Environmental segmentation study of consumers in

Trichy District.
Project Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of the Degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Submitted By
IRFAN AHAMED.K
Reg. No: - 08MBA008
Under the guidance of

Dr. Mr. Bejoy John Thomas MBA., M.PHIL, Ph.D., (NET).

JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous)
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

AUGUST - 2009
 JAMAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
JAMAL MOHAMED COLLEGE (Autonomous)
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 020

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project report entitled “Environmental

segmentation study of consumers on Trichy District.” is a bonafide record of
the work done by IRFAN AHAMED.K. With Register No.08MBA008 in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of MASTER
OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, affiliated to the Bharathidasan
University, submitted to the Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) during
the year 2009-2010.

Member In-Charge Project Guide

External Examiner
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am deeply indebted to the Principal and Director Dr. M. SHIEK MOHAMED,

Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous) Trichy, for having given me the opportunity to do
this professional course in this institution.

I am very much grateful to Dr. BEJOY JOHN THOMAS, Member-in-

Charge of Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohamed College for giving
official permission to do this project work.

Words alone cannot express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Bejoy John Thomas
MBA.,M.Phil,Ph.D.,(NET), Member-in-Charge, Jamal Institute of Management whose
guidance made this project works an enlightening educational experience. I sincerely thank the
faculty members, Jamal Institute of Management for their encouragement and support.

I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my parents, friends and others
who were supported to complete this study and make it a grand success.

K.IRFAN AHAMED
 CONTENTS

Page No.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY
(i) Introduction of the study
(ii) Research Problem
(iii) Research Objective
(iv) Review of Literature
(v) Research Methodology
Research Design
Nature of Data
Universe
Method of Data Collection
Sample Size
Sampling Method
Pilot Study
Statistical tools used
Statistical hypotheses framed
(vi) Limitations

CHAPTER II ANALYSIS
• Data Tabulation & graphical representation

• Data Analysis & Interpretation

CHAPTER III FINDINGS

SUGGESTIONS
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANNEXURE
INTRODUCTION
 Although environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic
disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been
inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education
level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance
is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy.
Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the
author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most
relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing.
This paper will attempt to introduce – the terms and concept of green-marketing; about
the importance of green marketing; examine some reasons that make the organizations
interested to adopt green marketing philosophy; it also highlights some problems that
organization may face to implement green marketing and it’s managerial implications along
with few case points. Last but not the least the paper “Green Marketing – A Changing Concept
In Changing Times”, is a conceptual paper on green marketing, which is an emerging area of
interest. There is a need of paradigm shift in the way the 2 management institutes and business-
houses think about their role in attaining sustainable development.
Green marketing involves developing and promoting products and services that satisfy
customers’ wants and needs for quality, performance, affordable pricing and convenience
without having a detrimental impact on the environment. Green marketing is the marketing of
products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. Thus green marketing incorporates a
broad range of activities, including product modification, changes to the production process,
packaging changes, as well as modifying advertising.
THE FOUR P’s OF GREEN MARKETING

• PRODUCT
Identify customers’environmental needs and develop products to address these
needs.Develop environmentally responsible products to have less impact than competitors.
• PRICE
Most customers will only be prepared to pay a premium if there is a perception of
additional product value.
Environmental benefits are usually an added bonus but will often be the deciding factor
between products of equal value and quality.
• PLACE
Very few customers will go out of their way to buy green products merely for the sake of
it.Green products, in most cases, positioned broadly in the market place so they are not just
appealing to a small green niche market.
In-store promotions and visually appealing displays or using recycled materials to
emphasise the environmental and other benefits
• PROMOTION
Includes paid advertising, public relations, sales promotions, direct marketing and on-site
promotions.
Green marketers will be able to reinforce environmental credibility by using sustainable
marketing and communications tools and practices.

The 5 Simple Rules of Green Marketing

When it comes to shining a spotlight on specific sustainability issues, NGOs and

consumer groups will target the most respected and trusted brands in the world. It’s the reason
why Home Depot was targeted for sustainable harvested wood, Nike for child labor practices,
McDonalds for Styrofoam clamshells and now obesity, and why Coke is similarly a target for
sugar and packaging. What does this all mean for your business? Simply stated, if you don’t
manage your business with respect to environmental and social sustainability, your business
will not be sustained! But the converse is true, too: A strong commitment to environmental
sustainability in product design and manufacture can yield significant opportunities to grow
your business, to innovate, and to build brand equity. All you have to do is get the word
out...right? As with any other major business endeavor, easier said than done. Many a
responsible company has run into trouble with these very same sustainability-minded NGOs
and consumer groups thanks to a poorly planned and crafted marketing message. Protect your
company from these common pitfalls and start taking advantage of new opportunities by
heeding my Rules of Green Marketing:
1. Know your customer. If you want to sell a greener product to consumers, you first need to
make sure that the consumer is aware of and concerned about the issues that your product
attempts to address. (Whirlpool learned the hard way that consumers wouldn’t pay a premium
for a CFC-free refrigerator because consumers didn’t know what CFCs were!).
2. Empower consumers. Make sure that consumers feel, by themselves or in concert with all
the other users of your product, that they can make a difference. This is called “empowerment”
and it’s the main reason why consumers buy greener products.
3. Be transparent. Consumers must believe in the legitimacy of your product and the specific
claims you are making. Caution: There’s a lot of skepticism out there that is fueled by the raft
of spurious claims made in the “go-go” era of green marketing that occurred during the late
80s–early90s — one brand of household cleaner claimed to have been “environmentally
friendly since 1884”!
4. Reassure the buyer. Consumers need to believe that your product performs the job it’s
supposed to do — they won't forego product quality in the name of the environment. (Besides,
products that don’t work will likely wind up in the trash bin, and that’s not very kind to the
environment.)
5. Consider your pricing. If you're charging a premium for your product — and many
environmentally preferable products cost more due to economies of scale and use of higher-
quality ingredients — make sure that consumers can afford the premium and feel it’s worth it.
Many consumers, of course, cannot afford premiums for any type of product these days, much
less greener ones, so keep this in mind as you develop your target audience and product
specifications.
RESEARCH
PROBLEM
 The ecology movement initially focused on pollution and energy conservation. The
environmental issues are presently used as a source of competitive advantage in business and
politics. The individual and societal concern over environmental issues have become
increasingly apparent to the casual observer. Some of the key questions that remind
unanswered are, what is the nature of ecologically conscious consumer of the future? Do these
consumers differ from the ecologically consumer of the past? And if so how do they differ?
Hence the present study tries to segment the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour of
students in Trichy District.
RESEARCH
OBJECTIVE
 PRIMARY OBJECTIVE:

