Empirical Final

EMPERICAL STUDY ON CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS GREEN PACKAGING OF FOODS AND BEVERAGES

COMPLETED UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

“PROF. T.N.SWAMINATHAN”

SUBMITTED BY: RITVIK SAHAI FT163079

SANKHADEEP GHOSH FT163083

SHIVANI TRIPATHY FT163089

Consumer preferences and attitudes towards green packaging of food and beverages

CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................3

2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS.........................................................................................................4

2.1 THEORY....................................................................................................................................4

2.1.1 DEMOGRAPHICS...................................................................................................................5

PSYCHOGRAPHICS..........................................................................................................................5

2.2 HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................................................................7

3. SURVEY PROCEDURE – CHOICE OF METHOD.............................................................................8

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................8

3.2 METHOD............................................................................................................................8

3.3 Questionnaire Link:............................................................................................................8

4. RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................9

4.1 RELIABILITY........................................................................................................................9

5. DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................................11

6. APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................12

6.1 REFERENCES:....................................................................................................................12

6.2 QUESTIONNAIRE..............................................................................................................15

2 | P a g e


1. ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze data related to consumer attitude & preferences towards buying green packaged foods and beverages in India. These attributes will be observed based on different product parameters such as Eco-friendly appearance, affordability and availability of such products in the market. Further we will try to determine the level of sense of responsibility of consumers towards the environment that drives their buying behavior for green packaged foods and beverages. India is an ideal market with a lot of scope but a little research work done in the Indian context investigating the consumer attitude and behavior towards green marketing. The purpose of this paper is to move away from the traditional attitude-based studies of environmental consumer behavior and to examine consumer choices between realistic product alternatives when consumers have to balance their preferences over different product attributes. This paper stresses on environmental behavior paradigm and models of consumer multi-attribute choice in a sense that we interpret environmental choice as a trade-off situation between several choice criteria. Our aim is to find the attributes which relate to perceived consumer effectiveness and evaluate the extent to which consumer value environment-friendly packaging in their product choices compared with other product characteristics and study the dimensions of consumer that influence customer’s attitude and behavior in Indian market. Our desired sample would consist of consumers from tier 1 and tier 2 cities. For our qualitative research method, we have used “Historical Data & Artifacts”, to gather an in-depth understanding and the reasons that govern, consumers’ attitude and preferences towards buying green packaged foods and beverages in India,. Based on this research we came up with 11 distinct independent variables. Our quantitative research methodology would consist of Survey Research, where we propose to float a questionnaire of around 44 questions to the respondents, which would determine and measure whether these 11 variables impact the consumer attitude and preferences and if yes to what extent. It would take the respondents approximately 20 minutes to efficiently fill the survey. The responses to our questionnaire would serve as the primary source of data. Based on this primary data, along with the available secondary research data this study would measure the impact of positioning of green packaged foods and beverages in the Indian market

3 | P a g e


2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS

2.1 THEORY

While our current way of life in the industrial age is the cause of global warming, many manufacturers are planting the seeds of change with environmentally-friendly packaging that can help reduce its effects. The ongoing debate on marketing ethics and corporate social responsibility either fails to give adaptable theoretical insights or lacks empirical foundation (Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Laczniak, 1993; Laczniak and Murphy, 1993; Smith, 1995, 2001; Thompson, 1995; Smith and Quelch, 1996; Gaski, 1999; Carrigan and Attala, 2001). The essence of ethical marketing practices and corporate responsibility programmes lies in that they help companies to generate a positive corporate image and increase customers’ willingness to purchase the company’s products (Pirsch et al., 2007). It has been proven through researches that consumers do value environment friendly and ethical products but their daily buying behaviour have been inconsistent (Uusitalo, 1989, 1990a; Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Bech-Larsen, 1996). Researchers are also concerned about the factor which forces consumer purchasing behaviour, whether it is the company’s social and ethical policies or it is the growing environmental and ethical consciousness among consumers (Creyer and Ross, 1997; Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan and Attala, 2001; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). Nowadays marketers are including a green approach in framing the marketing programs. Taking up this responsibility, utmost care should be taken while framing the marketing plans, strategies and policies so as to prevent the environment and nature from any harm caused due to its operations not only today but also in future(A Rani 2012). Keeping this in mind, companies are moving towards green packaging which avoids depletion of non-renewable resources, minimizing wastage and usage of raw materials, reducing pollution and energy consumption and consequently global warming and climatic changes resulting from fossil fuel usage (EIO and CfSD 2013). The importance of the waste problem suggests that environment-friendliness of product packaging should be added into consumer choice models as a relevant product attribute (Rokka and Uusitalo 2008). In the choice of packaging for a consumer – a choice made when a desired product comes in alternative packages – functional package characteristics such as convenience of use, design and aesthetics have been in the forefront. Many consumers fail to understand the connection between their buying decision and various environmental consequences if there is no environmental information, such as labels, to remind them of it. Other reasons include the lack of supply of environment-friendly packaging options in the marketplace and consumers’ inability to distinguish between the more and less environment-friendly package alternatives (Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen, 1996). Often consumers also undervalue the impact of their own ‘marginal’ contribution to the problem (Uusitalo, 1989). Only recently did the environmental consequences of packaging and the amount of household waste have become a major focus of concentration (Prendergast et al., 1997; Thøgersen, 1999; Bone and Corey, 2000; Roper and Parker, 2006). It is expected that a majority of the Indian consumers will search for value for the money paid by them when it comes to purchasing a green product or service. It is also likely that the Indian consumers will not be willing to pay premium only for greenness. Price-sensitivity of Indian consumers is the main reason behind

