Green Marketing Message

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]
On: 17 December 2014, At: 16:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Marketing Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20
Green marketing messages and

consumers' purchase intentions:
Promoting personal versus
environmental benefits
a a
Martin Grimmer & Meghann Woolley
a
School of Management, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 16,
Hobart 7001, Australia
Published online: 03 Jul 2012.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Martin Grimmer & Meghann Woolley (2014) Green marketing messages and
consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting personal versus environmental benefits, Journal of
Marketing Communications, 20:4, 231-250, DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2012.684065
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2012.684065
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 16:17 17 December 2014
Journal of Marketing Communications, 2014
Vol. 20, No. 4, 231–250, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2012.684065
Green marketing messages and consumers’ purchase intentions:

Promoting personal versus environmental benefits
Martin Grimmer* and Meghann Woolley
School of Management, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 16, Hobart 7001, Australia
(Received 18 April 2011; final version received 30 March 2012)
This study examines whether consumers’ purchase intentions are influenced by the type
of green marketing communications message to which they are exposed, and whether
this effect is moderated by their level of environmental involvement (EI), measured
across cognitive, affective and behavioural attitude components. A sample of

university students (N ¼ 171) were exposed to one of three print advertisements
showing a typical ad for the product, an ad promoting a personal benefit to product
purchase and an ad promoting a pure environmental benefit. Results revealed no
difference in purchase intention across the three types of advertisement; however, it
was found that participants’ level of environmental affect moderated the effect of
the advertisements on purchase intention. Participants with higher environmental
affect showed greater purchase intention when exposed to the pure environmental
advertisement; those with a lower level of affect showed greater purchase intention
when exposed to the personal environmental advertisement. Implications for the
meaning and measurement of EI are discussed, as well as for marketers of green
products.
Keywords: consumer behaviour; green policy; marketing communications;
advertising effectiveness
Introduction
Consumers, interest groups and governments are increasingly demanding that companies
act in a socially responsible manner (Bockman, Razzouk, and Sirotnik 2009; Chan 1999;
D’Souza and Taghian 2005; Kanarattanavong and Ruenrom 2009; Maxwell, Lyon, and
Hackett 2000; Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey 1995). Companies are more routinely being
expected to make decisions that are in the best interests of not only themselves, or their
shareholders, but society as a whole (Woolverton and Dimitri 2010). Impact on the
environment is one of the factors that may be embedded in a company’s approach to
corporate social responsibility (CSR), and this issue has received much attention in the
media and in the marketing literature in recent decades (ACCC 2008; Follows and Jobber
2000; Haytko and Matulich 2008; Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009; Leonidou and Leonidou
2011; Miles and Covin 2000; Papaoikonomou, Ryan, and Valverde 2011; Rios et al.
2006; Vermillion and Peart 2010). Indeed, Kotler (2011, 132), in his recent commentary
marking the 75th anniversary of the Journal of Marketing, argues for the ‘profound
influence that the environmental agenda is likely to have on marketing theory and
practice’.
The green movement emerged due to concerns over issues such as environmental
degradation, global warming and the overuse of non-renewable resources, and
*Corresponding author. Email: martin.grimmer@utas.edu.au
q 2012 Taylor & Francis

232 M. Grimmer and M. Woolley
consumption habits are widely regarded as having contributed to the problem (Chan 1999;
Follows and Jobber 2000; Hartmann and Ibáñez 2006; Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-
Forleo 2001; Tanner and Kast 2003). Ferraro (2009) reports that, as an issue of global
impact, 35% of Australians consider damage to the environment to be a bigger problem
than the economy, terrorism, wars and security. The so-called green market is, as a
consequence, both large and growing. Estimates are that in 2008, green consumers
worldwide had an annual buying power of US$500 billion (Ferraro 2009). The UK Co-
operative Bank’s annual Ethical Consumerism Report for 2010 reveals that spending on
green goods and services grew by 18% over the previous 2 years, despite the likely impact
of the GFC. It is estimated that the UK ethical market was worth £43.2 billion in 2009
versus £36.5 billion 2 years earlier (The Co-operative Bank 2010). Consumers certainly
view environmentally responsible companies in a positive light and are more likely to
consider purchasing from these companies (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Mohr and Webb
2005; Pomering and Dolnicar 2009; Vermillion and Peart 2010). Various authors thus
argue that, as well as any ethical imperative, it is a sensible business decision for companies
to act in a socially responsible manner in terms of production methods, actual products and
post-production processes such as recycling and safe disposal of waste (Diamantopoulos
et al. 2003; D’Souza et al. 2006; Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009; Kotler 2011; Miles and Covin
2000; Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha 2010). Porter and Kramer (2006) contend that if
companies analyse their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that
guide their core business choices, they will discover that CSR programmes, including
environmentalism, are a source of competitive advantage.
Developing an environmentally friendly or green product is a starting point for a
company’s adoption of green practices. However, creating and distributing such a product
are not by themselves sufficient to change consumers’ purchase behaviour (Bonini and
Oppenheim 2008; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003; Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, and Gruber
2011; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008); there are a range of other factors that affect
consumers’ decision making. Indeed, there has been a significant amount of research
conducted into understanding the factors that influence a consumer’s decision to purchase a
green product (e.g. Biel and Grankvist 2010; Bonniface and Henley 2008; Chan 1999;
Cleveland, Kalamas, and Laroche 2005; D’Souza, Taghian, and Khosla 2007; Follows and
Jobber 2000; Laroche et al. 2001; Mohr and Webb 2005; Papaoikonomou, Ryan, and
Ginieis 2011; Phau and Ong 2007; Tanner and Kast 2003). An area that has not received as
much research attention, however, concerns the impact of green marketing communications
on consumers’ purchase behaviour (D’Souza and Taghian 2005). Maignan and Ferrell
(2004) state that there is only embryonic research on the impact of CSR communications in
general, that more research is required on communication strategies and type of appeal.
Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008) similarly talk of the need to consider type of appeal in
assessing the effectiveness of green marketing communications. Leonidou and Leonidou
(2011), in their recent bibliographical analysis of research on environmental marketing and
management, indicate that more work is needed so as to shed light on consumers’ reactions
to green or environmental advertising. The current study aims to explore this gap by
examining the effect of different types of green marketing messages on consumers’
purchase intentions, and the moderating influence of consumers’ level of environmental
involvement (EI).
Journal of Marketing Communications 233
Green marketing communications

