about the innovation. This attitude formation has
been found to be highly dependent on the personal traits (such as innovativeness) of the potential adopter and on
how the characteristics of the innovation are perceived.
Innovativeness
Within the DOI framework, one of the constructs that has received most attention is innovativeness (Rogers, 2003).
As such, it has been argued to be central in order to understand consumer early adoption behavior (Gatignon and
Robertson, 1991). Innovativeness has been operationalized in several ways using different conceptualizations (see,
e.g., Roehrich, 2004), and according to Tellis et al. (2009) there is still currently no consensus in the measurement
of the construct. However, innovativeness operationalized as consumer novelty seeking, ‘the desire to seek out the
new and different’ (Hirschman, 1980, p. 285), has been found to influence early adoption positively in several
settings (Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Manning et al., 1995). Consumers high in novelty seeking tend to look
positively on technology, have stronger intrinsic motivation to use such products, and enjoy the stimulation of
trying new ways to approach old problems (Hirschman, 1980; Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Innovativeness has
also been related to a consumer’s reliance on others for information and assistance. This reliance on others, or
lack thereof when making decisions, has been referred to as consumer independent judgment making: ‘the degree
to which an individual makes innovation decisions independently of the communicated experience of others’
(Manning et al., 1995, p. 329). Whereas consumer novelty seeking has been found to influence earlier stages of
the innovation decision process (such as awareness), independent judgment making has been found to influence
the latter stages in the adoption process, such as innovation trial (Manning et al., 1995). Two hypotheses concern-
ing innovativeness are developed.
H04a: Adopters of AFVs exhibit higher levels of novelty seeking than non-adopters.
H04b: Adopters of AFVs exhibit higher levels of independent judgment making than non-adopters.
Perceived Innovation Characteristics

