See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227662554

Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Determinants of Green

Purchases by Swiss Consumers

Article in Psychology and Marketing · October 2003

DOI: 10.1002/mar.10101

CITATIONS READS
656 12,529

2 authors, including:

Carmen Tanner
Zeppelin University & University of Zurich
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,698 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Moral Intelligence View project

Values - Protected Values View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carmen Tanner on 18 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text

Top of CT
Promoting Sustainable
Consumption: Determinants
of Green Purchases by Swiss
Consumers
Carmen Tanner
Northwestern University
Sybille Wölfing Kast
University of Bern

ABSTRACT

Given that overconsumption in industrial countries is a main cause

of environmental degradation, a shift toward more sustainable
consumption patterns is required. This study attempts to uncover
personal and contextual barriers to consumers’ purchases of green
food and to strengthen knowledge about fostering green purchases.
Survey data are used to examine the influence of distinct categories
of personal factors (such as attitudes, personal norms, perceived
behavior barriers, knowledge) and contextual factors (such as
socioeconomic characteristics, living conditions, and store
characteristics) on green purchases of Swiss consumers. Results
from regression analysis suggest that green food purchases are
facilitated by positive attitudes of consumers toward (a)
environmental protection, (b) fair trade, (c) local products, and
(d) availability of action-related knowledge. In turn, green behavior
is negatively associated with (e) perceived time barriers and
(f) frequency of shopping in supermarkets. Surprisingly, green
purchases are not significantly related to moral thinking, monetary
barriers, or the socioeconomic characteristics of the consumers.
Implications for policy makers and for companies and marketers
engaged in the promotion and commercialization of green products
are discussed. 䉷 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Base of text
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20(10): 883–902 (October 2003)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
䉷 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.10101
883 Base of DF
MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
Over the last decades, a number of environmental problems that Base of text
threaten the environment and human life have been identified; these
include global warming, ozone depletion, water and air pollution, loss
of species, and farmland erosion. One main cause of these problems is
overconsumption of natural resources, with the industrial nations show-
ing the highest per-capita consumption. Any remedy will require urgent
changes in human behavior and cultural practices to reduce consump-
tion, as well as the development of cleaner and more efficient technol-
ogies (Oskamp, 2000). These goals are also captured in the notion of
sustainable development. Since the United Nations Conference on En-
vironment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, this
concept has been acknowledged and emphasized as a superordinate goal
that all nations and peoples should adopt to combat environmental deg-
radation and its threat to human welfare.
Among environmentally significant activities, the production, trade,
and consumption of food products have been identified as crucial con-
tributors to numerous environmental problems (e.g., Stern, Dietz, Rut-
tan, Socolow, & Sweeney, 1997). Recent research has demonstrated that
processes involved throughout the entire life cycle of food products, from
production to consumption, contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases,
farmland erosion, excess sewage, avoidable waste, and loss of species,
to name only a few of the negative consequences (Jungbluth, 2000;
Jungbluth, Tietje, & Scholz, 2000). Thus, fostering changes in the food
chain, such as changes in production, trade practices, or consumption,
are crucial steps in the quest for sustainable development.
The present research attempts to add knowledge about how to foster
purchases of green food. In doing this, the focus is on the consumer
whose actions and demands can be powerful signals to retailers and
manufacturers. On the other hand, the extent of consumers’ environ-
mentally friendly behaviors can be facilitated or inhibited by acts of
marketers or other contextual barriers. For instance, it is obviously far
more difficult to buy environmentally friendly food products when they
are not available at the local market. Traditionally, psychological re-
search has explored the role of attitudes, values, and knowledge in un-
derstanding consumer behavior. However, as other researchers have
pointed out (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz,
1995), situational factors may also matter. They can block environmen-
tally friendly behaviors and undermine the influence of positive atti-
tudes or values. The present study is conceptually based on an approach
that holds that human behavior is subjected to numerous barriers (Frey
& Foppa, 1986; Tanner, 1998, 1999; see also Gardner & Stern, 1996;
McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Barriers to (or facilitators of) a behavior may be
personal (e.g., ignorance about green products) or contextual (e.g., lack
of environmentally friendly products locally). This study is designed to
uncover relevant personal and contextual factors that may inhibit or short
standard

884 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
facilitate green purchases. Our claim is that there is considerable latent Base of text
potential for green consumerism to develop. Detecting factors that re-
strict its growth is essential to initialize further developments.
This leads to the question as to how green products may be defined.
In terms of food products, green is often loosely translated to mean sup-
port for organically grown food. Despite the relevance of this aspect,
other crucial product features affecting sustainability are neglected by
this narrow definition. These are, for instance, conservation practice,
origin of the product, and packaging. Previous studies are extended by
taking into account research that assessed the environmental impact of
food products on resource and energy use, and on the extent of harmful
emissions associated with food production, transportation, and pack-
aging. For example, an analysis of the environmental impact of Swiss
food products yielded that greenhouse production of vegetables creates
more environmental burdens in terms of energy and resource use than
does open-air production; in addition, the impact of vegetables shipped
to Europe across the Atlantic is eight times more negative than the
impact of domestically grown vegetables (Jungbluth, 2000; Jungbluth
et al., 2000). Furthermore, recent literature suggests fair trade (fair
prices and working conditions for workers) as another feature of sus-
tainability (e.g., Abramovitz et al., 2001). In sum, green food products
are defined this way: They are domestically cultivated rather than im-
ported from foreign countries; they are organically rather than conven-
tionally grown; they are seasonal and fresh rather than frozen; they are
not wrapped; and they support fair trade.
In the sections below, previous research findings and a theoretical
framework are outlined. Then, findings of a survey of Swiss households
will be reported. The survey’s focus was on those consumers who were
the primary shoppers in their household, and therefore took the role of
the gatekeepers (the people who make purchasing decisions and regu-
late what the other members of the household eat).