Various authors suggest that consumers search for clues as to the environmentalism of
product ranges: whether the company has an environmental corporate image, the
information on labels, packaging choices and post-consumption options such as recycling
(Biel and Grankvist 2010; D’Souza et al. 2006; Phau and Ong 2007). However, research
on how green marketing communications messages – arguably the most obvious source of
information – affect consumer responses is limited. D’Souza and Taghian (2005) state
that very little is known about what is considered important in green or environmental
advertising, and opinion varies concerning precisely what consumers will respond to in
such advertisements. In one of the few studies that has looked specifically at the issue,
Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) found that their small sample of undergraduate
students were more likely to respond to an advertisement for a hypothetical laundry
detergent that emphasised its green versus its cost-saving credentials (this study will be
discussed in more detail in the following section). This finding suggests that green
marketing appeals may carry some weight over non-green appeals. Phau and Ong (2007),
in a more recent mall intercept study of consumers’ reactions to environmental claims on
garment tags, found that their respondents had a more positive attitude to those tags which
mentioned an environmental product attribute rather than those which mentioned an
environmental company attribute. In other words, consumers responded more favourably
to product-related rather than brand-related messages on the tags. But most related
research is more concerned with determining who responds to such advertising, a point to
be returned to further below, rather than the nature of the appeal itself (e.g. D’Souza and
Taghian 2005; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008; Haytko and Matulich 2008). What green or
environmental appeals are most effective in terms of their impact on consumers’ purchase
behaviour remains under-researched.
All else being equal, when making a product purchase decision, consumers will seek to
maximise the value that can be obtained; they will generally assess any perceived costs of
a purchase against the perceived value, and will be more likely to make a purchase if the
perceived value carries more weight. Ferreira, Avila and de Faria (2010), Hartmann and
Ibáñez (2006) and Polonsky (2011), in this sense, argue that a company’s CSR activities,
including its environmental performance, can increase the perceived value of its products.
How this value is understood by consumers will, however, be moderated by how any given
product is positioned and by what any individual consumer responds to in terms of how the
‘added value’ is communicated. Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) stated in their
study that there are numerous ways a green product can be sold to the consumer, and as
indicated above they opted to examine the effect of emphasising a green versus a non-
green (cost-saving) appeal. What has not been examined is whether there is a differential
impact for different types of green appeal.
Approaches to green advertising have most often emphasised the general environmental
benefit associated with purchasing a particular product, for example, reduced greenhouse
gas emission, reduced landfill, whether it is biodegradable and so forth. Indeed, Banerjee,
Gulas and Iyer (1995) and Iyer and Banerjee (1992), in two of the very few content
classifications of print and television green advertising, found that the most common type of
advertising appeal was one which made a general claim regarding the environment, for
instance, whether a product was environmentally friendly (see also Carlson, Grove, and
Kangun 1993). In this type of appeal, the value being emphasised for the consumer is one
associated with contributing to the greater good; or in Smith’s (1996) terms, acting ethically
for its own sake. A plea to a consumer’s social consciousness is expected to be enough to
persuade them to buy the product (Laroche et al. 2001; Polonsky 2011).
In contrast to this approach, it has been proposed that consumers will respond more
positively to green marketing appeals if they can see some direct individual benefit to the
purchase in addition to the generic environmental benefit (Carlson et al. 1993; Nottage
2008; Phau and Ong 2007). Hartmann and Ibáñez (2006) claim that one of the main
challenges marketers of green products face is how to increase the consumer’s perception
of individual or personal benefits; they suggest the way to do this is to add emotional value
to the product. Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008), in a similar manner, suggest that when
pro-environmental consumption aligns with a consumer’s self-interest, a greater level of
such consumption will follow. This approach to environmental advertising might involve
emphasising value to the consumer that is either tangible or intangible (Kahneman and
Knetsch 1992; Nottage 2008; Phau and Ong 2007). Tangible value includes, for example,
reduced energy use from green appliances and thus reduced power bills, or reduced risk of
penalties for un-environmental behaviour such as open fire chimney smoke. Intangible
value includes, for example, moral satisfaction for behaving in an environmentally
positive manner or by conforming to a desired self-concept. Indeed, Ferreira et al. (2010),
following Smith (1996), propose that one of the primary personal benefits that a consumer
might obtain from green consumption is the benefit of feeling good about themselves for
acting altruistically. They contend that this type of purchase behaviour can bring
emotional benefits to consumers. Hartmann and Ibáñez (2006) similarly suggest that most
consumers primarily want to feel good about themselves, and are only secondarily
interested in the environmental consequences of their purchase decisions. Marketing
communications that emphasise how a product can meet both environmental standards
and personal needs, under this argument, will have the greatest perceived value for a
consumer and, as a result, be more persuasive than marketing communications that only
emphasise a purely environmental benefit.
Environmental involvement
As alluded to earlier, consumers differ in how they respond to green marketing
communications. The extent to which a consumer may react positively to such
communications can be considered in terms of whether they have favourable attitudes
towards the environment, and specifically, their level of EI. Bhate (2001), D’Souza and
Taghian (2005), Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and Diamantopoulos (1996) and Schuhwerk and
Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) distinguish between high EI consumers, or those whose purchase
behaviour is greatly influenced by environmental concerns, and low EI consumers, or
those whose purchase behaviour is minimally influenced by environmental concerns. As
expounded by the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), involvement refers to the degree
of personal relevance and salience of the attitude object (Petty and Cacioppo 1990;
Zaichkowsky 1985). As a predisposition to be favourably disposed towards the attitude
object, involvement is, therefore, a type of attitude (Bohner and Dickel 2011). Hartmann,
Ibáñez and Sainz (2005) state that a higher degree of involvement results in a central route
to attitude formation and change, which leads to a higher amount of cognitive elaboration
whereby consumers deliberately consider the elements they believe are relevant to a
meaningful and logical evaluation of the attitude object. Hence, those consumers who
have a high degree of involvement are more highly influenced by the attitude object
(Bohner and Dickel 2011; Fraj and Martinez 2007; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983).
Alternatively, a low degree of involvement results in a peripheral route to attitude change
(Hartmann et al. 2005). This then leads to a lower amount of cognitive elaboration,
whereby consumers form impressions based on exposure to information that is readily
available and easy to process, or as a consequence of their emotional responses to the
attitude object. Accordingly, consumers with a low level of involvement are less
influenced by the attitude object.
Under the ELM, consumers who perceive an attitude object to be important and
personally relevant, such as the state of the environment, have a higher degree of
involvement. In the current context, high EI consumers are more likely to notice, be aware
of and be affected by marketing communications relevant to a product’ environmental
credentials as it is more salient for them (Klein and Dawar 2004; Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-
Hagius 1995). It is also likely that high EI consumers’ attitudes will have been stable in
this direction over time, and be more easily recalled in a consumption context, both of
which are factors that predict future behaviour (Glasman and Albarracin 2006). High EI
consumers, therefore, are expected to pay attention to marketing information relevant to

