ETHICALLY MINDED CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: A SEGMENTATION

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: [email protected] 2 International University – Vietnam National University, HCMC – Email: [email protected]


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.


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,


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.


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.


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%


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:


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.


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.


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


.724

EMCB10 “I have paid more for socially responsible


.675

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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,


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.


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


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,


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.


3rd CEBT-2020 556 ISBN: 978-604-73-7863-0

Documents

ETHICALLY MINDED CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: A SEGMENTATION