4 | P a g e


making such assumptions. A few of such attributes of consumers are discussed below in details

2.1.1 DEMOGRAPHICS

Several studies have shown the previously mentioned positive relationship between income and environmental attitudes and behaviours (Kinnear et al.,1974; McEvoy, 1972; Roper, 1990; 1992; Zimmer et al.,1994). On the other hand, a few studies have found the opposite, a negative relationship between income and environmental concerns (Roberts, 1996b; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989). Roberts (1996b) theorizes that the differences shown in studies in the past may have been washed out by the overall growth in environmental concerns across all income levels. He also cautions that although the relationship in his study was significant, the amount of variance explained was small.

Level of education is another demographic variable that has been linked to environmental attitudes and behaviour (Aaker and Bagozzi,1982; Anderson et al.,1974; Kinnear et al.,1974; Leonard-Barton, 1981;McEvoy, 1972; Murphy et al.,1978; Newell and Green, 1997; Roberts, 1995; 1996b; Roberts and Bacon, 1997; Roper, 1990; 1992; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989; Schwartz and Miller, 1991; Tognacci et al.,1972; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981; Zimmer et al., 1994).The hypothesized relationship has been fairly consistent across these studies. Specifically, education is expected to be positively correlated with environmental concerns and behaviour.

Samdahl and Robertson (1989) found the opposite, that education was negatively correlated with environmental attitudes, and Kinnear et al. (1974) found no significant relationship.

In nearly 30 years of research, many studies have considered the correlation between place of residence and environmental concern. Of the studies ( Antil, 1984; Hounshell and Liggett, 1973; McEvoy, 1972; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989; Schwartz and Miller, 1991; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981; Zimmer et al., 1994) to address place of residence as a correlate of green attitudes and behaviours, all but Hounshell and Liggett (1973) have found that those living in urban areas are likely to show more favourable attitudes towards environmental issues.

PSYCHOGRAPHICS

Hine and Gifford (1991) investigated the effect of a fear appeal relating to the anti-pollution movement on several different pro environmental behaviours. Among the significant findings, the researchers found that political orientation was significantly correlated with one of the lower-order responses, verbal commitment. Specifically, their findings suggest that those with more liberal political beliefs are more likely to exhibit strong verbal commitment than those with more conservative political views.

Based on Schwartz's norm-activation theory, Stern et al. (1993) examined the role that social-altruism and egoism played in influencing green behaviour. Specifically, their

5 | P a g e


discussion centres on whether social altruism, a concern for the welfare of others, is the sole driver of environmentally friendly market behaviour, or whether the positive effect of social-altruism is countered by the negative influence of egoism, which inhibits willingness to incur extra costs associated with environmentalism

Several studies (Antil, 1978; Berger and Corbin, 1992; Kinnear et al., 1974; Roberts, 1995; 1996b; Roberts andBacon, 1997; Webster, 1975; Weiner and Doescher, 1991) have addressed the premise that consumers' attitudes and responses to environmental appeals are a function of their belief that individuals can positively influence the outcome to such problems. This attitude or belief is referred to as perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). Findings have been fairly conclusive that PCE is positively correlated with ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB). Recently, Roberts (1996b) found that this was the single strongest predictor of ECCB, surpassing all other demographic and psychographic correlates examined.