the environmental consequences of their consumption, evaluate the associated product
accordingly and indicate higher purchase intentions towards those products that have the
lowest environmental impact. On the other hand, low EI consumers are less inclined to
base their intended purchase behaviour on information about the environmental
consequences of their purchase behaviour, but rather on other product information such as
price, or on their emotional responses to the particular communications message
(Hartmann et al. 2005). These consumers will make a purchase if their impression of the
associated product is favourable based on these more peripheral cues.
Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008) found that consumers who were more concerned
about the environment were generally more aware of green product marketing, and
considered it more engaging and relevant. D’Souza and Taghian (2005) studied attitudes
to green advertising, and similarly found that consumers with a high level of EI had a more
favourable attitude than those with a low level of concern towards such advertisements.
Other research has found that consumers with a favourable attitude towards the
environment are more likely than those with a less favourable attitude to engage in certain
environmental behaviours such as recycling and donating money to green charities (Bhate
2001). Such research also shows partial support for the assertion that high EI consumers
are more likely to buy products from companies with good environmental performance
(Mohr and Webb 2005; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius
(1995), in their study of responses to advertisements for a hypothetical laundry detergent,
presented advertisements to their participants that contained the same information, but
emphasised either the environmental attributes or the cost-saving benefits of the product.
The researchers hypothesised that high EI consumers would report the same purchase
intentions and attitudes towards the ad for each appeal as they reasoned that high EI
consumers would notice the ‘green appeal’ in either advertisement and respond
accordingly. Conversely, they argued that consumers less involved with the environment
would notice and respond favourably to the green appeal advertisement but not the cost-
saving appeal advertisement, as the latter would provide inconsistent information with
what the researchers speculated to be these consumers’ pre-existing schema for green
products, that is, that such products are expensive. The researchers found an interaction
between type of appeal and EI for attitude towards the ad, but not for purchase intention.1
As hypothesised, people less involved with the environment had a more favourable
attitude towards the advertisement that emphasised the environmental attributes of the
product versus the one that emphasised the cost-saving benefits; there was no such
difference for people highly involved with the environment. However, this result was not
found for purchase intention. As Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) provided the same
information to their participants in each advertisement, this result is perhaps not
surprising, and indeed the difference found in attitude towards the ad may simply have
been that the low EI consumers did not find the cost-saving appeal credible. More work is
needed in this area and research conducted under different conditions may reveal a more
definitive answer for how consumers’ reactions to green marketing communications are
affected by their level of EI.
The current study

The current study explores a gap in the literature on green marketing communications by
examining the effect of different types of environmental advertisements on consumer
purchase intentions, and whether this effect is moderated by consumers’ involvement with
the environment. This study adds to the literature on green marketing communications by
looking at purchase intentions versus attitude to the ad, the latter of which has been the focus
of most of the recent research (e.g. D’Souza and Taghian 2005; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki
2008). No study has considered the interaction between type of green marketing
communications and consumers’ EI in terms of purchase intention, as is done here. In
addition, much of the related research has made use of hypothetical companies, products
and CSR or environmental ratings (e.g. Mohr and Webb 2005; Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-
Hagius 1995; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). This study uses a real product so as to achieve a
greater level of external validity and practical application. It is intended that this study will,
as a result, enhance understanding of the effectiveness of green marketing communications,
and inform approaches to the development and promotion of green products (Lai, Cheng,
and Tang 2010).
The study will, in addition, employ the tri-component approach to attitude
measurement when considering consumers’ EI. The tri-component attitude model
proposes that an attitude is made up of three components: cognition, affect and behaviour
(Quester, Pettigrew, and Hawkins 2011; Smith et al. 2008). An issue that has been noted in
research on environmental/green attitudes and behaviour is the inconsistency in the
methods used to define and measure attitudes, and specifically EI as an attitude (Bohlen,
Schlegelmilch, and Diamantopoulos 1993; Chan 1999; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003;
Follows and Jobber 2000). This is considered part of the reason why findings are
contradictory or inconclusive (Bonini and Oppenheim 2008; Hartmann and Ibáñez 2006;
Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996). For example, research that
merely measures environmental knowledge or ‘consciousness’ as the primary component
of involvement has most commonly found only a weak or non-existent relationship with
pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Chan and Lau 2000; Peattie 1995); research on
environmental affect or ‘concern’ has found a more consistent relationship (e.g. Bang et al.
2000; Fraj and Martinez 2007; Hartmann and Ibáñez 2006; Kim and Choi 2005;
Schlegelmilch et al. 1996), and research on past environmental behaviour or ‘commitment’
has been inconclusive (e.g. Abdul-Muhmin 2007; Phau and Ong 2007). Other researchers
use scales to measure EI that incorporate a combination of the three attitude components
but do not identify them as such (e.g. D’Souza and Taghian 2005; Mohr and Webb 2005;
Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius 1995). If EI is measured using different techniques it is
unsurprising that results vary. Chan (1999) suggests that to avoid these discrepancies,
research should be conducted which applies the tri-component attitude model. This
contention is supported by Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and colleagues (e.g.
Bohlen et al. 1993; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996; Diamantopoulos et al. 2003), who similarly
contend that EI needs to capture consumers’ concern for the environment (i.e. affect), their
environmental knowledge (i.e. cognition) and their environmentally sensitive behaviour
(past, present or future). This approach allows for all of a consumer’s relevant attitudinal
elements to be explicitly measured, and thus provides a clearer picture of consumers’
decision moderators.
The current research seeks to determine whether purchase intention differs when
consumers are presented with green marketing communications, in the form of
advertisements, which promote either a purely environmental benefit to an environmental
product purchase versus a personal benefit. It also seeks to determine whether purchase
intention in these conditions differs from when consumers are presented with a typical
advertisement for the product, that is, when no specific environmental benefit is promoted.
EI is examined as a moderator so as to ascertain whether the effect of the different types of
advertisement on purchase intention changes according to consumers’ level of
involvement. The research employs the ELM to explain that high EI consumers will
adopt a central route to attitude formation and thus be more influenced by information
relevant to the environmental consequences of their consumption. Low EI consumers, on
the other hand, will adopt a peripheral route to attitude formation and be more influenced
by information on tangential product-related issues such as how the advertisement makes
them feel.
Two hypotheses are offered. The first proposes that consumers will express a higher
purchase intention when presented with an advertisement that promotes a personal
benefit to an environmental product purchase than when presented with an advertisement
that promotes only an environmental benefit. This hypothesis is offered on the basis that
the personal appeal will have greater perceived value for the consumer than the
environmental appeal alone, as the former incorporates both personal value and the
environmental value, versus the latter, which only reinforces the environmental value
(Carlson et al. 1993; Ferreira et al. 2010; Hartmann and Ibáñez 2006; Kahneman and
Knetsch 1992). As Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008) contend, environmentally relevant
advertising will be more effective when consumers’ self-interest is appealed to in
addition to the general environmental proposition. For the same reasons, it is also
expected that both the personal and pure environmental advertisements will result in
greater purchase intentions than for a typical advertisement for the product because of the
stronger value proposition inherent in both of these advertisements. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is
as follows:
H1a: Participants will show a higher level of purchase intention when presented with an
advertisement that promotes a personal benefit to an environmental product
purchase rather than when presented with an advertisement that promotes a purely
environmental benefit to an environmental product purchase.
H1b: Participants will show a higher level of purchase intention when presented with
advertisements that promote either a personal or a purely environmental benefit to
an environmental product rather than when presented with an advertisement that
does not contain a specific environmental benefit.
The second hypothesis proposes that the effect of the purely environmental versus the
personal benefit advertisements will vary according to consumers’ level of EI. The ELM
suggests that high EI consumers are more likely than low EI consumers to consider as
salient the environmental consequences of their purchase behaviour (D’Souza and
Taghian 2005; Hartmann et al. 2005; Klein and Dawar 2004; Mohr and Webb 2005; Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001). In the current context, and contrary to Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-
Hagius (1995), it is therefore expected that high EI consumers, due to a higher degree of
cognitive elaboration when exposed to green marketing information, will be most
influenced by the purely environmental benefit advertisement as it will be considered more
relevant to making a meaningful and logical evaluation of the product. Conversely, it is
expected that low EI consumers, due to a lower degree of cognitive elaboration, will be
more influenced by the personal benefit advertisement as it will allow for a more
impressionistic and ‘peripheral’ evaluation of the product and indeed produce a more
positive emotional response. Hence, Hypothesis 2 is as follows:
H2: There will be a two-way interaction between type of environmental advertisement
and EI such that the effect of the different advertisements on purchase intention
will vary according to the level of EI of the participant. Specifically:
H2a: Participants with low EI will show a higher level of purchase intention when
presented with an advertisement that promotes a personal benefit to an
environmental product purchase rather than when presented with an advertise-