Theoretical Framework and Research Background

Previous psychological environmental research has typically focused on
the role of factors within the individual, such as knowledge, environ-
mental concern, attitudes, norms, and values (e.g., Hines, Hungerford,
& Tomera, 1986/87; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981).
Similarly, in the domain of green consumerism, research has examined
the relation between consumer behavior and consumer attitudes and
motives or has searched for the profile of the green consumer (e.g., Main-
ieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Ebreo, Hershey, &
Vining, 1999; Roberts, 1996). The specific variables that have been pos-
ited to have a relevant impact on environmental behavior can be clas-
sified into four categories. short
standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 885 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
Measures of Specific Attitudes. Research indicates that measures of Base of text
specific attitudes (e.g., judgments about products or behaviors) rather
than general measures of environmental concern (e.g., judgments about
environmental problems) are likely to manifest in environmental be-
havior (Hines et al., 1986/87; Gardner & Stern, 1996; Maloney & Ward,
1973; Schlossberg, 1991; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). A consumer survey
by Mainieri et al. (1997) clearly supports the suggestion that specific
consumer beliefs predict environmentally friendly consumer behavior
more accurately than does general environmental concern.

Perceived Barriers. Several studies have posited that notions of per-

ceived control or perceived behavioral barriers are additional significant
predictors of environmental behavior (e.g., Axelrod & Lehman, 1993;
Grob, 1995; Hines et al., 1986/87; Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas,
1999). Likewise, Roberts (1996) suggests that in order to motivate be-
havioral changes, consumers must be convinced that their behavior has
an impact on the environment or will be effective in fighting environ-
mental degradation.

Knowledge. Environmental knowledge has been found to be positively

related to environmental behavior, but the literature also reports con-
tradictory findings on the question of how ecological knowledge is re-
lated to environmental behavior (Arbuthnot & Lingg, 1975; Hines et al.,
1986/87; Grob, 1995; Maloney & Ward, 1973). Schahn and Holzer (1990)
demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between knowledge
about facts and knowledge about actions. The term factual knowledge
refers to knowledge about definitions and causes/consequences of envi-
ronmental problems (e.g., what is the greenhouse effect?), whereas ac-
tion-related knowledge is used to refer to information about possible
actions (e.g., which human behaviors are related to the greenhouse ef-
fect). Unlike factual knowledge, action-related knowledge is more likely
to affect behavior.

Personal Norm. Numerous studies have revealed that a personal

norm — a feeling of moral obligation — is a powerful motivator of envi-
ronmental behavior (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern & Dietz, 1994;
Stern, Dietz, & Black, 1986; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). In a recent study
on recycling and consumerism, Ebreo et al. (1999) found that the degree
to which people feel obliged to recycle is related to conservation-related
product attributes. These investigations suggest that environmentally
friendly behavior may be characterized as morally demanding.
Overall, a large body of studies asserts that personal factors are nec-
essary and essential to foster behavioral changes, even though the cor-
respondence between attitudinal variables and behavior is often mod-
erate. Other research, however, suggests that contextual factors of the short
social, economic, or physical environment within which people act also standard

886 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
matter and can keep pro-environmental attitudes from being expressed Base of text
in action (e.g., Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Geller, 1987; Guagnano,
Stern, & Dietz, 1995; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Tanner, 1999). Although
contextual factors are also very important, they have not received the
attention they deserve in psychological research. For example, even if
a person is motivated to buy green products, he or she cannot buy such
goods if they are not offered for sale in an accessible location. In the
domain of energy use, research indicates that social structure, ethnicity,
and household technology all have a relevant impact on household en-
ergy consumption (e.g., Black et al., 1985; Lutzenhiser, 1997). As a con-
clusion, studies may benefit from considering both personal and contex-
tual variables to advance knowledge about environmental behavior. The
framework adopted here advocates research into both personal and con-
textual barriers.

Research Goals
The present study is designed to uncover personal and contextual fac-
tors that influence green food purchases by Swiss consumers.
The personal factors incorporated in this study were based upon pre-
vious research and on interviews with Swiss consumers. The interviews
were conducted with customers of a Swiss supermarket and an organic
food store (N ⫽ 27) about their purchasing motives and about product
features they take into account in purchase decisions. In accordance
with previous studies, specific rather than general measures have been
developed (Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997). Generally, the per-
sonal factors incorporated can be divided into four categories: (a) atti-
tudes toward food products, (b) personal norms, (c) perceived barriers,
and (d) ecological knowledge.
As for the contextual factors, the study used the following three
groups of socio-cultural conditions as indicators of external barriers.