The relationship between attitudes and behaviour is one that has been explored in a variety of contexts. In the environmental literature, the question has been addressed by exploring the relationship between the attitudinal construct, environmental concern, and various behavioural measures and/or observations. Those studies (Antil, 1984; Kinnear et al., 1974; Lepisto, 1974; Roberts, 1995; 1996b; Roberts and Bacon, 1997; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981) examining environmental concern as a correlate of environmentally friendly behaviour have generally found a positive correlation between the two.

The primary interest of packaging research has focused on communicative characteristics of the package (e.g. labelling, functionality, colour, size) (Roper and Parker, 2006; Silayoi and Speece, 2007). In a few cases where environmental packaging has been an issue, the studies indicate that functional packaging characteristics influence consumers’ purchasing decisions, whereas environmental characteristics do not seem to have any practical importance. Few studies can be found where the environmental product packaging is explicitly studied at the buying stage as one of the determinants of consumers’ product choice. Bech-Larsen (1996) suggests that there

might be a group of consumers – albeit small – with strong preferences for green packaging, and there might be a market for this type of packaging. Thøgersen (1999) have found that many consumers fail to understand the connection between their buying decision and various environmental consequences if there is no environmental information, such as labels, to remind them of it. Other reasons include the lack of supply of environment-friendly packaging options in the marketplace and consumers’ inability to distinguish between the more and less environment-friendly package alternatives (Bech-Larsen, 1996; Thøgersen, 1996). Often consumers also undervalue the impact of their own ‘marginal’ contribution to the problem (Uusitalo, 1989).

India is an ideal market with a lot of scope but a little research work done in the Indian context investigating the consumer attitude and behaviour towards green marketing. The purpose of this paper is to move away from the traditional attitude-based studies of environmental consumer behaviour and to examine consumer choices between realistic

6 | P a g e


product alternatives when consumers have to balance their preferences over different product attributes. This paper stresses on environmental behaviour paradigm and models of consumer multi-attribute choice in a sense that we interpret environmental choice as a trade-off situation between several choice criteria. Our aim is to find the attributes which relate to perceived consumer effectiveness and evaluate the extent to which consumer value environment-friendly packaging in their product choices compared with other product characteristics and study the dimensions of consumer that influence customer’s attitude and behaviour in Indian market.

Based on historical data and findings from the literature review, we determined the following factors that affect or influence consumer preference and attitude towards green packaged products.

2.2 HYPOTHESIS

H1: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on level of education.

H2: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on Income.

H3: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent perceived consumer effectiveness.

H4: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on the price of the product.

H5: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on social altruism.

H6: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on governmental laws and policies.

H7: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on convenience of use of the product.

H8: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on design of the product package.

H9: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on aesthetics of the product package.

H10: Consumer preference and attitude is dependent on availability of the product.

7 | P a g e


3. SURVEY PROCEDURE – CHOICE OF METHOD

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

After extensive literature reviews & qualitative analysis, we had a good idea on how to proceed with our survey. Ideally speaking, the best possible method would’ve been to go for a mall survey as that gives us answers based on fresh memories rather than historical data. But due to constraints, we had the next best alternative: float online questionnaires to a set of people selected based on heterogeneity in age, gender & place of residence. This target audience for the survey was working professionals or students who have knowledge of green marketing and impact of product promotion and place on green consumer behavior or buying propensity of consumer.

3.2 METHOD

Sample Size: 151 samples Target Population Characteristics: Tier-1 and Tier-2 cities population Study Duration: 6 months (15th October, 2015 to 15th February, 2016) Reliability testing of the survey Regression modeling based on forward selection Hypothesis testing of the how independent variables affect the dependent variable

3.3 Questionnaire Link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1kxPrMUBuQ3C7oj6oCA6zTQR6v9sBJu74hzpQvuWSNo/viewform?usp=send_form

8 | P a g e




4. RESULTS

Overall Consistency of questionnaire denoted by Standardized Cronbach Alpha comes to 0.83

Adjusted R-squared: 0.20 Almost NIL clarifications were made during the undertaking of survey by 151

respondents. Consumer Attitude is highly dependent on Environmental Concern, Perceived Customer

Effectiveness and Governmental Laws. Consumer Preference is highly dependent on Price, Quality, Brand and Availability.