Closely related to the innovativeness concept is the way in which consumers perceive the innovation and its char-
acteristics. The assumption concerning perceived innovation characteristics states that potential adopters form
their attitudes to the innovation based on their perceptions of five key characteristics. According to Rogers (2003,
p. 223), these attributes are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Several
empirical studies have confirmed that consumer perceptions of innovation characteristics in general are better
predictors of adoption than adopters’ socio-demographic profiles such as income, education, and age (Agarwal and
Prasad, 1997; Labay and Kinnear, 1981; Ostlund, 1974).
DOI: 10.1002/bse
196 J. Jansson
Relative advantage has been defined as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it
supersedes (Rogers, 2003). The greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate
of adoption will be. As such, the relative advantage attribute has been found to positively influence adoption (or
intention to adopt) of many innovations such as information technology (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997) and consumer
electronics (Venkatraman, 1991). In an eco-innovation context, perceived relative advantage had a positive influence
on adoption of solar energy systems (Guagnano et al., 1986; Labay and Kinnear, 1981) and energy managers’ adop-
tion of an electronic indicator providing feedback on in-home energy use (Völlink et al., 2002). Thus the following
hypothesis is developed concerning AFV adopters.
H05: Adopters perceive a higher level of relative advantage of AFVs than non-adopters.
Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past
experiences, and needs of adopters (Rogers, 2003). An innovation or idea that is incompatible with the values and
norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible. However, if the new
idea is completely compatible with the existing practice there would be no innovation perceived by potential adopt-
ers. Rogers (2003) therefore claims that the more compatible an innovation is the less of a change in behavior it
represents and the faster it will be adopted. Compatibility has been found to be positively related to internet banking
adoption (Ndubisi and Sinti, 2006) and self-service technology (Meuter et al., 2005). In an eco-innovation context,
adopters of solar energy systems perceived these to have greater compatibility than did non-adopters and knowl-
edgeable non-adopters (Labay and Kinnear, 1981).
H06: Adopters perceive AFVs to be more compatible than non-adopters.
Complexity has been defined as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use
(Rogers, 2003). Some innovations are readily understood by most consumers, while others are more complicated
and thus will be adopted at a slower pace. According to Rogers (2003), complexity may not be as important as
relative advantage or compatibility for many innovations, but for some innovations complexity is a very important
barrier to adoption. Thus complexity has been found to have negative influence on adoption across innovations
such as personal computers (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983), eco-innovations such as solar energy systems (Labay
and Kinnear, 1981), and automatic off switches for washing machines in order to shift electricity use to off-peak
periods (Völlink et al., 2002).
H07: Adopters perceive AFVs to be less complex than non-adopters.
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with or tried on a limited basis. New ideas
that can be tried beforehand will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not easily tried out.
If an innovation can be designed to be tried more easily, it will have a faster rate of adoption, and it has been found
that earlier adopters perceive trialability as more important than later ones (Rogers, 2003). Trialability has been
found to influence adoption (or intention to adopt) in high involvement situations such as buying cars online
(Molesworth and Suortfi, 2002). Research has also shown that the more people have already adopted an innova-
tion, the less important trialability becomes, since the experience of other people can be employed in deciding to
adopt (Janssen and Jager, 2002). Concerning eco-innovations some studies have found no influence of trialability
on adoption of innovations such as solar power and energy conservation intervention technologies (Labay and
Kinnear, 1981; Völlink et al., 2002). Considering these ambiguous findings in previous research and the fact that
the AFV is a high involvement eco-innovation, it is difficult to develop a clear hypothesis. However, since the usage
of AFVs to some extent requires the driver to adjust behavioral patterns (for example, finding another filling station
than the ordinary one), it can be hypothesized that potential adopters perceive it to be more important to try the
car before actual adoption.
H08: For AFV adopters, it is more important to try the AFV before purchase than for non-adopters.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
The fifth innovation characteristic that Rogers (2003) discusses is observability, which is also often referred to as
visibility. It has been defined as the degree to which the innovation, or the results of adopting the innovation, is
visible to others. Some ideas and innovations are easily observed and communicated, where others are difficult to
observe and describe to others (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997). According to Rogers (2003), the easier it is for indi-
viduals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt it. In this way, visibility stimulates
peer discussion of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). In the context of information technologies, Agarwal and Prasad
(1997) found that observability had a significant impact on usage of the innovation. In addition, Labay and Kinnear
(1981) and Guagnano et al. (1986) found observability to have a positive impact on adoption in the eco-innovation
context.
H09: Adopters perceive AFVs to be more visible than non-adopters.
Given the fact that innovations involve an element of uncertainty or risk for the adopter, researchers have added
perceived risk to Rogers’ innovation characteristics (Midgley and Dowling, 1978; Ostlund, 1974). Different types
of risk (for example, economic and social) can have varying influence on rate of adoption (Labay and Kinnear,
1981; Ostlund, 1974). However, most commonly it has been found that the higher the perceived risk, the less
willing individuals are to adopt the innovation (Meuter et al., 2005; Midgley and Dowling, 1978).
H10: Adopters of AFVs perceive a lower risk of adopting an AFV than non-adopters.
In addition to the general characteristics discussed above, product specific attributes are also likely to influ-
ence adoption. In relation to cars, Hendrickx and Uiterkamp (2006) report results from two Dutch studies
that found that reliability, safety, costs, performance, and comfort all ranked high on importance for business
and private drivers. Environmental friendliness received the lowest importance score for business drivers and
the third lowest score for private drivers (out of nine main factors). Apart from this study, there seems to be a
lack of scientifically published studies relating car specific attributes to consumer car choice. Therefore, it is
not possible to develop a directional hypothesis concerning whether adopters and non-adopters perceive
specific car attributes differently. Therefore the investigation of these attributes is conducted in an exploratory
manner.
Sociodemographics
Much research has studied variables that explain the characteristics of adopter categories, especially the character-
istics of early adopters. For studies focusing on innovations, socio-demographic variables are of interest for seg-
mentation reasons, although their explanatory effect on adoption is generally found to be low (Cottrell, 2003;
Midgley, 1987; Rogers, 2003). It has been shown that early adopters in general have higher income and education
than later adopters, especially in the high involvement product category such as consumer durables (Gatignon and
Robertson, 1985; Martinez et al., 1998). Research has also found that early adopters are younger in general than
later adopters (Labay and Kinnear, 1981; Wang et al., 2008). Although these findings have been confirmed in some
studies, conflicting evidence has also been found in for example the work of Dickerson and Gentry (1983). In sum,
socio-demographics seem unreliable as the primary segmentation tools and are thus viewed as background factors
in this study.
A general conclusion from the review above is that there are several important factors potentially driving and
hindering consumer eco-innovation adoption. Another conclusion is the notion that the influence of these factors
to some extent depends on type of innovation and context. To test the developed hypothesis, the diffusion of the
AFV in Sweden was chosen as an empirical setting. Cars have been defined as high involvement products (Lambert-
Pandraud et al., 2005) and Swedish consumers were recently found to be among the most innovative in a com-
parison of 15 countries, especially in regard to cars (Tellis et al., 2009). These characteristics, together with the
ongoing diffusion of AFVs in Sweden, provide a unique opportunity to study consumer adoption of a high involve-
ment eco-innovation.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
198 J. Jansson
Methodology
To integrate factors from VBN theory and the DOI framework, a survey on private car owners was carried out in
Sweden in the fall of 2008. In a European perspective, the Swedish AFV fleet and sales of alternative fuels in the
form of bioethanol and biogas were among the highest at that time (European Commission, 2007). In this sense,
the Swedish market can be viewed as a lead market from which other markets can draw conclusions about regu-
latory practices and consumer behavior (see, e.g., Beise and Rennings, 2005). In Sweden, AFVs have been available
for private consumers since 2001, but the substantial take-off in sales began in 2006. At the end of 2008, the
total car fleet consisted of about 3% AFVs (Sika, 2008). In this paper, AFVs are defined as passenger cars that can
run on fossil oil alternative fuels. There were primarily three types of AFV in Sweden during the time of the study:
1) the electric hybrid, fueled by gasoline and on-board generated electricity; 2) the gas hybrid, fueled by natural
gas/biogas and gasoline; and 3) flexible fuel vehicles (FFV), fueled by a combination of gasoline and bioethanol
(E85, 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). At the time of the survey, the vast majority (about 90%) of the AFVs in
Sweden were FFVs.
Sampling
Data was collected using a postal mail-in respondent self-administered questionnaire. A sample of 3000 car owners
was obtained from the Swedish Road Administration’s car register. In order to achieve a substantial group of AFV
adopters, a sample of 1000 AFV owners was also randomly drawn from the database, resulting in a sample total
of 4000 car owners. The total return quota was 1766 responses (44%). After removing questionnaires with more
than 50% missing data (c.f., Hair et al., 2006), 1691 questionnaires were used for analysis. Since this paper con-
cerns early adopters and non-adopters of AFVs, private car owners who had purchased a factory new car during
the last four years were selected. This meant that responses from 437 adopters and 205 non-adopters were analyzed
(N = 642).
Measures
The questionnaire consisted of the relevant constructs, a selection of car attributes, and standard socio-demo-
graphic measures. As categorical variable, non-adoption/adoption of an AFV was used. This variable was based on
data from the Swedish Road Administration’s car register to ensure that data on actual adoption was collected
rather than data on consumer self-reported adoption or intention to adopt.
The attitudinal factors and innovativeness traits were measured using 19 items. The items, means, standard
deviations, and Cronbach alpha values are presented in Table 1 by way of principal component analysis (PCA).
The attitudinal factors consisted of personal norms, social norms, and specific attitudes toward AFVs and were all
