Exploring socially responsible behaviour of
Indian consumers: an empirical
investigation
Narendra Singh
Narendra Singh is a
Professor in the Department
of Commerce, Kurukshetra
University, Haryana, India.
PAGE 200 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL
Abstract
Purpose – With growing consumerism in the country, Indians need to behave in a socially responsible
manner for its sustainable development. This study sets out to explore the extent of the relationship
between the demography and socially responsible behaviour of Indian consumers.
Design/methodology/approach – A slightly modified SRCB scale developed by Antil and Bennet with
34 Likert-type items along with a few demographic questions is introduced among two equal groups
representing urban and rural consumers, because they almost equally contribute to the country’s GDP.
Findings – Urban respondents scored high in all demographic categories in comparison with rural
consumers. Gender-wise, the behaviour was quite symmetrical in both the groups. Education-wise,
inverse relationship is noticeable between the SRCB-mean values and educational-level; it may be due
to the respondents’ continuing education. The inference is reinforced while analyzing the SRCB-values
across the age groups. Interestingly, younger ones particularly, the females are demonstrating high
scoring on the SRCB-scale. Analyzing according to income-level revealed significant difference only for
urban consumers. The lower-income category score high because they are non-earning (students) or
have just begun earning.
Research limitations/implications – The implications for green marketers are to focus on young
consumers and more particularly the female population for creating loyal segment and gaining
competitive edge. The policy makers need to promote urbanization for sustainable living and creating
awareness of clean-green living. Young Indians are identified as being more promising and socially
responsible than their elders.
Originality/value – The paper makes an attempt to identify an insight into Indian consumers in terms of
their socially responsible consumption behaviour. It presents a base for future studies on consumer
social responsibility.
Keywords Consumerism, Consumption, Sustainable development
Paper type Research paper
lobalization and market economy model of development has triggered faster
G growth in many parts of the world and experienced increase in productivity, income
and consumption levels. Indian market has also experienced such growth along
with corporate resurgence and rising consumerism. But these developments accompany
with certain problems and issues, if not taken care of, will have alarming consequences in
the time to come. These facts have been well established by a number of studies (Beck et al.,
1992; Beck, 1995; Ponting, 1993; Daly, 1996; Kilbourne et al., 1997). According to Crowther
and Rayman-Bacchus (2004), certain economic débâcles of the past are giving an
impression that all is not well with the corporate world and that there may arise problems,
which need to be addressed. Ecological economists have reservations in propagating
consumerism because it is considered a significant and unnecessary source of
environmental degradation (Cogoy, 1999) and cause pollution and resource depletion in
such markets (Mann, 2006). Industrial capitalism, together with consumerism and the
ever-proliferating commodity culture that it produces, is responsible for the exploitation and
devastation of our natural environment (Durning, 1992).
j VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009, pp. 200-211, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10.1108/17471110910964487
This does not mean that we should put on hold the growing consumerism and the
industrialization; or government should enforce regulations to check it. There is need for
self-realization and self-regulation among the people as consumers to conduct and behave
in a manner that can help in at least minimizing (if not eliminating all together) the negative
impact of consumption and production on the society and on the environment. Promoting
sustainable consumption and production are important aspects of sustainable
development, which depends on achieving long-term economic growth that is consistent
with environmental and social needs (OECD Publications, 2008). Achieving sustainability
require stabilizing or reducing environment burden. A clear and fully integrated
environmental strategy that takes into account company’s relationship to customers,
suppliers, other companies, policymakers, and all its stakeholders (Hart, 1997) is the need of
the hour. Further, it must also create the way customer thinks by creating preferences for
products and services consistent with sustainability.

