View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
ETHICALLY MINDED CONSUMER BEHAVIOR:
A SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS ON VIETNAMESE YOUTH
Le Dinh Minh Tri1
Nguyen Thi Minh Thu 2
Abstract
Global warming is an alarming issue that affects every perspective of our life. Ethical consumption is
an emerging trend in Vietnam, which changes consumer behavior and the marketing strategies of
companies. Thus, marketers need to learn more insights into what makes people consume responsibly.
This research aims to examine the psychological factors leading to the ethical minded consumer
behaviors of the youths and analyze how different demographic segments of the youths consume
ethically. The data is collected from 361 young people from 12 to 33 years old, across Vietnam.
Ethically minded consumer behavior has been diverged in three constructs, differently from the
original scale. The segmentation analysis also indicated that young people boycott products based on
their ecological impacts differently in different genders, ages, education levels, and income levels. In
contrast, demographic features do not affect other ethical consumer behavior dimensions. The results
are useful for marketers aiming to look for target ethical consumers so that the marketing campaigns
would be more efficient.
Keywords: Ethical Consumption, Vietnamese Youths, Green marketing, Segmentation Analysis
Acknowledgement: The study was supported by The Youth Incubator for Science and Technology
Programe, managed by Youth Development Science and Technology Center – Ho Chi Minh
Communist Youth Union and Department of Science and Technology of Ho Chi Minh City, the
contract number is 20/2019/HĐ-KHCN-VƯ
1 International University – Vietnam National University, HCMC – Email: ldmtri@hcmiu.edu.vn 2 International University – Vietnam National University, HCMC – Email: nguyenthiminhthu1510@gmail.com
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 536 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
1. Introduction
Growing concern among individuals about environmental, social and ethical issues is giving rise to a
ethical consumer who show these concerns in their purchasing and consumption actions
(Eurobarometer, 2009, 2014). New purchasing patterns are emerging in which consumers, along with
traditional purchasing criteria, also value the commitment towards society of enterprises (Lozano et
al., 2006). Moreover, Nielsen (2014) indicated that 82% of consumers in ASEAN are looking to brands
to express opinions on social and environmental causes on their product packaging. Consequently,
businesses now are expected to act more ethically to the society (Francois-Lecompte & Roberts, 2006;
Sen et al., 2001). Marketing scholars have recently examined characteristics of ethical consumption so
that enterprises may increase profits by targeting ethical consumers (Shaw et al., 2000, 2016). Besides,
companies are more active in supplying environmentally friendly products (Haws et al., 2014).
Sustainable consumerism has gained lots of attention from researchers and practitioners due to the
emergence of two important social values: environmentalism and ethical consumerism (Newholm et
al., 2015). However, most of the past studies about consuming responsibly focused only on either
Western regions or Asian developed countries (i.e. Lee, 2009; Xiao & Hong, 2010). It was reported
that nearly 80% of all studies in the relevant sustainability topic have focused on only U.S. consumers
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013). Single individuals will not pay equal
attention to sustainability-related issues when considering their ethical consumption choices (Awad,
2011; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). Global sustainable marketers suggested Asia is a potential market
(Lee, 2009). Furthermore, values and ethics in consumerism are formed by differences in each culture
(Tan & Chow, 2009) and that cultural characteristics play a role, both directly and indirectly, in
predicting green consumers (Ritter et al., 2015; Ruiz de Maya et al., 2011; Tseng & Hung, 2013).
Therefore, outcomes of studies in different regions will be expected to significantly vary. Besides,
most studies about segmentation related topic weighed heavily on environmental aspect, which makes
other social aspects overlooked (e.g. Awad, 2011; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). Those studies are also
extremely limited in Asia generally and in Vietnam specifically. In one word, research should be
undertaken in Vietnam.
The main purpose of this study is to segment ethical consumer market by common demographic
criteria and become an important source of information for sustainable marketers and scholars.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 537 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1.The concept of Ethical Minded Consumption (EMC)
Development of global complex and visible enterprises’ activities (e.g. manufacture, employment)
have made a certain impact on our consumption and therefore making us more aware of our
consumption choices (Kleine, 2005; Littler, 2008), therefore make us ethical consumers. EMC has also
been referred to as “Socially responsible consumption (SRC)” (Hassan et al., 2016)– with both SRC
and EMC concepts incorporate similar categories of pro-social behavior. Webster, Jr. (1975) defined
an ethical/responsible consumer is the one “who takes into account the public consequences of his or
her private consumption or who attempts to use his or her purchasing power to bring about social
change”. On the other hand, Roberts (1993) stated that a socially responsible consumer is the person
“who purchases products and services perceived to have a positive (or less negative) influence on the
environment or who patronizes businesses that attempt to effect related positive social change”, from
which we can imply that there are two aspects: environment concern and other general social concerns.