4.1 RELIABILITY

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.839 31

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted

EC1 100.39 110.677 .516 .830

EC2 100.56 112.399 .351 .835

EC3 102.69 118.817 -.017 .850

EC4 100.52 112.100 .440 .832

PCE1 100.92 111.089 .498 .831

PCE2 101.03 110.328 .467 .831

PCE3 101.46 111.455 .419 .833

PCE4 101.25 110.833 .414 .833

GL1 101.10 110.668 .456 .831

9 | P a g e


GL2 101.65 110.737 .389 .833

GL3 100.50 110.361 .500 .830

GL4 100.37 114.277 .280 .837

Price1 100.49 114.060 .330 .835

Price2 101.48 108.676 .456 .831

Price3 101.95 107.114 .579 .827

Price4 102.24 113.186 .249 .839

Quality1 104.14 116.123 .303 .837

Quality2 101.03 105.547 .678 .823

Quality3 100.76 110.429 .520 .830

Quality4 100.82 114.795 .237 .838

Quality5 100.45 111.181 .484 .831

Quality6 101.12 114.368 .289 .836

Avaibility1 101.25 112.025 .365 .834

Avaibility2 101.12 116.999 .117 .841

Avaibility3 101.54 107.647 .612 .826

Avaibility4 101.91 115.958 .171 .840

Brand1 101.32 113.287 .368 .834

Brand2 101.73 116.939 .106 .842

Brand3 101.37 113.563 .351 .835

Brand4 101.71 117.510 .119 .840

PriceR5 101.73 118.912 -.018 .849

10 | P a g e


ANOVA

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig

Between People 563.471 146 3.859

Within People

Between Items

2685.874 30 89.529 144.329 .000

Residual 2716.964 4380 .620

Total 5402.839 4410 1.225

Total 5966.310 4556 1.310

Grand Mean = 3.38

5. DISCUSSION

11 | P a g e


6. APPENDIX

6.1 REFERENCES:

1. Antil, J.H. (1984), ``Socially responsible consumers: profile and implications for public policy'', Journal of Macro Marketing, Vol. 4, Fall, pp. 18-39.

2. Alwitt, L.F. & Pitts, R.E. (1996) Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 49–64.

3. A.Rani (2012) “Aspects of green marketing: A prospect for India,International Journal of Trade & Global Business Perspectives: Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012”

4. Aaker, D.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (1982), `Àttitudes toward public policy alternatives to reduce air pollution'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 85-94.

5. Anderson, W.T. Jr, Henion, K.E. and Cox, E.P. III (1974), ``Socially vs ecologically responsible consumers'', AMA Combined Conference Proceedings, Vol. 36, Spring and Fall, pp. 304-11.

12 | P a g e


6. Bech-Larsen, T. (1995) Consumers attitudes to food packaging – with a focus on purchase decisions. Dissertation, Aarhus School of Business, Denmark.

7. Bech-Larsen, T. (1996) Danish consumers’ attitudes to the functional and environmental characteristics of food packaging. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19, 339–363.

8. Bech-Larsen, T. & Grunert, K.G. (2003) The perceived healthiness of functional foods: a conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and American consumers’ perception of functional foods. Appetite, 40, 9–14

9. Berger, I.E. and Corbin, R.M. (1992), ``Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviours'', Journal of Public Policy &Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 79-88.

10. Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M. (2000) Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude–behavior gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 355–368.

11. Creyer, E.H. & Ross, W.T. (1997) The influence of firm behaviour onpurchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 421–433.

12. Carrigan, M. & Attala, A. (2001) The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 560–577.

13. EIO and CfSD (2013) Eco-innovate! A guide to eco-innovation for SMEs and business coaches. Eco-Innovation Observatory. Funded by the European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels

14. Hounshell, P. and Liggett, L. (1973), `Àssessing the effectiveness of environmental education'', Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 28-30.

15. Hine, D.W. and Gifford, R. (1991), ``Fear appeals, individual differences, and environmental concern'', The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 36-41.

16. Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S. (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics.Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16.

17. Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), `Ècologically concerned consumers: who are they?'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, April, pp. 20-4.

18. Lepisto, L.R. (1974), `Àn empirical study of the effect of environmental product attributes, convenience, and price on product preference and socially responsible

13 | P a g e


consumer behavior'', Doctoral dissertation, Department of Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University.

19. Murphy, P.E., Kangun, N. and Locander, W.B. (1978), `Ènvironmentally concerned consumers ± racial variations'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 61-6

20. McEvoy, J. III (1972), ``The American concern with the environment'', Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment.