Socioeconomic Characteristics. Previous literature identified edu-

cation, occupational level (e.g., high rank, low rank), employment status
(e.g., full-time, part-time), and income as the classical dimensions of
social class in Western industrial societies (see Lamprecht & Stamm,
1994). They are indicators of purchasing power and time constraints.

Living Conditions. Place of residence and household size were used

as two features that may indicate differences in buying opportunities
and household activities (see e.g., Uusitalo, 1986).

Store Types. Because different stores necessarily differ in what they

supply, they are likely to affect consumers’ purchases. It is assumed that
green purchases would be harder to make in a supermarket than in short
other kinds of stores (e.g., organic food stores). However, in the present standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 887 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
case, what is particularly interesting is that prominent Swiss super- Base of text
markets have recently increased the merchandising of green products.
This has raised the question, in the minds of some, as to whether store
type matters (the position here is that it still does).
Overall, this study is designed to examine the relative importance of
those variables in facilitating or inhibiting the consumer’s tendency to
make green purchases.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Survey data for rural and urban households in and around the city of
Bern were collected in November 1996. For 6500 randomly selected
households, the household’s primary shopper was asked to volunteer.
Then, 745 questionnaires were sent to those who had returned a consent
form (response rate: 12%).1 Of these, a total of 547 German-speaking
Swiss adults returned the completed questionnaire. Sixty-eight percent
of the respondents were female. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years
(range: 18 – 90 years); 59% lived in the city of Bern, whereas 41% lived
in rural settings. Even though representativeness was not the goal (find-
ing people holding the role of the gatekeeper was the main goal), the
composition of this sample was compared with census data from the
Swiss Statistical Yearbook 1997. This showed quite a good match. Note-
worthy differences were related to gender, household size, and educa-
tion. Not surprisingly, the proportion of women in our sample (68%) was
found to be higher than in the Swiss population (51%). This indicates
that shopping on behalf of the household is still done more by women
than by men. Compared to the Swiss population, our sample had a some-
what smaller percentage of single-person households (20% vs. 32%), and
a larger proportion of people with higher education (45% vs. 30%).

Survey Instrument
After two pretests, a final draft of the questionnaire was created to as-
sess personal and contextual dimensions.

Personal Factors. The first section of the questionnaire contained

questions assessing personal dimensions. Usually, respondents indi-
cated their level of agreement on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1
(“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Negatively formulated ques-

1
People were first asked to confirm their participation in the study by sending back a consent form.
This procedure was necessary because the research consisted of two parts: a questionnaire and
a diary study. Permission to keep the participant’s address was needed. Clearly, the response short
rate is low, but compares favorably with other studies. standard

888 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
tions were reversed in coding. Twenty-two items were used to assess Base of text
attitudes toward food products. They covered six factors: environmental
protection, genetically engineered food, fair trade, health, regional prod-
ucts, and food taste. A set of six items was used to assess two factors of
perceived barriers: perceived time and monetary barriers. Four items
assessed personal norms. Eleven items served to obtain measures for
factual knowledge, action-related knowledge, and confidence in product
labels. For some knowledge questions, respondents had to choose the
correct answer from among four choices (including an “I don’t know”
option). For instance, in one item respondents were presented with sev-
eral “eco-labels” used in Switzerland that represent different ecological
standards.2 Respondents were asked which of these labels would reflect
the highest ecological standards. For other knowledge items, the “yes”/
“no” and “I don’t know” response format was used. The knowledge scales
were changed into a dichotomous scale (wrong/correct). “I don’t know”
answers were coded as wrong responses. Finally, the items were used
to obtain respondents’ level of agreement on confidence in labels, again
based on a 5-point scale.
Four principal-component analyses with promax rotation were con-
ducted to determine the dimensionality of each group of items. These
analyses sorted the attitudinal scales neatly into six categories, the per-
ceived barriers into two, and the knowledge scales into three categories.
The coherence of the personal norm was also confirmed. The factors
account for 63%, 57%, 51%, and 49% of the variances, respectively. Com-
puting the average across the individual item scores created the final
scales. The scale items, along with the scale means, standard deviations,
reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient), and factor loadings are dis-
played in Appendix 1.

Contextual Factors. Ten questions were used as indicators of contex-

tual barriers. In terms of stores, participants were asked where they
mainly buy milk products, vegetables, and meat. Respondents could
choose from among several options that constitute a broad array of pos-
sible shopping opportunities in Switzerland, such as supermarkets and
smaller retailers, organic food stores, farmer’s markets, farmers, fair-
trade stores, and health food stores, as well as food procurement by self-
production. The scores were combined in an index of frequency of su-
permarket use that ranged from 0 (no supermarket) to 3 (exclusively
supermarkets). Finally, the questionnaire included questions assessing
the respondent’s socioeconomic dimensions (education, occupational

2
In general, the various eco-labels of this type used in Switzerland indicate differences in agricul-
tural practice. The standards differ considerably. Although some labels stand for products that
are characterized by limited use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, other labels stand for ag-
ricultural practices that include the complete avoidance of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and
greenhouse production. In the case of meat, the logos indicate whether the animals were hu- short
manely kept. Other logos indicate fair trade practices. standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 889 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
level, employment status, and household income) and household living Base of text
conditions (place of residence, household size).

