Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 14, No.

1, 2022 17

Is the use of green shopping bags gendered?

Evidence from a gender equality conscious
emerging market

Asphat Muposhi*
Department of Information and Marketing Sciences,
Midlands State University,
Gweru, Zimbabwe
Email: vmunhewu@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Mercy Mpinganjira
School of Consumer Intelligence and Information Systems,
University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: mmpinganjira@uj.ac.za

Marius Wait
Department of Marketing Management,
University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: mwait@uj.ac.za

Paul Blaise Issock Issock

School of Business Sciences,
Marketing Division,
University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: pabloissock@gmail.com

Abstract: This study examined whether the behaviour of using ‘green’

shopping bags varied according to gender in South Africa – a country known
for promoting gender equality. The study’s results revealed gender differences
in the use of green shopping bags in respect of the new ecological paradigm,
awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, attitude towards green
shopping bags, intention to use green shopping bags and perceived behavioural
control. The findings of this study underscore the importance of fostering the
development of personal and descriptive norms related to the use of green
shopping bags for both male and female consumers. If norms remain weak, it
will be difficult to entrench the behaviour of using green shopping bags. The
study also showed that the other key factors necessary for promoting the use of
green shopping bags among both male and female consumers include
inculcating pro-environmental beliefs, enhancing awareness of consequences

Copyright © 2022 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

18 A. Muposhi et al.

plastic bag litter and fostering pro-environmental attitudes. The study’s findings
also highlight the urgent need to minimise the structural barriers associated
with the use of green shopping bags, especially among female consumers. This
could be done by making green shopping bags affordable through incentives or
subsidies.

Keywords: green shopping bags; gender; gender equality; pro-environmental

behaviour; South Africa.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Muposhi, A.,

Mpinganjira, M., Wait, M. and Issock, P.B.I. (2022) ‘Is the use of green
shopping bags gendered? Evidence from a gender equality conscious emerging
market’, Int. J. Sustainable Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.17–42.

Biographical notes: Asphat Muposhi is a Lecturer in the Department of

Information and Marketing Sciences at Midlands State University, Gweru,
Zimbabwe. He holds a PhD in Marketing Management attained from the
University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research interests are in social
marketing, green consumerism, environmental sustainability and environmental
education.

Mercy Mpinganjira is a Professor and the Director at the School of

Consumer Intelligence and Information Systems, University of Johannesburg,
South Africa. She has extensively published in international peer-reviewed
journals and her research interests are in digital marketing, green marketing and
consumer behaviour.

Marius Wait is an Associate Professor and the Head of the Marketing

Department at the University of Johannesburg (UJ). He is an experienced
academic with a demonstrated history of working in the education management
sector.

Paul Blaise Issock Issock is a Senior Lecturer and researcher affiliated to the
Division of Marketing at University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg in
South Africa. He holds a PhD in Marketing Management. His main research
interests are on social marketing, transformative consumer research, consumer
behaviour, green marketing and entrepreneurial marketing.

1 Introduction

Litter from single-use plastic bags (SUPBs) is a recent addition to the burgeoning list of
environmental pollutants (Xanthos and Walker, 2017). The problems of SUPBs permeate
all stages of the life cycle. The production process of SUPBs involves the use of
environmental pollutants such as carbon, silicone, oil, coal and natural gas (Wagner,
2017). The ecological footprint of SUPBs is worsened by the fact that most are discarded
only after a single use (Carman et al., 2015). The negative effects attributed to
irresponsibly disposed-of SUPBs include clogging water ways, polluting landscapes and
threatening public health by providing a breeding ground for malaria-causing mosquitoes
(Xanthos and Walker, 2017). SUPBs disposed in landfills take a long time to biodegrade,
thereby constraining landfill capacity (O’Brien and Thondhlana, 2019). Discarded
SUPBs in coastal environments lower the aesthetic value of coastal areas, reducing
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 19

revenue from tourism (Wagner, 2017). The use of green shopping bags is encouraged in
several countries, including South Africa, as a potential solution to this problem
(Jakovcevic et al., 2014). Green shopping bags are an environmentally friendly
alternative to SUPBs, as they are designed to be re-used several times, and cause minimal
environmental harm upon disposal (Thomas et al., 2016). For this reason, the terms green
shopping bags and reusable shopping bags are used interchangeably in this study.
The use of reusable shopping bags is being promoted internationally through the use
of awareness campaigns such as the ‘3R campaign’ in Singapore, Thailand, India, and
Malaysia (Pariatamby and Fauziah, 2014); ‘bring your own bag day’ in China (He,
2012); and ‘[minus] plastic bag’ in Singapore (Chib et al., 2009). The major failing of
reusable shopping bag campaigns has been their inability to bring about behavioural
change that lasts beyond the campaign period (Chib et al., 2009; Zen et al., 2013).
Campaigns that promote pro-environmental behaviour are criticised for predominantly
focusing on seeking to effect behavioural change through information dissemination
while giving little attention to the influence of structural factors such as gender, social
class, and culture (O’Brien and Thondhlana, 2016; Wang, 2016; Xiao and McCright,
2015). In particular, Wang (2016) criticised the practice of giving more prominence to
behavioural theories of attitude change and to the use of economic instruments such as
taxes, while neglecting the influence of structural factors. In this regard, gender is
identified as a pertinent variable, given the gendered nature of the roles associated with
environmental behaviour in African cultures such as grocery shopping, recycling
household waste, saving water, and using sustainable energy (Bob and Babugura, 2014;
Braun and Traore, 2015).
Although several studies (e.g., Oztekin et al., 2017; Stern et al., 2005; Zelezny and
Bailey, 2006) have examined the influence of gender on environmental behaviour, some
aspects remain inconclusive, owing to the transient nature of gender relations. For
instance, little is known about the effect of gender on environmental behaviour in a
market known for promoting gender equality laws. Such an understanding is important in
South Africa, which is in transition from a patriarchal society to one that is conscious of
gender equality (World Economic Forum, 2019). In South Africa, household chores such
as saving electricity, recycling household waste, and grocery shopping were traditionally
assigned to women (Commission for Gender Equality, 2015). As more women enter the
workplace, it remains unknown whether female and male consumers can still be treated
as heterogeneous segments when promoting green shopping bags. Past studies in Africa
(Bob and Babugura, 2014; Braun and Traore, 2015) found that women experience more
resource constraints when engaging in environmental behaviour than men do. However,
as more job opportunities are availed to South African women (Afrobarometer, 2019), it
is important to examine whether female and male consumers experience similar
constraints and motivations in using reusable shopping bags. This study is also motivated
by the need to avoid generalising findings from previous studies that were conducted in
Western cultures (e.g., Stern et al., 2005; Oztekin et al., 2017) to South Africa, owing to
differences in the socio-economic status of consumers and the extent to which gender
equality laws have been implemented.
20 A. Muposhi et al.