To find out the relationship of demographic and psychographic characteristics of

consumers with ECCB.

To identify the future of ecologically conscious consumption.

 SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:

To identify the relationship of demographic factors namely age, gender, family

income, educational qualification with ECCB.

To find out the relationship between the psychographic factors namely PCE, EC
and Liberalism with ECCB.

To find out the future of ecologically conscious consumption by understanding

the environmentally conscious consumption of students.
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
1.Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer
behavior in the new millennium
Robert D. Straughan
James A. Roberts

Looking to the future of green marketing, examines the dynamic nature of ecologically
conscious consumer behavior. The study also provides a method of profiling and segmenting
college students based upon ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Findings indicate that,
despite a significant amount of past research attention, demographic criteria are not as useful a
profiling method as psychographic criteria. Consistent with past findings, the study indicates
that perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) provides the greatest insight into ecologically
conscious consumer behavior. Further, the inclusion of altruism to the profile appears to add
significantly to past efforts. Additional constructs examined suggest that environmental
segmentation alternatives are more stable than past profiles that have relied primarily on
demographic criteria.

2.Green Marketing
By Anurag Tiwari & Manish Thakkar, SGSITS,INDORE

People around the world are becoming more aware of the environmental stresses
humans are placing on the planet. Newspapers, magazines, television, and other media feature
wide coverage of environmental problems, whether they are local (e.g., depleted fisheries and
air pollution) or global (e.g., ozone depletion and climate change). Many consumers now
display concern about environmental deterioration. Increasingly often they ask how much
impact a product will have on the environment during its lifespan or during its disposal. This is
the major impetus for green products and green marketing. A closely related reason is the
competitive advantage or sales potential that some corporations now see in green products.
Green Marketing is an attempt to characterize a product as being environmentally
friendly. In general green products are made from recycled content and/or designed for reuse,
recycling, or remanufacturing. They are usually non-toxic, energy efficient, and durable.
However, green is a relative term and depends on the individual situation.
3. Organic Consumption and the Socio-Ecological Imaginary
by David Goodman and Michael Goodman

A central element in the social imaginaries of "sustainable consumption" and "green

consumerism" is that the social values and everyday commitments that underpin consumer
choice can be changed by the deployment of discursive resources. In this imaginary, changes in
worldviews can transform consumption habits and cause significant shifts in market demand,
creating profitable commercial opportunities for commodities produced more sustainably.
As consumer values and habits of "getting and spending" are re-orientated toward "green"
goods and services, producers of these commodities begin to enjoy competitive advantages
over their less sustainable rivals. The process of capitalist competition, perhaps reinforced by
state incentive policies and codes of ethical investment, will accelerate the transition of
productive sectors, industries and, ultimately, capitalist economies to more sustainable
development paths.

4.GREEN MARKETING- A CHANGING CONCEPT IN CHANGING

TIME.
Prof. Moloy Ghoshal
Although environmental issues has influenced all activities but very few academic
disciplines have inculcated green issues into their literature. Even till dated it has not been
inculcated a must be taught subject in all most all management and related higher education
level but one business area where environment issues have received a great deal of importance
is marketing. Smart business houses have accepted green marketing as a part of their strategy.
Though our understanding about green marketing still in the stage of infancy, in this paper the
author is trying to identify key ideas in relation to promote green product that may be most
relevant to both scholars and the practitioners of green marketing.

5.DEVELOPING A MEASURE OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE

CONSUMPTION IN FRANCE
AGNES FRANCOIS-LECOMPTE, Pierre Mendes France University
JAMES A. ROBERTS, Baylor University
The very definition of consumption means to consume, waste, squander, or destroy.
However, consumption need not be synonymous with environmental destruction and the
squandering of natural resources. Socially responsible consumption (SRC) can promote social
and/or environmental causes consumers deem important. The primary objective of the present
study is to develop a scale designed to measure SRC in France. Through the scale development
process we attempt to identify whether French consumers share the same ecological and social
concerns with their US counterparts as Roberts’ (1995; 1996) work might suggest, or is their
SRC more idiosyncratic in nature. Our scale building process led to a five-factor SRC scale. It
appears that French consumers do exhibit social and environmental concerns, but ones that
differ somewhat from those exhibited by US consumers. The factors generated from our scale
building process focused on corporate responsibility, country of origin preferences, shopping at
local or small businesses, purchasing cause-related products, and reducing one’s consumption.
Implications of the present study’s findings and directions for future research are discussed.