Extent of the Consumer’s Green Food Purchases. Most of the items

included in the behavioral measure referred to purchases of food prod-
ucts varying in environmentally relevant product characteristics, such
as means of production, packaging, type of preservation, and origin.
Respondents were asked how often they buy different kinds of food prod-
ucts, such as canned food, products with an eco-label, frozen meat, fresh
produce, or local goods. One item addressed the purchase of fair trade
products (products that guarantee fair prices and working conditions
for workers). Respondents were also asked to estimate how many liters
(1 liter ⬵ 1.8 pints) per week they buy of different beverages, such as
imported beer or milk bought in bulk.3
Unlike the previous scales, the present assessment of green pur-
chases was based on a probabilistic measurement approach (Rasch
scale) (Bond & Fox, 2001; Kaiser, 1998; Wright & Masters, 1982). One
main advantage of this approach is that it allows one to include a broad
range of behavioral items, even with extreme item difficulties. Based on
this approach the behavioral measure is an estimate of number of green
purchases a consumer has undertaken (more specifically, it is the num-
ber of behavior difficulties a person has overcome) (for more details see
Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). Aggregating across the positive
behaviors reveals the individual’s extent of purchases of green food
products.
The original 6-point response format had to be converted into a di-
chotomous response format, so that 1 indicated “not purchasing envi-
ronmentally friendly” and 2 indicated “purchasing environmentally
friendly.” This measure was advisable because the more sophisticated
response format made responses more arbitrary rather than more reli-
able.4 With the use of the Rasch dichotomous model, the items on a
unidimensional scale were assessed and the misfitting items were then
excluded. The final measure was composed of 19 items (see Appendix 2)
with a reliability of 0.70. As mentioned above, the extent of the individ-
ual’s green food purchases was attained by aggregating across the entire
range of specific self-reported purchases of green food products (for more
details, see Tanner, Kaiser, & Wölfing Kast, in press).

3
Frequency measures (e.g., how often . . .) as behavioral indicators correspond to the measures
most often used in previous research. One reviewer correctly emphasized that such a measure
is influenced by frequency of shopping. Using a dichotomous response format reduces this prob-
lem.
4
The variety of possible responses was obviously reduced by converting the polytomous response
format into a dichotomous one. Kaiser and Wilson (2000) found that a polytomous format does
not necessarily enhance a behavior scale’s reliability or increase the proportion of fitting partic-
ipants. Furthermore, using a dichotomous format reduces the problem of confounding frequency short
of purchases with frequency of shopping. standard

890 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
RESULTS Base of text

In a first step, simple bivariate correlations were calculated to assess

the association between all variables. Table 1 displays the intercorre-
lations of the measures developed in this study. Because some of the
intercorrelations may indicate possible problems of multicollinearity,
the variance inflation factors (VIF) of the predictors were examined, a
more subtle test of multicollinearity (Stevens, 1996). These analyses
revealed very low variance influence factors (VIF ⬍ 2.04), indicating
that each predictor has only weak associations with the other predictors.
Next, all subscales were entered into a regression equation to exam-
ine the relative contribution of the variables in predicting the extent of
consumer’s green food purchases. Because only the best predictors that
make an essential contribution to the variance explained were of pri-
mary interest, a stepwise regression procedure was run. Table 2 dis-
plays the major results with the standardized (B) and unstandardized
beta (␤) coefficients. As expected, the first predictor to enter the model
was attitude toward environmental protection. That scale alone already
accounted for approximately 19% of the variance. After that, variables
were entered in the following order (incremental gain in R2 is shown in
parentheses): frequency of supermarket use (.10), attitude toward fair
trade (.05), perceived time barriers (.02), attitude toward domestic prod-
ucts (.02), and finally, action-related ecological knowledge (.03). As a
whole, the multiple correlation was .64. Simultaneously, the amount of
explained variance increased to 41%. (A regression equation containing
all variables revealed only a marginal increase of the model. The total
variance explained by the full model yielded an R of .65 and an R2 of
.42.)
In summary, five personal factors but only one contextual factor were
found to be highly significantly associated with the extent of a con-
sumer’s green food purchases. Specifically, green food purchases were
facilitated by proenvironmental attitudes, by positive attitudes toward
fair trade, and by local products. In addition, they were facilitated by
having adequate knowledge to distinguish between environmentally
friendly and environmentally harmful products. However, the extent of
people’s green food purchases decreased when people perceived a need
to save time, and when they shopped mainly in supermarkets. None of
the other personal factors (attitude toward genetically engineered food,
food taste, health, factual knowledge, confidence in eco-label, personal
norms, perceived monetary barriers) proved to be a relevant predictor.
Particularly surprising is the discovery that personal norms and per-
ceived monetary barriers were not significant. Similarly, place of resi-
dence and household size were not among the relevant predictors. Nor
did the analyses reveal that any of the social-economic dimensions, such
as education, occupational level, employment status, and household in- short
come, were significantly correlated with the extent of green behaviors. standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 891 Base of RF