measured on five-point scales. Personal norm was measured using three items relating to the personal norm for
using alternative fuels and decreasing the use of fossil fuels. The items were partly based on Steg et al. (2005) and
Stern et al. (1999). Social norm was measured using four items relating to how people in the immediate closeness
were perceived to influence the respondent in relation to fossil fuels, alternative fuels, and car usage. The items
were partly based on Biel and Thøgersen (2007). Attitude toward alternative fuel was measured using four items
relating to cars fuelled by alternative fuels. The three attitudinal constructs showed acceptable reliabilities with
alpha values ranging from 0.86 to 0.87.
Innovativeness was operationalized as consumer independent judgment making (CIJM) and consumer novelty
seeking (CNS). A shortened version of the original CIJM scale (see, e.g., Manning et al., 1995) was use with three
items measured on a five-point scale. Four items were used to assess CNS on a five-point scale based on the work
of Manning et al. (1995). The alpha values for these measures were also found to be acceptable (0.79 and 0.84
respectively) according to standard rules of thumb (Hair et al., 2006; Nunnaly, 1967). The PCA on attitudinal and
innovativeness factors explained 72.1% of the variance (df = 171, p < 0.001) in the attitudinal measures.
To assess perceived innovation characteristics of AFVs, six constructs were developed based on the literature
review. The six constructs were measured utilizing 19 items relating to relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Perceived innovation characteristics* Mean SD Component Communality
1 2 3 4 5
Personal norma
I feel a moral obligation to conserve oil/petrol/diesel no 3.61 1.21 0.865 0.815
matter what other people do.
Personally, I feel that it is important to travel as little as 3.57 1.21 0.803 0.699
possible by car using oil/petrol/diesel.
I feel a moral obligation to use electricity or any other 3.56 1.26 0.774 0.720
biofuel such as ethanol/bio-gas instead of fossil fuels
such as oil/petrol/diesel.
People like me should do everything they can to decrease 3.83 1.08 0.741 0.609
their use of fossil fuels such as oil/petrol/diesel.
Social norma
People that mean a lot to me think that I should 2.83 1.27 0.819 0.826
conserve oil/petrol/diesel.
People close to me think that I should replace my car 2.40 1.45 0.818 0.681
with a so-called environmentally friendly car.
People that mean a lot to me think that I should travel 2.64 1.23 0.797 0.735
by car as little as possible.
People that are important to me think that I should drive 2.98 1.33 0.785 0.741
a so-called environmentally friendly car that runs on
an alternative fuel (not mainly oil/petrol/diesel).
Attitude toward AFVsb
Cars that partially run on ethanol/E85 and are classified 4.01 1.06 0.741 0.599
as environmentally friendly.
Cars that partially run on natural gas and are classified 3.83 1.16 0.876 0.780
as environmentally friendly.
Cars that partially run on biogas and are classified as 4.01 1.06 0.886 0.835
environmentally friendly.
Cars that partially run on biodiesel and are classified as 3.73 1.11 0.827 0.694
environmentally friendly.
Consumer independent judgment makinga
Before buying a new brand, I usually ask someone with 2.50 0.98 0.843 0.753
experience from the brand for advice. (RC)
When I buy a new product or service, I often ask 2.48 1.00 0.800 0.681
acquaintances with experiences from the product/
service. (RC)
When I’m interested in buying a new product/service, 2.51 0.94 0.816 0.672
I usually trust the opinions of friends who have
used the product/service. (RC)
Consumer novelty seekinga
I continuously look for new products and brands. 2.07 0.99 0.893 0.808
I continuously look for new experiences from new 1.91 0.94 0.874 0.789
products.
I like newspapers and magazines that inform about new 2.89 1.14 0.762 0.637
brands.
I like to visit places where I’m exposed to information 2.82 1.15 0.749 0.631
about new products and brands.
Cronbach’s alpha 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.79 0.84
Percentage of variance explained 15.7 15.3 15.2 14.6 11.3
Table 1. Construct measures and scale reliability for attitudinal factors and innovativeness
a
Scale: 1, strongly disagree . . . 5, strongly agree.
b
Initial question: what is your attitude toward the following products . . . ? Scale: 1, negative . . . 5, positive.
Principal component analysis; Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization; loadings less than 0.40 are not shown. Total variance explained =
72.1%; KMO = 0.821; Bartlett’s test chi-sq. = 6005.910, df = 171, p = 0.000.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
200 J. Jansson
trialability, observability, and risk. The items, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha values are presented
in Table 2. The PCA proved the dimensionality between the constructs and alpha values ranged from 0.71 to 0.85
for the six constructs. In total, the PCA explained 70.7% of the variance (df = 171, p < 0.001) in the perceived
innovation attribute measures.
Finally, perceived importances of 42 car attributes were measured using a five-point scale ranging from 1, not
important at all, to 5, very important. The initial question for the attributes was ‘If you were to replace your car
today, how important is it that the car you would be purchasing is . . . ?’ The list of attributes was developed partly
based on previous research (e.g., Hendrickx and Uiterkamp, 2006) and partly by analyzing car sales brochures.
Results
To investigate factors driving and hindering eco-innovation adoption, several analyses were carried out. First, the
socio-demographic data of the two groups were studied, then the means and standard deviations of the constructs.
Finally, the car attributes were analyzed for differences between adopters and non-adopters.
Since socio-demographic consumer data are widely considered to be easily implemented segmentation variables
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Roberts, 1996), the adopters and non-adopters were analyzed for differences. For
categorical variables, chi-square tests were used and for the continuous variable (age) a t-test was used. As shown
in Table 3, there were no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between adopters and non-adopters on any
of the socio-demographic data. Comparing the sample with data on car owners in Sweden indicated that the sample
was representative of the car owning population (SCB, 2006; Sika, 2007). From Table 3 it can be noted that 91.6%
of the adopters owned a so-called flexible fuel vehicle (gasoline and bioethanol/E85), 6.4% a hybrid electric vehicle
and 2.0% a bio/natural gas vehicle. Among non-adopters of AFVs, the most common type was one fueled by
gasoline (75.6%); the remainder of the cars were fueled by diesel. Almost all AFV adopters (96.0%) classified their
cars as environmentally friendly.
In Table 4, means, standard deviations, and significance values are presented on the measured constructs.
Overall, adopters exhibit significantly higher levels of environmental attitudinal factors such as personal norms,
social norms, and attitude to AFVs. Thus, hypotheses H01, H02, and H03 are supported. On the innovativeness
constructs, the picture is not as clear. On consumer novelty seeking, adopters exhibit statistically significantly (p
< 0.05) higher levels than non-adopters, meaning that H04a is supported. However, there is no statistically sig-
nificant difference between adopters and non-adopters on consumer independent judgment making (p > 0.05),
which means that H04b is rejected. Turning to perceived innovativeness characteristics, it is clear that the most
important characteristic among adopters is compatibility, and among non-adopters, trialability. Comparing adopt-
ers and non-adopters the results show that adopters perceive AFVs to be more advantageous and compatible than
non-adopters, thus H05 and H06 are both supported. Adopters perceive AFVs to be less complex, lending support
to H07. However, non-adopters perceive the importance of trying the AFV before purchase (trialability) to be
higher, indicating that H08 should be rejected. Furthermore, adopters perceive AFVs to be more observable than
non-adopters (H09 is supported) and adopters also perceive AFVs as constituting a lower risk, which means that
H10 is also supported. All differences between the groups on perceived innovation characteristics are statistically
significant (p < 0.05).
To investigate the importance of innovation specific attributes among adopters and non-adopters, t-tests were
carried out on the 42 measured attributes. The importance means, ranks, standard deviations, and differences
between the groups on each attribute are presented in Table 5. The two most important attributes among the two
types of car owners, were reliability and safety. Adopters ranked these attributes significantly higher than non-
adopters. The third most important attribute among non-adopters was road handling, whereas adopters perceived
low fuel consumption as significantly more important. Studying the attributes in aggregate, the pattern where
adopters rank environmentally-related attributes higher than non-adopters is recurring. For example, adopters rate
low carbon dioxide emissions, environmental friendliness, and possibility to run on (different) alternative fuels
significantly higher than non-adopters. On the other hand, non-adopters rate automatic gearbox, gasoline and
diesel fuel only, and four wheel drive significantly higher than adopters. In total, adopters and non-adopters rate
23 of the 42 items significantly differently (p < 0.05).
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Perceived innovation characteristicsa Mean SD Component Communality
1 2 3 4 5 6
Relative advantage
To use an environmentally friendly car would 3.22 1.28 0.898 0.866
decrease my fossil carbon dioxide emissions.
There are financial advantages for me if I 3.43 1.24 0.865 0.843
purchase an environmentally friendly car.
Compatibility
To buy an environmentally friendly car is in line 4.07 1.09 0.864 0.827
with my everyday life.
It is easy to find filling stations that sell 3.40 1.30 0.689 0.588
alternative fuels.
To drive an environmentally friendly car is in line 4.10 1.01 0.855 0.816
with my values.
Complexity
It is hard to fill up an environmentally friendly 1.66 1.01 0.835 0.751
car.
It is hard to find an auto repair shop that 1.63 0.97 0.826 0.777
services an environmentally friendly car.
It is hard to lend an environmentally friendly car 1.48 0.80 0.790 0.750
since it is so complicated.
Before I can drive an environmentally friendly 1.37 0.73 0.684 0.537
car, I need to take a special course.
Trialability
Before I decide to buy an environmentally 4.02 1.23 0.813 0.667
friendly car, it would be important to test-
drive it.
friendly car, I would like to borrow it for a day
or two.
friendly car, I would like to try a friend’s car.
Observability
By buying an environmentally friendly car, I show 3.50 1.21 0.834 0.759
that I care about the environment.
If I bought an environmentally friendly car, it 3.06 1.22 0.865 0.785
would be noticed by people close to me.
Environmentally friendly cars stick out visibly. 1.96 1.03 0.544 0.486
Risk
To buy an environmentally friendly car means a 2.13 1.10 0.740 0.627
financial risk for me.
Environmentally friendly cars are risky since they 1.80 0.91 0.766 0.691
often break.
Environmentally friendly cars mean a higher 1.56 0.86 0.787 0.713
traffic risk for me.
To own an environmentally friendly car means 1.35 0.70 0.698 0.551
that others look down on me.
Cronbach’s alpha 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.75 0.71 0.79
Percentage of variance explained 9.2 12.2 14.9 10.6 10.2 13.6
Table 2. Construct measures and scale reliability for perceived innovativeness characteristics
a
Scale: 1, strongly disagree . . . 5, strongly agree.
Principal component analysis; Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization; loadings less than 0.40 are not shown. Total variance explained =
70.7%; KMO = 0.812; Bartlett’s test chi-sq. = 5002.74, df = 171, p = 0.000.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
202 J. Jansson
Sociodemographic variables Adopters Non-adopters p
Gender Female 28.9% 35.6% n.s.