6.Increasing Environmental Sensitivity Via Workplace Experiences

Ida E. Berger and Vinay Kanetkar

The authors examine the extent to which environmentally sensitive behavior at the
workplace facilitates the translation of proenvironmental attitudes into consumer choices.They
take advantage of a naturally occurring quasi-experiment in workplace experience and use a
conjoint choice task to measure consumer behavior. The results indicate that (I) consumers are
influenced by environmental attributes, (2) experience and level of concem moderate the
influence of environmental attributes, (3) the effects of experience and concern are more than
just additive, and (4) experience can facilitate environmentally conscious behavior among
those with high levels of environmental concem by reducing their sensitivity to the effect of
brand name. The authors conclude with implications for activists, public policymakers, and
marketing managers.

7. Environmentally Responsible Food Choice Stefano Boccaletti

(Catholic University of Piacenza)
The purpose of this paper is to review and assess the role of relevant explanatory
variables that influence individual purchase decisions for “environmentally responsible” food
consumption. In particular, we provide a detailed review of the key empirical studies in the
area of consumer demand for those foods which can be broadly considered as environmentally
responsible products (ERPs). We give this definition because the choice of ERPs is a
consequence of individual concerns towards environmental and health issues and consumers
are directly and indirectly responsible for the environmental and health effects of their food
consumption choices. The decision to purchase ERPs should reduce negative environmental
effects from intensive agricultural practices, helping to preserve a public good like the
environment. Consumption of ERPs should also curb health risks from chemicals for all the
household members eating the food purchased in the shops. Therefore, the choice of ERPs
reflects both “public” and “private” demands.

Private demand for quality attributes associated with food choices and which are linked
to the environment is a tangible signal that people increasingly value production processes that
provide environmental services, i.e. that contribute to improving the quality of the
environment. The income elasticity of demand for environmental quality in OECD countries is
thought to be significantly positive, implying that as income grows, demand for environmental
quality increases. At the same time, the stock and quality of natural capital in OECD countries
may decrease with higher income and aggregate demand. In the presence of uninternalised
externalities, this clearly introduces a “public” reason for supporting the demand of ERPs.

8. The Supply Chain Response to Environmental Pressures

Julie Paquette

Supply chains represent the integration of hundreds of decisions, each with discrete
economic and environmental implications. While delivering the “right product at the right
time” and unprecedented corporate profitability, supply chains have operationalized a linear
production path that extracts resources, uses energy, releases emissions, and produce wastes at
volumes and rates that place increasing burdens on the natural environment. However, as
supply chains mature into sophisticated networks of material and information flow, so does the
ability to carefully trace the environmental impacts of individual products
along the supply chain and address these impacts proactively. Today, supply chains must
respond to an array of environmental pressures, including regulations, consumer demands, and
limited resource availability. This response involves the development of distinct operating
models, objectives, and new supply chain processes that are expanding the scope of supply
chain management within organizations. This discussion paper draws from supply chain and
environmental management literature as well as industry case studies to characterize the
current state of supply chain environmental activity and form a basis for future research.
 Research
Methodology
Research Design
Descriptive research design was adopted for the study because the study attempts to
obtain complete and accurate description of the consumer perception on green products.
Nature of Data
Primary and Secondary data were used for the collection of information for the study.
Primary data
The Primary data was collected from the college students in Trichy using a
questionnaire.
Secondary data
Secondary data relating to review of literature was online journals such as “EBSCO-
host business source elite”, Emerald and Proquest at IIT Chennai and at JIM. The secondary
data relating green marketing was taken from websites such as google, yahoo, scribd, wiki-
pedia, and search.com.
UNIVERSE
The universe for the study consist of all college students studying in Trichy.

Method of Data Collection

The researcher collected primary data using a structured questionnaire. The
questionnaire consist of 25 ECCB items, 4 PCE items, 12 EC items and 6 Liberalism items.
The questionnaire also contained questions relating to the demographic of the respondents.
Sample Size
The sample size for my research consist of 211 college students.
Sampling Method.
The sampling method used for the study is quota sampling.

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted among 12 students and based on the suggestions given by the
students suitable modifications were made in the questionnaire.
Statistical tools used

The statistical tools used in the study are

 T-test
 Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlation
 Multiple Regression

Statistical hypotheses framed

Null Hypotheses
H0 : There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the
despondence.

H0 : There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the

despondence.
Limitations
 There are two limitations that must be taken into account when considering the findings
presented here. First, the study is cross-sectional in nature. While causality may in fact exist,
the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it difficult to infer this from a single study. Such
efforts are, however, commonly reported both in the environmental literature and the
marketing literature. A second problem relates to the sample used. The objective of the study
was to examine profiling opportunities among those consumers who represent the future of the
green marketing movement. The sample, however, was a convenience sample consisting of
college students only.
ANALYSIS
Data Tabulation &
graphical
representation
 Table 1
To save energy, I drive my car as little as possible
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETLY DISAGREE 15 7.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 32 15.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

22 10.4
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 75 35.5

COMPLETLY AGREE 67 31.8

Total 211 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above table indicates that 35.5% of rspondence are somewhat agree and 31.8%
completely agree to drive little to save energy.
 Table 2
I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use
scarce resources

Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 68 32.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

57 27.0
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 49 23.2

COMPLETELY AGREE 26 12.3

Total 211 100.0

The above tables indicates that 32.2% of respondents somewhat disagree and 27% of
respondents either agree nor disagree with the concept to make conscious effort to limit use of
products that are made of or use scarce resources.
 Table 3
I will not buy products which have excessive packaging.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 51 24.2

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 79 37.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

36 17.1
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 26 12.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 19 9.0