According to Mohr et al. (2001), socially responsible behavior is “a person basing his or her
acquisition, usage and disposition of products on a desire to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects
and maximize the long-run beneficial impact on society”.
In order to neutralize the environmental and other social aspects in ethical consumerism, Ethically
Minded Consumer Behavior (EMCB) scale by Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher (2016) is used in this
study. This new EMCB scale is up-to-date, valid, reliable, understandable, and easy to administer. The
scale views ethical consumption from a wide viewpoint, not only including environmental but other
societal issues. The various country selection (not only the US but other different countries) to examine
the scale deducts the irrelevance to implement in foreign countries. However, there are scarce existing
studies using this scale.
2.2. Segmentation of The Ethical Consumer Market
To study a market segmentation, bases or criteria used to identify ethical consumption patterns are
essential, which includes a set of variables. Next, an attempt will be made to provide an overall
perspective of the various segmentation bases and their respective variables, seeking to direct the
approach towards the situation of the ethical consumer market. Particularly, the demographic criteria
will be examined in this study. Roberts (1996a) also stated that demographic factors are not good
predictor of socially responsible consumption. However, the demographics are often used as initial
market segmentation criteria (Roberts, 1996). The following demographic variables include age,
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 538 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
gender, income, education, place of residence, which are referred to the segmentation analysis of
Straughan & Roberts (1999).
2.2.1. Age
Age has been a variable examined by countless researchers in past studies. The conclusion of this
variable has always brought argument. Some scholars suggested that younger individuals are likely to
be more thoughtful to environmental issues (e.g., Kellstedt et al., 2008; Roberts, 1996a; Roberts &
Bacon, 1997; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989; Tognacci et al., 1972; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; Ziadat,
2010; Zimmer et al., 1994). Conversely, according to some other researchers (Halder et al., 2020;
Roberts, 1996; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989), the correlation was significantly positive, which means
more mature people have more positive behavior towards the nature’s issues. Besides, willingness to
take actions to help eliminate environmental problems varies between genders (Lin & Niu, 2018).
H1: Consumers in different groups of age will significantly have different EMCB.
2.2.2. Gender
Another variable is gender. Some studies agree that women are more aware of and concerned with the
environment than counterparts (Banerjee & McKeage, 1994; Berkowitz & Lutterman, 1968; Halder et
al., 2020; Laroche et al., 2001). Mainieri et al. (1997) stated that women tend to be more
environmentally aware than men, women individuals buy more environmentally friendly products and
get involved more in the separation of packages for recycling. The conclusion was similar with the
generally social dimension, socially conscious consumers more likely to be women (Dietz et al., 2002;
Dupont, 2004; Hunter et al., 2004; Loughland et al., 2003; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Webster, Jr., 1975).
Women were indicated to be more generous in funding than men do (Andreoni et al., 2003; Rooney et
al., 2005). Conversely, according to MacDonald & Hara (1994) and McEvoy (1972), men demonstrate
more environmental concern than women. However, some studies concluded that there was no
significant relationship in term of both ecologically (Leelakulthanit & Wongtada, 1993; Shahsavar et
al., 2020; Straughan & Roberts, 1999) and socially (Antil, 1984; Brooker, 1976; Kassarjian, 1971). On
the other hand, the willingness to take actions towards environmental problems varies between genders
(Lin & Niu, 2018). According to Tong et al. (2020), men are well-aware of environmental problems,
whereas women worry about nature quality.
H2: Consumers in different groups of gender will significantly have different EMCB.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 539 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
2.2.3. Income level
There was a general belief that people with higher income levels would bear the marginal increase in
products’ price associated with supporting green causes and favoring green product offerings. Income
was a predictor of Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior or a related construct (Leelakulthanit
& Wongtada, 1993; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; Zimmer et al., 1994).