2 Study setting

South Africa is a member of the BRICS trading bloc whose economy is characterised by
moderate growth spurred by the growth of the middle class (O’Brien and Thondhlana,
2019). As an emerging economy, South Africa is known for its high consumption of
resources – including plastic bags, estimated at eight billion per year (Dikgang et al.,
2012). Plastic bag litter is rampant in the Gauteng Province, which is South Africa’s
economic hub. Regular awareness campaigns in coastal cities such as Durban and Cape
Town are yielding encouraging results in reducing plastic bag litter (McLellan, 2014). In
the Gauteng Province, land and air pollution from discarded plastic bags, the high cost of
plastic bag waste collection, and diminishing landfill capacity remain major concerns
(O’Brien and Thondhlana, 2019). In 2003, the South African government introduced a
levy to manage plastic bag litter, which was so rampant that it earned the moniker ‘the
new national flower’ (Ritch et al., 2009). The levy was also aimed at helping to maintain
the pristine environment of the coastline, which stretches for about 2,500 km (O’Brien
and Thondhlana, 2019). The levy achieved only limited success in addressing plastic bag
litter, owing to lapses in monitoring and enforcement (McLellan, 2014). The levy was
also regarded as too little to have a deterrent effect (Dikgang et al., 2012). Recycling was
also considered with the establishment of Buyisa-e-Bag, a Section 21 company in 2004,
which was mandated to recycle plastic bags (McLellan, 2014). The company was closed
in 2011 because of its failure to encourage recycling and curb the challenge of SUPB
litter. The 3R campaign is also part of South Africa’s waste management strategy, aimed
at reducing litter from plastic bags (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2017).
However, the campaign is perceived to be ineffective, as the litter diverted to landfills
remains high (Ackroyd, 2014; O’Brien and Thondhlana, 2019). In 2015 South Africa was
listed among the top 20 countries whose coastal lines were littered with plastics (Jambeck
et al., 2015). Despite this, environmental concern remains weak in South Africa, as
environmental well-being is not ranked as one of most pressing issues (O’Brien and
Thondhlana, 2019).
Owing to the limited success of the plastic bag levy and campaigns, there are calls to
promote individual-driven forms of pro-environmental behaviour such as the use of
environmentally friendly packaging (Mtutu and Thondhlana, 2016; O’Brien and
Thondhlana, 2019). Although the rationale for using reusable or green shopping bags is
compelling from an environmental sustainability perspective, retail data in South Africa
indicate that the use of such bags remains low (Pick n Pay, 2017; Woolworths Holdings
Limited, 2017). Reusable shopping bags are not offered for free in South Africa. Retailers
charge a price which is almost four times higher than conventional plastic bags, and this
had triggered consumer perceptions that retailers are profiteering from the sale of such
bags (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2017). The low uptake of reusable shopping
bags suggests that this form of behaviour is failing to take hold among shoppers in South
Africa. One of the suggested strategies of promoting pro-environmental behaviour,
including the use of reusable shopping bags, is consumer profiling (O’Brien and
Thondhlana, 2019). In this regard, gender plays a critical role, given its transient nature
and the inconclusive results from previous studies (Lee, 2009; Xiao and McCright, 2015).
In South Africa, the advancement of gender equality through the 1996 Constitution and
the Employment Equity Act of 1998 is worth noting. In 2018, the Global Gender Gap
Index ranked South Africa 19th out of 149 countries (World Economic Forum, 2018).
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 21

Advances in gender equity in respect of women’s empowerment, access to education,

and employment opportunities have ushered in changes in shopping behaviour
(Afrobarometer, 2019). For instance, the Nielsen Report (2019) notes the blurring of
gender differences in shopping behaviour in South Africa. Moreover, the Research and
Markets (2019) identifies ‘gender benders’ as a growing segment, constituted by
consumers whose product choice behaviour transcends traditional gendered product
categories. Cross-shopping of product categories that were meant for either female or
male consumers is now a growing norm (Research and Markets, 2019). The trend
towards gender-equity-driven buying behaviour brings into question the long-held view
that women are more apt to engage in pro-environmental behaviour than men are. Thus,
this study further interrogates this view with regard to the behaviour of using reusable or
green shopping bags in South Africa.

3 Literature review

3.1 Situating gender in pro-environmental behaviour

The literature on the influence of gender on pro-environmental behaviour remains
inconclusive. One stream of research suggests that women participate more in
environmental behaviour than men do (Lee, 2009; Xiao and McCright, 2014; Sánchez
et al., 2016). Compared with men, women are considered to be more environmentally
concerned, to exhibit stronger environmental beliefs, and to display a willingness to
engage in private sphere environmental behaviours (Vicente-Molina et al., 2013; Bob and
Babugura, 2014). Women were also found to be more consistent in performing routine
pro-environmental behaviours such as household waste recycling, water and energy
saving (Xiao and McCright, 2014). In patriarchal societies characterised by asymmetric
power relations and the moralisation of household chores, women were found to face
more constraints when engaging in pro-environmental behaviour than men did (Wang,
2016).
A second stream of research argues that men are more likely to perform public sphere
environmental behaviours such as protests and donations than females are (Hunter et al.,
2004; Kennedy et al., 2015). Men were also found to be more interested in engaging in
‘green’ status-enhancing environmental behaviours than their female counterparts (Lee,
2009; Elliott, 2013). Moreover, men were found to be more environmentally
knowledgeable than females (Yang et al., 2016) and to perceive less environmental risk
than females (Lee, 2009). The most plausible reason for this, especially in a patriarchal
society, is that men are accorded more educational opportunities than females, and this
predisposes them to possess more environmental knowledge than women (Bob and
Babugura, 2014). However, with advances in female empowerment and equality laws in
South Africa, this view requires further empirical validation. A third stream of research
(Conradie et al., 2013) argues that there is no significant gender variation in the
performance of pro-environmental behaviour. This finding has been reported in respect of
community-oriented environmental problems (Xiao and Hong, 2010; Xiao and McCright,
2014).
In theory, a heightened sense of environmental concern among women is linked to the
process of gender role socialisation that nurtures women to have more empathy and
altruism than men (Irwin et al., 2015; Lee, 2009). In support of this view, the gender role
22 A. Muposhi et al.

socialisation theory posits that women are socialised to be more other-centred,

communal, and caring than men (Gilligan, 1982). This orientation is presumed to
translate into a heightened sense of environmental concern among women. Conversely,
male socialisation emphasises dominance and autonomy (Gilligan, 1982); and this may
explain the focus on men’s maximisation of self-interest when they engage in
pro-environmental behaviour (Lee, 2009). However, this study argues that, with the
advance of gender equality laws, the propositions of the gender role socialisation theory
warrant further empirical validation.

3.2 Gender and pro-environmental behaviour: underpinning theories

Gender differences in environmental behaviour are principally influenced by
environmental beliefs and norms, cognitive, situational, and habitual factors (Lee, 2009;
Xiao and McCright, 2014). For this reason, the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory, the
theory of planned behaviour (TPB), and the theory of interpersonal behaviour (TIB) are
employed in this study to examine the influence of gender in pro-environmental
behaviour. The VBN theory posits that value orientations (egoistic, altruistic, and
biospheric) influence an individual’s environmental beliefs (hereafter referred to as ‘the
new ecological paradigm – NEP’). When individuals espouse a favourable NEP, it
predisposes them to assess the consequences of their behaviour for the environment
(Stern et al., 1999). The VBN theory further posits that awareness of consequences
results in an individual ascribing responsibility to others or to themselves to address
environmental problems (Wynveen et al., 2015). The VBN theory also posits that, when
an individual ascribes responsibility, personal norms develop that in turn influence the
performance of pro-environmental behaviour. The VBN theory is relevant in this study
because female and male consumers differ in their environmental value orientations
(Wang, 2016), their ascription of responsibility (Lee, 2009), and their internalisation of
personal norms (Goldenhar and Connell, 1993).
The TPB posits that intention is the most immediate antecedent of behaviour (Ajzen,
1991). The TPB also postulates that attitude towards behaviour, perceived behavioural
control, and subjective norms influence intention (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB is relevant in
this study because the use of green shopping bags is affected by cognitive factors such as
cost and benefit, by normative factors such as social norms, and by situational factors
such as availability (Yeow et al., 2014; Karmarkar and Bollinger, 2015). The use of green
shopping bags is a form of routinised behaviour; thus, consistent with the TIB (Triandis,
1977), the influence of habit strength on the behaviour of using reusable shopping bags is
also examined in this study.