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of respondents are disagree and 24.2% of them
completely disagree to buy low priced products without caring its impact on social.
 Table 4
When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the
Least amount of pollution
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 2 .9

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5 2.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

29 13.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 60 28.4

COMPLETELY AGREE 115 54.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that when there is a choice, 54.5% consumers give importance to the
products which causes less pollution and 28.4% of them give preference to that.
 Table 5
I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity I use.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 10 4.7

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 13 6.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

31 14.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 95 45.0

COMPLETELY AGREE 62 29.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers tried to reduce electricity they use and 29.4%
of them try hard to reduce.
 Table 6
If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause,
I do not purchase these products.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 9 4.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 8 3.8

NEITHER AGREE NOR

51 24.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 101 47.9

COMPLETELY AGREE 42 19.9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 47.9% of consumers are taking care on not to buy the products
which potentially damage the environment and 24.2% of consumers neither agree nor disagree
to the concept.
 Table 7
I have switched products for ecological reasons.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 7 3.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 16 7.6

NEITHER AGREE NOR

37 17.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 115 54.5

COMPLETELY AGREE 36 17.1

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 54.5% of consumers make thinking about ecological reaction
of product and 17.5% of them neither agree nor disagree and 17.1% completely agree to the
concept.

Table 8
 I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 8 3.8

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 42 19.9

NEITHER AGREE NOR

95 45.0
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 44 20.9

COMPLETELY AGREE 22 10.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 45% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 20.9% of them
somewhat agree to take effort to buy paper products made from recyle paper.

Table 9
I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less electricity than other brands.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 15 7.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 36 17.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

33 15.6
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 95 45.0

COMPLETELY AGREE 32 15.2

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 45% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.1% of consumers
somewhat disagree to purchase household appliance which uses less electricity than other
brands.

Table 10
I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 12 5.7

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 22 10.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

92 43.6
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 45 21.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 16 7.6

Total 187 88.6

Missing NO AWARNESS 24 11.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 21.3% of them
somewhat agree to use low-phosphate detergent or soap.

Table 11
I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products
 which are harmful to the environment.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 7 3.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 17 8.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

31 14.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 116 55.0

COMPLETELY AGREE 40 19.0

Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 55% of consumers somewhat agree and 19% of them completely
agree to convince members of my family or friends not to buy some products which are
harmful to the environment.

Table 12
I have replaced light bulbs in my home with those of smaller wattage
so that I will conserve on the electricity I use.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 4 1.9

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 30 14.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

104 49.3
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 47 22.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 26 12.3

Total 211 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 49.3% of consumers neither agree nor disagree to
replace light bulbs with smaller wattage.

Table 13
I have purchased products because they cause less pollution.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 15 7.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

101 47.9
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 54 25.6

COMPLETELY AGREE 30 14.2

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 25.6% of
them somewhat agree to purchase products by giving importance to less polluted products.

Table 14
I do not buy products in aerosol containers.
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 21 10.0 10.7

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 42 19.9 21.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

64 30.3 32.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 55 26.1 28.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 14 6.6 7.1

Total 196 92.9 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 15 7.1

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 30.3% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 26.1% of them
somewhat agree, not to buy products in aerosol containers.

Table 15
Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 12 5.7

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 21 10.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

21 10.0
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 78 37.0

COMPLETELY AGREE 79 37.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 37.4% of consumers completely agree and 37% of them
somewhat agree to buy products packaged in reusable containers.

Table 16
When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products
that are low in pollutants
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 6 2.8

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 19 9.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

32 15.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 117 55.5

COMPLETELY AGREE 37 17.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 55.5% of consumers somewhat agree and 17.5% of them
completely agree to always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in
pollutants.

Table 17
When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is
less harmful to other people and the environment.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 4 1.9

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 13 6.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

22 10.4
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 71 33.6

COMPLETELY AGREE 101 47.9

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 47.9% of consumers completely agree and 33.6% of them
somewhat agree to the concept, that is When they have a choice between two equal
products,they always purchase the one which is less harmful to the environment.

Table 18
I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 3 1.4

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 32 15.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

29 13.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 63 29.9

COMPLETELY AGREE 84 39.8

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 39.8% of consumers completely agree and 29.9% of them
somewhat agree not to buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.

Table 19
I have purchased light bulbs that were more expensive but saved energy.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 76 36.0

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 75 35.5

NEITHER AGREE NOR

19 9.0
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 16 7.6

COMPLETELY AGREE 25 11.8

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 36% of consumers completely disagree and 35.5% of them
somewhat disagree to purchase light bulbs that were more expensive but save energy.

Table 20
I try only to buy products that can be recycled.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 41 19.4

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 71 33.6

NEITHER AGREE NOR

43 20.4
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 36 17.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 20 9.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 33.6% of consumers somewhat disagree and 20.4% of them
neither agree nor disagree to the concept, that is try only to buy products that can be recycled.

Table 21
To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 35 16.6 18.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 56 26.5 29.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

53 25.1 27.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 29 13.7 15.0

COMPLETELY AGREE 20 9.5 10.4

Total 193 91.5 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 5 2.4

NOT APPLICABLE 13 6.2

Total 18 8.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 25.1% of them neither
agree nor disagree to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.

Table 22
I usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its impact on society.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 18 8.5

SOMEWHAT AGREE 56 26.5

NEITHER AGREE NOR

90 42.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 36 17.1

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 26.5% of consumers somewhat disagree and 42.7% of them
neither agree nor disagree that they usually purchase the lowest priced product, regardless of its
impact on society.