ment that promotes a purely environmental benefit to an environmental product
purchase.
H2b: Participants with high EI will show a higher level of purchase intention when
presented with an advertisement that promotes a purely environmental benefit to
an environmental product purchase rather than when presented with an
advertisement that promotes a personal benefit to an environmental product
purchase.
Method
Research design
A quasi-experimental research design was utilised for the study, with two independent
variables (IV; type of advertisement and EI) and one dependent variable (DV; purchase
intention). The study employed a 3 (typical advertisement, personal benefit advertisement
and pure environmental benefit advertisement) £ 3 (low, moderate and high EI) between-
subjects factorial design (Neuman 2006). The between-subjects design meant that
different participants were administered different advertisements. Three separate print
advertisements were thus used, representing a typical advertisement for the product that
promoted no specific environmental benefit (the control group), a personal benefit to
environmental behaviour (experimental group 1) or a pure environmental benefit to
environmental behaviour (experimental group 2). The control group was included so as to
assess Hypothesis 1b, that is, if the two environmental advertisements had a positive
impact on purchase intention over and above the advertising typically used for the product.
The product chosen for each of the advertisements was a bottled water called Mount
Franklin, as it is sold at all food outlets on the university campus where the research was
conducted, and thus should have been equally familiar to all participants, and likely to be
purchased relatively equally across the participant groups. The choice to employ a real, as
opposed to a hypothetical, product was also made as existing advertising material could be
used.
All three advertisements appeared in the same format and were based on a typical
Mount Franklin advertisement, which contained the product’s tagline: ‘Australia’s
premium spring water’. The two advertisements for the experimental conditions, in
addition, contained the phrase ‘100% recyclable’; this was included so as to standardise
the environmental claim of the product across these two conditions. Separate messages
were then devised for each of the experimental conditions so as to emphasise either a
personal benefit or a pure environmental benefit to the product purchase. Six different
messages were developed and pre-tested prior to data collection so as to ensure that the
final messages used were perceived in the desired manner. This took place through a
Facebook group where people were invited to join and rate the six messages on a five-
point scale from ‘pure environmental’ to ‘pure personal’ benefit (see Appendix for the
six advertisements and the responses to each). The advertisements in the pre-test
appeared in the same form as they would take for the study itself. Twenty-five people
participated in this process, resulting in the following messages being rated as the most
personal and the most environmental, respectively, for use in the experimental conditions
(see Figure 1):
Experimental group 1: ‘Feel good: 100% recyclable’ (personal benefit).
Experimental group 2: ‘Reduce landfill: 100% recyclable’ (pure environmental
benefit).
Instrument and measures

The survey instrument had three components. The first required participants to view the
advertisement for their relevant condition (i.e. control, experimental groups 1 and 2), and
then indicate their purchase intention using a five-point Likert scale from ‘very unlikely’
to ‘very likely’. The use of this single-item measure of purchase likelihood is in line with
previous research (e.g. Follows and Jobber 2000; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). As an
additional manipulation check, participants were also asked to indicate their perception of
the benefit they perceived the advertisement to be promoting (‘pure environmental’ to
‘pure personal’), using the same scale as in the pre-test.
The second component of the survey was designed to measure participants’ EI. Eight
questions were asked for each of the three attitudinal components – cognitive, affective
and behavioural. The affect and behaviour questions were based on an ‘ecology scale’
series of questions first developed by Maloney and Ward (1973) and updated and
condensed by Chan (1999). Some questions were altered to ensure they were language-
appropriate and also relevant to the participants (e.g. an affect question was changed to
focus on logging and forestry, that is, an issue relevant to where the research was
undertaken). Cognitive or environmental knowledge questions were sourced from a
survey used by Mohr, Eroglu and Scholder-Ellen (1998), and from two Australian
websites (Australian Government 2009; Clean Up Australia Day Website 2009).
The eight affect questions were measured on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly
disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, and included items such as ‘It frightens me to think that much of
the food I eat is contaminated with pesticides’, and ‘When I think of the ways industries are
polluting, I get frustrated and angry’. Negatively worded questions were reversed in the final
coding to allow participants’ responses to the eight questions for this attitude component to be
averaged; the higher the average score for a participant, the higher they ranked on
environmental affect. The eight behaviour questions were asked in true/false format, and
included items such as ‘I’ve never actually bought a product because it had a lower polluting
effect’ and ‘I have switched products for ecological reasons’. Again, negatively worded
questions were reversed. A true answer indicated a higher environmental concern and was
coded as one, while a false answer was coded as zero, and the total score reached was the
strength of environmental concern as indicated by participants’ behaviour. The eight
knowledge questions were each answered using a multiple choice format, and included items
Control Group
Experimental Group 1: Personal Benefit
Experimental Group 2: Pure Environmental Benefit
Figure 1. Advertisement stimuli. Trade marks and copyright material of Coca-Cola Amatil are
used with permission. Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Limited is not the producer of this material, nor
does it endorse the contents.
such as ‘What is the principal green house gas emitted from vehicles?’ and ‘Which one of the
following cannot decompose in ocean water?’. The final measure was the number of correct
answers given. The scores from the three attitudinal components were added together to
obtain an overall EI score for each participant. The final component of the survey asked
participants to provide basic demographic data.
Participants and procedure