Role of personal consumption

As individual behaviour is considered as the main cause of environmental degradation
(Uzzell and Räthzel, 2008), therefore, the role of personal consumption is gaining concern to
check the deterioration of our environment. This highlights the need for initiatives to promote
sustainable consumption. Sustainable consumption is defined as: the use of services and
related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while
minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and
pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of
future generations (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1994).
With increasing consumption level particularly among the developing nations like India, the
behavior of the consumers will play a crucial role not only for the companies in observing
themselves in more socially responsible manner (Mohr and Webb, 2005) but also for the
consumer himself basing his or her acquisition, usage, and disposition of products on a
desire to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects and maximize the long-term beneficial
impact on society (Mohr et al., 2004, p. 47). The phenomena of ethical consumption[1] is not
a new one, but it come to prominence only in the last decade (Carrigan et al., 2004).
Consumption is understood as the life-process encompassing all kinds of social activities
necessary to the life-enjoyment objective of individuals (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). In this
sense, ‘‘consumption’’ has much to do with the way in which individuals organize their lives
using different inputs and moving between different types of institutions with the aim of
successfully organizing their life-process (Cogoy, 1995). Consumers are free to combine
different kinds of inputs in different ways depending upon their creative and innovative
potential. Consumption is, therefore, an important source of social innovation. The search for
less commodity-intensive patterns of consumption may be considered, therefore, as an
important contribution to environmental protection (Cogoy, 1999).

Social responsibility concepts

Several observations can be made regarding understanding the parts that the consumer
and the company play within the field of business ethics[2], and the relationship between
them. Academic literature (Epstein, 1987; Vogel, 1991; Ferrell, 2004) has overtly shown that
business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are overlapping and be-fitting
concepts to be used almost interchangeably. In recent years the term CSR has gained
prominence, both in business and in the press due to various reasons, not least of them are
the corporate excesses (Crowther and Martinez, 2004). Issues of socially responsible
behavior are not new and examples can be found from throughout the history of the world
(Crowther, 2002). As self-centered approach towards organizational activity unable to
satisfactorily provide a basis for human activity, therefore, cannot be universally acceptable
to all. According to McDonald and Puxty (1979), companies are no longer the instruments of
shareholders alone but exist within society; therefore, there is a shift towards the greater
accountability of companies to all participants.

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 201
 In 1979, Lovelock (1979) produced his Gaia hypothesis according to which, the whole of the
ecosphere, and all living matter therein, was co-dependant upon its various facets and formed
a complete system. According to this hypothesis, this complete system, and all components
of the system, was interdependent and equally necessary for maintaining the Earth as a planet
capable of sustaining life. Soon after this hypothesis, the concerned for all stakeholders
became manifest and selfish indulgence has been replaced by a concern for social
responsibility. Previously this concern has been known by such terms as environmental
responsibility, stakeholder involvement or some similar term. It is only in its current
manifestation that it has become generally known as corporate social responsibility or CSR.
Very soon, the concept of CSR has become widely accepted, and most companies and
commentators now subscribe to the view that businesses have moral responsibilities that go
beyond meeting the needs of their customers and shareholders (Brinkmann and Peattie,
2008). According to Devinney et al. (2006), CSR is a wide term that can include almost
anything – from corporate philanthropy, to investments in environmental sustainability, to
protecting the rights of children, to having good labor relations. Other authors envision
corporate responsibility, sustainable development and stakeholder approach as interwoven
concepts (Wheeler et al., 2003). Furthermore, sustainability and CSR have converged to be
seen as similar concepts now (Staurer et al., 2005; Waddock, 2004).
Within a market economy, business behavior is not independent from consumer behaviour.
There is a close and interdependent relationship between the two, with each shaping the
other. Ethics, environment and similar issues, are shared responsibilities of business and
consumers (Brinkmann and Peattie, 2008; Brinkmann, 2004). What is interesting about the
rise of CSR is the extent to which it ignores almost completely the role played by the
everyday individual as a worker, consumer, or simply interested or uninterested bystander
(Devinney et al., 2006). The ‘‘ethical consumer’’ is still treated as an exceptional or abnormal
specific sub-type of consumers in the mainstream marketing literature (Brinkmann and
Peattie, 2008). Compared with research into business ethics, which, focuses on companies,
there are few publications about consumer ethics (Brinkmann, 2004).
The solution to environmental and social ills is now looked at on consumer purchase
behavior (Wells, 1990). It may take the form of ecologically conscious consumers or socially
responsible consumers. The concepts of ecological (Kennear et al., 1974) and
environmental (Van Liere and Dunlop, 1980, 1981) concern have often been used as
surrogate for social responsibility (Roberts, 1996) and are closely related. Webster (1975)
used the term socially conscious consumers; are those who take into account the societal
and environmental consequences in purchasing products. Ethical consumerism (a wider
term) on the other hand, addresses the social and environmental consequences of
globalization, where the ‘‘consumer considers not only individual but also social goals,
ideals and ideology’’ (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004,). Antil (1984) and Antil and Bennett
(1979) formulated the construct: socially responsible consumption behaviour (SRCB),
defined as those consumer behaviour and purchase decisions which are related to
environmental and resource-related problems and are motivated not only by a desire to
satisfy personal needs but also by a concern for the welfare of society in general. Devinney
et al. (2006) in his work, ‘‘the other CSR’’, have answered fundamental questions about
ethical consumerism that encompasses socially responsible consumption behavior in his
term consumer social responsibility (CnSR); which is defined as the conscious and
deliberate choice to make certain consumption choices based on personal and moral
beliefs. It includes two basic components: an ethical one relating to the underlying
importance of the social aspects of a company’s products and business processes; and a
consumerism component that implies that the preferences and desires of consumer
segments are partially responsible for the increasing influence of ethical or social factors.