Male 71.1% 64.4%
Living status Single 12.4% 15.8% n.s.
Co-habiting 87.6% 84.2%
Years in school <9 14.4% 18.9% n.s.
9–12 27.0% 31.1%
>12 58.6% 50.0%
University degree Yes 36.3% 29.1% n.s.
No 63.7% 70.9%
Children in household Yes 35.9% 30.0% n.s.
No 64.1% 70.0%
Age of car owner, years Mean (SD) 53.4 (13.1) 55.1 (14.8) n.s.
Annual income in thousands of SEK <100 2.8% 3.4% n.s.
100–200 17.8% 20.2%
200–300 28.5% 31.0%
300–400 28.0% 21.7%
400–500 10.4% 13.3%
>500 12.5% 10.3%
Number of cars in household 1 59.9% 63.0% n.s.
2 32.9% 32.0%
3 5.8% 4.0%
>4 1.4% 1.0%
Annual driving distance, km <10 000 21.4% 27.2% n.s.
10 000–20 000 59.9% 52.5%
20 000–30 000 15.9% 15.3%
>30 000 28.0% 50.0%
Fuel of current car Gasoline 0.0% 75.6% 0.000
Diesel 0.0% 24.4%
Ethanol/E85 91.6% 0.0%
Gasoline/electric hybrid 6.4% 0.0%
Bio and natural gas 2.0% 0.0%
Self-reported environmental Standard 1.6% 68.0% 0.000
classification of car Environmentally friendly 96.0% 28.5%
Don’t know 2.3% 3.5%
Table 3 Sample descriptives and differences between adopters and non-adopters of AFVs
Adopters N = 437, non-adopters N = 205.
For categorical variables, Pearson chi-square tests were used. For the continuous variable, a t-test was used (two tailed).
n.s. = not significant (p > 0.05).
Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of this study was to integrate environmental psychology research and the diffusion of innovation frame-
work to arrive at a set of factors driving and hindering eco-innovation adoption. A secondary aim was to investigate
differences between how adopters and non-adopters ranked innovation characteristics and product specific attri-
butes in a high involvement context. To test these factors the eco-innovation chosen was the alternative fuel vehicle
(AFV), and responses from adopters and non-adopters were analyzed. The results showed that adopters exhibited
significantly higher levels of personal and social norms, attitudes, and novelty seeking. They also perceived the
relative advantages, compatibility, and observability of the AFV to be higher than did non-adopters. Finally, the
results showed that adopters rated fuel efficiency, environmental friendliness, and possibility for alternative fuels
higher than non-adopters did.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Independent constructs Adopters Non-adopters p
Mean SD Mean SD
Attitudinal
Personal norm (PN) 3.91 0.92 3.09 0.94 0.000
Social norm (SN) 2.93 1.14 2.25 0.95 0.000
Attitude AFV 4.04 0.85 3.60 1.03 0.000
Consumer independent judgment making (CIJM) 2.46 0.83 2.58 0.79 n.s.
Consumer novelty seeking (CNS) 2.46 0.89 2.27 0.83 0.028
Perception of innovation characteristics
Relative advantage 3.57 1.17 2.80 1.01 0.000
Compatibility 4.24 0.72 2.99 0.95 0.000
Complexity 1.30 0.52 2.03 0.86 0.000
Trialability 3.03 1.08 3.48 0.95 0.000
Observability 2.91 0.91 2.71 0.94 0.014
Risk 1.57 0.63 2.03 0.78 0.000
Table 4 Independent constructs and differences between adopters and non-adopters of AFVs
This study and the results presented contribute to the understanding of green consumer behavior and consumer
adoption of innovations in several ways. First, as called for in previous research (Follows and Jobber, 2000;
Thøgersen, 1999), the study demonstrates that norms (social and personal) can act as drivers of adoption of high
involvement durables such as a car. Second, the study contributes in showing that the adoption of innovations
marketed as environmentally friendly in part can be attributed to consumer novelty seeking. Third, the study
contributes to the DOI framework in finding that innovation adoption is determined by more than one trait (cf.
Hirunyawipada and Paswan, 2006). Finally, the study contributes in showing that perceived innovation charac-
teristics are important factors in the adoption decision also for eco-innovations. The results and contributions carry
several implications for business strategy and environmental policy.
Norms and Novelty Seeking