The 171 participants in this research were university students enrolled in a Bachelor of
Business degree. The three environmental advertisement conditions were administered at
three different lectures, with one advertisement shown at each. Overlap in student
participation was minimised by selecting lectures delivered in subjects in the first, second
and third year of the degree, for which each subject was a prerequisite for the one
following. There were 40 participants in the control group, 58 participants in experimental
group 1 and 73 participants in experimental group 2. The age range was 18 – 50 years, with
a mean of 22 years; 52.7% were female, and 75.6% were single and had never been
married. Table 1 contains participant characteristics for each of the three groups.
The surveys, and accompanying cover letter explaining the research, were handed to
all students present in the selected lectures. Participants were instructed to view the
advertisement (one of the three developed) which was projected at the front of the lecture
theatre, and to then fill in the survey. The advertisement was projected for the
approximately 10 minutes it took participants to complete the survey. Upon completion,
the surveys were handed directly back to the researcher.
Results
Data preparation and preliminary analyses
The environmental advertisement variable was manipulated by the type of advertisement
that was administered to the participants, and so did not require any further processing
beyond coding as control or experimental groups one or two for each participant. As the
research required comparing participants with different levels of EI, participants were
split, based on percentiles, into three evenly sized groups, producing 55, 53 and 52
participants, respectively, in low, medium and high EI groups. This was done so as to more
deliberately separate out low and high EI groups, rather than relying on a simple median
split. To allow for further specific analysis of the data, the individual scores for each of the
three attitude components were also split according to three equivalent percentile groups
that identified those with low, medium or high affect towards the environment,
environmental behaviour and environmental knowledge. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated
for the affect and behaviour scales, resulting in scores of 0.78 and 0.68, respectively. The
internal consistency for the affect scale was above the 0.7 threshold generally advocated
(Nunnally 1978); the behaviour scale was below the threshold yet still above the level that
is considered acceptable (i.e. 0.6) for newly developed or revised scales (Hair et al. 1998).
No reliability measure was required for environmental knowledge as no internal
consistency was expected for the eight multiple choice questions.
To ensure the participants perceived the ad stimuli in the desired manner, a manipulation
check was conducted using the item, which asked about participants’ perception of the
Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Control group Experimental group 1 Experimental group 2
Demographic data (n ¼ 40) (n ¼ 58) (n ¼ 73)
Age range 19 – 40 20 – 50 18 – 39
Mean age (SD) 21.58 (3.73) 23.57 (5.36) 21.04 (3.89)
Male (%) 38 53 47
Female (%) 62 47 53
benefit of the communication message (‘pure environmental’ versus ‘pure personal’). One-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there was a statistically significant
difference in how the three advertisements were perceived in terms of type of benefit
(F(2,168) ¼ 9.328, p , 0.001). This difference was in the desired direction, with least
significant difference (LSD) post-hoc testing showing that the generic environmental
benefit advertisement (M ¼ 2.34) differed significantly ( p , 0.001) from the personal
benefit advertisement (M ¼ 2.91). Thus, participants perceived the ad stimuli as intended.
Hypothesis testing
Subsequent analyses were conducted using two-way ANOVA, with type of environmental
advertisement and EI as the IVs and purchase intention as the DV. ANOVA is the most
commonly used method for testing moderation – in this case, whether EI moderated the
effect of type of advertisement on purchase intention – and so was considered a suitable

method of analysis. Indeed, as Frazier, Tix and Barron (2004, 116) point out, ‘a moderator
effect is nothing more than an interaction whereby the effect of one variable depends on
the level of another’ (see also Baron and Kenny 1986). Cell sizes for the interaction of the
two IVs, together with the mean purchase intention for each group, are shown in Table 2.
Cell sizes met the minimum of 10 recommended by Keppel (1982) to ensure stable results.
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was not significant (F(8,151) ¼ 0.846, n.s.);
therefore, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met.
In this analysis, no statistically significant results were found. The main effect for the
type of environmental advertisement was not significant (F(2,151) ¼ 0.312, n.s.), and nor
was the interaction between environmental advertisement and EI (F(4,151) ¼ 0.327, n.s.).
Thus, the three different advertisements did not produce any differences in terms of
purchase intention, and so Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The level of participants’ EI
was not found to moderate the effect of type of advertisement on purchase intention, and
so Hypothesis 2 was also not supported. Although not hypothesised, the ANOVA further
revealed no main effect for EI (F(2,151) ¼ 0.118, n.s.). As a result, it was decided to look
at the three attitude components separately as possible moderators.
A two-way ANOVA was subsequently conducted with level of environmental affect –
low, medium and high – substituted for overall EI. Cell sizes for the interaction of the
two IVs, together with the mean purchase intention for each group, are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Cell size, means and standard deviations SDs for type of environmental advertisement
and EI.
Type of advertisement EI level N Mean purchase intention (SD)
Environmental Low 19 3.37 (1.12)
Medium 26 3.38 (1.20)
High 22 3.64 (1.18)
Total 67 3.46 (1.16)
Control Low 17 3.59 (1.06)
Medium 11 3.64 (1.29)
High 10 3.50 (1.58)
Total 38 3.58 (1.24)
Personal Low 19 3.58 (1.22)
Medium 16 3.19 (1.38)
High 20 3.35 (0.93)
Total 55 3.38 (1.16)
Table 3. Cell size, means and SDs for type of environmental advertisement and environmental
affect.
Type of advertisement Environmental affect level N Mean purchase intention (SD)
Environmental Low 22 3.00 (1.23)
Medium 32 3.59 (1.10)
High 14 3.79 (0.89)
Total 68 3.44 (1.14)
Neutral Low 15 3.67 (1.05)
Medium 16 3.13 (1.36)
High 8 4.25 (1.04)
Total 39 3.56 (1.23)
Personal Low 17 3.71 (1.10)
Medium 21 3.43 (1.06)
High 14 3.00 (1.36)
Total 52 3.40 (1.18)
All cell sizes apart from those categorised as having high environmental affect in the
control group met the minimum of 10 recommended by Keppel (1982) to ensure stable
results. As this only occurred for one cell this was not thought to be of great concern, and
ANOVA is robust to modest violations of assumptions. Levene’s test for homogeneity of
variance was not significant (F(8,150) ¼ 1.265, n.s.); therefore, the assumption of
homogeneity of variance was met.
A statistically significant interaction was found between the type of environmental
advertisement and the level of environmental affect (F(4,150) ¼ 3.18, p , 0.02). Therefore,
environmental affect acted as a moderator for the impact of the three different advertisements
on purchase intention, and so partial support was found for Hypothesis 2. As can be seen in
Figure 2, participants with low environmental affect showed higher purchase intention for the
personal benefit message over the pure environmental benefit message. Participants with high
environmental affect, conversely, showed higher purchase intention for the pure
environmental benefit message over the personal benefit message. Participants in the control
group did not show a systematic pattern in purchase intention as moderated by environmental
Environmental
Affect
Low
Purchase Intention
Med
High
Control Personal Environmental

Group Benefit Benefit
Type of advertisement
Figure 2. Interaction of environmental advertisement and level of environmental affect.