Similarly, it was suggested that wealthier consumers are more environmentally aware (Awan &
Abbasi, 2013; Ogunbode & Arnold, 2012). Those arguments are questioned, since the negative
relationship was found by Roberts (1996a) and Samdahl & Robertson (1989). Despite that fact, some
authors found no differences among consumers with different income levels in environmental concerns
(Halder et al., 2020; Kassarjian, 1971; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981).
H3: Consumers in different income levels will significantly have different EMCB.
2.2.4. Education level
Education is a significant predictor in environmental awareness (Awan & Abbasi, 2013). Better
learning or higher education level and consequently get introduced to more knowledge are expected
to be the reason consumers demonstrate more concern, acting more frequently in favor of the nature,
which was believed by most of the authors (e.g., Granzin & Olsen, 1991; Krause, 2015; Ziadat, 2010;
Zimmer et al., 1994), while yet Kinnear et al. (1974) and Shahsavar et al. (2020) suggested that there
was no significant relationship.
H4: Consumers in different education levels will significantly have different EMCB.
2.2.5. Place of residence
This was not as common as the other demographic ones in segmentation study, and heavily depend on
each region and country. In almost 30 years of research, an endless number of scholars have considered
the correlation between place of residence and environmental concern. As other studies (e.g., Antil,
1984; Hounshell & Liggett, 1973; McEvoy, 1972; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989; J. Schwartz & Miller,
1991; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; Zimmer et al., 1994), place of residence corresponds with green
attitudes and behaviors. Nonetheless, Hounshell & Liggett (1973) have found that those people who
lived in big cities were likely to demonstrate more supportive attitudes towards natural issues. More
recently, differences in counties have been found to influence consumer perceptions and behaviors
(Nair & Little, 2016).
H1: Consumers in different places of residence will significantly have different EMCB.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 540 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
3. Research methodology
In exchange for 1$ worth of coupon gifts, there were 442 people got involved in data collection. The
convenient sampling method was applied, in which respondents were voluntary and anonymous. There
were 361 returned complete and valid questionnaires, forming a response rate of 81.7%. In total, 238
respondents were women (65.9%) and 123 respondents were men (34.1%). The age figures saturated
in the group of 19 to 33 years old. The same set of demographic criteria examined in the segmentation
analysis of Straughan & Roberts (1999) will also be adapted in this study. Gender, Education level and
Income level were asked in the type of categorical questions. On the other hand, Age and Place of
residence approached respondents as open-ended questions. Nevertheless, in order to employ
segmentation analysis as well as describe the data more clearly. Age ended up including two groups:
teenagers and young adults, which was separated based on United Nation. On the other hand, unlike
other studies incorporating both counties and rural areas, most of cities examined here is from rural
areas. Therefore, dividing places into less developed and developed cities is impossible. Instead,
groups of basic regions were categorized: the North, the Central, the South and Foreign countries. This
study adopted quantitative approach, using IBM SPSS software. As discussed before, dependent
variable (Ethical minded consumer behavior) will be measured using the sale EMCB of Sudbury-Riley
& Kohlbacher (2016). The study aims to examine a holistic perspective of ethical consumption.
Demographic statistics were demonstrated as below:
Variable Frequency Valid percent
Gender
Male 123 34.1%
Female 238 65.9%
Age
12-18 years old (teenagers) 60 16.6%
19-33 years old (young adults) 301 83.4%
Education level
High schools/lower 56 15.5%
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 541 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Undergraduate degrees 290 80.3%
Postgraduation degrees 15 4.2%
Income level
Have not gone to work/ do not
go to work 143 39.6%
Below 5 million VND 76 21.2%
5 to 10 million 72 19.9%
Above 10 to 20 million VND 49 13.6%
Above 20 million VND 21 5.8%
Place of residence
The South 326 90.3%
The Central 6 1.7%
The North 19 5.3%
Foreign countries 10 2.8%
Measures:
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 542 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
4. Analysis results
4.1. Descriptive analysis and reliability test
Table 1: Descriptive statistics
Dimensions Items Mean Std.
Deviation
ECOBUY EMCB1. “When there is a choice, I always choose the
product that contributes to the least amount of
environmental damage”
4.216 .8774
EMCB2. “I have switched products for environmental
reasons.”
4.294 .7544
ECOBOYCOT
T
EMCB3. “If I understand the potential damage to
the environment that some products can cause, I
do not purchase those products.”
3.518 1.0931
EMCB4. “I do not buy household products that
harm the environment.”
3.579 .9661
RECYCLE EMCB5. “Whenever possible, I buy products
packaged in reusable or recyclable containers.”