3.3 Hypotheses development and conceptual framework

3.3.1 NEP and awareness of consequences
The term ‘NEP’ refers to environmental beliefs that influence an individual’s interaction
with the natural environment (Klöckner, 2013). Value orientations such as biospheric,
altruistic, and egoistic values are instrumental in the formation of NEP views
(Vicente-Molina et al., 2018). NEP measures an individual’s degree of environmental
concern (Stern et al., 1999). Individuals espousing the NEP value the importance of
maintaining ecological balance, which includes the understanding that natural resources
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 23

are limited (Piennar et al., 2013). This study argues that NEP predisposes individuals to
be aware of the environmental consequences of using or not using green shopping bags.
Past studies found that, compared with men, females are more environmentally
concerned, and are likely to engage more in environmental protection (Dietz et al., 1998;
Xiao and McCright, 2015). Women were also found to embrace more pro-environmental
behaviour values that propel them to preserve nature more than men (Vicente-Molina
et al., 2018). In contrast, men are assumed to be socialised to the marketplace mindset
that predisposes them to exploit natural resources for material gain (Xiao and McCright,
2012). Thus it is hypothesised that:
H1 The influence of the NEP on an awareness of the consequences of the use or non-use
of reusable shopping bags varies with gender.

3.3.2 Awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility

The VBN theory suggests that responsibility for addressing environmental problems is
stimulated when individuals are aware of the consequences of their behaviour (Stern
et al., 1999). Adverse conditions associated with a reluctance to use reusable shopping
bags include pollution, climate change, and the depletion of petroleum (Xanthos and
Walker, 2017). According to Freudenburg and Davidson (2007), environmental problems
such as flooding, droughts, and pollution cause significant harm to vulnerable groups
such as women. A study by Bord and O’Connor (1977) showed that women’s perceptions
of vulnerability compel them to assume more environmental responsibility than men do.
This susceptibility, according to Shen and Saijo (2008), leads women to be more aware of
the consequences of not behaving pro-environmentally than men are.
Conversely, men are known to be more knowledgeable about environmental issues
than women (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), and such knowledge was often found to be
translated into performing public sphere pro-environmental behaviours (Oztekin et al.,
2017; Xiao and McCright, 2014). According to the VBN theory, when individuals are
aware of the consequences of their behaviour, they take responsibility for addressing
negative behaviours (Stern et al., 1999). In this regard, previous studies found that
women assume more responsibility for protecting the environment than men do (Lee,
2009; Bob and Babugura, 2014). Thus it is hypothesised that:
H2 The influence of an awareness of consequences on the ascription of responsibility
related to the use of reusable shopping bags varies with gender.

3.3.3 Ascription of responsibility and personal norms

The VBN theory affirms that personal norms are formed and internalised when
individuals accept responsibility for addressing environmental problems (Stern et al.,
1999). Past studies (Zelezny et al., 2000; Lee, 2009) showed that women assume more
responsibility than men do when addressing environmental problems. This attribution of
responsibility plays a pivotal role in engendering pro-environmental behaviour personal
norms (Wang, 2016; Oztekin et al., 2017). However, personal norms are less likely to be
activated under conditions of denying personal responsibility and the external attribution
of responsibility (Hynes and Wilson, 2016; Turaga et al., 2010). Thus it is hypothesised
that:
24 A. Muposhi et al.

H3 The influence of the ascription of responsibility on personal norms related to the use
of reusable shopping bags varies with gender.

3.3.4 Attitude and intention towards reusable shopping bags

‘Attitude’ in this study denotes favourable or unfavourable feelings associated with the
use of green shopping bags. Attitudes are formed following a cognitive assessment of the
value of environmental protection (Lee, 2009). The price of reusable shopping bags and
the deterrent effect of a plastic bag tax are regarded as cognitive cues that influence
attitudes towards green shopping bags. Previous studies on the influence of gender on
environmental attitudes were inconclusive. For instance, Tikka et al. (2000) and Lee
(2009) found that women report a greater environmental attitude than men do. Yet other
studies (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Hunter et al., 2004) reported that men exhibited
more favourable environmental attitudes than women did. This difference, according to
OECD (2012), is attributed to the difference in environmental knowledge. For instance,
in developing countries, inequalities in educational opportunities are thought to position
men to have more environmental knowledge than women do (OECD, 2012). The OECD
view warrants further scrutiny in South Africa, where significant strides on equal
educational opportunities are being made (Afrobarometer, 2019). Thus it is hypothesised
that:
H4 The influence of attitude on the intention to use reusable shopping bags varies by
gender.

3.3.5 Personal norms, descriptive norms, and intention to use reusable

shopping bags
The VBN and TPB affirm that individual decision-making is embedded in a social setting
(Ajzen, 1991; Stern et al., 1999). Social settings such as the family and shopping groups
are expected to influence the formation of norms related to the use of green shopping
bags. In social networks, norms are imparted through the process of moral exporting or
socialisation (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Women were found to exhibit traits of
other-directedness, predisposing them to be more susceptible to complying with social
norms than men are (Agarwal, 2000; Chen-Yeu and Seock, 2002). As male and female
individuals differ in their socialisation process, it is reasonable to suggest that personal
norms, descriptive norms, and intentions related to the use of reusable shopping bags are
likely to vary by gender. Thus it is hypothesised that:
H5 The influence of personal norms on descriptive norms related to the use of reusable
shopping bags varies by gender.
H6 The influence of personal norms on the intention to use reusable shopping bags
varies by gender.
H7 The influence of descriptive norms on the intention to use green shopping bags
varies by gender.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 25

3.3.6 Intention and behaviour of using green shopping bags

Consumers’ intentions should be known in order to influence the use of green shopping
bags. This is important because the TPB posits that intention is the most immediate
predictor of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). It is acknowledged in the literature that women
participate more in private sphere behaviours, while men engage more in public sphere
behaviours (Vicente-Molina et al., 2013; Kalamas et al., 2014; Matthes et al., 2014). As
the behaviour of using green shopping bags is situated within the continuum of the
private-public sphere domains (e.g., the household and the supermarket), it important to
examine the influence of gender. Thus, it is postulated that:
H8 The influence of intention on the behaviour of using green shopping bags varies by
gender.

Figure 1 Research model (see online version for colours)

3.3.7 Habit strength, perceived behavioural control, and use of reusable

shopping bags
Habitual and situational factors play an important role in influencing pro-environmental
behaviour (Steg and Vlek, 2009). In patriarchal societies, women frequently engage in
environmental behaviours such as sourcing water, managing household waste, and saving
energy more than men do (Bob and Babugura, 2014). Grocery shopping is another form
of behaviour that is often feminised. Given the frequency with which women engage in
these behaviours, it is reasonable to speculate that the habits related to such behaviours
are likely to embed more in women than in men. Women are also known to be confronted
with more obstacles than men in their efforts to engage in environmental behaviour (Bob
and Babugura, 2014; Xiao and McCright, 2014). For instance, Bob and Babugura (2014)
note that resource constraints, limited access to environmental information and
marginalisation in environmental decision-making are entrenched social inequalities that
constrain women. Despite this, owing to advances in gender equality, it is not known
whether the use of green shopping bags remains gendered in South Africa. Thus the
following hypotheses are proposed:
26 A. Muposhi et al.