affect, but as the control group was used only to determine if there was a main effect for the
type of environmental advertisement (i.e. to assess Hypothesis 1), this was not interpreted
further. The main effect for the type of environmental advertisement was not reported again as
the result was the same as for the first ANOVA conducted. The main effect for environmental
affect was not significant (F(2,150) ¼ 0.743, n.s.).
Analyses of the other two attitude components – environmental behaviour and
environmental knowledge – produced no significant results. In this regard, environmental
behaviour and environmental knowledge were not found to moderate the impact of the
three different advertisements on purchase intention.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine whether consumers’ purchase intentions were
influenced by the type of green marketing communications message they were exposed to,
and whether this effect was moderated by their level of EI. Participants were exposed to
three types of print advertisement: the first representing a typical advertisement for Mount
Franklin bottled water that promoted no specific environmental benefit, the second
promoting a personal benefit to environmental behaviour, and the third promoting a pure
environmental benefit to environmental behaviour. There was found to be no significant
difference, in terms of purchase intention for Mount Franklin water, between the types of
advertisements to which the participants were exposed. The first hypothesis that
participants would show greater purchase intention when the advertisement highlighted a
personal benefit of an environmentally friendly product rather than a pure environmental
benefit was, therefore, not supported. Neither was it supported that the personal and pure
environmental advertisements would result in greater purchase intention than the typical
advertisement for the product.
This result contradicts assertions by Hartmann and Ibáñez (2006), Kahneman and
Knetsch (1992) and Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008), who stated that consumers will be
more likely to act in an environmentally friendly manner if they could gain moral
satisfaction, or could see the personal benefit, from doing so. In this regard, there does not
appear to have been any difference in the perceived value of each of the advertising appeals
(Ferreira et al. 2010); further, neither of the environmental advertisements resulted in a
greater level of purchase intention than a typical advertisement for the product. Perhaps the
use of a low-involvement product in this study was a factor in this result; consumers may
pay more attention to the personal moral satisfaction gained from the purchase of a high-
involvement green product. While it is a possibility that the experimental stimuli were not
sufficiently powerful, by themselves, to differentiate personal versus environmental
benefits, it should be noted that the advertisements employed were realistic in terms of
current product packaging, and indeed in terms of the amount of information that can be
included on a bottle of water. Thus, the advertising stimuli used were not particularly
different from that to which a consumer would normally be exposed. This indicates a
challenge for advertisers of fast-moving consumer goods such as bottled water to develop
green marketing appeals that are sufficient to gain the attention of consumers.
The second hypothesis that the impact of the three types of advertisement on purchase
intention would be moderated by participants’ level of EI was partially supported.
Participants’ overall level of EI did not moderate the impact of type of advertisement on
purchase intention of Mount Franklin; however, when participants’ level of environmental
affect was examined by itself as a moderator, the hypothesis was supported. Participants
with a high level of environmental affect showed greater purchase intention when a pure
environmental appeal was highlighted; whereas those with a low level of environmental
affect showed greater purchase intention when a personal appeal was highlighted. This
result was not found for the environmental behaviour or environmental knowledge scales.
This result indicates that those consumers with a greater level of concern, emotionally, for
the environment will be more swayed by a pure environmental advertisement than one which
promotes a personal benefit to pro-environmental behaviour. However, those consumers with
a lower level of environmental affect will be more swayed by an advertisement promoting the
personal benefit than the pure environmental benefit. This finding suggests that it is
consumers’ feelings about the environment that influences their response to green appeals
versus their environmental knowledge or indeed their past environmental behaviour. This
supports previous research that has found a more consistent relationship between
environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour than for environmental conscious-
ness or commitment (e.g. Hartmann and Ibáñez 2006; Papaoikonomou, Ryan, and Valverde
2011; Schlegelmilch et al. 1996). While a consumer may have a high level of environmental
knowledge or have displayed pro-environmental behaviour in the past, this result illustrates
that there still needs to be an attraction to completing the behaviour (Biel and Grankvist 2010).
As explained by Bohner and Dickel (2011), consumers are more likely to be affected by what
matters to them, or by what they feel most strongly about. It might be claimed, therefore, that
environmental affect is the better indicator of EI, as constructs such as personal relevance and
salience, central to the notion of involvement, are arguably better assessed by a measure of
emotion than by a measure of cognition or of behaviour (see Izard 2009; Martin et al. 2008;
Thomson, MacInnes, and Park 2005).
Within this context, the results have supported the logic of the ELM that high
involvement consumers would be more influenced by the advertisement that presented
information relevant to the environmental consequences of their consumption, that is, the
one that talked of reducing landfill (D’Souza and Taghian 2005; Hartmann et al. 2005).
Low involvement consumers, on the other hand, were influenced by the advertisement that
presented information that was more tangential and impressionistic, that is, how the
product purchase would make them feel. This outcome adds to Pickett-Baker and Ozaki’s
(2008) argument that consumers are more likely to comply with environmental behaviours
when such behaviours align with their self-interest. At least with regard to purchase
intention, this line of reasoning has been found to hold more strongly for consumers with a
lower concern for the environment. Consumers with a high level of concern for the
environment have been found by various researchers to be a consistently large segment of
the population (Cleveland et al. 2005; Follows and Jobber 2000; Hartmann and Ibáñez
2006; Menon and Menon 1997; Mohr and Webb 2005; Moisander and Pesonen 2002;
Pedersen and Neergaard 2006; Vermillion and Peart 2010). As a consequence,
communicating effectively with this audience is essential for marketers.
Marketing implications
Bonniface and Henley (2008) state that the key to promoting change in consumers’ green
attitudes and behaviours has not yet been conclusively discovered. Follows and Jobber
(2000) propose that the decision to purchase will rest on the perceived tangible individual
benefits for the consumer, such as convenience and cost. The results of the current study,
however, point to the decision being affected by an intangible affective association with
the green communication message. Perhaps a potential answer to the quandary posed by
Bonniface and Henley (2008) is that consumers’ environmental affect holds the ‘key’ to
changing behaviour. Indeed, this research has found that environmental affect moderated
the effect of the green communication messages, but environmental behaviour and
knowledge did not. If the aim is to influence consumers to purchase environmentally
friendly products, then affect may be the best starting point in order to achieve this; the
principle of cognitive consistency further suggests that a change to one attitude component
should lead to a change in the others (Smith et al. 2008).
The significance of the affective attitude component also directs advice to marketers to
appeal to the emotionality of consumers when considering green communications
messages. Pooley and O’Connor (2000) found that affect was more important than
information provision in encouraging pro-environmental attitudes. Pickett-Baker and Ozaki
(2008) similarly argue that emotional messages may be processed more thoroughly by
consumers, and thus remembered, and so advertising of green products using emotional
appeals should be more successful. Hartmann and Ibáñez (2006) further offer that providing
information on environmentally sound product attributes should elicit positive emotions in
relevant consumer segments. Given Pickett-Baker and Ozaki’s (2008) and McGoldrick and
Freestone’s (2008) findings that consumers often do not find green product marketing efforts
particularly informative, and given that some companies are not effectively communicating
their social- and environmental-related activities to consumers (Öberseder et al. 2011;
Singh, de Garcia Los Salmones Sanchez, and del Rodriguez Bosque 2007), the need for
more effective and targeted marketing communications is apparent.
Summary, limitations and directions for future research