Literature review
Social responsibility and marketing ethics are controversial issues and years of research
continue to present scholars and practitioners with conflicting and challenging views on the
value of adopting such an approach (Laczniak and Murphy, 1993; Smith and Quelch, 1996).

j j
PAGE 202 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009
Despite the amount of attention given to marketing ethics in recent years, the buyer side of
the exchange process remains under-researched (Hunt and Vitell, 1992).
Carrigan and Attala (2001) examine consumer care about ethical behavior and investigated
the effect of good and bad ethical conduct on consumer purchase behaviour. Although,
consumer sophistication has increased today, yet, this does not necessarily translate into
behavior, which favors ethical companies and punishes unethical firms.
Shanka and Gopalan (2005), in their exploratory study of higher education students’
perception on SRCB compare the mean difference between the demographic groups that
include gender, age, country of residence, level of study, and field of study. Only age, and
class levels showed statistically significant differences.
Herr et al. (1991) in their research finding identified that negative information influences
consumer attitudes more than does positive information.
A number of previous research studies by: Kassarjian (1971); Anderson and Cunningham
(1972); Anderson et al. (1974); Kennear et al. (1974); Riezenstein et al. (1974); Webster
(1975); Crosby et al. (1983); Michell (1983); Antil (1984); Roper Organization (1990, 1992);
and Pickett et al. (1993) have used demographic information to predict
ecological/environmental concern of the people. Education and occupation found to be
positively related with the dependent variables in case of Berkowitz and Lutterman (1968);
Anderson et al. (1974); Riezenstein et al. (1974); Michell (1983); and Roper Organization
(1990, 1992), where as, in case of Kassarjian (1971); Kennear et al. (1974); Webster (1975);
and Antil (1984), the relationship found to be not significant.

Research purpose

The way Indian consumerism is growing will soon reach a stage when further gain would be
less than its consequent disgruntlement. The legislation or state control alone in creating
sustainable growth is unachievable unless producers as well consumers, the two pillars of
market economy feel concerned and behave in ethical manner. The producers’ side of this
area (in terms of CSR) has been reasonably represented. In efficient markets, the consumers
guide producers’ actions and there is hardly any empirical work done on Indian consumers,
hence, it is a beginning to represent Indian consumer for guiding the future research,
marketers and policy makers.

The purpose of this study is:

1. To empirically explore the level of socially responsible concern among the people.
2. To identify the demographic profile of the socially responsible consumers.
3. To analyze the socially responsible consumption behaviour across demographic factors.
4. To discuss the implications for marketers and policy makers that arises from an improved
understanding of the consumers who demonstrate socially responsible behaviour.

Method
To study the relationship between demographic characteristics of the consumers and
ecological concern they indicate, researcher used socially responsible consumption
behavior (SRCB) scale developed by Antil and Bennett (1979) and Antil (1984). The original
scale was having 40 questions, which is modified to suit Indian conditions and in the
process, six statements were dropped. Minor changes were made in certain statements and
finally 34 Likert-type items with five-point response (agree-disagree) scale along with few
questions relating to demographic factors as independent variables is introduced among
the sample. The scale when tested for reliability, has given a coefficient 0.75 on Cronbach’s
alpha.
Scale was introduced among a sample of 200 respondents equally divided between two
groups: one representing the most modern city of India, i.e. Chandigarh[3], whose people

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 203
 are very sophisticated and educated; the second group is represented by Narwana[4], a
semi-urban town. The study being of exploratory nature, it was deemed fit to have a sample
of 200 from two different cities reflecting contrasting profile: rural and urban. To make the
sample representative of the population, the respondents of different sex, age, educational
and income levels were included in the study. Though, it was a convenience sample,
however, the sample profile indicates its representative nature in terms of population
characteristics. The scale items in the questionnaire for the interview were constructed in a
manner that could cross-validate the data set for a particular respondent.
Data are analyzed using 34-items response score (SRCB score) across different
demographic variable. Independent means, regression analysis and ANOVA values are
drawn upon to identify the significant differences among the sample population.
Information is obtained using judgment sampling from individuals living in two different cities
representing male-female, different age-groups, education levels and income levels of the
population. The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table I.