4.175 .9972
EMCB6. “I make every effort to buy paper products
(toilet paper, tissues, etc.) made from recycled paper.”
3.706 1.1191
CSRBOYCOT
T
EMCB7. “I will not buy a product if I know that
the company that sells it is socially irresponsible.”
4.324 1.0125
EMCB8. “I do not buy products from companies
that I know use sweatshop labor, child labor, or
other poor working conditions.”
4.485 1.0330
PAYMORE EMCB9. “I have paid more for environmentally
friendly products when there is a cheaper alternative.”
4.000 .8913
EMCB10. “I have paid more for socially responsible
products when there is a cheaper alternative.”
3.997 .8866
The lowest and greatest pairs of mean from the descriptive analysis infer some indication. It shows
Vietnamese youths are the least likely to boycott products from those companies due to their natural
irresponsibility among all dimensions in EMCB. Conversely, if enterprises perform other social
activities unethically, consumers are willing to punish them by not purchasing the products.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 543 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Cronbach’s alpha is 0.834, which suggests EMCB have good reliability without eliminating any item
in the scale.
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis
In order to reexamine the dimensions of EMCB in Vietnam, the EFA was employed. All 10 items were
pooled and factor analyzed by principle components analysis. The EFA for 10 EMCB items is
sufficiently satisfactory. The KMO measure is 0.784 and significance level is lower than 0.05. Varimax
rotation was employed and the eigenvalue exceeds 1. The factor loadings an item equal or higher than
0.5 had been used as the criteria to determine the factor to which the items should belong and which
items should be eliminated. Table 2 shows the loadings of each item for each dimension.
Differently from the theory (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016), in which there were 5 constructs
built from these 10 items, the EFA of this study, however, shows only 3 constructs. Specifically,
EMCB1, EMCB2, EMCB5, EMCB6, EMCB9, EMCB10 fall into one construct (initially 3 factors
called “ECOBUY”, “RECYCLE” and “PAYMORE”), the last two constructs (“ECOBOYCOTT” and
“CSRBOYCOTT”) have stayed unchanged with the pairs of EMCB3, EMCB4 and EMCB7, EMCB8
respectively. Therefore, the EMCB scale is necessary to be revised. Consequently, the title of the new
construct extracted is ETHICBUY, originating from the content of items in it.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 544 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix: EMCB
Component
ETHICB
UY
CSRBOYC
OTT
ECOBOYC
OTT
EMCB1 “When there is a choice, I always choose the
product that contributes to the least amount of
environmental damage.”
.600
EMCB2 “I have switched products for environmental
reasons.”
.645
EMCB3 “If I understand the potential damage to the
environment that some products can cause, I do not
purchase those products.”
.894
EMCB4 “I do not buy household products that harm the
environment.”
.834
EMCB5 “Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in
reusable or recyclable containers.”
.694
EMCB6 “I make every effort to buy paper products (toilet
paper, tissues, etc.) made from recycled paper.”
.655
EMCB7 “I will not buy a product if I know that the
company that sells it is socially irresponsible.”
.855
EMCB8 “I do not buy products from companies that I
know use sweatshop labor, child labor, or other poor
working conditions.”
.864
EMCB9 “I have paid more for environmentally friendly
products when there is a cheaper alternative.”
.724
EMCB10 “I have paid more for socially responsible
products when there is a cheaper alternative.”
.675
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 545 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
4.3. Segmentation analysis
After EFA, the constructs of EMCB were determined, which then were tested with Independent
Sample T-test and One-way ANOVA alternatively to segment the ethical consumer market.
The segmentation criteria are: Gender, Age, Education level, Income level and Place of
residence. Those criteria including 2 groups of respondents will be analyzed with Independent
Sample T-test. On the other hand, criteria that include equal or more than 3 groups will be
tested with One-way ANOVA. The purpose is to examine if there is significant difference in
mean among the groups so that we can conclude ethical consumers behave differently in
different gender, age, education level, income and place of residence.