This exploratory study has shown that consumers’ level of environmental affect influences
how they respond to marketing communications that promote different environmental
messages. Those with higher level of affect were more likely to be swayed by a pure
environmental advertisement; those with a lower level of affect were more likely to be
swayed by a personal environmental advertisement. The study also demonstrated the
usefulness of adopting the tri-component attitude model in research into EI and purchase
intentions. Operationalisation of the three attitude components, as well as overall EI, was
facilitated, and this approach has allowed for a clearer picture to emerge of consumers’
decision making with regard to pro-environmental purchases. The use of this model also
acknowledges the possibility that the other attitude components, or overall EI, may still act
as moderators under different research designs.
The main limitation of the research, that is, the use of a convenient student sample, was
in part addressed by the choice of a product with which the participants should have been
familiar. Nevertheless, a more diverse sample would be recommended in further work. As
indicated earlier, the use of a low-involvement product may have limited the power of the
research design, and therefore the finding of no difference between the types of
advertisement presented to the participants. Future research could investigate the impact
of a high-involvement product under similar conditions. It would also be of value to see
other variables included as possible moderators of how consumers respond to green
marketing communications, including product attributes such as price and a product’s
environmental impact, and consumer attributes such as the extent of their long-term
orientation. The current study has demonstrated that there is more research to be done on
the impact of green communications messages in marketing.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Coca-Cola Amatil for their permission to use the Mount Franklin
water bottle image in Figure 1 and the tagline ‘Australia’s premium spring water’ in the research
design section.
Note
1. This interpretation is based on the results of Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) reported for
the ANOVA they conducted, rather than on the t-tests they erroneously carried out and used to
assess their hypotheses. With the overall ANOVA being found to be non-significant for the
interaction between appeal type and environmental involvement for purchase intention, the t-tests
were therefore unprotected, and the p-levels required for significance incorrectly applied.
Notes on contributors
Martin Grimmer (BSc(Hons) MPsychOrg Qld PhD Tas) is an Associate Professor in the School of
Management at the University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. His research focuses on the effect of
corporate reputation and green marketing communications on consumer purchase behaviour, and on
consumer behaviour and identity, with specific reference to age cohorts. Martin has also conducted
research on trends in the use of different research methodologies in marketing and in human
resources. Martin teaches consumer behaviour and research methods, and has served as Dean of the
Faculty of Business and Head of the School of Management at UTAS.

Meghann Woolley (BComm(Hons) Tas) is a practicing marketer at Australian IBM Premier
Business Partner, ISW, in Tasmania, where she is responsible for the strategy and execution of all
online and offline branded communication materials and promotions, Australia-wide. A key part of
her job and focus in marketing is the alignment of messaging and positioning of various products to
attract the target market and generate sales leads. She has previously conducted research into the
effectiveness of green marketing messages for the consumer market.
References
Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. 2007. Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 31: 237– 47.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 2008. Green claims: It’s not easy being green.
ACCC update, no. 23: 12.
Australian Government Website. 2009. Homepage: Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts. http://www.environment.gov.au
Banerjee, S., C. Gulas, and E. Iyer. 1995. Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of
environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2: 21 – 31.
Bang, H., A.E. Ellinger, J. Hadjimarcou, and P.A. Traichal. 2000. Consumer concern, knowledge,
belief and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory.
Psychology & Marketing 17: 6 – 26.
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51, no. 6: 1173– 82.
Bhate, S. 2001. One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to achieving this? An
exploratory study of consumer environmental behavior across three countries. Journal of
Consumer Behavior 2, no. 2: 169– 84.
Biel, A., and G. Grankvist. 2010. The effect of environmental information on professional
purchasers’ preference for food products. British Food Journal 112, no. 3: 251–60.
Bockman, S., N.Y. Razzouk, and B. Sirotnik. 2009. Going green – from left to center stage:
An empirical perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Business 14, no. 2: 8 – 17.
Bohlen, G., B.B. Schlegelmilch, and A. Diamantopoulos. 1993. Measuring ecological concern:
A multi-construct perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 9: 415– 30.
Bohner, G., and N. Dickel. 2011. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 62:
391– 417.
Bonini, S., and J. Oppenheim. 2008. Cultivating the green consumer. Stanford Social Innovation
Review 6, no. 4: 56 – 62.
Bonniface, L., and N. Henley. 2008. ‘A drop in the bucket’: Collective efficacy perceptions and
environmental behaviour. Australian Journal of Social Issues 43, no. 3: 345– 60.
Carlson, L., S.J. Grove, and N. Kangun. 1993. A content analysis of environmental advertising
claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising 22, no. 3: 27 – 39.
Chan, R.Y.K. 1999. Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Survey findings
and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11, no. 4: 25 – 8.
Chan, R.Y.K., and L.B.Y. Lau. 2000. Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 17: 338– 57.
Clean Up Australia Day. 2009. http://www.cleanup.org.au
Cleveland, M., M. Kalamas, and M. Laroche. 2005. Shades of green: Linking environmental locus of
control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22, no. 4: 198–212.
Diamantopoulos, A., B.B. Schlegelmilch, R.R. Sinkovics, and G.M. Bohlen. 2003. Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56: 465– 80.
D’Souza, C., and M. Taghian. 2005. Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising
themes. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 17, no. 3: 51 – 66.
D’Souza, C., M. Taghian, and R. Khosla. 2007. Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact
on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase
intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 15, no. 2: 69 – 79.
D’Souza, C., M. Taghian, P. Lamb, and R. Peretiatkos. 2006. Green products and corporate strategy:
An empirical investigation. Society and Business Review 1, no. 2: 144– 57.