H9 The influence of habit strength on the behaviour of using reusable shopping bags
varies by gender.
H10 The influence of perceived behavioural control on the behaviour of using reusable
shopping bags varies by gender.
Consistent with the hypotheses developed above, the research model guiding this study is
presented in Figure 1.

4 Materials and methods

4.1 Research design

This study was premised on the proposition that the behaviour of using green shopping
bags could be examined using competing models for female and male respondents. To
achieve this, a correlational research design was employed, based on the hypothesis that
the use of green shopping bags can be explained by examining the influence of
environmental beliefs (NEP), norms (descriptive and personal), situational factors
(perceived behavioural control), and the grocery shopping habits of female and male
consumers on the behaviour of using reusable shopping bags. First, data normality,
common method bias, correlation analysis, and validation of the measurement model
were done using the whole sample. Thereafter the sample data was split by gender in
order to examine the influence of gender on the predictors of green shopping behaviour.

4.2 Sample sites, sampling design, and sample size

The participants were female and male consumers who were recruited from five
supermarkets in three cities (Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Vereeniging) in Gauteng
Province that were promoting green shopping bags. Quota sampling was employed, using
equal representation, as the objective was to discover whether the use of green shopping
bags varied by gender. Determining the sample size was informed by the requirements of
structural equation modelling (SEM), which was used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Consideration was given to the estimation technique used and the complexity of the
measurement and structural model. The research model had ten variables and employed
the maximum likelihood method of estimation, which, according to Malhotra (2010),
requires large samples ranging from 200 to 500. Large samples are known to produce
more stable results when using SEM (Malhotra, 2010).
A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed from April 2018 to August 2018, using
the mall intercept technique. The mall intercept is one of the commonly used data
collection techniques in consumer studies (Tustin et al., 2010). Following the procedures
recommended by Diallo et al. (2018), grocery shoppers were approached in the
supermarket precincts by trained field workers and recruited to participate in the study.
The data was collected at different times on different days in order to enhance its
diversity. Permission to collect the data was granted by the supermarkets’ managers. A
screening question was used to ensure that the respondents qualified to participate. Only
respondents who knew about green shopping bags were considered for participation.
Respondents took part voluntarily, and no incentives were offered.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 27

4.3 Instruments
Validated scales adapted from previous related studies were used to operationalise the
study’s constructs on a seven-point Likert scale. The NEP was measured using a six-item
scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). Awareness of consequences, which assessed the extent to
which consumers understood the environmental challenges posed by reluctance to use
green shopping bags, was measured using a six-item scale (Stern et al., 1999). A
five-item scale adapted from Sinnappan and Rahman (2011) was used to measure the
degree to which respondents assumed responsibility for preserving the natural
environment. Personal norms related to the use of reusable shopping bags were measured
using a five-item scale developed by De Groot and Steg (2007), while descriptive norms
were measured using a five-item scale adapted from De Leeuw et al. (2015). Attitudes
towards the use of reusable shopping bags were assessed using a four-item scale adapted
from Sparks and Shepherd (1992). The intention to use reusable shopping bags was
measured using a four-item scale developed by Ertz et al. (2017). To measure the strength
of habits related to the use of reusable plastic shopping bags, the study relied on a
five-item scale developed by Verplanken and Orbell (2003). Perceived behavioural
control, which assessed respondents’ perceptions of the ease or difficulty associated with
the use of green shopping bags, was measured using a four-item scale adapted from
De Leeuw et al. (2015). The behaviour of using reusable shopping bags was assessed
using a seven-item scale adapted from Ertz et al. (2017). Respondents were also
requested to indicate their gender as male or female. Appendix provides the questionnaire
that was used in this study.

5 Results presentation

5.1 Sample profile, common method bias and data normality

Out of the 500 distributed questionnaires, 68 were discarded for incompleteness, and 432
were valid for analysis – that is, a response rate of 86.4 percent, representing 216 female
and 216 male consumers. The ages of the respondents ranged from 18 to 56 years. The
net monthly family income for the largest proportion of the respondents (42%) ranged
from R10,000 to R30,000. Harman’s single factor test was also computed to assess
potential common method variance. There was no significant difference in education
level of women and men grocery shoppers. The total variance of the un-rotated single
factor was 40.38%, which was less than the 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003),
indicating that common method variance was not a problem in this study. Skewness
values ranged from –1.126 to 0.221, while kurtosis values ranged from –1.386 to 0.924 –
all within the acceptable limits of –2 and +2 (George and Mallery, 2010).

5.2 Measurement model assessment

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the validity and reliability of the
measurement scales. The measurement model fitted well with the data, as indicated by
the model fit indices: chi-square/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 2.131; comparative fit
index (CFI) = 0.950; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.862; Tucker Lewis index (TLI)
= 0.944; incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.950, and root mean square error of approximation
28 A. Muposhi et al.

(RMSEA) = 0.048. The reliability of the constructs was assessed through the Cronbach’s
alpha (CA) values, which were all above 0.7. Convergent validity was appraised by factor
loading and the average variance extracted (AVE), which were all above 0.5; and the
composite reliability (CR) was above 0.7. The psychometric properties of the
measurement model are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Assessment of measurement model, reliability, and validity indicators

Construct Scale items Factor loadings CR CA AVE

New ecological paradigm (NEP) NEP1 0.897 0.928 0.928 0.721
NEP2 0.822
NEP3 0.870
NEP4 0.836
NEP5 0.819
Awareness of consequences (AC) AC1 0.799 0.899 0.898 0.64
AC2 0.835
AC3 0.796
AC4 0.832
AC5 0.734
Ascription of responsibility (AR) AR1 0.877 0.923 0.921 0.751
AR2 0.842
AR4 0.904
AR5 0.841
Attitude (ATT) ATT1 0.813 0.855 0.849 0.595
ATT2 0.754
ATT3 0.781
ATT4 0.736
Descriptive norms (DN) DN1 0.888 0.928 0.925 0.723
DN2 0.900
DN3 0.667
DN4 0.903
DN5 0.869
Personal norms (PN) PN1 0.858 0.916 0.914 0.732
PN2 0.887
PN3 0.804
PN4 0.871
Perceived behavioural control (PBC) PBC2 0.875 0.914 0.913 0.78
PBC3 0.86
PBC4 0.913
Habit strength (HS) HS2 0.938 0.945 0.944 0.85
HS3 0.909
HS4 0.919
Notes: CR = composite reliability; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance
extracted.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 29

Table 1 Assessment of measurement model, reliability, and validity indicators (continued)

Construct Scale items Factor loadings CR CA AVE

Behavioural intention (BI) BI2 0.788 0.819 0.84 0.601
BI3 0.772
BI4 0.765
Actual behaviour (AB) AB2 0.745 0.902 0.905 0.65
AB3 0.864
AB4 0.774
AB5 0.898
AB6 0.738
Notes: CR = composite reliability; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance
extracted.
Discriminant validity was assessed by inspecting the inter-construct correlation matrix
and computing the square root of the AVE values (Kline, 2005). As shown in Table 2, all
the values of the square root of the AVE were above the highest correlation of r = 0.788.
The correlation coefficients were all below 0.8, indicating the absence of collinearity
(Pallant, 2011). This indicated the attainment of discriminant validity, as suggested by
Fornell and Larcker (1981). Table 2 provides the inter-construct correlation matrix.
Table 2 Inter-construct correlation matrix

AB NPE AC PN ATT AR DN PBC HS BI

AB 0.806
NEP 0.549** 0.849
AC 0.479** 0.677** 0.800
PN 0.625** 0.653** 0.537** 0.856
ATT 0.690** 0.678** 0.621** 0.703** 0.772
AR 0.501** 0.722** 0.717** 0.716** 0.649** 0.866
DN 0.605** 0.570** 0.510** 0.788** 0.674** 0.681** 0.850
PBC 0.135* –0.005 0.011 –0.060 0.028 –0.103 0.081 0.883
HS 0.114 0.121 0.119 0.387** 0.185** 0.337** 0.402** 0.037 0.922
BI 0.623** 0.548** 0.525** 0.538** 0.748** 0.465** 0.466** 0.049 0.088 0.775
Notes: **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Values in italic are the square root of AVE.