Taken as a whole, the present study signifies the importance of attitudinal factors, such as personal and social
norms, for the adoption of an eco-innovation. Consistent with research in other contexts, the findings indicate
that, although social norms are important, they are not as important as personal norms (Minton and Rose, 1997;
Thøgersen, 2006). The decision to purchase an eco-innovation, in spite of it being expensive and highly involving
in other aspects, is thus, to a certain degree, carried out within what Thøgersen (1999) calls the moral domain,
although other aspects are essential as well. Comparing with the socio-demographic background variables, it is
evident that the attitudinal differences between adopters and non-adopters are more pronounced than the socio-
demographic ones.
The finding that adopters are novelty seekers to a higher degree than non-adopters points to a new direction in
how green consumer behavior can be understood. The majority of research on green consumer behavior has
focused on reducing the impact of consumption has primarily focused on reducing the impact of consumption
rather than on the purchases of new technology that help lessen total environmental impact. (Follows and Jobber,
2000; Jansson et al., 2009). The former, curtailment focused behavior has manifested itself in consumers being
influenced to adjust indoor temperature, turn off lights, and save water when showering. Although these measures
are important, they also entail some level of discomfort for the consumer, which might lead to lower levels of
adherence (Black et al., 1985; Gardner and Stern, 2002). Measures focused on replacing defective or deficient
thermostats, energy wasting light bulbs, and shower heads have been found to have a greater energy saving poten-
tial and less discomfort for the consumer (Ritchie and McDougall, 1985; Stern and Gardner, 1981). The results of
DOI: 10.1002/bse
204 J. Jansson
Car attributes Adopters Non-adopters Differences
Mean SD Rank* Mean SD Rank* Mean p Rank
Reliable in terms of operation 4.70 0.58 1 4.61 0.74 1 0.09 n.s. 0