4.3.1. Independent sample T-test:
Table 3. Independent sample T-test: Gender, Age
Criteri
a Construct
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Gender ETHICBUY Equal variances assumed .249 .618 .020 359 .984
CSRBOYCOTT Equal variances not
assumed
9.460 .002 -1.800 302.61
6
.073
ECOBOYCOT
T
Equal variances assumed .219 .640 -2.332 359 .020
Age ETHICBUY Equal variances assumed 2.384 .123 .962 359 .337
CSRBOYCOT
T
Equal variances assumed .076 .783 -.508 359 .612
ECOBOYCOT
T
Equal variances assumed .472 .493 2.801 359 .005
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 546 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Those constructs that have sig. value in Levene’s test below 0.05 will have equal variances
assumed, otherwise, equal variances are not assumed (as the table shows). Sig. values from T-
test of both gender and age in ECOBOYCOTT are below 0.05, indicating different age and
gender lead to different patterns of ethic consumption. Other dimensions in gender and age
have no role in predicting ethic consumerism of the Vietnamese Youths.
4.3.2. One-way ANOVA
Table 4. One-way ANOVA: Income level, Education level,
Place of residence Test of
Homogenei
ty of
Variances
Criteria Construct Sig. Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Squar
e
F Sig.
Income
level
ETHICBU
Y
.010 Between
Groups
1.712 4 .428 .425 .79
0
Within
Groups
358.288 356 1.006
Total 360.000 360
CSRBOYC
OTT
.002 Between
Groups
11.454 4 2.863 2.925 .02
1
Within
Groups
348.546 356 .979
Total 360.000 360
ECOBOYC
OTT
.841 Between
Groups
10.846 4 2.712 2.765 .02
7
Within
Groups
349.154 356 .981
Total 360.000 360
Educatio
n level
ETHICBU
Y
.176
Between
Groups
.176 2 .088 .088 .916
Within
Groups
359.824 358 1.005
Total 360.000 360
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 547 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
CSRBOYC
OTT
.598 Between
Groups
2.378 2 1.189 1.190 .305
Within
Groups
357.622 358 .999
Total 360.000 360
ECOBOYC
OTT
.867 Between
Groups
7.005 2 3.502 3.552 .030
Within
Groups
352.995 358 .986
Total 360.000 360
Place of
residenc
e
ETHICBU
Y
.006
Between
Groups
8.636 3 2.879 2.925 .034
Within
Groups
351.364 357 .984
Total 360.000 360
CSRBOYC
OTT
.546
Between
Groups
4.786 3 1.595 1.603 .188
Within
Groups
355.214 357 .995
Total 360.000 360
ECOBOYC
OTT
.496 Between
Groups
.972 3 .324 .322 .809
Within
Groups
359.028 357 1.006
Total 360.000 360
The sig. value in test of homogeneity below 0.05 indicates One-way ANOVA analysis is no longer
useful. The table suggests ETHICBUY, CSRBOYCOTT in Income level and ETHICBUY in Place of
residence could not be further examined for ANOVA. Taking a closer observation in sig. values of
ANOVA, only ECOBOYCOTT in Income level and Education level significantly diverge in different
groups. Otherwise, the rest dimensions are not affected by difference in the criteria.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 548 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
5. Conclusion
This study aims to segment the young consumers based on certain demographic criteria: “Age”,
“Gender”, “Income level”, “Place of Residence” and “Education level”. The set of demographic
criteria was adopted from Straughan & Roberts (1999). The target respondents for this study were
chosen conveniently online. Totally, there were 361 people in the sample, aging from 12 to 33 years
old. Most of them (96.7%) often consumed convenience products, 35.2% consumed shopping
products. A small number of them were consumers of specialty products and unsought products
(10.7% and 7.5% of the sample, respectively). All the variables in this study were tested through
Cronbach’s Alpha and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Regarding dependent variable, initial EMCB,
which incorporated 5 dimensions, was suggested by the EFA in this study that it included 3 dimensions
(i.e. ETHICBUY, CSRBOYCOTT and ECOBOYCOTT). After that, independent sample T-test and
ANOVA were alternatively employed to segment ethical consumer market.
The descriptive data suggest that Vietnamese young people put the least efforts in boycotting an
unethical company making harm to the environment. Vice versa, punishing an unethical enterprise
when it comes to other societal issues were found to be paid the most attention. The segmentation
analysis suggested that difference in age, gender, education level and income level would cause the
difference in patterns of boycotting companies regarding unethical environmentally performances.