21. Moisander, J. & Uusitalo, L. (1995) General attitudes in theory of reasoned action framework: the influence of consumers’ pro environmental attitudes on their commuting intentions. Proceedings of IAREP Conference, 3–5 August 1995, Bergen. Published also by the Helsinki School of Economics W-123

22. Pirsch, J., Gupta, S. & Grau, S.L. (2007) A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 70,125–140.

23. Roberts, J.A. and Bacon, D.R. (1997), `Èxploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behaviour'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-89.

24. Roberts, J.A. (1995), ``Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behaviour: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing'', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Fall, pp. 97-117.

25. Roberts, J.A. (1996b), ``Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-31.

26. Roper, S. & Parker, C. (2006) “How (and where) the mighty have fallen: branded litter. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 473–487”

27. Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) “Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – Do consumers care?, INTERNATIONAL IJC · AUGUST 2008”

28. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993), ``Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern'', Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 322-48

29. Schwartz, J. and Miller, T. (1991), ``The earth's best friends'', American Demographics, Vol. 13, February, pp. 26-35.

30. Samdahl, D.M. and Robertson, R. (1989), ``Social determinants of environmental concern: specification and test of the model'', Environment and Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 57-81.

31. Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2007) The importance of packaging attributes:a conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41,1495–1517

14 | P a g e


32. Uusitalo, L. (1986) Environmental Impacts of Consumption Patterns.Gower Publishing Company Ltd., Aldershot.

33. Uusitalo, L. (1990a) Are environmental attitudes and behaviour inconsistent? Findings from a Finnish study. Scandinavian Political Studies, 13, 211–226

34. Van Liere, K. and Dunlap, R. (1981), ``The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence'', Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 181-97.

35. Weiner, J.L. and Doescher, T.A. (1991), `À framework for promoting cooperation'', Journalof Marketing, Vol. 55, April, pp. 38-47.

36. Webster, F.E. Jr (1975), ``Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, December, pp. 188-96

37. Zimmer, M.R., Stafford, T.F. and Stafford, M.R. (1994), ``Green issues: dimensions of environmental concern'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-74.

38. Zimmer, M.R., Stafford, T.F. and Stafford, M.R. (1994), ``Green issues: dimensions of environmental concern'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-74.

6.2 QUESTIONNAIRE

Gender *o Femaleo Male

Age *

Place of Residence *

Education *o 10tho 12tho Graduationo Post Graduation

Monthly Income

15 | P a g e


o Greater than 50,000 INRo Between 20,000 to 50,000 INRo Below 20,000 INR

Are you aware of Green Packaging of products? *o Yeso No

Are you aware that the material used for green packaging is bio degradable? *

o Yeso No

Are you aware that the cover of green packaged products can be recycled? *

o Yeso No

I often think about the harm we are doing to the environment *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I am a person who cares about the environment *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I am really not interested in environmental issues *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I am extremely worried about the state of the world’s environment and what it will mean for my future *

16 | P a g e


o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I am very particular about what I buy *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I think my concern for the environment is a reflection of my personality *


I think people around me follow the things I buyo Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

When I buy a product, I try to consider how any use of them will affect the environment and other resources *


17 | P a g e


I am aware of different government initiatives to save the environment *


I am aware of different governmental regulations on green packaging of products *


The government should subsidize research on technology for recycling of waste products *


Government should enforce environmental rules and regulations *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

Green packaged products should be available at a low price *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagree

18 | P a g e


o Strongly Disagree

If green features of a product increases its price I am willing to pay more *


I always buy green packaged products even though it is expensive among all alternatives *


Buying a high price product makes me feel good about myself *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I am not willing to make extra effort to find lower prices for green packaged product *


I am aware of various food quality standards of India (Like FPO, MMPO, Agmark, BIS & FSSAI) *

o Yeso No

19 | P a g e


I always look for quality standards seal on the products I buy *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

To me product information is of high importance *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

Green products are not hazardous to health *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

Product benefits should be mentioned on the packaging of green products *


Green products are high on nutrition value *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor DIsagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

In general, for me to buy green packaged foods and beverages would be easy as compared to the conventional ones *

o Strongly Agree

20 | P a g e


o Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

Buying eco-friendly packaged foods and beverages would need extra effort *


I am willing to put the extra effort to buy a green product *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

Green packaged products at easily available in market *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

While buying green products I always go for an established brand *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

I don’t prefer green products of new brands *

21 | P a g e



Established brands don’t sell artificial products in green packaging *o Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

New brands sell fresh products in green packaging onlyo Strongly Agreeo Agreeo Neither Agree nor Disagreeo Disagreeo Strongly Disagree

22 | P a g e

Documents

Empirical Final