Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior – Higher Education Students’ Perceptions

Tekle Shanka, Gabriel Gopalan , Curtin University of Technology

Abstract

This exploratory study reports the findings of a survey of higher education students’ views on
socially responsible consumer behavior. Of the 26 statements used to gauge students’
perceptions towards socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB), only 15 statements
formed societal and personal factors that accounted for 60% of total explained variances.
Multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted to compare the mean
differences between the demographic groups on the combination of societal and personal
factors. Of the socio-demographic characteristics that included gender, age, country of
residence, level of study (undergraduate/postgraduate) and field of study (commerce,
humanities, health sciences, engineering and sciences, environmental sciences) only age and
class levels showed statistically significant differences on the dependable variables of societal
and personal. Statistically significant differences among demographic groups are discussed
and limitations and future research directions were suggested.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, socially responsible consumer behavior, higher

education students, Australia.

Socially Responsible Consumer

Although forms of ethical consumption have been around for a long time, this phenomenon
has only risen to prominence in the last decade (Carrigan, Szmigin and Wright, 2004). Today,
ethical consumerism addresses the social and environmental consequences of globalization,
where the “consumer considers not only individual but also social goals, ideals and
ideologies” (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004, p. 215). This has fueled a debate on the importance
of ethical consumerism to the marketing of products and the day-to-day strategic management
of business (Auger, Burke, Devinney and Louviere, 2003). It is apparent from the arguments
above that for the consumer who cares about corporate social responsibility (CSR), the level
of social responsibility observed by companies bolsters or diminishes the value of the product
or service that they provide (Mohr and Webb, 2005). What makes for a socially responsible
and ethical consumer? Are all consumers socially responsible? A number of researchers have
investigated the characteristic of this ethical and socially responsible consumer (Antil, 1984;
Leigh, Murphy and Enis, 1988; Roberts, 1995). Their findings suggest that a number of
personal traits would affect ‘if’ or ‘how’ strongly consumers respond to a company’s level of
social responsibility. They termed one such attribute socially responsible consumer behavior
(SRCB), which is an enduring trait that involves the consumer’s concept of self. Mohr,
Webb, and Harris (2004, p. 47) define consumers with the SRCB trait as ‘‘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.’’

Consumers who are high on this attribute would alter their consumption pattern in a wide
variety of ways in order to endeavor toward the ideal of improving society. They would avoid
buying products that might harm society or the environment and actively seek out products
and services from companies that practice social responsibility (Mohr and Webb, 2005).
Schrum, McCarthy and Lowry (1995) further classified this segment of consumers as more

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 102

likely to be opinion leaders, knowledgeable information seekers and careful shoppers. They
found that only consumers that were active information seekers would switch from their
current brand to a less effective but environmentally friendly brand. However, some
limitations of the SRCB approach may be that existing concepts of SRCB imposed on
consumers represent the first and foremost limitation of the study. Respondents had to rate the
importance of different responsibilities and actions that had been defined and classified in
advance. Therefore, the findings report on their evaluations of certain pre-defined concepts of
socially responsible behavior, but do not describe consumers’ own definition of these
responsibilities.

Study Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted to understand students’ perceptions towards SRCB

using the measures developed by Mohr, Webb and Harris (2004). While acknowledging the
limitations of student surveys, the questionnaire was intended to gauge the students’
perceptions about socially responsible consumer behavior. The questionnaire consists of 26
statements that were measured on a 7 point Likert scale where 1 = ‘never’ and 7 = ‘always’.
Ethical clearance was obtained from the relevant committee prior to administering the
questionnaires in selected lectures. A total of 339 students voluntarily participated in the
survey. Profiles of participants were as follows: 55.0% were female students. The median
age of participants was 23.0 years. Participants came from 28 countries with the majority
(52%) being Australian students, Seventy-three (73%) percent of participants were
undergraduate students, about half (49%) studying commerce (business) courses.