High collision safety class 4.66 0.65 2 4.47 0.85 2 0.20 0.001 0
Handles well on the road 4.52 0.65 4 4.45 0.77 3 0.07 n.s. 1
Low fuel consumption 4.58 0.77 3 4.44 0.91 4 0.14 0.042 −1
Comfortable for the driver 4.44 0.71 7 4.36 0.78 5 0.08 n.s. 2
Low carbon dioxide emissions 4.45 0.89 6 4.20 0.96 6 0.25 0.002 0
Is joyful to drive 4.07 0.97 10 4.16 0.94 7 −0.09 n.s. 3
Low insurance, repair and service costs 4.25 0.81 8 4.14 0.91 8 0.12 n.s. 0
As environmentally friendly as possible 4.49 0.77 5 3.94 1.02 9 0.55 0.000 −4
Is extra equipped with climate, cruise control, etc. 4.11 1.00 9 3.88 1.22 10 0.23 0.012 −1
Is comfortable for the passengers 3.96 0.82 12 3.88 0.94 11 0.09 n.s. 1
Has a potentially high market value when sold 3.88 0.88 13 3.81 0.93 12 0.07 n.s. 1
Is easy to park 3.79 0.97 15 3.67 1.12 13 0.12 n.s. 2
Has good loading capacity for goods 3.85 0.94 14 3.62 1.07 14 0.24 0.005 0
Has low purchasing price 3.51 0.97 18 3.58 1.02 15 −0.07 n.s. 3
Is easy to fill up 3.69 1.14 16 3.48 1.19 16 0.21 0.038 0
Has good accelerating power 3.41 1.12 19 3.42 1.17 17 −0.01 n.s. 2
Is factory new 3.40 1.27 20 3.40 1.24 18 0.00 n.s. 2
Is mid-sized 3.54 1.29 17 2.86 1.41 19 0.68 0.000 −2
Is well suited for speeds on the freeway 2.95 1.19 22 2.84 1.24 20 0.12 n.s. 2
Gives financial compensation from the state when purchased 3.29 1.36 21 2.71 1.40 21 0.57 0.000 0
Runs partly on ethanol/E85 4.00 1.21 11 2.66 1.36 22 1.34 0.000 −11
Gives luxury feeling 2.58 1.13 27 2.61 1.19 23 −0.03 n.s. 4
Can pull a camper or trailer 2.80 1.51 24 2.52 1.58 24 0.28 0.035 0
Automatic gearbox 2.02 1.36 36 2.46 1.59 25 −0.43 0.000 11
Has a powerful engine 2.39 1.19 30 2.43 1.23 26 −0.04 n.s. 4
Runs on diesel only 1.80 1.07 38 2.42 1.32 27 −0.62 0.000 11
Seats more than four passengers 2.66 1.44 26 2.41 1.43 28 0.26 0.037 −2
Is small 1.95 1.24 37 2.37 1.46 29 −0.42 0.000 8
Has a sporty interior 2.52 1.26 28 2.36 1.22 30 0.16 n.s. −2
Runs partly on biodiesel and/or synthetic diesel 2.31 1.24 32 2.36 1.18 31 −0.05 n.s. 1
Looks sporty 2.50 1.21 29 2.34 1.20 32 0.16 n.s. −3
Runs on gasoline only 1.52 0.80 42 2.27 1.24 33 −0.74 0.000 9
Runs partly on electricity (hybrid) 2.74 1.43 25 2.25 1.31 34 0.49 0.000 −9
Four-wheel drive 1.75 1.10 40 2.20 1.43 35 −0.46 0.000 5
Stands out design-wise 2.22 1.18 33 2.20 1.21 36 0.03 n.s. −3
Runs partly on gas (natural/bio) 2.36 1.31 31 2.06 1.19 37 0.30 0.006 −6
Runs on ethanol/E85 only 2.91 1.41 23 1.95 1.09 38 0.96 0.000 −15
Suited for all terrain 1.57 0.85 41 1.85 1.13 39 −0.28 0.001 2
Is big 1.76 1.20 39 1.85 1.25 40 −0.09 n.s. −1
Runs on natural/biogas only 2.07 1.26 35 1.78 1.00 41 0.29 0.004 −6
Runs on electricity only 2.14 1.28 34 1.76 1.04 42 0.38 0.000 −8
Table 5 Comparing means, standard deviations and rankings of car attribute importance for replacement of current car, between
adopters and non-adopters of AFVs
List sorted by adopter means/rankings.
SD = standard deviation.
* Rank within group (adopter/non-adopter).
DOI: 10.1002/bse
the present study, that eco-innovation adopters are to a higher degree novelty seekers, indicate that there is a
segment of the population that exhibits both green norms and innovative traits simultaneously. In this case, norms
were measured specifically in connection to the eco-innovation, and innovativeness at a general level, and not
domain specific (cf. Goldsmith et al., 1998; Hirunyawipada and Paswan, 2006). If the assumption is made, which
is supported in research (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991; Shoham and Ruvio, 2008), that innovativeness is cor-
related with opinion leadership, the early adopter group is important for diffusion. Considering that the car is a
particularly visible product, adoption of AFVs might act as an expression of a green lifestyle (see, e.g., Dobers and
Strannegård, 2005). The early adopters thus have the potential to drive both technical development and spreading
the demand for eco-innovations into other groups by expressing their norms to other consumers. In this sense,
personal environmental norms and innovativeness can be thought of as complementary or even reinforcing dis-
positions that guide behaviors. Further research into this relationship would be valuable and would also be able
to clarify whether there is a relationship between domain specific innovativeness and specific norms guiding
behavior.
Innovation Characteristics and Specific Attributes