5.3 Testing competing gender models

The data was split on the basis of gender to examine whether the use of green shopping
bags varied by gender. A metric invariance test – that is, the chi-square test of difference
(ΔX2) – was applied. The chi-square (X2) and degree of freedom (DF) of the fully
constrained structural model (X2 = 4,446, 6; DF = 2,247) were compared with those for
the unconstrained structural model (X2 = 4,507, 7; DF = 2,239) to determine the
invariance across gender. The main advantage of this method is that it shows the path
regression weight across gender groups, and also indicates whether the groups are
30 A. Muposhi et al.

statistically significant. The results revealed that the structural model did not differ
significantly between males and females (ΔX2 = 61.1; ΔDF = 82; p-value = 0.959). A
path-by-path analysis was performed in order to examine the standardised path
coefficients. Table 3 provides the results of the group difference analysis.
Consistent with the results of the group difference analysis, Figures 2 and 3 show the
structural models and the standardised estimates by gender.

Figure 2 Structural model for female sample (see online version for colours)

Figure 3: Structural model for male sample

Figure 3 Structural model for male sample (see online version for colours)
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 31

6 Discussion of results

With regard to the influence of the NEP on the awareness of consequences, the path
coefficient for women (β = 0.733; p < 0.01) was higher than that for men (β = 0.641;
p < 0.01), supporting H1. This result is consistent with the findings of previous studies
(Stern et al., 2005; Mostafa, 2007), and suggests that women still hold more biospheric
and altruistic values that shape NEP views than men do. This result also confirms earlier
findings (Bord and O’Connor, 1997; Lee, 2009) that women are more aware of the
consequences of their behaviours for the environment than men are. The significance of
the coefficients for both samples is encouraging, as they suggest that both gender groups
are now espousing NEP views – although they remain skewed towards women. The path
from an awareness of consequences to the ascription of responsibility for women
(β = 0.426; p < 0.01) was higher than that for men (β = 0.252; p < 0.01), thereby
supporting H2. This result was consistent with that of past studies (Zelezny et al., 2000;
Lee, 2009). In South Africa, McLellan (2014) also found a weak sense of environmental
responsibility among males – a finding confirmed by the small path coefficient of the
male shoppers.
Table 3 Group difference analysis (see online version for colours)

Female sample Male sample

Regression paths Δp-value
p Estimate p Estimate
NEP  AC *** 0.733 *** 0.641 >0.05
AC  AR *** 0.426 *** 0.252 >0.05
AR  PN *** 0.358 *** 0.306 >0.05
DN *** 0.521 *** 0.598 >0.05
DN  BI 0.62 -0.053 0.011 –0.286 >0.05
ATT *** 0.848 *** 0.985 >0.05
PN 0.607 0.054 0.417 0.091 >0.05
PBC  AB 0.043 0.117 0.01 0.14 >0.05
HAB 0.517 0.039 0.64 0.025 >0.05
BI *** 0.714 *** 0.689 >0.05

The path from the ascription of responsibility to personal norms for women (β = 0.358;
p < 0.01) was higher than that for men (β = 0.306; p < 0.01), thereby supporting H3. This
result confirmed the long-held view that women tend to internalise the norms related to
environmental protection more than men do (Hynes and Wilson, 2016). While women’s
personal norms are from an assumed environmental responsibility, men’s personal norms
come more from descriptive norms, as shown by the higher path coefficient (β = 0.598;
p < 0.01), which is higher than that of female consumers (β = 0.521; p < 0.01). This result
supported H4, suggesting that men are susceptible to the norms gained through social
environment peer groups or networks. This result resonated with the findings of previous
studies that found men to be more apt to engage in group-based environmental activism
(Vicente-Molina et al., 2013; Matthes et al., 2014).
The path coefficient for the male sample from attitudes towards green shopping bags
to intention was higher (β = 0.985; p < 0.01) than that for the female sample (β = 0.848;
32 A. Muposhi et al.

p < 0.01). This result confirmed H5. The act of carrying a green shopping bag begins as a
private household behaviour that moves into the public sphere domain when the bag is
used in the supermarket. Male consumers are known to engage more in public sphere
behaviours than females are (Oztekin et al., 2017). This may explain the favourable
attitudes of male consumers towards the use of green shopping bags. As male consumers
are known to espouse egoistic values (Sexton and Sexton, 2012), carrying a green
shopping bag may have the import of enhancing their green status. This view gains
support from the findings of the study conducted by Griskevicius et al. (2010), which
showed that the status motive enhances participation in public sphere behaviours, of
which the use of green shopping bags is one.
Another important result that emerged from this study relates to the influence of
norms on the intention to use green shopping bags. The path coefficients from descriptive
norm and personal norm to intention were all insignificant for both samples. Thus H6 and
H7 were not supported. The failure of the descriptive and personal norms to predict the
intention to use green shopping bags for both male and female samples may be explained
by the fact that the respondents in this study did not perceive that people close to them
were using green shopping bags. This result suggested the need for retailers that promote
green shopping bags to stimulate the formation of descriptive norms. This could be
achieved by emphasising the benefits of using green shopping bags. Steg and Vlek (2009)
also suggested the use of prominent environmentalists as opinion leaders in order to
promote the assimilation of pro-environmental behaviour descriptive norms.
With regard to H8, the path coefficient from intention to behaviour for women
(β = 0.714; p < 0.01) was higher than that for men (β = 0.689; p < 0.01). This result
concurred with previous studies (Bob and Babugura, 2014; Lee, 2009) that found women
to be more willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviour than men were. This result
could be explained by the social dilemma theory. Irwin et al. (2015) noted that, compared
with men, women tend to be more cooperative in environmental social dilemmas. Plastic
bag pollution amounts to a social dilemma because it affects both polluters and
non-polluters in the same way.
The female sample scored slightly more on perceived behavioural control (β = 0.117;
p < 0.01) than men did (β = 0.114; p < 0.01), supporting H10. This result suggested that
female consumers still experience challenges in using green shopping bags. This result
also concurred with past studies (Oztekin et al., 2017) that found that, compared with
men, women experience more challenges in undertaking frequent sustainable behaviours,
such as recycling. This result suggested that measures should be taken to ensure women’s
ease and convenience when using green shopping bags. This, according to Kollmuss and
Agyeman (2002), could be done by constantly observing both internal barriers, such as
attitudes and motives, and external impediments, such as the economic, social, and
institutional factors that inhibit the use of reusable shopping bags.
The influence of habit strength on the behaviour of using green shopping bags was
insignificant for both samples. Thus H9 was not supported. This result was contrary to
the TIB, which posits that, in the case of routinised behaviour (of which the use of green
shopping bags is one), habits predicts behaviour more than intention does (Triandis,
1977). This result implies that the use of green shopping bags is not yet entrenched
among shoppers, and emphasises the importance of instituting mechanisms to strengthen
the habits related to the use of green shopping bags.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 33