892

MAR
WILEJ
Table 1. Correlation Matrix of all Subscales.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

1. Environmental protection
2. Rejection of GE food .34
3. Fair trade .47 .35
4. Health .35 .36 .43
5. Regional products .21 .25 .38 .30
6. Taste ⫺.27 ⫺.26 ⫺.21 ⫺.40 ⫺.14
7. Perceived monetary barrier ⫺.58 ⫺.23 ⫺.39 ⫺.24 ⫺.23 .17
8. Perceived time barrier ⫺.26 — — — ⫺.12 .11 .11
9. Action-related knowledge .25 .22 .31 .19 .20 — ⫺.25 ⫺.12
10. Factual knowledge .31 — .29 .21 — ⫺.16 ⫺.30 — .28
11. Confidence in label .20 — .19 ⫺.16 ⫺.25 — .24 —
12. Personal norm 48 .38 .59 .45 .34 ⫺.29 ⫺.36 — .21 .29 —
13. Supermarket use ⫺.21 ⫺.16 ⫺.24 ⫺.17 ⫺.31 — .20 .15 ⫺.22 ⫺.13 ⫺.11 —
14. Education — ⫺.16 — ⫺.15 ⫺.13 .18 — — — — — — —
15. Employment status — — — ⫺.20 — .12 — .18 — — — — — .18

LEFT
16. Occupational level — — — — — .12 — — — — — — — .32 —
17. Place of residence — — — — .19 ⫺.22 — ⫺.13 .14 — — — ⫺.22 ⫺.13 — ⫺.14
18. Household size — — — — — ⫺.27 — ⫺.30 .17 — — — ⫺.15 — — ⫺.15 .31
⫺.16 .13 ⫺.13

TANNER AND KAST

19. Household income — — — — — — — — — — .26 .15 .35 .25
20. Green purchases .44 .29 .43 .31 .34 ⫺.18 ⫺.31 ⫺.27 .24 .32 ⫺.24 .30 ⫺.42 — — — .16 — —
Note: N of the bivariate correlations between N ⫽ 360 and N ⫽ 547. Table contains only correlations p ⬍ .01.

BATCH
Base of RF

Base of text
Top of text
standard
short
MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Table 2. Multiple Regression Results with Personal Variables Used to

Top of text
Base of text
Predict One’s Extent of Green Food Purchases (N ⴝ 554).

Predictor B ␤ t R2
Environmental protection 0.61 0.45 10.20 .19
Frequency of supermarket use ⫺0.31 ⫺0.33 ⫺7.79 .29
Fair trade 0.30 0.24 5.43 .34
Perceived time barrier ⫺0.18 ⫺0.16 ⫺3.86 .36
Local products 0.20 0.16 3.81 .38
Action-related knowledge 0.48 0.12 3.03 .41
Note: Only predictors p ⬍ .01 included.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The current study extends previous research about environmental con-

sumerism by incorporating personal and contextual dimensions, by in-
cluding more features of sustainability, and by adopting a Rasch model
to the measurement of green purchases. Consistent with earlier findings
(e.g., Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997), the study confirms that
personal attitudes and beliefs are powerful predictors of green pur-
chases. First, positive attitudes toward environmental protection, fair
trade, and local production are major facilitators of green purchases.
Second, perceived time barriers restrain one’s motivation to buy green
products. Third, action-related knowledge is an additional predictor of
green purchases. Even though the relationship between knowledge and
behavior was not strong, the study provides evidence that some sort of
appropriate knowledge is needed for taking appropriate behavior.
One striking result is that cost does not play an integral role in green
purchases. Yet it is possible that the potential impact of perceived mon-
etary barriers has been covered in this analysis because they are sig-
nificantly associated with other predictors. However, as further analy-
ses (VIF) revealed, there is absolutely no evidence that multicollinearity
was a problem in this study. Thus, the present results are more likely
to indicate that people with a high environmental motivation are less
sensitive to price. This is in line with previous studies that indicated
that consumers who are concerned about the environment are more will-
ing to pay a premium for green products (e.g., Bang, Ellinger, Hadji-
marcou, & Traichal, 2000). Furthermore, the study revealed no signif-
icant association between personal norms and green food purchases.
Earlier studies suggested that various categories of environmental be-
haviors, such as recycling (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern et al.,
1986; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1992) or transportation be-
haviors (Tanner, 1999) involve moral thinking. The current study con-
tradicts the notion that green food purchases reflect a moral standpoint.
In regard to the contextual variables, the findings provide little evi- short
dence that differences in social status and income account for behavioral standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 893 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
differences. This provides additional support for the claim that mone- Base of text
tary dimensions, at least for the Swiss sample, do not play such a dom-
inant role, as might be expected. However, the findings do provide evi-
dence that food purchases are remarkably susceptible to conditions in
the stores where consumers mainly shop for edibles. Specifically, con-
sumers who mainly shop in supermarkets show a lower level of green
purchases.
The question may arise as to whether the measure of supermarket
use is a measure of preference rather than a situational influence. This
problem was recently addressed in a more thorough analysis of external
factors (Tanner et al., in press) by making further use of the adoption
of the Rasch model to the measurement of green purchases. An impor-
tant feature of the Rasch model is that it brings up a measure that
makes use of aggregation both across behaviors (e.g., estimating the
number of environmentally friendly behaviors one person undertakes)
and across people (e.g., estimating the number of people who undertake
one specific behavior). Although the former is especially useful to study
personal influences on the individual’s extent of environmental behav-
ior, the latter is especially valuable to disclose situational influences
that are responsible for facilitating and inhibiting certain performances
(for more details, see Kaiser & Biel, 2000; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). This
measure was adopted to test whether supermarket use still proved to
be an essential factor. In fact, the importance of stores was confirmed.
In addition, place of residence and household size were found to be ad-
ditional essential factors. Again, social status and income were not rel-
evant (Tanner et al., in press). This analysis provides further evidence
that supermarket use is likely to reflect a situational influence rather
than the consumer’s preferences. Nevertheless, subsequent research
would be valuable to get further clarification.
It is not surprising that what people buy is strongly related to where
they shop. What does come as a surprise, however, is the fact that su-
permarket use actually diminishes the likelihood of green food pur-
chases — despite the recent shift in Swiss supermarket practices toward
supplying more environmentally friendly goods. A closer look, however,
reveals that when it comes to green food products, many supermarkets
have tended to pay primary attention to the production of food (organic
versus conventional production), while neglecting other product fea-
tures affecting sustainability (such as conservation, packaging, origin
of the products) It is of paramount importance not to neglect these other
environmentally significant aspects.
These findings suggest a number of implications on how to foster sus-
tainable food purchases among Swiss consumers.