Table 23
I do not buy household products that harm the environment.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 6 2.8

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 23 10.9

NEITHER AGREE NOR

32 15.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 93 44.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 57 27.0

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them completely
agree not to buy household products that harm the environment.

Table 24
I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 7 3.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 11 5.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

57 27.0
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 92 43.6

COMPLETELY AGREE 44 20.9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 43.6% of consumers somewhat agree and 27% of them neither
agree nor disagree to the concept given, that is buying high efficiency light bulbs to save
energy.

Table 25
It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything about pollution.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 102 48.3

SOMEWHAT AGREE 58 27.5

NEITHER AGREE NOR

13 6.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 27 12.8

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 11 5.2

Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 48.3% of consumers completely agree and 27.5% of them
somewhat agree that it is worthless for individual consumer to do anything about pollution.

Table 26
When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect
the environment and other consumers.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 9 4.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 29 13.7

NEITHER AGREE NOR

75 35.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 77 36.5

COMPLETELY AGREE 21 10.0

Total 211 100.0

From the above table we find that 36.5% of consumers somewhat agree that When they buy
products, they try to consider how their use of them will affect the environment and other
consumers and 35.5% of them neither agree nor disagree to the concept given.

Table 27
Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it
doesn't make any difference what I do.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 40 19.0

SOMEWHAT AGREE 62 29.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

67 31.8
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 34 16.1

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 8 3.8

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 31.8% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 29.4% of them
somewhat agree to the concept that is Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution
and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any difference what I do.

Table 28
Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products
sold by socially responsible companies.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 17 8.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 30 14.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

44 20.9
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 68 32.2

COMPLETELY AGREE 52 24.6

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 32.2% of consumers somewhat agree to the concept that is each
consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by
socially responsible companies and 24.6% of them completely agree to the concept.

Table 29
Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 24 11.4

SOMEWHAT AGREE 61 28.9

NEITHER AGREE NOR

39 18.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 51 24.2

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 36 17.1

Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 28.9% of consumers somewhat disagree and 24.2% of them
somewhat agree that Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Table 30
We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 5 2.4

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 22 10.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

39 18.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 93 44.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 52 24.6

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 44.1% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them
completely agree that they are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can
support.
 Table 31
To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state economy where
industrial growth is controlled
Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 14 6.6 7.0

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 28 13.3 13.9

NEITHER AGREE NOR

60 28.4 29.9
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 85 40.3 42.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 14 6.6 7.0

Total 201 95.3 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 10 4.7

Total 211 100.0

The above table denotes that 40.3% of consumers somewhat agree and 28.4% of them neither
agree nor disagree that To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady-state
economy where industrial growth is controlled.
 Table 32
The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 9 4.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 52 24.6

NEITHER AGREE NOR

8 3.8
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 109 51.7

COMPLETELY AGREE 33 15.6

Total 211 100.0

From the above table it was observed that 51.7% of consumers somewhat agree that the earth is
like a spaceship with only limited room and resources and 24.6% of them somewhat disagree
to the concept given.
 Table 33
Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because
they can remake it to suit their needs.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 34 16.1

SOMEWHAT AGREE 69 32.7

NEITHER AGREE NOR

52 24.6
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 44 20.9

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 12 5.7

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.6% of them neither
agree nor disagree that Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can
remake it to suit their needs.
 Table 34
There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 12 5.7 6.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 53 25.1 26.9

NEITHER AGREE NOR

62 29.4 31.5
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 59 28.0 29.9

COMPLETELY AGREE 11 5.2 5.6

Total 197 93.4 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 14 6.6

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 29.4% of consumers neither agree nor disagree and 28% of them
somewhat agree to the concept given , that is there are limits to growth beyond which our
industrialized society cannot expand.
 Table 35
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 17 8.1

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 36 17.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

55 26.1
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 82 38.9

COMPLETELY AGREE 21 10.0

Total 211 100.0

From the above table, we find that 38.9% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of them
neither agree nor disagree that the balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
 Table 36
When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 7 3.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 20 9.5

NEITHER AGREE NOR

31 14.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 127 60.2

COMPLETELY AGREE 26 12.3

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 60.2% of consumers somewhat agree and 14.7% of them neither
agree nor disagree to the concept, that is when humans interfere with nature, it often produces
disastrous consequences.
 Table 37
Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 5 2.4

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 12 5.7

NEITHER AGREE NOR

26 12.3
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 119 56.4

COMPLETELY AGREE 49 23.2

Total 211 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 56.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 23.2% of
consumers are completely agree that, Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to
survive.
 Table 38
Mankind is severely abusing the environment.
Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 13 6.2

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 17 8.1

NEITHER AGREE NOR

10 4.7
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 30 14.2

COMPLETELY AGREE 141 66.8

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 66.8% of consumers completely agree that Mankind is severely
abusing the environment.

Table 39
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 51 24.2

SOMEWHAT AGREE 81 38.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

26 12.3
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 34 16.1

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 19 9.0

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 38.4% of consumers somewhat agree and 24.2% of consumers
are completely agree that Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their
needs.

Table 40
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 12 5.7

SOMEWHAT AGREE 69 32.7

NEITHER AGREE NOR

53 25.1
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 55 26.1

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 22 10.4

Total 211 100.0

From the above table, it was observed that 32.7% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of
consumers are somewhat disagree to the concept, Mankind was created to rule over the rest of
nature.

Table 41
The profits of the big industries should be controlled by the government.
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 22 10.4 10.5

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 42 19.9 20.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

87 41.2 41.4
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 38 18.0 18.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 21 10.0 10.0

Total 210 99.5 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 1 .5

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 41.2% of consumers are neither agree nor disagree and 23.2% of
consumers are somewhat disagree that the profits of the big industries should be controlled by
the government.