Analysis and discussion

To identify the demographic factors having a bearing on the SRCB score, the data are put to
regression analysis (with R 2 represents 15.8 percent variance), the results of which is
presented in Table II. From the table, it is clear that place of living (level of urbanization), age
and income were found to be significant predictor of SRCB. Though, age and income are
negatively correlated with SRCB. The place of consumers are significant at 1 percent level
and age at 5 percent level, age contradict Roberts (1996) on this parameter; where as,

Table I Characteristics of the sample

Characteristics % Frequency

Gender Male 47.5 95

Female 52.5 105
Age Up to 20 21.0 42
21-30 38.5 77
31-40 19.5 39
41þ 21.0 42
Education School education 24.0 48
College education 45.5 91
University education 30.5 61
Income Up to Rs. 15,000 34.0 68
Rs. 15,001-25,000 32.5 65
Rs. 25,001þ 20.5 41
Missing figure 13.0 26
City Chandigarh 50.0 100
Narwana 50.0 100

Table II Regression coefficients

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 152.302 5.840 26.079 0.000

Age categories 22.000 0.852 20.177 22.348 0.020
Sex 21.045 1.738 20.045 20.601 0.549
Education categories 20.837 1.172 20.052 20.715 0.476
Income categories 21.852 1.064 20.125 21.740 0.084
Place (city) 27.469 1.720 20.321 24.343 0.000

Note: Dependent variable: SRCB score

j j
PAGE 204 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009
income is significant at 10 percent level and is in conformity with the results of Roberts
(1996).

Age and SRCB

Interestingly, age comes out to be inversely related to SRCB (Tables III and IV). It may
contradict Michell (1983), Dychtwald and Gable (1990), Vining and Ebreo (1990), Robert
(1996) but support Anderson et al. (1974), Van Liere and Dunlop (1981), and Mohai and
Twight’s (1987) results. The reason for decrease in SRCB with age is likely due to job and
time pressure that increases with age. The expansion of private sector with increasing
competition hardly permits working population to spare time for analyzing their purchase or
consumption decision beyond conventional thinking.

Sex and SRCB

Gender-wise comparison of SRCB shows (Tables V and VI) that the mean values of the two
are very close to each other and therefore, there seems no difference in the behaviour of
male and female respondents. Further analysis shows that female behaviour is slightly more
positive than male among the younger population. Van Liere and Dunlop (1981) and Roper
Organization (1990, 1992) also support this view. But among the elder one’s, male
respondents are far ahead of the female behaviour, which is supported by McEvoy (1972)
and Reizenstein et al.’s (1974) studies. This may be due to the fact that Indian women were
less liberated earlier in comparison to the younger generations who have more freedom and
economic independence now.

Income and SRCB

SRCB when analyzed according to income levels, there observe to be reverse relationship
noticed between the two, meaning thereby that lower income people are more socially

Table III SRCB score across age-groups

Age groups SRCB mean* n Std deviation

Up to 20 132.71 42 9.531
21-30 131.70 77 13.034
31-40 126.64 39 9.315
41 and above 125.79 42 11.524
Total 129.68 200 11.665

Note: *ANOVA values between groups significant at 1 percent

Table IV Correlations between age and SRCB

Age

SRCB score Pearson correlation 20.237(*)

Sig. (two-tailed) 0.001
n 200

Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table V Gender-wise comparison of SRCB Score

Sex SRCB mean n Std deviation

Male 129.40 95 11.350

Female 129.94 105 11.991
Total 129.68 200 11.665

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 205
 Table VI Gender-wise SRCB comparison among different age-groups
Age groups Sex Mean n Std deviation

Up to 20 Male 131.63 8 6.823

Female 132.97 34 10.131
Total 132.71 42 9.531
20-30 Male 131.31 36 12.000
Female 132.05 41 14.020
Total 131.70 77 13.034
30-40 Male 127.00 19 11.455
Female 126.30 20 6.997
Total 126.64 39 9.315
Above 40 Male 128.13 32 11.429
Female 118.30 10 8.564
Total 125.79 42 11.524
Total Male 129.40 95 11.350
Female 129.94 105 11.991
Total 129.68 200 11.665

responsible than high-income respondents. The results are not unique for Indian consumers;
the same findings were also reported by Roberts (1996) (Table VII).