Results and Discussion

The mean scores of the 26 statements were presented in Table 1. The scores range from a
high of 5.0 (I recycle paper) to a low of 3.4 (I make an effort to buy from companies that
sponsor food drives and I try to buy from companies that support victims of natural disasters).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ( ) of 0.94 indicates a very high internal consistency of the set
of scale items, which was further verified by the split-half test with part 1 (13 items) yielding
 = .89 and part 2 (13 items)  = 0.92. 15 scale items with scores
4.1 were factor analyzed
to group a smaller set of items that have common characteristics (Nunnally and Bernstein,
1994) to explore the underlying dimensions of the construct of interest (Pett, Lackey and
Sullivan, 2003).

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 103

Table 1. Scale items used for the Measures (SRCB)
Items Mean* SD

6. I recycle paper 5.0 1.8

21. I make an effort to avoid products or services that cause environmental 4.8 1.6
damage
12. I recycle plastic containers 4.8 1.8
24. I avoid buying products made using child labor 4.6 1.9
13. I recycle magazines 4.6 1.9
23. When given a chance to switch to a brand that gives back to the community, 4.5 1.6
I take it
25. When given a chance, I switch to brands where a portion of the price is 4.5 1.6
donated to charity
14. I avoid buying from companies that harm endangered plants or animals 4.5 1.8
22. I avoid buying products that are made from endangered animals 4.5 1.9

10. I recycle cardboard boxes 4.5 2.0

20. I avoid products that pollute the water 4.4 1.7
16. I avoid using products that pollute the air 4.3 1.7
3. I limit my use of energy such as electricity or natural gas to reduce my 4.2 1.8
impact on the environment
26. I avoid buying products or services from companies that discriminate against 4.2 2.0
women
1. I recycle aluminum cans 4.2 2.0

11. I avoid products and services from companies that discriminate against 4.1 1.9
minorities
2. I recycle tin cans 4.0 2.0
8. I try to buy from companies that help the needy 3.9 1.6

9. I try to buy from companies that hire people with disabilities 3.9 1.6
18. I try to buy from companies that make donations to medical research 3.8 1.6
17. When given a chance to switch to a retailer that supports local schools, 3.8 1.6
I take it
15. Whenever possible, I walk, ride a bike, car pool, or use public transportation 3.7 1.9
to help reduce air pollution
7. I make an effort to buy products and services from companies that pay all 3.5 1.6
their employees a living wage
5. When I am shopping, I try to buy from companies that are working to 3.5 1.6
improve conditions for the employees in their factories
19. I make an effort to buy from companies that sponsor food drives 3.4 1.6

4. I try to buy from companies that support victims of natural disasters 3.4 1.6

* On a scale from 1 ‘never’ to 7 ‘always’.

Factorability was confirmed by the very high KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.91
with significant Bartlett test of sphericity (
2 (105) = 274.75; p = .000). Principal components

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 104

analysis with varimax rotation was used for the analysis to reduce the complexity of the data
by decreasing the number of variables that need to be considered (Landau and Everitt, 2004).
Component analysis resulted in two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and accounting
for 60% of total explained variance. Ten of the 15 scale items loaded on the first factor, while
the remaining five items loaded on the second factor. The first factor accounting for 41.8%
of total explained variances was named Societal. The second factor accounting for 18.4% of
total explained variances was named Personal (Table 2).

Table 1. Factor Loadings of 15 Scale Items

Factor Name/Items Loadings

Factor 1: Societal [µ = 4.48; Eigen value = 6.27; Variance = 41.8%;
= 0.91]

21. I make an effort to avoid products or services that cause environmental damage 0.81
20. I avoid products that pollute the water 0.81
24. I avoid buying products made using child labor 0.77
14. I avoid buying from companies that harm endangered plants or animals 0.77
16. I avoid using products that pollute the air 0.75
23. When given a chance to switch to a brand that gives back to the community, I take it 0.71
26. I avoid buying products or services from companies that discriminate against women 0.70
11. I avoid products and services from companies that discriminate against minorities 0.69
22. I avoid buying products that are made from endangered animals 0.69