How innovations are perceived by potential adopters on specific characteristics has been found to significantly
influence the likelihood of adoption (Ostlund, 1974; Rogers, 2003). The present study shows that this is true for
eco-innovations as well. As hypothesized, to increase the likelihood of adoption it was found that the eco-innovation
in focus, the AFV, needed to be viewed as having higher advantage and being more compatible and less complex.
However, it was found that adopters perceived trialability to be less important than non-adopters. This could be
explained by the fact that once the AFV is adopted trialability is no longer a significant factor; however, for non-
adopters, trialability plays a significant role for (potential) adoption. As more individuals adopt, trialability becomes
less important since potential adopters can rely on experience from other adopters in order to understand the
innovation (Janssen and Jager, 2002). Adopters perceived AFVs to be more visible than non-adopters; this might
be related to the fact that the most common AFV on the Swedish market is a FFV, which is very similar in appear-
ance to the gasoline and/or diesel version of the same make and model. Thus, the FFVs are not perceived as visibly
different to any significant degree from the conventional cars by non-adopters, since they are not as aware of them
as adopters are. A similar case can be made for the risk characteristic. Adopters perceive AFVs to be less risky
compared to non-adopters. One explanation could be that adopters have gained some experience with the product
and that car purchases in general are high involvement decisions with considerable financial risk associated with
them (Lambert-Pandraud et al., 2005).
The analysis of the innovation specific attributes reveals that adopters rate environmental attributes higher than
non-adopters. These findings are in line with the higher personal and social norms for this group. Non-adopters
rate other factors higher that indicate a preference for more comfortable and extra-equipped cars. However, the
finding that non-adopters rate small size higher than adopters indicates that this group is more willing to switch
to smaller cars (usually with lower emissions) than adopters of AFVs. This would imply that there will be a higher
demand for small (and thus fuel efficient) cars in the future, irrespective of fuel type. Finally, it is also essential
to note that almost all adopters of AFVs (96%) classify their cars as environmentally friendly. This indicates that
the environmental aspect of the AFV is something prominent in the mind of the consumer when evaluating the
car, and that AFVs indeed are viewed as eco-innovations, significantly different from conventional new cars. Thus,
although the environmental aspect has been found to be relevant in the replacement of cars (see, e.g., Hendrickx
and Uiterkamp, 2006; Marell et al., 1995), the present findings propel environmental features to the top of the
list.
Limitations and Further Research