Ferraro, C. 2009. The green consumer. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Centre for Retail
Studies Thought Leadership Series, Monash University.
Ferreira, D.A., M.G. Avila, and M.D. de Faria. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and consumers’
perception of price. Social Responsibility Journal 6, no. 2: 208– 21.
Follows, S.B., and D. Jobber. 2000. Environmentally responsible purchase behavior: A test of a
consumer model. European Journal of Marketing 34, no. 5/6: 723– 46.
Fraj, E., and E. Martinez. 2007. Ecological consumer behavior: An empirical analysis. International
Journal of Consumer Studies 31, no. 1: 26 – 33.
Frazier, P.A., A.P. Tix, and K.A. Barron. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51, no. 1: 115– 34.
Glasman, L.R., and D. Albarracin. 2006. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-
analysis of the attitude-behaviour relation. Psychological Bulletin 132, no. 5: 778–822.
Hair, J.F., Jr, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartmann, P., and V.A. Ibáñez. 2006. Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24,
no. 7: 673– 80.
Hartmann, P., V.A. Ibáñez, and F.J.F. Sainz. 2005. Green branding effects on attitude: Functional
versus positional strategies. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 23, no. 1: 9 – 29.
Haytko, D.L., and E. Matulich. 2008. Green advertising and environmentally responsible consumer
behaviors: Linkages examined. Journal of Management and Marketing Research 1: 2 – 11.
Iyer, E., and B. Banerjee. 1992. Anatomy of green advertising. Advances in Consumer Research 20:
494– 501.
Izard, C.E. 2009. Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging
issues. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 1 – 25.
Jahdi, K.S., and G. Acikdilli. 2009. Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility
(CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics 88: 103–13.
Kahneman, D., and J.L. Knetsch. 1992. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57 – 70.
Kanarattanavong, A., and G. Ruenrom. 2009. The model of corporate environmentalism: The effects
of perceived market uncertainty upon marketing, environmental, and social performance. The
Business Review, Cambridge 12, no. 2: 140– 7.
Keppel, G. 1982. Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kim, Y., and S. Choi. 2005. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of
collectivism, environmental concern and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 592– 9.
Klein, J., and N. Dawar. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand
evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21: 203–17.
Kotler, P. 2011. Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of
Marketing 75: 132– 5.
Lai, K., T.C.E. Cheng, and A.K.Y. Tang. 2010. Green retailing and its success factors. California
Management Review 52, no. 2: 6– 31.
Laroche, M., J. Bergeron, and G. Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay
more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18, no. 6: 503– 21.
Leonidou, C.N., and L.C. Leonidou. 2011. Research into environmental marketing/management:
A bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing 45, no. 1/2: 68 – 103.
Maignan, I., and O.C. Ferrell. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, no. 1: 3 – 19.
Maloney, M.P., and M.P. Ward. 1973. Ecology: Let’s hear it for the people: An objective scale for
the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist 28: 583– 6.
Martin, D., M. O’Neill, S. Hubbard, and A. Palmer. 2008. The role of emotion in explaining
consumer satisfaction and future behavioural intention. Journal of Services Marketing 22, no. 3:
224– 36.
Maxwell, J.W., T.P. Lyon, and S.C. Hackett. 2000. Self-regulation and social warfare: The political
economy of corporate environmentalism. Journal of Law and Economics 43, no. 2: 583– 617.
McGoldrick, P.J., and O. Freestone. 2008. Ethical product premiums: Antecedents and extent of
consumers’ willingness to pay. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 18, no. 2: 185– 201.
Menon, A., and A. Menon. 1997. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The emergence of corporate
environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing 61, no. 1: 51 – 67.
Miles, M.P., and J.G. Covin. 2000. Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, competitive,
and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics 23, no. 3: 299– 311.
Mohr, L.A., D. Eroglu, and P. Scholder-Ellen. 1998. The development and testing of a measure of
skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. Journal of Consumer
Affairs 32, no. 1: 30 – 56.
Mohr, L.A., and D.J. Webb. 2005. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on
consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs 39, no. 1: 121– 47.
Moisander, J., and S. Pesonen. 2002. Narratives of sustainable ways of living: Constructing the self
and the other as a green consumer. Management Decision 40, no. 4: 329–42.
Neuman, W.L. 2006. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 6th ed.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Nottage, A. 2008. The green agenda gets personal. Marketing, July: 33 – 5.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Öberseder, M., B.B. Schlegelmilch, and V. Gruber. 2011. “Why don’t consumers care about CSR?”:
A qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business
Ethics 104, no. 4: 449– 60.
Papaoikonomou, E., G. Ryan, and M. Ginieis. 2011. Towards a holistic approach of the attitude
behaviour gap in ethical consumer behaviours: Empirical evidence from Spain. International
Advances in Economic Research 17: 77 – 88.
Papaoikonomou, E., G. Ryan, and M. Valverde. 2011. Mapping ethical consumer behavior:
Integrating the empirical research and identifying future directions. Ethics & Behavior 21, no. 3:
197– 221.
Peattie, K. 1995. Environmental marketing management: Meeting the green challenge. London:
Pitman Publishing.
Pedersen, E.R., and P. Neergaard. 2006. Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware! Environmental
labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business Strategy and the Environment 15,
no. 1: 15 – 29.
Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1990. Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration.
Psychological Bulletin 107: 367– 74.
Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness – the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10, no. 2:
135– 46.
Phau, I., and D. Ong. 2007. An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in promotional
messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25, no. 7: 772–88.
Pickett-Baker, J., and R. Ozaki. 2008. Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on
consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25, no. 5: 281–93.
Polonsky, M.J. 2011. Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. Journal of
Business Research 64: 1311– 9.
Pomering, A., and S. Dolnicar. 2009. Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation:
Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics 85: 285– 301.
Pooley, J.A., and M. O’Connor. 2000. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs
are what is needed. Environment and Behavior 32, no. 5: 711– 23.
Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84, no. 12: 78 – 92.
Prothero, A., P. McDonagh, and S. Dobscha. 2010. Is green the new black? Reflections on a green
commodity discourse. Journal of Macromarketing 30, no. 2: 147– 59.
Quester, P., S. Pettigrew, and D. Hawkins. 2010. Consumer behaviour: Implications for marketing
strategy. 6th ed. North Ryde, Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Rios, F.J.M., T.L. Martinez, F.F. Moreno, and P.C. Soriano. 2006. Improving attitudes toward brands
with environmental associations: An experimental approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing
23, no. 1: 26 – 34.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., G.M. Bohlen, and A. Diamantopoulos. 1996. The link between green
purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of
Marketing 30, no. 5: 35 – 55.
Schuhwerk, M.E., and R. Lefkoff-Hagius. 1995. Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter
when advertising a green product? Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2: 45 – 54.
Sen, S., and C.B. Bhattacharya. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38, no. 2: 225–43.
Shrum, L.J., J.A. McCarty, and T.M. Lowrey. 1995. Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and
their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2: 71 – 83.
Singh, J., M.M. de Garcia Los Salmones Sanchez, and I. del Rodriguez Bosque. 2007. Understanding
corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural
evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics 80: 597– 611.
Smith, J.R., D.J. Terry, S.R. Manstead, and W.R. Louis. 2008. The attitude-behavior relationship in
consumer conduct: The role of norms, past behavior, and self-identity. The Journal of Social
Psychology 148, no. 3: 311– 33.
Smith, N.C. 1996. Ethics and the typology of customer value. Advances in Consumer Research 23:
148– 153.
Tanner, C., and S.W. Kast. 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green
purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology & Marketing 20, no. 10: 883– 902.
The Co-operative Bank. 2010. Ethical consumerism report 2010: Ethical shopping through the
downturn, http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethicalconsumerismreport
Thomson, M., D.J. MacInnes, and C.W. Park. 2005. The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15, no. 1: 77 – 91.
Vermillion, L.J., and J. Peart. 2010. Green marketing: Making sense of the situation. Proceedings of
the Academy of Marketing Studies 15, no. 1: 68 – 72.
Woolverton, A., and C. Dimitri. 2010. Green marketing: Are environmental and social objectives
compatible with profit maximisation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25, no. 2: 90 – 8.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research
12, no. 3: 341– 52.
Appendix: Pre-tested environmental advertising messages
Drink positive,
Advertising Be socially Reduce think positive, Think green,
message responsible landfilla act positive Feel gooda Do good act green
Mean 3.28 1.12 4.12 4.43 2.96 1.44
SD 0.79 0.33 0.60 0.59 0.55 0.58
a
Selected messages.

Green Marketing Message

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Marketing Message

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 17 December 2014, At: 16:17

Journal of Marketing Communications

Green marketing messages and

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2012.684065

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Green marketing messages and consumers’ purchase intentions:

across cognitive, affective and behavioural attitude components. A sample of

*Corresponding author. Email: martin.grimmer@utas.edu.au

q 2012 Taylor & Francis

Green marketing communications

consumers, therefore, are expected to pay attention to marketing information relevant to

The current study

environmental product purchase rather than when presented with an advertise-

Instrument and measures

Experimental Group 1: Personal Benefit

Experimental Group 2: Pure Environmental Benefit

Participants and procedure

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

effect of type of advertisement on purchase intention – and so was considered a suitable

Total 52 3.40 (1.18)

Control Personal Environmental

Figure 2. Interaction of environmental advertisement and level of environmental affect.

Summary, limitations and directions for future research

Faculty of Business and Head of the School of Management at UTAS.

An empirical investigation. Society and Business Review 1, no. 2: 144– 57.

Appendix: Pre-tested environmental advertising messages

You might also like