7 Implications of the study

Descriptive norms were also found to have a negative effect on the intention to use green
shopping bags in both gender groups. From a policy perspective, this finding challenges
decision-makers to craft and implement strategies that have the potential to trigger the
formation of descriptive norms that support the use of green shopping bags. Since
environmental protection is a public good, societal norms may need to be engendered in
communities as a way of promoting collective behaviour, as was done in Rwanda. The
study showed that female consumers are confronted by constraints when they attempt to
translate their favourable intentions into the actual behaviour of using green shopping
bags. From a policymaking standpoint, this result suggests the importance of creating an
enabling environment to promote the use of green shopping bags. According to Ertz et al.
(2017), incentives can be used to reward consumers who use green shopping bags, while
market-based instruments such as taxes could be used to discourage the use of SUPBs.
Ertz et al. (2017) further emphasised the importance of constantly monitoring the
existence of real or perceived factors that facilitate or constrain the use of green shopping
bags.
The NEP, an awareness of consequences, and attitudes emerged as the main factors
that influence both gender groups to use green shopping bags. Based on this finding,
policymakers are encouraged to develop marketing campaigns that focus on the
environmental, social, and economic consequences of not using green shopping bags. In
order to encourage non-users of green shopping bags, policymakers need to educate
consumers about the benefits of using green shopping bags. This would have the effect of
engendering feelings of responsibility, as observed by Sinnappan and Rahman (2011).

8 Limitations and future research directions

The study was cross-sectional in nature; and this shortened time frame for data collection
limited the study’s ability fully to track the factors that influence the use of green
shopping bags over time. Future studies could employ a longitudinal time horizon in
order to understand those factors in the long-term. The study relied on self-reported data,
and thus there is the possibility that respondents overstated their use of green shopping
bags. Future studies could employ methods of data collection that reduce the possibility
of inflated responses, such as observations or field experiments. The proposed model was
tested in one research setting, South Africa; future research could test the robustness of
the integrated model in other contexts.

9 Conclusions

This study examined whether the behaviour of using green shopping bags varied by
gender in a gender-equality-conscious market. The study results showed gender
differences in the use of green shopping bags in terms of the NEP, awareness of
consequences, ascription of responsibility, attitudes to green shopping bags, intention to
use green shopping bags, and perceived behavioural control. The study underscored the
importance of fostering the development of personal and descriptive norms related to the
34 A. Muposhi et al.

use of green shopping bags among both male and female consumers. If norms related to
using green shopping bags remain weak, it will be difficult to entrench the behaviour of
using green shopping bags. The study also showed that the other key to promote the use
of green shopping bags among both male and female consumers is to emphasise positive
environmental beliefs, awareness of consequences, and pro-environmental attitudes. The
study’s findings also highlighted the urgent need to minimise the structural barriers
associated with the use of green shopping bags, especially among female consumers. This
could be done by making green shopping bags affordable by using incentives and
‘nudges’. The study concluded that the gender differences gap in the use of green
shopping bags is narrowing; and this could be attributed to efforts to promote gender
equality.

References
Ackroyd, B. (2014) ‘Recycling the only solution to South Africa’s landfill shortage’ [online]
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/recycling-only-solution-south-africaslandfill-shortage
(accessed 16 May 2019).
Afrobarometer (2019) ‘Despite progressive laws, barriers to full gender equality persist in
South Africa’ [online] https://media.africaportal.org/documents/ab_r7_dispatchno324_despite
(accessed 3 August 2020).
Agarwal, B. (2000) ‘Conceptualizing environmental collective action: why gender matters’,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.283–310.
Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behaviour’, Org. Behav. Hum. Proc., Vol. 50, No. 2,
pp.179–211.
Bob, U. and Babugura, A. (2014) ‘Contextualising and conceptualising gender and climate change
in Africa’, Agenda, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.3–15.
Bord, R.I. and O’Connor, R.E. (1997) ‘The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of
perceived vulnerability to risk’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp.830–840.
Braun, Y.A. and Traore, A.S. (2015) ‘Plastic bags, pollution and identity: women and the
gendering of and environmental responsibility in Mali’, Gender & Society, Vol. 29, No. 6,
pp.863–887.
Carman, V.G., Machain, N. and Campagna, C. (2015) ‘Legal and institutional tools to mitigate
plastic pollution affecting marine species: Argentina as a case study’, Marine Pollution
Bulletin, Vol. 92, pp. 125–133.
Chen-Yu, J.H. and Seock, Y.K. (2002) ‘Adolescents’ clothing purchase motivations, information
sources, and store selection criteria: a comparison of male/female and impulse/non-impulse
shoppers’, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.50–77.
Chib, A., Chiew, H.J., Kumar, C., Choon, L.G. and Ale, K. (2009) ‘[Minus] plastic: influencing
pro‐environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth’, Environmental Education Research,
Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.679–696.
Commission for Gender Equality (2015) ‘The African gender development index (AGDI):
South Africa country report’ [online] http://cge.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cge-agdi-
report.pdf (accessed 2 June 2020).
Conradie, B., Treurnicht, M., Esler, K. and Gaertner, M. (2013) ‘Conservation states after
breakfast: the relative importance of opportunity cost and identity shaping private landholder
participation in conservation’, Biological Conservation, Vol. 158, pp.334–341.
De Groot, J.I. and Steg, L. (2007) ‘Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries:
validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations’,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.318–332.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 35

De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I. and Schmidt, P. (2015) ‘Using the theory of planned behaviour
to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behaviour in high-school students:
Implications for educational interventions’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 42,
pp.128–138.
Department of Environmental Affairs (2017) ‘Department of Environmental Affairs strives to
improve plastic bag recycling in South Africa’ [online] https://www.environment.gov.za/
mediarelease/deaonimproveplasticbagrecyclinginSA (accessed 13 April 2019).
Diallo, M.F., Diop-Sall, F., Djelassi, S. and Godefroit-Winkel, D. (2018) ‘How shopping mall
service quality affects customer loyalty across developing countries: the moderation of the
cultural context’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.69–84.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003) ‘Can socio
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation’, J. Bus. Res., Vol. 56, pp.465–480.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. and Guangano, G.A. (1998) ‘Social structural and social psychological bases
of environmental concern’, Environment & Behaviour, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.450–471.
Dikgang, J., Leiman and Visser, M. (2012) ‘Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South Africa’,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 66, pp.59–65.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A. and Jones, R.E. (2000) ‘Measuring endorsement of new
ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale’, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3,
pp.425–442.
Elliott, R. (2013) ‘The taste for green: the possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation
through green consumption’, Poetics, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.294–322.
Ertz, M., Huang, R., Jo, M., Karakas, F. and Sarigollu, E. (2017) ‘From single-use to multi-use:
study of consumers’ behaviour toward consumption of reusable containers’, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 1993, pp.334–344.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.G. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.39–50.
Freudenburg, W. and Davidson, D. (2007) ‘Nuclear families and nuclear risks’, Rural Sociology,
Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.215–243.
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, 17.0 Update, 10th ed., Pearson, Boston.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In A Difference Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Goldenhar L.M. and Connell, C.M. (1993) ‘Understanding and predicting recycling behaviour? An
application of the theory of reasoned action’, Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 22,
No. 1, pp.91–103.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010) ‘Going green to be seen: status,
reputation and conspicuous conservation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 98, No. 3, pp.392–404.
He, H. (2012) ‘Effects of environmental policy on consumption: lessons from the Chinese plastic
bag regulation’, Environment and Development Economics, Vol. 17, pp.407–431.
Hunter, L.M., Hatch, A. and Johnson, A. (2004) ‘Cross‐national gender variation in environmental
behaviors’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp.677–694.
Hynes, N. and Wilson, J. (2016) ‘I do it, but don’t tell anyone! Personal values, personal and social
norms: can social media play a role in changing pro-environmental behaviours?’,
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 111, pp.349–359.
Irwin, K., Edwards, K. and Tamburello, J.A. (2015) ‘Gender, trust and cooperation in
environmental social dilemmas’, Social Science Research, Vol. 50, pp.328–342.
Jakovcevic, A., Steg, L., Mazzeo, N., Caballero, R., Franco, P., Putrino, N. and Favara, J. (2014)
‘Charges for plastic bags: motivational and behavioural effects’, J. Env. Psyc., Vol. 40,
pp.372–380.
36 A. Muposhi et al.

Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R. and
Law, K.L. (2015) ‘Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean’, Sci., Vol. 347, No. 6223,
pp.768–771.
Kalamas, M., Cleveland, M. and Laroche, M. (2014) ‘Pro-environmental behaviour for thee but not
for me: green giants, green gods and external locus of control’, J. Bus. Res., Vol. 67, No. 2,
pp.12–22.
Karmarkar, U.R. and Bollinger, B. (2015) ‘BYOB: how bringing your own shopping bags lead to
treating yourself and the environment’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp.1–15.
Kennedy, E.H., Krahn, H. and Krogman, N.T. (2015) ‘Are we counting what counts? A closer look
at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour and carbon footprint’, Local
Environment, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.220–236.
Kline, R.B. (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 2nd ed., Guilford
Express, New York.
Klöckner, C.A. (2013) ‘A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour: a
meta-analysis’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.1028–1038.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002) ‘Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?’, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8,
No. 3, pp.239–260.
Lee, K. (2009) ‘Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing
behaviour’, J. Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.87–96.
Malhotra, K.N. (2010) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th ed., Pearson Education
International, Upper Saddle River.
Matthes, J., Wonneberger, A. and Schmuck, D. (2014) ‘Consumers’ green involvement and the
persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67,
pp.1885–1893.
McLellan, H. (2014) ‘Banning the plastic shopping bag in South Africa: an idea whose time has
come’, Proceedings of the 20th WasteCon Conference, Somerset West, Cape Town,
6–10 October, pp.248–255.
Mostafa, M.M. (2007) ‘Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour: the
effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude’, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.220–229.
Mtutu, P. and Thondhlana, G. (2016) ‘Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: energy use and
recycling at Rhodes University’, Habitat International, Vol. 53, pp.142–150.
Nielsen Report (2019) ‘Women: primed and ready for progress’ [online] https://www.nielsen.com/
eu/en/insights/article/2019/women-primed-and-ready-for-progress/ (accessed 3 February
2020).
O’Brien, J. and Thondlana, G. (2019) ‘Plastic bag use in South Africa: perceptions, practices and
potential intervention strategies’, Waste Management, Vol. 84, pp.320–328.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2012) Closing the Gender
Gap: Act Now, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Oztekin, C., Teksoz, G., Pamuk, S., Sahin, E. and Kilic, D.S. (2017) ‘Gender perspective on the
factors predicting recycling behaviour: implications from the theory of planned behaviour’,
Waste Manag., Vol. 62, pp.290–302.
Pallant, J. (2011) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step By Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS,
5th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire.
Pariatamby, A. and Fauziah, S.H. (2014) ‘Sustainable 3R practice in the Asia and Pacific regions:
the challenges and issues’, in Pariatamby, A. and Tanaka, M. (Eds.): Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands, pp.15–40, Environmental Science and
Engineering, Springer, Singapore.
Pick n Pay (2017) Pick n Pay Sustainable Living Report 2016 [online] http://www.
picknpayinvestor.co.za/downloads/2016/Sustainable-living-report-2016.pdf (accessed 1 June
2017).
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 37

Piennar, E.F., Lew, D.K. and Wallmo, K. (2013) ‘Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey
context? An investigation of the context dependency of the new ecological paradigm scale’,
Social Science Research, Vol. 42, pp.1542–1554.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003) ‘Common method biases
in behavioural research: a critical review of literature and recommended remedies’, Journal of
Applied Pyschology, Vol. 88, No. 7, p.879.
Research and Markets (2019) Retailing in South Africa, Market Shares, Summary and Forecasts to
2022 [online] https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4699880/retailing-in-south-africa-
market-shares-summary#src-pos-35 (accessed 4 April 2020).
Ritch, E., Brennan, C. and MacLeod, C. (2009) ‘Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer
behaviour for sustainable development’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33,
No. 2, pp.168–174.
Sánchez, N., López-Mosquera, N. and Lera-López, F. (2016) ‘Improving pro-environmental
behaviours in Spain: the role of attitudes and socio-demographic and political factors’, J. Env.
Pol. Plan., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.47–66.
Sexton, S.E. and Sexton, A.L. (2012) ‘Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to
pay for environmental bona fides’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Vol. 1, pp.1–26.
Shen, J. and Saijo, T. (2008) ‘Re-examining the relations between socio-demographic
characteristics and individual environmental concern: evidence from Shanghai data’, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28, pp.42–50.
Sinnappan, P. and Rahman, A. (2011) ‘Antecedents of green purchasing behaviour among
Malaysian consumers’, Medwell Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.129–139.
Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992) ‘Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: assessing
the role of identification with green consumerism’, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55,
No. 4, pp.388–399.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009) ‘Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and
research agenda’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.307–317.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (2005) ‘Value orientations, gender and environmental concern’,
in Kalof, L. and Satterfield, T. (Eds.): The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values,
pp.188–206, Earthscan, London, Sterling.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof, L. (1999) ‘A value-belief-norm theory of support
for social movements: the case of environmentalism’, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp.49–95.
Thomas, G.O., Poortinga, W. and Sautkina, E. (2016) ‘The welsh single-use carrier bag charge and
behavioural spillover’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 47, pp.126–135.
Tikka, P., Kuitunen, M. and Tynys, S. (2000) ‘Effects of educational background on students’
attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment’, Journal of
Environmental Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.12–19.
Triandis, H.C. (1977) Interpersonal Behaviour, Brooks, Monterey, CA.
Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B. and Borsuk, M.E. (2010) ‘Pro-environmental behaviour: rational
choice meets moral motivation’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1185,
pp.211–224.
Tustin, D.H., Ligthelm, A.A., Martins, J.H. and Van Wyk, H.D.J (2010) Marketing Research: In
Practise, 1st ed., Business Print, Pretoria.
Verplanken, B. and Orbell, S. (2003) ‘Reflections on past behaviour: a self-report index of habit
strength’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.1313–1330.
Vicente-Molina, M., Fernandez-Sainz, A. and Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2013) ‘Environmental
knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of
university students from emerging and advanced countries’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 61, pp.130–138.
38 A. Muposhi et al.