Education and SRCB

When data are analyzed according to educational level of the respondents, no clear-cut
trend is visible (Table VIII) from the aggregate data. The data when compared between two
cities, Chandigarh respondents’ scored high on SRCB in all educational levels in comparison
to Narwana. This is probably due to high urbanization prevailing in Chandigarh than
Narwana. Interestingly, in Narwana, which is predominantly a semi-urban town,
lesser-educated respondents scored high on SRCB than higher educated ones. The
probable reason is that they are still getting education and are more exposed to media due
to time availability that creates socially responsible consumption awareness among them.

Place of living and SRCB

When a comparison is made between two cities on SRCB, Chandigarh emerged far ahead
over Narwana on all demographic factors. This is due to high urbanization and awareness
level in Chandigarh (Tables IX to XII). Planned urbanization is key to development (Yew cited

Table VII SRCB according to income levels

Income levels 3-point scorea Score

Up to 10,000 Mean 1.99 131.06

n 68 68
Std deviation 0.837 13.456
10-20,000 Mean 1.80 127.94
n 65 65
Std deviation 0.733 10.501
Above 20,000 Mean 1.59 126.12
n 41 41
Std deviation 0.706 8.883
Total Mean 1.82 128.73
n 174 174
Std deviation 0.781 11.539

Notes: 3-point score: SRCB score up to 140 assigned 1, 141-160 assigned 2, and above 161
assigned 3; a ANOVA value between groups significant at 5 percent level

j j
PAGE 206 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009
Table VIII SRCB according to educational levels
Educational level City Mean n Std deviation

School level Chandigarh 136.12 24 10.812

Narwana 126.67 24 7.845
Total 131.40 48 10.496
College level Chandigarh 131.09 32 12.716
Narwana 125.56 59 8.295
Total 127.51 91 10.349
University level Chandigarh 134.70 44 14.352
Narwana 123.53 17 8.209
Total 131.59 61 13.824
Total Chandigarh 133.89 100 13.088
Narwana 125.48 100 8.154
Total 129.68 200 11.665

Table IX SRCB according to place of living

Place of living Meana n Std deviation

Chandigarh 133.89 100 13.088

Narwana 125.48 100 8.154
Total 129.68 200 11.665

Note: a ANOVA values between groups significant at 1 percent level

Table X SRCB mean score according to age

Age category Chandigarh Narwana Total

Up to 20 134.20 130.53 132.71

21-30 136.91 124.76 131.70
31-40 128.43 125.64 126.64
Above 41 130.12 122.84 125.79
Total 133.89 125.48 129.68

Table XI SRCB mean score according to income levels

Income level Chandigarh n Narwana n

Up to 10,000 135.72 36 125.81 32

10-20,000 133.63 19 125.59 46
Above 20,000 127.68 19 124.77 22
Total 133.12 74 125.48 100

Table XII SRCB mean score according to sex

Sex Chandigarh n Narwana n

Male 133.17 47 125.71 48

Female 134.53 53 125.27 52
Total 133.89 100 125.48 100

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 207
 in Bhagat and Ramesh, 2008). Moreover, their administration enforces ‘‘city beautiful’’
campaign for a period of time which creates an impression on the minds of people. Further
analysis revealed that there is symmetry in the response of both the cities.

Conclusion
Urbanisation, emerged as a significant influencer of SRC behavior. Age and income are the
other significant determinant of SRCB, but, there is negative relationship between them,
meaning thereby that young Indian respondents are more promising in their concern for
sustainable growth. Interestingly, young female population is showing greater concern for
SRC behavior over their male counterpart. Income is another determinant but inversely
relates with SRC behaviour, infers that laggards on income continuum are the younger ones
and it thus confirms the earlier fact of their concern for sustainable living.
The implications for marketers are to focus their social responsible activities and green
product on young consumers and more particularly on the female population. It will create
loyal segment for gaining competitive edge in the market place. Similarly, the policy makers
need to promote urbanization for sustainable living and creating awareness of clean-green
living. That is the way the sphere of hygiene and cleanliness can be enhanced besides
creating value for the nation.