1. The study strongly suggests that green marketing should address

women, because they are still the main group responsible for shop- short
ping — the gatekeepers. standard

894 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
2. The demand for green products may be encouraged not only by Base of text
fostering proenvironmental beliefs but also by promoting addi-
tional motives, such as preference for domestically produced food
and for products that are traded fairly. Therefore, local and fair-
trade products appear to be useful foci for marketing efforts.
3. Informational interventions should be considered to educate con-
sumers, so that they can accurately identify which products are
environmentally friendly and which are not.
4. The finding that perceived time barriers reduce purchases of green
food products implies that there is potential for products that are
both environmentally friendly and time saving (so-called eco-
convenience products).
5. People involved in production and promotion of green products, as
well as policy makers, need to reflect on which products and be-
haviors have a significant destructive environmental impact.

Some aspects of these findings deserve comment. First, the results

apply most directly to the Swiss sample. The concepts and behavioral
items used in the study can be traced, at least partially, to culture-
specific factors. Although this limits the generalizability of the results,
it simultaneously increases their practical relevance. Research has to
account for such emic factors in understanding consumption patterns.
Second, given the low response rate, the results may reflect biases. This
response rate is not unusual for environmental and consumer studies;
however, further research is needed to determine whether any of the
differences between these findings and those in other studies stem from
differences in the characteristics of the sample. Despite these limita-
tions, the study provides additional and generalizable insights to the
understanding of green purchases. Specifically, focusing on the gate-
keepers and examining their beliefs and their contextual conditions,
taking account of research that examines which kinds of products or
behaviors are environmentally significant, and uncovering crucial per-
sonal and contextual barriers to behaviors are crucial and general steps
to adopt to support sustainable development.

CONCLUSION

Given that per-capita consumption in industrial countries is a main

cause of environmental degradation, the need for sustainable develop-
ment will require alternative consumption patterns. Because of the com-
plexity of the factors involved, it is clear that no simple remedies will
suffice to accomplish the long-term goals. Rather, multifaceted effort
will have to be carried out by a broad coalition of interrelated actors. short
Alterations in people’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors may stimulate standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 895 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
changes in the political and economic systems, which in turn might en- Base of text
courage lifestyle changes. On the other hand, product manufacturers
can affect the market and consumers by encouraging new developments.
It seems that there is considerable potential for green consumerism to
develop, but that its growth is inhibited by various barriers. Further-
more, this research emphasizes to address three questions to initiate
expansion of green purchases:

1. Who is the gatekeeper? Interventions have to address those actors

who have decisional power and the potential to implement
changes. In this study, the women turned out to have this position.
2. What are relevant features of green products or environmentally
significant behaviors? The present study emphasized that agri-
cultural practice (such as organically grown products) is only one
aspect. Green is often translated to mean support for organically
grown products. However, other features, such as type of conser-
vation, packaging, origin of the product, or fair trade are also im-
portant. Obviously, addressing sustainable development is not
done by adopting a simple interpretation of green.
3. What are the relevant personal and contextual barriers to consum-
ers’ green purchases? Green consumerism can be encouraged by
supporting factors that facilitate and by breaking down the
barriers that restrict environmentally friendly behaviors. These
findings suggest that addressing several beliefs (attitudes toward
environmental protection, fair trade, and local production), action-
related knowledge, time barriers, as well as store differences can
support this goal.