Table 42
I am for a federal health insurance program covering men and women of all ages.
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 16 7.6 8.0

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 14 6.6 7.0

NEITHER AGREE NOR

62 29.4 30.8
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 77 36.5 38.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 32 15.2 15.9

Total 201 95.3 100.0

Missing NO AWARNESS 10 4.7

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 36.5% of consumers are somewhat agree and 29.4% of the
consumers neither agree nor disagree that I am for a health insurance program covering men
and women of all ages.

Table 43
If unemployment is high, the government should spend to create jobs.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 8 3.8

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 9 4.3

NEITHER AGREE NOR

13 6.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 90 42.7

COMPLETELY AGREE 91 43.1

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 43.1% of consumers are completely agree and 42.7% of the
consumers somewhat agree that if unemployment is high, the government should spend to
create jobs.

Table 44
A government administered health insurance program is necessary to insure
that everyone receives adequate medical care.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 7 3.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 24 11.4

NEITHER AGREE NOR

46 21.8
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 93 44.1

COMPLETELY AGREE 41 19.4

Total 211 100.0

From the above table we find that 44.1% of consumers are somewhat agree and 21.8% of the
consumers neither agree nor disagree that A government administered health insurance
program is necessary to ensure that everyone receives adequate medical care.

Table 46
I am for less government regulation of business.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY AGREE 43 20.4

SOMEWHAT AGREE 77 36.5

NEITHER AGREE NOR

65 30.8
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 21 10.0

COMPLETELY DISAGREE 5 2.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 36.5% of consumers somewhat agree and 30.8% of consumers
neither agree nor disagree that the respondent is for less government regulation of business.

Table 47
I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls more heavily on
corporations and persons with large incomes.
 Frequency Percent

Valid COMPLETELY DISAGREE 26 12.3

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 32 15.2

NEITHER AGREE NOR

32 15.2
DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE 66 31.3

COMPLETELY AGREE 55 26.1

Total 211 100.0

The above table indicates that 31.3% of consumers somewhat agree and 26.1% of consumers
completely agree that the consumer is for revising the tax structure so that the burden falls
more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes.

Table 48
Age in years
 Frequency Percent

Valid 18 8 3.8

19 31 14.7

20 47 22.3

21 48 22.7

22 51 24.2

23 16 7.6

24 7 3.3

25 3 1.4

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that most of the respondense are about 20-22 years old.

Table 49
Gender
 Frequency Percent

Valid Male 136 64.5

Female 75 35.5

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 64.5% of the respondence are MALE and 35.5% of the respondents
are FEMALE.

Table 50
Family income
 Frequency Percent

Valid Under 100,000 92 43.6

100,000 - 2,00,000 97 46.0

200,000 - 300,000 20 9.5

300,000 - 400,000 2 .9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that the family income of most of the respondense are upto 2,00,000.

Table 51
Education Qualification
 Frequency Percent

Valid Under Graduation 87 41.2

Post Graduation 56 26.5

M.Phil 7 3.3

Professional Course 61 28.9

Total 211 100.0

The above table shows that 41.2% of the despondence are doing under graduation and 28.9%
of the respondese are doing professional course.
Data Analysis &
Interpretation
Descriptive statistics of ECCB and other Psychographic factors of consumers
Table 52
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic

ECCB 211 2.12 4.71 3.3750 .03021 .43883

PCE 211 1.00 4.25 2.8519 .03847 .55874

EC 211 1.92 4.17 3.3009 .02660 .38636

LIBERALISM 211 1.33 4.33 3.3160 .04082 .59292

Valid N (listwise) 211

The above table indicates that the respondents have more than average ECCB, EC, and
Liberalism scores. The table also indicates that the respondents have average PCE score.
Karl Pearson’s co-eff of correlation
Definition
Correlation co-efficient between two random variables X and Y, usually denoted by
r(X,Y), is a numerical measure of linear relationship between them

formula
r(X,Y) = cov (X,Y)
σ xσ y
Bivariate karl pearson’s co-eff of correlation for ECCB, Demographic factors and
Psychographic factors of consumers.
 Table 53
Correlations

AGE IN Family Educational LIBERALI

ECCB YEARS Gender Income Qualification PCE EC SM

ECCB Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.130 .171* .018 .009 .038 .353** .358**

Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .013 .796 .898 .579 .000 .000

N 211.000 211 211 211 211 211 211 211

AGE IN YEARS Pearson Correlation -.130 1.000 .073 .171* .335** .061 -.069 -.098

Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .288 .013 .000 .376 .322 .158

N 211 211.000 211 211 211 211 211 211

Gender Pearson Correlation .171* .073 1.000 .206** .150* .157* -.015 -.101

Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .288 .003 .029 .022 .832 .144

N 211 211 211.00 211 211 211 211 211

Family Income Pearson Correlation .018 .171* .206** 1.000 .312** .071 -.059 .064

Sig. (2-tailed) .796 .013 .003 .000 .306 .392 .351

N 211 211 211 211.000 211 211 211 211

Educational Pearson Correlation .009 .335** .150* .312** 1.000 .119 -.021 -.136*
Qualification Sig. (2-tailed) .898 .000 .029 .000 .084 .758 .049

N 211 211 211 211 211.000 211 211 211

PCE Pearson Correlation .038 .061 .157* .071 .119 1.000 .042 -.069

Sig. (2-tailed) .579 .376 .022 .306 .084 .544 .319

N 211 211 211 211 211 211.00 211 211

EC Pearson Correlation .353** -.069 -.015 -.059 -.021 .042 1.000 .397**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .322 .832 .392 .758 .544 .000

N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211.00 211

LIBERALISM Pearson Correlation .358** -.098 -.101 .064 -.136* -.069 .397** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .158 .144 .351 .049 .319 .000

N 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211.000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The above table indicates that there is significant low positive correlation between
ECCB and Gender. The table also indicates that there is significant moderate positive
correlation between ECCB and the psychographic factors that is EC and Liberalism.
Multiple Regression

Definition
Regression analysis is a mathematical measure of the average relationship between two
or more variables in terms of the orginal units of the data.