Vicente-Molina, M., Fernandez-Sainz, A. and Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2013) ‘Environmental

knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of
university students from emerging and advanced countries’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 61, pp.130–138.
Vicente-Molina, M.A., Fernández-Sainz, A. and Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018) ‘Does gender make a
difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country University
students’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 176, pp.89–98.
Wagner, T.P. (2017) ‘Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA’, Waste Manage,
Vol. 7, pp.3–12.
Wang, J.M. (2016) ‘Research on Taoist value, environment attitude and carbon emission reduction
consumption’, Jianghan Academy, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.5–13.
Woolworths Holdings Limited (2017) Good Business Journey Report [online] http://www.
woolworthsholdings.co.za/investor/annual_reports/ar2016/whl_2016_gbj, (accessed 31
December 2017).
World Economic Forum (2018) The Global Gender Gap Report 2018, https://www.weforum.org/
reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018 (accessed 18 August 2019).
World Economic Forum (2019) The Global Competitiveness Report 2019 [online]
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf (accessed
30 March 2020).
Wynveen, C.J., Wynveen, B.J. and Sutton, S.G. (2015) ‘Applying the value-belief-norm theory to
marine contexts: implications for encouraging pro-environmental behavior’, Coast. Manage.,
Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.84–103.
Xanthos, D. and Walker, T.R. (2017) ‘International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from
single-use plastics: a review’, Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Xiao, C. and Hong, D. (2010) ‘Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China’,
Population and Environment, Vol. 32, pp.88–104.
Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2014) ‘A test of the biographical availability of argument of gender
differences in environmental behaviours’, Environment Behaviour, Vol. 46, No. 2,
pp.241–263.
Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2014) ‘A test of the biographical availability of argument of gender
differences in environmental behaviours’, Environment Behaviour, Vol. 46, No. 2,
pp.241–263.
Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2015) ‘Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the
institutional trust hypothesis in the USA’, Environment & Behaviour, Vol. 47, No. 1,
pp.17–37.
Yang, S., Zhang, Y. and Zhao, D. (2016) ‘Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and
indirect ways in china? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics’, Energy.
Policy, Vol. 93, pp.196–205.
Yeow, P., Dean, A. and Tucker, D. (2014) ‘Bags for life: the embedding of ethical consumerism’,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125, No. 1, pp.87–99.
Zelezny, L. and Bailey, M. (2006) ‘A call for women to lead a different environmental movement’,
Organization & Environment, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.103–119.
Zelezny, L., Chua, P. and Alrich, C. (2000) ‘Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism’, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp.443–457.
Zen, I.S., Ahmad, R. and Omar, W. (2013) ‘No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the
policy implication’, Environment, Development & Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 5,
pp.1259–1269.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 39

Appendix

Questionnaire
The use of green shopping bags is a form of pro-environmental behaviour that is
promoted as a way of reducing litter, pollution, blocking of water drainage systems and
wastage of non-renewable resources.
Section A: demographic information
In this section we would like to find out about the demographic profile of respondents in this
study. Please indicate with a cross (x) in the box that corresponds with your profile.
A1 Gender Male
Female
A2 Age category 18–25
26–30
31–35
36–40
41–45
46–50
51 +
A3 Highest education level Below high school
Matriculation certificate
Higher certificate
Diploma
Bachelor’s degree
Honours degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate degree
A4 Net family income per month Less than R5,000
R5,001–10,000
R10,001–20,000
R20,001–30,000
R30,001–40,000
R40,001–50,000
Over R50,000
A5 Ethnic group African
Coloured
Indian
White
Other (please indicate) __________________________
40 A. Muposhi et al.

Section B
In this section we would like to find out more about factors that influence the use of non-plastic
re-usable shopping bags. Please indicate by circling only one number the extent to which you
agree with the statement below where 1 = very strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 somewhat
disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = agree somewhat, 6 = agree and 7 = very strongly
agree
Very Very
New ecological paradigm strongly strongly
disagree agree
NEP1 Humans are severely abusing the environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NEP2 When humans interfere with nature it often produce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
disastrous consequences.
NEP3 If things continue as they are, we will soon experience a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
major ecological catastrophe.
NEP4 The natural environment (including plants and animals) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
has as much right as human beings to exist.
NEP5 The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resources.
NEP6 The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
been greatly exaggerated (R).
Very Very
Habit strength strongly strongly
disagree agree
HS1 Using green shopping bags is something I do frequently. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HS2 Using green shopping bags is something I do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
automatically.
HS3 Using green shopping bags is something I do without 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thinking.
HS4 Using green shopping bags is part of my shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
routine.
HS5 Using green shopping bags is typical of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
Awareness of consequences strongly strongly
disagree agree
AC1 The use of green shopping bags will help the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
environment.
AC2 The use of green shopping bags helps to reduce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
greenhouse gases.
AC3 The use of green shopping bags will benefit the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
generations.
AC4 Disposed green bags pose a serious threat to grazing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
animals.
AC5 Disposed green shopping bags pose a serious problem for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
water safety.
AC6 I think the reluctance by shoppers to use green shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bags will be a problem for my family in future.
 Is the use of green shopping bags gendered? 41

Very Very
Ascription of responsibility strongly strongly
disagree agree
AR1 Environmental responsibility starts with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AR2 I believe I have responsibility to protect the environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
from pollution with green shopping bags.
AR3 I feel personal responsibility for helping my town’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
problems with green shopping bags.
AR4 Every consumer must take responsibility for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
environmental problems caused by single-use plastic
bags.
AR5 Environmental protection is the responsibility of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
government, not me (R).
Very Very
Personal norm strongly strongly
disagree agree
PN1 When I go shopping, I feel morally obliged to use green 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shopping bags instead of single-use plastic bags.
PN2 I feel a moral obligation to consider environmental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
problems caused by single-use plastic bags when I am
shopping.
PN3 I feel I am personally obliged not to use green shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bags when I am shopping, regardless of what others are
doing.
PN4 I feel obliged to help my city to address the problem of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
plastic bag litter.
PN5 I feel obliged to keep the environment in mind in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
daily behaviour.
Very Very
Descriptive norm strongly strongly
disagree agree
DN1 People who are important to me are using green shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bags for grocery shopping.
DN2 People who are important to me always use green 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shopping bags.
DN3 People who are close to me are not doing enough to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reduce single-use plastic bag litter (R).
DN4 People who are important to me make an effort to use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
green shopping bags.
DN5 People who are important to me carry green shopping for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
grocery shopping.
42 A. Muposhi et al.

Very Very
Attitude towards use of non-plastic reusable shopping bags strongly strongly
disagree agree
ATT1 To me using green shopping bags is a good practice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ATT2 To me using green shopping bags is likable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ATT3 To me using green shopping bags is beneficial. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ATT4 To me using green shopping bags is wise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
Behavioural intention strongly strongly
disagree agree
BI1 I will use non-plastic green shopping bags in future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BI2 I plan to use green shopping bags when I go shopping. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BI3 I will expend effort to use green shopping bags when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shopping.
BI4 I intend to use green shopping bags each time I shop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Very
Perceived behavioural control strongly strongly
disagree agree
PBC1 The decision to use green shopping bags for grocery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shopping is not completely up to me.
PBC2 For me using green shopping bags on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
would not be easy.
PBC3 Even if I wanted, I could not easily use green shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bags whenever I go for grocery shopping.
PBC4 I find green shopping bags not readily available when I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
do grocery shopping.
Section C
In this section we would like to measure the use of non-plastic reusable shopping bags by
consumers. Please indicate by circling only one number the frequency in which you engage in
the stated behaviour where 1 = not at all, 2 = almost never, 3 = seldom, 4 = sometimes,
5 = often, 6 = almost always and 7 = always
Behaviour of using non-plastic reusable shopping bags Not at all Always
AB1 I do my grocery shopping using green shopping bag. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AB2 I buy shopping bag(s) that are labelled as non-plastic and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reusable.
AB3 I carry green shopping bag every time I do grocery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shopping.
AB4 I buy green shopping bag(s) if I forget to bring it (them) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
when I do grocery shopping.
AB5 I refuse single-use plastic bag(s), instead I always use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
green shopping bag(s).
AB6 I do not throw away my green shopping bag(s), instead I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
keep it (them) safe for reuse.
AB7 I use any shopping bag, a label indicating that it is green 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
or reusable is not important (R).