Clearly, more research would be valuable to advance understanding

of green behaviors and its consequences on environment, economy, and
society. However, the belief is that this study provided further insights
about environmental consumerism and useful implications on how to
promote sustainable development.

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, J. N., Brown, L. R., Dunn, S., Flavin, C., French, H., Gardner, G.,
Halweil, B., Hwang, A., Larsen, J., Lenssen, N., Mastny, L., Mattoon, A.,
McGinn, A. P., Nierenberg, D., Renner, M., Roodman, D. M., Sampat, P.,
Sheehan, M. O., Young, J. E., & Starke, L. (2001). Vital signs 2001. New
York: Norton.
Arbuthnot, J., & Lingg, S. (1975). A comparison of French and American en-
vironmental behavior, knowledge and attitudes. International Journal of
Psychology, 10, 411 – 423. short
Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: standard

896 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
What factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, Base of text
13, 149 – 159.
Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Con-
sumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An
application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449 –
468.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual
influences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 3 – 21.
Bond, T. B., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental
measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking re-
cycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Be-
havior, 31, 107 – 135.
Frey, B. S., & Foppa, K. (1986). Human behavior: Possibilities explain action.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 137 – 160.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human
behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Geller, E. S. (1987). Applied behavior analysis and environmental psychology:
From strange bedfellows to a productive marriage. In D. Stokols & I. Altman
(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 361 – 388). New
York: Wiley.
Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209 – 220.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude – be-
havior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 27, 699 – 718.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and syn-
thesis of research on environmental behavior. A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 18, 1 – 8.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Nor-
mative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community
recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195 – 220.
Jungbluth, N. (2000). Umweltfolgen des nahrungsmittelkonsums: Beurteilung
von produktmerkmalen auf grundlage einer modularen ökobilanz. [Environ-
mental consequences of food consumption: Using a modular life cycle assess-
ment to evaluate product characteristics]. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Insti-
tute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. (2000). The modular LCA: Environmen-
tal impacts of food purchases from the consumers’ point of view. International
Journal of LCA, 5, 134 – 142.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 28, 395 – 422.
Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological behavior:
A cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 44 – 52.
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological be-
havior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
952 – 978. short
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 897 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
and Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal Base of text
of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441 – 460.
Lamprecht, M., & Stamm, H. (1994). Die soziale ordnung der freizeit [The social
order of leisure]. Zurich: Seismo.
Lutzenhiser, L. (1997). Social structure, culture, and technology: Modeling the
driving forces of household energy consumption. In P. C. Stern, T. Dietz,
V. W. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmental signif-
icant consumption (pp. 77 – 91). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997).
Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189 – 204.
Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people: An
objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.
American Psychologist, 28, 583 – 586.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through commu-
nity-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531 – 537.
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology
help? American Psychologist, 55, 496 – 508.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications
for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217 – 231.
Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern:
The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and
Behavior, 22.
Schlossberg, H. (1991). Green marketing has been planted — Now watch it
grow. Marketing News, 4, 26 – 30.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern.
Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65 – 84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protec-
tion: The role of morale norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204 – 222.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V. W., Socolow, R. H., & Sweeney, J. L. (1997).
Environmentally significant consumption. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tanner, C. (1998). Die ipsative handlungstheorie: Eine alternative sichtweise
ökologischen handelns. [The theory of ipsative action: An alternative per-
spective about environmental behavior]. Umweltpsychologie, 2, 34 – 44.
Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behavior. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 19, 145 – 157.
Tanner, C., Kaiser F.G., & Wölfing Kast, S. (in press). Contextual conditions of
ecological consumerism: A food-purchasing survey. Environment & Behavior.
Uusitalo, L. (1986). Environmental impacts of consumption patterns. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make
a difference how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651 – 676.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and
specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580 – 1607.
Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. short
Chicago: MESA. standard

898 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

Top of text
APPENDIX 1 Base of text

Items, Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies, and Factor

Loadings of the Personal Subscales (English Translations of Original Items).

Mean SD Alpha Loadings

Attitudes toward food products
Environmental protection 3.80 0.84 0.63
It is not important to me whether the pro- 0.66
duce was grown organically or convention-
ally.
Environmental protection is important to me 0.64
when making purchases.
If I can choose between organic and conven- 0.69
tional food products, I prefer organic.
Genetically engineered food 3.97 0.98 0.78
Genetic engineering should be more used in 0.76
agriculture. (⫺)
I am opposed to genetically altered food prod- 0.87
ucts for ethical or moral reasons.
Genetically engineered food products are 0.85
dangerous for human beings.
Fair trade 2.97 0.89 0.79
Solidarity with third-world countries is im- 0.83
portant to me.
I would refrain from buying bananas or cof- 0.70
fee if I were not sure whether growers and
workers were fairly paid.
When buying coffee, I pay attention to fair 0.77
trade labels (e.g., Max Havelaar).
I would be willing to pay a higher price to 0.79
support small growers from third-world
countries.
Health 3.44 0.82 0.63
It is important to me that food products con- 0.78
tain no preservatives.
I avoid products containing too much sugar. 0.60
When making purchases, I pay attention to 0.76
whether the food products contain un-
healthy substances.
Health issues play an important role for me 0.45
when I make up my menus.
Regional products 3.98 0.89 0.86
It is important to me to support local farmers 0.87
when making purchase.
It is good to support domestic agriculture by 0.86
buying regional products.
Consumers should show solidarity with do- 0.88
mestic farmers.
It is not important to me whether food prod- 0.73 short
ucts are grown locally or not (⫺).
standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 899 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