However, people in a variety of age, gender, education level, income level and living areas do not have
different behaviors in ethically consuming or boycotting based on enterprises’ CSR. Although there
was almost scarcity of studies examining the single dimensions of ethical minded consumer behavior
or pro-environmental behavior distinctively, general ethical behaviors have been studied by countless
researchers. Those findings were that demographic variables have a role in differentiating ethical
consumers in the environmental aspect (e.g. Akehurst et al., 2012; Awad, 2011; Lee, 2009; Xiao &
Hong, 2010) or in generally social aspect (e.g. Durif et al., 2011; Rooney et al., 2005)
5.1. Managerial implication
Kotler (2003) suggested that there is an increasing number of corporations which will shift towards a
“societal marketing concept”, in which the organizations will attempt to meet the demands of its target
markets more effectively and efficiently than competitors, while still guaranteeing the social life
quality. The study contributes practical and specific implication for green or sustainability marketers.
Moreover, targeting specific marketing strategies to potential ethical young Vietnamese users is likely
to be more efficient rather than implement these strategies to the whole population by assuming all
Vietnamese people are potential ethical consumers. Hence, understanding specific ethical consumer
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 549 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
segment will help increase efficiency of ethical marketing plan. Specifically, this study pointed
significant difference between young consumers who ethically boycott based on ecological activities
and who do not in Vietnam on certain demographic characteristics, suggesting that companies should
develop sophisticated strategies to specify the target customers’ profiles, in order to maintain
relationship with them.
5.2.Limitations and further research direction
Because this is a segmentation analysis topic, the study should have covered more broadly the territory
of Vietnam. Moreover, other demographic characteristics from respondents should have been
distributed equally in the sample, in order to have a good generalization of young Vietnamese people.
However, the number of cities collected for the sample was limited. Convenient sampling method was
conducted online amid the Coronavirus pandemic, equal distribution of age, income level, education
level and place of residence could not be achieved. This study is a foundation for further studies about
ethical consumption in Vietnam. Specific dimensions of ethical consumption were suggested and
therefore helped specify related topics for new studies. Furthermore, scholars can employ more
complex methods in order to identify each segment.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 550 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
REFERENCES
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Gonçalves, H. M. (2012). Re-examining green purchase behaviour and
the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management Decision.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227726
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides
and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources. https://doi.org/10.2307/1558758
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy.
Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18–39.
Awad, T. A. (2011). Environmental segmentation alternatives: buyers’ profiles and implications.
Journal of Islamic Marketing.
Awan, U., & Abbasi, A. S. (2013). Environmental Sustainability through Determinism the Level of
Environmental Awareness, Knowledge and Behavior among Business Graduates. Research
Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjees.5.5680
Banerjee, B., & McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: Exploring the relationship between
environmentalism and materialism. Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1).
Berkowitz, L., & Lutterman, K. G. (1968). The traditional socially responsible personality. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 32(2), 169–185.
Brooker, G. (1976). The self-actualizing socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer
Research, 3(2), 107–112.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation. In Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(01)00241-7
Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science
Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00088
Dupont, D. P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental
valuation. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.013
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 551 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Durif, F., Boivin, C., Rajaobelina, L., & François-Lecompte, A. (2011). Socially responsible
consumers: profile and implications for marketing strategy. International Review of Business
Research Papers, 7(6), 215–224.
Eurobarometer, F. (2009). Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and
production. Flash Eurobarometer, 256, 1–18.
Eurobarometer, F. (2014). Attitudes of Europeans towards waste management and resource
efficiency. Report, Flash EB Series, 388.
Francois-Lecompte, A., & Roberts, J. A. (2006). Developing a measure of socially responsible
consumption in France. Marketing Management Journal, 16(2).
Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities protecting the
environment: A focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviors. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 1–27.
Halder, P., Hansen, E. N., Kangas, J., & Laukkanen, T. (2020). How national culture and ethics matter
in consumers’ green consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121754
Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2016). Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap?
Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption.
Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted
glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products.
Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002
Hounshell, P. B., & Liggett, L. (1973). Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 5(2), 28–30.
Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental
behaviors. Social Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: A review. Journal of Marketing
Research, 8(4), 409–418.
Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment,
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 552 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. In Risk Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x
Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: who are
they? Ecologically concerned consumers can be identified. Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–
24.
Kleine, D. (2005). Surfen in Birkenstocks: Das Potential des Internets fuer den Fairen Handel in
Deutschland. Munich, Germany: Oekon Verlag.
Krause, J. (2015). The potential of an environmentally friendly business strategy - Research from the
Czech Republic. International Journal of Engineering Business Management.
https://doi.org/10.5772/60064
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay
more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior.
Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910940456
Leelakulthanit, O., & Wongtada, N. (1993). Thai consumer behavior: Responses in conserving the
environment. Fourth Symposium on Cross-Cultural Consumer and Business Studies.
Lin, S. T., & Niu, H. J. (2018). Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environmental
consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2233
Littler, J. (2008). Radical consumption: shopping for change in contemporary culture: shopping for
change in contemporary culture. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Loughland, T., Reid, A., Walker, K., & Petocz, P. (2003). Factors Influencing Young People’s
Conceptions of Environment. Environmental Education Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620303471
Lozano, J. M., Albareda, L., & Balaguer, M. R. (2006). Socially responsible investment in the Spanish
financial market. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9092-7
MacDonald, W. L., & Hara, N. (1994). Gender differences in environmental concern among college
students. Sex Roles, 31(5–6), 369–374.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 553 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
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(2), 189–204.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’
feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
McEvoy, J. (1972). The American concern with the environment. Social Behavior, Natural Resources
and the Environment, 214–236.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
Nair, S. R., & Little, V. J. (2016). Context, Culture and Green Consumption: A New Framework.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1165025
Newholm, T., Newholm, S., & Shaw, D. (2015). A history for consumption ethics. Business History,
57(2), 290–310.
Nielsen, N. V. (2014). Global consumers are willing to put their money where their heart is when it
comes to goods and services from companies committed to social responsibility. June, New
York.
Ogunbode, C. A., & Arnold, K. (2012). A Study of Environmental Awareness and Attitudes in Ibadan,
Nigeria. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.672901
Ritter, Á. M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G. L. R., Pereira, G. M., & Almeida, F. (2015). Motivations
for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes
of Brazilian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066
Roberts, J. A. (1993). Sex Differences in Socially Responsible Consumers’ Behavior. Psychological
Reports. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.1.139
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 554 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Roberts, J. A. (1996). and Implications for Advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217–231.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the Subtle Relationships between Environmental
Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Research.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9
Rooney, P. M., Mesch, D. J., Chin, W., & Steinberg, K. S. (2005). The effects of race, gender, and
survey methodologies on giving in the US. Economics Letters.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.06.015
Ruiz de Maya, S., López-López, I., & Munuera, J. L. (2011). Organic food consumption in Europe:
International segmentation based on value system differences. Ecological Economics.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.019
Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social Determinants of Environmental Concern:
Specification and Test of the Model. Environment and Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589211004
Schwartz, J., & Miller, T. (1991). The earth’s best friends. American Demographics, 13(2), 26–35.
Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma
perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 399–417.
Shahsavar, T., Kubeš, V., & Baran, D. (2020). Willingness to pay for eco-friendly furniture based on
demographic factors. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119466
Shaw, D., McMaster, R., & Newholm, T. (2016). Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An
Exploration of the ‘Attitude–Behaviour Gap.’ Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2442-y
Shaw, D., Shiu, E., & Clarke, I. (2000). The Contribution of Ethical Obligation and Self-identity to
the Theory of Planned Behaviour: An Exploration of Ethical Consumers. Journal of Marketing
Management. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700784683672
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green
consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review,
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 555 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710.
Tan, J., & Chow, I. H. S. (2009). Isolating cultural and national influence on value and ethics: A test
of competing hypotheses. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-
9822-0
Tognacci, L. N., Weigel, R. H., Wideen, M. F., & Vernon, D. T. A. (1972). Environmental quality:
how universal is public concern? Environment and Behavior, 4(1), 73–86.
Tong, Q., Anders, S., Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. (2020). The roles of pollution concerns and
environmental knowledge in making green food choices: Evidence from Chinese consumers.
Food Research International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108881
Tseng, S. C., & Hung, S. W. (2013). A framework identifying the gaps between customers’
expectations and their perceptions in green products. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.050
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how
it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13(6), 651–676.
Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sáinz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2013). Environmental
knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of
university students from emerging and advanced countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61,
130–138.
Webster, Jr., F. E. (1975). Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer.
Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/208631
Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population
and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z
Ziadat, A. H. (2010). Major factors contributing to environmental awareness among people in a third
world country/Jordan. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-009-9185-4
Zimmer, M. R., Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (1994). Green issues: dimensions of environmental
concern. Journal of Business Research, 30(1), 63–74.
Proceedings of The 3rd Conference on Economics, Business and Tourism
3rd CEBT-2020 556 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0
Recommended