One of the strengths of this research is also perhaps its most prominent limitation. It concerns the fact that actual
adoption was investigated, in contrast to most other studies that focus on intended or recalled adoption (Rogers,
2003). The actual adoption method precludes conclusions on causality; that is, it is possible that adopters have
formed their attitudes after having adopted the innovation – not before. However, since this research builds on
DOI: 10.1002/bse
206 J. Jansson
previous theories, it seems highly likely that norms do indeed influence green consumer behavior, and not primar-
ily the opposite (Thøgersen, 1999, 2002). However, a longitudinal approach would be able to draw more definitive
conclusions on these relationships. Another limitation is the chosen eco-innovation in this study and the specific
context. Since the AFV is a high involvement product, the findings can be generalized to other high involvement
products with green connotations such as household appliances and heating systems (such as solar power) as well.
However, in order to draw conclusions across different countries and contexts, replications using other eco-
innovations in other contexts would be useful in substantiating these findings. As such, the developed factors
based on environmental psychology research and the diffusion of innovation framework are general enough to be
useful in these replications. Finally, it has been noted that, since environmental consciousness and green consumer
behavior evolves over time, recurrent studies are necessary (cf. Chamorro et al., 2009). Especially in an innovation
adoption context it is necessary to continuously study green consumer behavior, since introduction of innovations,
as such, has potential to change both attitudes and behaviors. As pointed out in relation to the marketing of elec-
tric vehicles, as more and more consumers adopt these types of cars, other consumers less inclined to adoption
will start noticing them, and thus an attitudinal construct might develop where these types of cars are viewed as
the new norm (Gärling and Thøgersen, 2001). Since these later adopters might adopt AFVs based on other types
of factors, following the diffusion of this eco-innovation over time might increase the understanding concerning
the diffusion of other eco-innovations as well.
Implications
The primary finding that norms, novelty seeking, and perceived innovation characteristics are distinguishing
factors between adopters and non-adopters of a high involvement eco-innovation carries implications for business
strategy and environmental policy. For business and marketing strategy, the finding that adopters of an eco-
innovation are to a higher degree novelty seekers than non-adopters carries several implications. The most obvious
one is for segmentation practices. Taking these findings into account, the marketing of eco-innovations would be
focused not only on the traditional green consumers, but also toward the general innovators, and opinion leaders
in the market will follow irrespective of the reason consumers adopt them. Thus, innovative consumers adopting
these cars for their attractiveness as high technology innovations can act as important change agents just as con-
sumers adopting the cars primarily for environmental reasons. Marketing to these innovators would broaden the
potential consumer base compared with otherwise narrowly focusing on traditional environmentalists. It is also
apparent that the marketed eco-innovations need to be more advantageous than conventional products on the
market (cf. Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008), compatible with the current system, and communicated as less com-
plicated in order to speed up the rate of consumer adoption. In this sense, eco-innovations need to deliver on the
traditional attributes (in the AFV case, safety, and reliability) but also on environmental friendliness attributes in
order to be attractive. This combination of classic buying criteria and ecological motivations has been called motive
alliances (Belz, 2006) and can be viewed as a powerful competitive advantage in the long term. If increased speed
of adoption of AFVs is desired, it might thus be more effective to promote traditional and environmental attributes
together rather than separately. Furthermore, it seems vital for manufacturers to promote the notion that they have
not made substantial trade-offs between consumer-perceived important attributes such as safety and environmen-
tal attributes such as fuel efficiency. These implications are likely generalizable to other eco-innovations prone to
similar development trade-offs. In this sense, this is both a product development and a communication challenge
for business strategists and marketers, but if correctly handled the rewards in terms of more satisfied consumers
and a better environment would be well worth the effort.
For environmental policy the findings of this study imply that social and personal norms influencing specific
types of behavior need to be brought to the agenda. Currently it can be argued that the prevailing norm is the
fossil oil fueled vehicle, which has dominated the traffic picture since cars were introduced on a global scale. As
the number of cars is approaching the one billion mark worldwide (UNEP, 2007), breaking this fossil fuel domi-
nance seems essential for environmental reasons. One possible solution might lie in discussing and debating
current norms in order to expose them and influence them in another direction. Together with the findings that
adopters perceive AFVs to have higher relative advantage and to be less complex and more compatible compared
DOI: 10.1002/bse
with how non-adopters perceive them, there seem to be many ways in which norms can be brought to the fore.
One such way would be to emphasize how the early adopters view their adoption decision and their vehicles, in
order to highlight the personal and social significance of the decision. Another way would be to widely present the
rate of adoption and specifics on how early adopters have contributed to the lessening of negative environmental
effects of car use. Another possible way forward in lessening the environmental effects of cars and traffic would
be to develop an appropriate labeling scheme for cars and AFVs (cf. Pedersen and Neergaard, 2006; Sammer and
Wüstenhagen, 2006). Eco-labels would likely make environmental impact of cars a more tangible attribute, thus
influencing the decision making process of consumers to a higher degree. Furthermore, environmental policy
could view the AFV as the first step towards breaking the dominant car norm, in order to arrive at a more envi-
ronmentally sound transportation system overall in the future. In this sense it seems essential to create policies
that not only speed up the rate of diffusion of AFVs, but ones that are helping to decrease the car dependency in
urban societies overall. Thus, by acknowledging the importance of norms and debating the current dominant social
car paradigm (see, e.g., Wootton, 1999), policy makers could have a significant influence in reaching a more
environmentally sustainable future.
Acknowledgements
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 15th ISDRC (International Sustainable Development Research Confer-
ence), Utrecht, 2009. Appreciated comments from reviewers and participants at the conference helped in finalizing the paper
for publication. Valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers of this journal are also recognized. The author gratefully
acknowledges the financial support from the EU project BEST on alternative motor fuels (TREN/05/FP6EN/S07.53807/019854).
For help in data collection, the Transportation Research Unit at Umeå University (TRUM) is also acknowledged.
References
Agarwal R, Prasad J. 1997. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies.
Decision Sciences 28: 557–582. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 1977. Attitude–behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84:
888–918. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Albino V, Balice A, Dangelico RM. 2009. Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability-driven
companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 83–96. DOI: 10.1002/bse.638
Alwitt LF, Berger IE. 1993. Understanding the link between environmental attitudes and consumer product usage: measuring the moderating
role of attitude strength. Advances in Consumer Research 20: 189–194.
Balderjahn I. 1988. Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal
of Business Research 17: 51–56. DOI: 10.1016/0148-2963(88)90022-7
Bamberg S, Schmidt P. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen,
Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior 35: 264–285. DOI: 10.1177/0013916502250134
Beise M, Rennings K. 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations.
Ecological Economics 52: 5–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.007
Belz F-M. 2006. Editorial: Marketing in the 21st century. Business Strategy and the Environment 15: 139–144. DOI: 10.1002/bse.529
Biel A, Thøgersen J. 2007. Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for
environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology 28: 93–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2006.03.003
Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT. 1985. Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology 70:
3–21.
Brunsø K, Scholderer J, Grunert KG. 2004. Closing the gap between values and behavior: a means–end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business
Research 57: 665–670. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00310-7
Chamorro A, Rubio S, Miranda FJ. 2009. Characteristics of research on green marketing. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 223–239.
DOI: 10.1002/bse.571
Cleveland M, Kalamas M, Laroche M. 2005. Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 22: 198–212. DOI: 10.1108/07363760510605317
Cottrell SP. 2003. Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recre-
ational boaters. Environment and Behavior 35: 347–375. DOI: 10.1177/0013916503035003003
DOI: 10.1002/bse
208 J. Jansson
Dabholkar PA, Bagozzi RP. 2002. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational
factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30: 184–201. DOI: 10.1177/0092070302303001
Daghfous N, Petrof JV, Pons F. 1999. Values and adoption of innovations: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16: 314–331.
DOI: 10.1108/07363769910277102
Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM. 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers?
A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56: 465–480. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
Dickerson MD, Gentry JW. 1983. Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers. Journal of Consumer Research 10:
225–235.
Dobers P, Strannegård L. 2005. Design, lifestyles and sustainability. Aesthetic consumption in a world of abundance. Business Strategy and the
Environment 14: 324–336.
Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt: Fort Worth, TX.
European Commission. 2007. Biofuels Progress Report: Report on the Progress Made in the Use of Biofuels and Other Renewable Fuels in the Member
States of the European Union. Brussels.
European Commission. 2009. Eco-Innovation: When Business Meets the Environment. Call for Proposals 2009. European Commission. http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/docs/call09/call09_text_en.pdf [19 July 2009].
Follows SB, Jobber D. 2000. Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing 34:
723–747. DOI: 10.1108/03090560010322009
Gardner GT, Stern PC. 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (2nd edn). Pearson: Boston, MA.
Gärling A, Thøgersen J. 2001. Marketing of electric vehicles. Business Strategy and the Environment 10: 53–65. DOI: 10.1002/1099-0836
(200101/02)10:1<53:AID-BSE270>3.0.CO;2-E
Gatignon H, Robertson TS. 1985. A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research 11: 849–867.
Gatignon H, Robertson TS. 1991. Innovative decision processes. In Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Robertson TS, Kassarjian HS (eds).
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 316–348.
Gerpott TJ, Mahmudova I. 2009. Determinants of price mark-up tolerance for green electricity – lessons for environmental marketing strate-
gies from a study of residential electricity customers in Germany. Business Strategy and the Environment in press. DOI: 10.1002/bse.646
Goldsmith RE, d’Hauteville F, Flynn LR. 1998. Theory and measurement of consumer innovativeness: a transnational evaluation. European
Journal of Marketing 32: 340–353. DOI: 10.1108/03090569810204634
Goldsmith R, Hofacker C. 1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19: 1004–1116. DOI: 10.1007/
BF02726497
Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. 2008. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in
hotels. Journal of Consumer Research 35: 472–482. DOI: 10.1086/586910
Guagnano G, Hawkes GR, Acredolo C, White N. 1986. Innovation perception and adoption of solar heating technology. Journal of Consumer
Affairs 20: 48–64.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edn). Pearson–Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Hendrickx L, Uiterkamp AJMS. 2006. Technology and behavior: the case of passenger transport. In User Behavior and Technology Development:
Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies, Verbeek P-P, Slob A (eds). Dordrecht: Springer. 95–106.
Hirschman EC. 1980. Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research 7: 283–295.
Hirunyawipada T, Paswan AK. 2006. Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high technology product adoption. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 23: 182–198. DOI: 10.1108/07363760610674310
Hunecke M, Blobaum A, Matthies E, Hoger R. 2001. Responsibility and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the
domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environment and Behavior 33: 830–852.
Im S, Bayus BL, Mason CH. 2003. An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption
behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31: 61–73. DOI: 10.1177/0092070302238602
Janssen MA, Jager W. 2002. Stimulating diffusion of green products: co-evolution between firms and consumers. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics 12: 283–306.
Jansson J, Marell A, Nordlund A. 2009. Elucidating green consumers: a cluster analytic approach on proenvironmental purchase and curtail-
ment behaviors. Journal of Euromarketing 18: 245–267. DOI: 10.1080/10496480903364242
Kahn ME. 2007. Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. Journal of Environmen-
tal Economics and Management 54: 129–145.
Kaiser FG, Hubner G, Bogner FX. 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value–belief–norm model in explaining conser-
vation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35: 2150–2170. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x
Labay DG, Kinnear TC. 1981. Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems. Journal of Consumer Research
8: 271–278.
Lambert-Pandraud R, Laurent G, Lapersonne E. 2005. Repeat purchasing of new automobiles by older consumers: empirical evidence and
interpretations. Journal of Marketing 69: 97–113.
Manning KC, Bearden WO, Madden TJ. 1995. Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology 4: 329–345.
Marell A, Davidsson P, Gärling T. 1995. Environmentally friendly replacement of automobiles. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 513–529.
DOI: 10.1016/0167-4870(95)00024-I
Martinez E, Polo Y, Carlos F. 1998. The acceptance and diffusion of new consumer durables: differences between first and last adopters.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 15: 323–342. DOI: 10.1108/07363769810225975
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Meuter ML, Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Brown SW. 2005. Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial
of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing 69: 61–83.
Midgley DF. 1987. A meta-analysis of the diffusion of innovations literature. Advances in Consumer Research 14: 204–207.
Midgley DF, Dowling GR. 1978. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 4: 229–242.
Minton AP, Rose RL. 1997. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: an exploratory study. Journal
of Business Research 40: 37–48. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3
Molesworth M, Suortfi J-P. 2002. Buying cars online: the adoption of the web for high-involvement, high-cost purchases. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 2: 155–168. DOI: 10.1002/cb.97
Ndubisi NO, Sinti Q. 2006. Consumer attitudes, system’s characteristics and internet banking adoption in Malaysia. Management Research
News 29: 16–27. DOI: 10.1108/01409170610645411
Nilsson, J. 2008. Investment with a conscience: examining the impact of pro-social attitudes and perceived financial performance on socially
responsible investment behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 83: 307–325. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9621-z
Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 2003. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 23: 339–347. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9
Nunnaly JC. 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in
OECD Countries. OECD: Paris.
Ostlund LE. 1974. Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research 1: 23–29.
Pedersen ER, Neergaard P. 2006. Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware! Environmental labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism.
Business Strategy and the Environment 15: 15–29. DOI: 10.1002/bse.434
Pickett-Baker J, Ozaki R. 2008. Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Market-
ing 25: 281–293. DOI: 10.1108/07363760810890516
Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C. 2004. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ-
ment and Behavior 36: 70–93. DOI: 10.1177/0013916503251466
Pujari D. 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 26: 76–85.
DOI: 0.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.006
Ritchie JRB, McDougall GHG. 1985. Designing and marketing consumer energy conservation policies and programs: implications from a
decade of research. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 4: 14–32.
Roberts JA. 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research 36: 217–231. DOI:
10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6
Roberts JA, Bacon DR. 1997. Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior.
Journal of Business Research 40: 79–89. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9
Roehrich G. 2004. Consumer innovativeness: concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research 57: 671–677. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-
2963(02)00311-9
Rogers EM. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn). Free Press: New York.
Rowlands IH, Scott D, Parker P. 2003. Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers. Business Strategy and the Environment
12: 36–48. DOI: 10.1002/bse.346
Sammer K, Wüstenhagen R. 2006. The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour: results of a discrete choice analysis for washing
machines. Business Strategy and the Environment 15: 185–199. DOI: 10.1002/bse.522
Schwartz SH. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10: 221–279. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60358-5
Shoham A, Ruvio A. 2008. Opinion leaders and followers: a replication and extension. Psychology and Marketing 25: 280–297. DOI: 10.1002/
mar.20209
Statens Institut för Kommunikationsanalys (Sika) [Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis]. 2007. Fordon Vid Årsskiftet
2006/2007 [Vehicles at the Turn of Year 2006/2007]. Sika. http://www.sika-institute.se/ [19 July 2009].
Statens Institut för Kommunikationsanalys (Sika) [Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis]. 2008. Fordon Vid Årsskiftet
2007/2008 [Vehicles at the Turn of Year 2007/2008]. Sika. http://www.sika-institute.se/ [19 July 2009].
Statistiska Centralbyrån (SCB) [Statistics Sweden]. 2006. Personbilar i Trafik 1923–2005 Tidsserie [Cars in Traffic 1923–2005 Time Series]. SCB.
http://www.scb.se/ [19 July 2009].
Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology 25: 415–425. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003
Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424. DOI: 10.1111/0022-
4537.00175
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. 1999. A value–belief–norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environ-
mentalism. Human Ecology Review 6: 81–97.
Stern PC, Gardner GT. 1981. Psychological research and energy policy. American Psychologist 36: 329–342.
Tellis GJ, Yin E, Bell S. 2009. Global consumer innovativeness: cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. Journal of Inter-
national Marketing 17: 1–22. DOI: 10.1509/jimk.17.2.1
Thøgersen J. 1999. The ethical consumer: moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy 22: 439–460. DOI:
10.1023/A:1006225711603
DOI: 10.1002/bse
210 J. Jansson
Thøgersen J. 2002. Direct experience and the strength of the personal norm–behavior relationship. Psychology and Marketing 19: 881–893.
DOI: 10.1002/mar.10042
Thøgersen J. 2006. Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: an extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 247–261.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. Global Environment Outlook (GEO 4): Environment for Development. UNEP: Valletta.
Venkatraman MP. 1991. The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption. Journal of Retailing 67: 51–67.
Völlink T, Meertens REE, Midden CJH. 2002. Innovating ‘diffusion of innovation’ theory: innovation characteristics and the intention of utility
companies to adopt energy conservation interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 333–344.
Wang GP, Dou WY, Zhou N. 2008. Consumption attitudes and adoption of new consumer products: a contingency approach. European Journal
of Marketing, 42: 238–254. DOI: 10.1108/03090560810840998
Widegren Ö. 1998. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior 30: 75–100. DOI: 10.1177/0013916598301004
Wootton J. 1999. Replacing the private car. Transport Reviews 19: 157–175. DOI: 10.1080/014416499295592
DOI: 10.1002/bse

Jurnal Internasional

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Internasional

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 20, 192–210 (2011)

Consumer Eco-Innovation Adoption:

Received 19 July 2009; revised 26 May 2010; accepted 3 June 2010

Green Consumer Behavior and Innovation Adoption

The Inﬂuence of Norms and Attitudes

Consumer Innovation Adoption

Perceived Innovation Characteristics

H06: Adopters perceive AFVs to be more compatible than non-adopters.

H07: Adopters perceive AFVs to be less complex than non-adopters.

H09: Adopters perceive AFVs to be more visible than non-adopters.

Perceived innovation characteristics* Mean SD Component Communality

Perceived innovation characteristicsa Mean SD Component Communality

Sociodemographic variables Adopters Non-adopters p

Gender Female 28.9% 35.6% n.s.

Discussion and Conclusions

Independent constructs Adopters Non-adopters p

Norms and Novelty Seeking

Car attributes Adopters Non-adopters Differences

Mean SD Rank* Mean SD Rank* Mean p Rank

Reliable in terms of operation 4.70 0.58 1 4.61 0.74 1 0.09 n.s. 0

Innovation Characteristics and Speciﬁc Attributes

Limitations and Further Research

You might also like