APPENDIX 1. (Continued)
Top of text
Base of text
Mean SD Alpha Loadings
Food taste 3.01 0.83 0.73
When making purchases I would primarily 0.70
buy products which taste good.
When making purchases, I am guided by 0.76
what I like.
People should eat what they like, even if 0.64
what they eat is unhealthy (⫺)
When making purchases I am guided by my 0.81
taste of gourmet cooking.
Perceived Barriers
Perceived monetary barriers 2.61 0.84 0.60
I cannot afford to pay more for organic prod- 0.71
ucts.
Green products are still too expensive. 0.81
People should buy green products, even 0.77
though they are more expensive (⫺).
Perceived time barrier 2.34 0.96 0.75
I have too little time for cooking. 0.86
I have little time available for preparation of 0.60
meals.
Because of lack of time, I am dependent on 0.76
food products that do not need much time
for preparation.
Personal norm 3.24 0.83 0.64
Everybody has a responsibility to contribute 0.78
to environmental preservation by avoiding
packaged food products.
Everybody should make a contribution to 0.82
promoting green food production by buying
only green products.
Consumers have the right to buy exotic 0.48
fruits.
I feel morally obligated to refrain from eating 0.68
the meat of animals kept inhumanely.
Knowledge
Factual Ecological Knowledgea 1.58 0.29 0.64
More energy is used for producing and trans- 0.75
porting food products than the body re-
ceives through nutrition. (yes/no)
Less energy is used for meat production than 0.55
for the equivalent amount of vegetables.
(yes/no)
What is gray energy? (multiple choice) 0.73
Action-related ecological knowledgea 1.57 0.34 0.64
Milk in plastic packaging is more harmful for 0.46
the environment than milk in cardboard
cartons (yes/no).
short
standard

900 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH

APPENDIX 1. (Continued)
Top of text
Base of text
Mean SD Alpha Loadings
Which of the following production practices 0.65
follows higher standards regarding agricul-
ture and animal care? (multiple choice)
Which of the following eco-labels represents 0.71
the highest ecological standards regarding
agricultural practice? (multiple choice)
Which of the following labels represent the 0.58
highest standard regarding the care of ani-
mals? (multiple choice)
Confidence in product label 3.03 0.91 0.80
In the store I cannot distinguish between en- 0.67
vironmentally friendly and harmful food
products. (⫺)
I am insecure about which eco-labels are reli- 0.85
able and which are not. (⫺)
Eco-labels lack credibility. (⫺) 0.86
I do not believe in the quality guarantee of 0.81
eco-labels. (⫺)
Note: (⫺) Reversed in coding. Subscales ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), except for
factual and action-related knowledge.
aFactual and action-related knowledge scales were changed into a dichotomous response format of 1 (wrong)

and 2 (correct). Original items were in German.

APPENDIX 2
List of Behavioral Items (English Translation of Original Items).
Purchases of unbottled milk.
Purchases of fair trade products.
Purchases of milk in plastic packaging.
Purchases of milk in a cardboard carton. (⫺)
Purchases of products with an eco-label.
Purchases of meat from humanely kept animals.
Purchases of organically grown food.
Purchases of open cheese.
Purchases of packaged cheese. (⫺)
Purchases of exotic fruits. (⫺)
Purchases of fresh, locally grown vegetables.
Purchases of imported beer. (⫺)
Purchases of convenience foods. (⫺)
Purchases of canned food. (⫺)
Purchases of frozen meat. (⫺)
Purchases of frozen fish. (⫺)
Purchases of frozen vegetables in summer. (⫺)
Purchases of fish in cans. (⫺)
Purchases of meat in cans. (⫺)
Note: The items were assessed on a unidimensional scale with the use of the Rasch model. The original 6-
point scale was converted to a dichotomous response format, with 1 indicating “less environmentally friendly
purchase” and 2 indicating “more environmentally friendly purchase.” The consumer’s extent of green purchases
is then based on the aggregation of positive behaviors a person undertakes. Original items were in German. (⫺)
short
Reversed in coding. standard

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 901 Base of RF

 MAR WILEJ LEFT BATCH

Top of text
This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Base of text
Nos. 5001-44666 and 8210-61241). The authors are grateful to Niels Jungbluth
for performing the measurement of the environmental impact of food products,
and Florian Kaiser for his support regarding the measure of green purchases
based on the Rasch model. The authors also thank Judith Levi for valuable
help with the language.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Carmen Tanner, Fal-
kenhoeheweg 18, 3012 Bern, Switzerland (ctanner@bluewin.ch).

short
standard

902 TANNER AND KAST Base of RF

View publication stats