3. I limit my use of energy such as electricity or natural gas to reduce my impact on 0.57
the environment

Factor 2: Personal [µ = 4.61; Eigen value = 6.27; Variance =18.4%;
= 0.89]

12. I recycle plastic containers 0.85
13. I recycle magazines 0.85
10. I recycle cardboard boxes 0.81
1. I recycle aluminum cans 0.80

6. I recycle paper 0.79

Multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted to compare the mean
differences between the demographic groups on the combination of societal and personal
components presented in Table 2. Of the socio-demographic characteristics that included
gender, age, country of residence, level of study (undergraduate/postgraduate) and field of
study (commerce, humanities, health sciences, engineering and sciences, environmental
sciences) only age and class levels showed statistically significant differences on the
dependable variables of societal and personal. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted
for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-
covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted (Pallant, 2001).

There was a statistically significant difference between 21 or younger age group and 26 or
older age group on the combined dependent variables of societal and personal: F (2, 335) =
3.16, p = .014; Wilks’ Lambda = .98; partial eta squared = .02. When the results for societal
and personal were considered separately, the only difference to reach a statistical difference
using a Bonferroni adjustment (adjusted
= .025) was societal: F (2, 336) = 4.29, p = .015;
partial eta squared = .025. An inspection of the mean scores indicated that 26 or older age

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 105

groups reported slightly higher level for societal concern (M = 4.7, SD. = 1.3) than 21 or
younger group (M = 4.2, SD = 1.3).

The MANOVA test also showed a statistically significant difference between undergraduate
and postgraduate students on the combined variables of societal and personal: F (2, 324) =
3.41, p = .034; Wilks’ Lambda = .98; partial eta squared = .02. However, when the results for
societal and personal were considered separately, using a Bonferroni adjustment (adjusted
=
.025) none of the dependent variables reached a significance level. In conclusion, despite the
limitations with student survey, two dimensions seemed to be relevant: societal and personal.
The societal aspect looked at matters that impact on society and the environment at large
while personal aspects tended to reflect individual responsibility like recycling. While the
socio-demographic characteristics did not show statistically significant differences on the two
dependent variables, the only demographic variable with statistically significant difference on
societal dimension was age. Overall, this exploratory study suggested the tendency to
becoming conscious of societal aspects as age increases.

References

Antil, J. H. 1984. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public
Policy. Journal of Macro Marketing. 4, 18-30.

Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M. and Louviere, J. J. 2003. What Will Consumers Pay
For Social Product Features? Journal of Business Ethics. 42 (3), 281-304.

Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. 2001. The Myth Of The Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter
In Purchase Behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing. 7, 560-574.

Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I. and Wright, J. 2004. Shopping For a Better World? An Interpretive
Study of the Potential of Ethical Consumption within the Older Market. Journal of Consumer
Marketing. 21 (6), 401-417.

Leigh, J. H., Murphy, P. E. and Enis, B. M. 1988. A New Approach to Measuring Socially
Responsible Consumption Tendencies. Journal of Macro Marketing. 8, 5-20.

Mohr, L. A. and Webb, D. J. 2005. The Effects of Corporate Social Performance and Price
on Consumer Responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 39 (1), 121-147.

Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J. and Harris, K. E. 2004. Do Consumers Expect Companies To Be

Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Affairs. 35 (1), 45-72.

Nunnally, j. C. and Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric Theory, 3rd Ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Pallant, J 2001. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS.
North Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R. and Sullivan, J. J. 2003. Making sense of Factor Analysis: the use
of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 106

Roberts, J. A. 1995. Profiling Levels Of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A Cluster
Analytic Approach And Its Implications For Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice. 3 (4), 97-117.

Schrum, L. J., McCarty, J. A. and Lowry, T. M. 1995. Buyer Characteristics of the Green
Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising. 24 (2),
71-82.

Uusitalo, O. and Oksanen, R. 2004. Ethical Consumerism: A View from Finland.

International Journal of Consumer Studies. 28 (3), 214-221.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility 107