Formula
Regression of X on Y
X=a+bY
Regression of Y on X
Y=a+bX
Multiple Regression model of ECCB as dependent variable and demogrphic and psychograpic
factors as prdictor variables.
Table 54
Model Summaryb

Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate

1 .486a .236 .210 .39010

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN

YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational Qualification

b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the R square value is .236 which shows that 24% of the variation
of the dependent variable is explained by the demographic and psychographic factors.
 Table 55

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 9.549 7 1.364 8.965 .000a

Residual 30.892 203 .152

Total 40.441 210

a. Predictors: (Constant), LIBERALISM, Family Income, PCE, AGE IN YEARS, Gender, EC, Educational
Qualification

b. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the significance value of F is 0.000 which shows that the
regression model is statistically significant at a confident level of 100%.
 Table 56
Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.233 .492 4.538 .000

AGE IN YEARS -.035 .019 -.120 -1.836 .068

Gender .188 .058 .205 3.209 .002

Family Income -.020 .043 -.032 -.475 .636

Educational Qualification .018 .018 .070 1.018 .310

PCE .014 .049 .017 .278 .781

EC .264 .077 .233 3.441 .001

LIBERALISM .213 .051 .287 4.167 .000

a. Dependent Variable: ECCB

The above table indicates that the regression model can be written as follows
Y = a +b1 x1+ b2 x2+ b3 x3+ b4 x4+ b5 x5+b6 x6 +b7 x7
ECCB = 2.233-0.035*age in years +0.188*gender-0.020*family income +
0.018*educational qualification +0.014*PCE +0.264*EC +
0.213*Liberalism.

The table also indicates that the t-test value for the significance of the independent variables
that is the demographic and psychographic factors. The significance value indicates only
gender in the demogrphic factor is significant at 1%. Also EC and Liberalism in psychographic
factors are significant at 1% level.
Chart

T-Test
 A t-test is any statistical hypothesis test in which the test statistic has a Student's t
distribution if the null hypothesis is true. It is applied when sample sizes are small enough that
using an assumption of normality and the associated z-test leads to incorrect inference

This equation is only used when the two sample sizes (that is, the n or number of participants
of each group) are equal.

Where s is the grand standard deviation (or pooled sample standard deviation),

1 = group one,

2 = group two.

The denominator is the standard error of the difference between two means. For significance
testing, the degrees of freedom for this test is 2n − 2 where n = # of participants in each group.

Independent sample T-test of ECCB based on the gender of the responden Null
Hypothesis(Η ο ).

There is no significance difference in ECCB according to the gender of the

respondense.

Table 57
Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. eviation Std. Error Mean

ECCB Male 136 3.3195 .42234 .03622

Female 75 3.4756 .45298 .05231

 Table 58
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

ECCB Equal
variances .037 .848 -2.503 209 .013 -.15601 .06234 -.27890 -.03311
assumed

Equal
variances
-2.452 143.836 .015 -.15601 .06362 -.28176 -.03026
not
assumed

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample T-
test is 0.013 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the
ECCB differs according to the gender of the respondence.
T-Test

Independent sample T-test of PCE based on the gender of the respondents

Null Hypothesis(Η ο )
There is no significance difference in PCE according to the gender of the respondense.
Table 59
Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

PCE Male 136 2.7868 .56399 .04836

Female 75 2.9700 .53265 .06151

Table 60
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

Sig. (2-
F Sig. t df tailed)

PCE Equal variances

.213 .645 -2.303 209 .022
assumed

Equal variances
-2.342 160.220 .020
not assumed

The above table indicates that two tailed significance value of independent sample T-test is
0.022 which is less than 0.05. Therefore we accept the hypothesis at 5%. That is the PCE
differs according to the gender of the respondents.
CHAPTER III
FINDINGS
Ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) items.
• When the students are having chance to choose, the always prefer
environmentally responsible products.
• When the students are having any immediate the prefer environmentally
responsible products.
• When there is big effect to the environment they prefer environmentally
responsible products.
• Students do not bother about environment when they are having so much need
of environmentally polluted products.
• Students do not want to try more for environment.
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items:-
• Students understand, everybody should take action to control pollution.
• They also understand, purchasing social responsible products will create possitive
effect on society.
Environmental concern (EC) items :-
• In the environmental concern items students understand and accept the concept
like, to develop a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled,
when humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences,
Humans must live in harmony with nature.
• And they also thought that Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature and
Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
Liberalism items :-
• Students have moderate liberalism items.
• They know the real fact of living along with society.
• They are ready to work along with society.
Demographic measures:-
Most of the respondents were about 20-22 years old. Nearly two third of the
respondents were MALE and one third of the respondents were FEMALE. The family income
of most of the respondents were up to 2,00,000. Most of the respondents are doing under
graduation and the next highest number of the respondents are doing professional course.
SUGGESTIONS
• Consumer clubs in schools & colleges must be encouraged to conduct programmes on
“Environment friendly consumption in day to day lives” for schools & college students.
• Social organisations like lions club & rotract club can also conduct awareness camps
regarding the importance of conserving energy for the country.
• CSR activities of companies manufacturing products using scarce resources can focus
on creating awareness among public about the optimum usage of the products
CONCLUSION
The media colleges , corporates & social organisations must work together to increase
environmental concern & societal concern of the next generation consumers. The
organisations must also strive to change the perception existing among the next generation
that individuals cannot do anything towards environment protection. These efforts taken by
organisations will help in increasing the ecologically conscious consumer behaviour among
the “Generation Next”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Robert D. Straughan,Assistant Professor of Marketing, Hankamer School of Business,
Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA

James A. Roberts,Associate Professor of Marketing and W.A. Mays Professor of

Entrepreneurship, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA

Anderson, W.T. Jr and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), ``The socially conscious consumer'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, July, pp. 23-31.

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

Hume, S., Strand, P., Fisher, C., Fitzgerald, K. and Freeman, L. (1989), ``Consumers go

green'', Advertising Age, September 25, pp. 3-5.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1971), ``Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air

pollution'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July, pp. 61-5.

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

Lepisto, L.R. (1974), ``An empirical study of the effect of environmental product attributes,
convenience, and price on product preference and socially responsible consumer behavior'',
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University.
ANNEXURE
 Answer the following statements by putting a tick mark according to your level of agreement
or disagreement. The numbers indicate the meaning given below
1-completely disagree 2-some what disagree 3-neither agree nor disagree
4-some what agree 5-completely agree
Ecologically conscious consumer behavior (ECCB) items
01. To save energy, I drive my bike as little as possible : 1 2 3 4 5
02. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use
of products that are made of or use scarce resources : 1 2 3 4 5
03. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging : 1 2 3 4 5
04. When there is a choice, I always choose that product
which contributes to the least amount of pollution : 1.2 3 4 5
05. I have tried very hard to reduce the amount of electricity
I use. : 1 2 3 4 5
06. If I understand the potential damage to the environment
that some products can cause, I do not purchase
these products. : 1 2 3 4 5
07. I have switched products for ecological reasons : 1 2 3 4 5
08. I use a recycling center or in some way recycle some
of my household trash. : 1 2 3 4 5
09. I make every effort to buy paper products made from
recycled paper. : 1 2 3 4 5
10. I have purchased a household appliance because it uses less
electricity than other brands. : 1 2 3 4 5
11. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for
my laundry. : 1 2 3 4 5
12. I have convinced members of my family or friends not
to buy some products which are harmful to
the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5
13. I have replaced light bulbs in my home with
those of smaller wattage so that I will conserve
 on the electricity I use. : 1 2 3 4 5
14. I have purchased products because they cause
less pollution. : 1 2 3 4 5
15. I do not buy products in aerosol containers : 1 2 3 4 5
16. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged
in reusable containers. : 1 2 3 4 5
17. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious
effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants : 1 2 3 4 5
18. When I have a choice between two equal products,
I always purchase the one which is less harmful to
other people and the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5
19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it
is ecologically irresponsible : 1 2 3 4 5
20. I have purchased light bulbs that were more
expensive but saved energy. : 1 2 3 4 5
21. I try only to buy products that can be recycled. : 1 2 3 4 5
22. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my
car or bike as little as possible. : 1 2 3 4 5
23. I usually purchase the lowest priced product,
regardless of its impact on society. : 1 2 3 4 5
24. I do not buy household products that harm the environment : 1 2 3 4 5
25. I buy high efficiency light bulbs to save energy. : 1 2 3 4 5
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) items
1. It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything
about pollution. : 1 2 3 4 5
2. When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them
will affect the environment and other consumers. : 1 2 3 4 5
3. Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution
and natural resource problems, it doesn't make any
difference what I do : 1 2 3 4 5
4. Each consumer's behaviour can have a positive effect on
society by purchasing products sold by socially
responsible companies. : 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental concern (EC) items
01. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans. : 1 2 3 4 5
02. We are approaching the limit of the number of people
the earth can support. : 1 2 3 4 5
03. To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop
a steady-state economy where industrial growth is controlled : 1 2 3 4 5
04. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room
and resources. : 1 2 3 4 5
05. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because
they can remake it to suit their needs. : 1 2 3 4 5
06. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized
society cannot expand. : 1 2 3 4 5
07. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. : 1 2 3 4 5
08. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces
disastrous consequences. : 1 2 3 4 5
09. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order
to survive : 1 2 3 4 5
10. Mankind is severely abusing the environment. : 1 2 3 4 5
11. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment
to suit their needs. : 1 2 3 4 5
12. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature. : 1 2 3 4 5
Liberalism items
01. The profits of the big industries should be controlled by
the government. : 1 2 3 4 5
02. I am for a federal health insurance program covering
 men and women of all ages. : 1 2 3 4 5
03. If unemployment is high, the government should
spend to create jobs. : 1 2 3 4 5
04. A government administered health insurance program is
necessary to insure that everyone receives
adequate medical care. : 1 2 3 4 5
05. I am for less government regulation of business. : 1 2 3 4 5
06. I am for revising the tax structure so that the burden
falls more heavily on corporations and persons with
large incomes. : 1 2 3 4 5
Demographic measures
Your age: _______ years Sex: Male ____ Female ____
Check the category which best fits your total family income in the last year.
Under 100,000 100,000 - 199,999 200,000 - 299,999 300,000 - 399,999
400,000 - 499,999 500,000 and above.
Educational qualification
Under Graduation Post Graduation M.Phil Ph.D Professional Course