Notes
1. Such consumption, which is good for society providing that it is environmentally sustainable and
socially fair and tends to improve the quality of life (Soares and Diehl, n.d.).
2. Business enterprises today are expected to meet standards of responsible business conduct that
go beyond what had been expected traditionally. Although people still speak of business in terms of
products, jobs, and profits; but, the pursuit of profits and economic progress is not a licence to
ignore community norms, values, and standards of respect, integrity, and quality (Johnson and
Abramov, 2004).
3. Chandigarh is established by the First Prime Minister of India, designed by a French architect –
LeCorbusier, situated 280 Kilo Meter North of New Delhi. It is a capital city of two states: Haryana
and Punjab, having the highest literacy rate in the country.
4. Narwana is situated 170 Kilometers Northwest of New Delhi in the interior of the state of Haryana.

References
Anderson, W.T. Jr and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), ‘‘The socially conscious consumer’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 36, July, pp. 23-31.
Anderson, W.T. Jr, Henion, K.E. and Cox, E.P. III (1974), ‘‘Socially vs ecologically responsible
consumers’’, AMA Combined Conference Proceedings, Vol. 6, Spring and Fall, pp. 304-11.
Antil, J.H. (1984), ‘‘Socially responsible consumers: profile and implications for public policy’’, Journal of
Macromarketing, Fall, pp. 18-39.
Antil, J.H. and Bennett, P.D. (1979), ‘‘Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially
responsible consumption behavior’’, in Henion, K.H. II and Kinnear, T.C. (Eds), The Consumer Society,
The American Association, Chicago, IL.

Beck, U. (1995), Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society, Humanities Press
International, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
Beck, U., Ritter, M. and Lash, S. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage, London.
Berkowitz, L. and Lutterman, K.G. (1968), ‘‘The traditional socially responsible personality’’, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 169-85.

Bhagat, R. and Ramesh, M. (2008), ‘‘Kalam’s Pura model will not work’’, Business Line, October 11, p. 7.
Brinkmann, J. (2004), ‘‘Looking at consumer behavior in a moral perspective’’, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 129-41.

j j
PAGE 208 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009
Brinkmann, J. and Peattie, K. (2008), ‘‘Consumer ethics research: reframing the debate about
consumption for good’’, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 22-31.

Carrigan, M. and Attala, A. (2001), ‘‘The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour?’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, p. 560.

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, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 401-17.

Cogoy, M. (1995), ‘‘Market and non-market determinants of private consumption and their impacts on
the environment’’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 169-80.

Cogoy, M. (1999), ‘‘The consumer as a social and environmental factor’’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 28,
pp. 385-98.

Crosby, L.A., Gill, J.D. and Taylor, J.R. (1983), ‘‘Psychological commitment and its effects on
post-decision evaluation and preference stability among voters’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9,
March, pp. 413-31.

Crowther, D. (2002), A Social Critique of Corporate Reporting, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Crowther, D. and Martinez, E.O. (2004), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility: history and principles’’, Social
Responsibility World, pp. 102-7.

Crowther, D. and Rayman-Bacchus, L. (2004), ‘‘Perspectives on corporate social responsibility’’,

in Crowther, D. and Rayman-Bacchus, L. (Eds), Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility,
Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 1-17.

Daly, H. (1996), ‘‘Consumption: value added, physical transformation, and welfare’’, in Costanza, R.,
Segura, O. and Martinez-Alier, J. (Eds), Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological
Economics, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Devinney, T., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. and Birtchnell, T. (2006), ‘‘The other CSR’’, Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Fall, p. 32.

Durning, A. (1992), How Much Is Enough?, The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth, Norton,
New York, NY.

Dychtwald, M. and Gable, G. (1990), ‘‘Portrait of a changing consumer’’, Business Horizons,

January-February, pp. 62-73.

Epstein, E.M. (1987), ‘‘The corporate social policy process: beyond business ethics, corporate social
responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness’’, California Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 99-114.

Ferrell, O. (2004), ‘‘Business ethics and customer stakeholders’’, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 126-9.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971), The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Hart, S.L. (1997), ‘‘Beyond greening’’, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 66-76.

Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), ‘‘Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information
on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
March, pp. 454-62.

Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (1992), ‘‘The general theory of marketing ethics: a retrospective and revision’’,
in Smith, N.C. and Quelch, J.A. (Eds), Ethics and Marketing, Irwin, Homewood, IL, pp. 775-84.

Johnson, K.W. and Abramov, I.Y. (2004), Business Ethics: A Manual for Managing a Responsible
Business Enterprise in Emerging Market Economies, US Department of Commerce, International Trade
Administration, Washington, DC, p. 8.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1971), ‘‘Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: the case of air pollution’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July, pp. 61-5.

Kennear, 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.

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 209
 Kilbourne, W.E., McDonagh, P. and Prothero, A. (1997), ‘‘Can macromarketing replace the dominant
social paradigm? Sustainable consumption and the quality of life’’, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 4-24.

Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1993), Ethical Marketing Decisions: The Higher Road, Allyn & Bacon,
Needham Heights, MA.

Lovelock, J. (1979), Gaia, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McDonald, D. and Puxty, A.G. (1979), ‘‘An inducement: contribution approach to corporate financial
reporting’’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 53-65.

McEvoy, J. III (1972), The American Concern with the Environment: Social Behavior, Natural Resources,
and the Environment, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Mann, F. (2006), ‘‘India and China’s resource consumption on the rise’’, Info Change India, January.

Michell, A. (1983), The New American Life Style, Macmillan Publishing Company Inc., New York, NY.

Mohai, P. and Twight, B.W. (1987), ‘‘Age and environmentalism: an elaboration of the Buttel model using
national survey evidence’’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 798-815.

Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2005), ‘‘The effects of corporate social performance and price on consumer
responses’’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 121-47.

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, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-72.

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (1994), ‘‘Oslo roundtable on sustainable production and
consumption’’, available at: www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo000.html

OECD Publications (2008), Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Good Practices in OECD Countries,
Vol. 2, OECD Publications, Paris, p. 7.

Pickett, G.M., Kangun, N. and Grove, S.J. (1993), ‘‘Is there a general conserving consumer? A public
policy concern’’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 234-43.

Ponting, C. (1993), A Green History of the World, Penguin Books, New York, NY.

Riezenstein, R.C., Hills, G.E. and Philpot, J.W. (1974), ‘‘Willingness to pay for control of air pollution:
a demographic analysis’’, in Curhan, R.C. (Ed.), Combined Proceedings, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 323-8.

Roberts, J.A. (1996), ‘‘Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising’’, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 36, pp. 217-31.

Roper Organization (1990), The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior, Roper
Organization, Racine, WI.

Roper Organization (1992), Environmental Behavior North America: Canada, Mexico, United States,
Roper Organization, Racine, WI.

Shanka, T. and Gopalan, G. (2005), ‘‘Socially responsible consumer behaviour – higher education
students’ perception’’, working paper, AZMAC 2005 Conference: Corporate Responsibility, pp. 102-7.

Smith, N.C. and Quelch, J.A. (1996), Ethics in Marketing, Irwin, Boston, MA.

Soares, F. and Diehl, N. (n.d.), ‘‘Ethical consumption: alliance for a responsible, plural and united world’’,
available at: www.alliance21.org

Staurer, R., Langer, M., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), ‘‘Corporations, stakeholders and
sustainable development: a theoretical exploration of business-society relations’’, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 61, pp. 263-81.

Uusitalo, O. and Oksanen, R. (2004), ‘‘Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland’’, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 214-21.

Uzzell, D. and Räthzel, N. (2008), ‘‘Changing relations in global environmental change’’, working paper
presented at the Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Berlin, 22-23
February.

Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlop, R.E. (1980), ‘‘The social bases of environmental concern: a review of
hypothesis, explanations and empirical evidence’’, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 181-97.

j j
PAGE 210 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009
Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlop, R.E. (1981), ‘‘Environmental concern: does it makes a difference how it’s
measured?’’, Environment and Behviour, Vol. 13 No. 10, pp. 651-76.

Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990), ‘‘What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers’’,
Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 55-73.

Vogel, D. (1991), ‘‘Business ethics: new perspectives on old problems’’, California Management Review,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 101-17.

Waddock, S. (2004), ‘‘Parallel universes: companies, academics, and the progress of corporate
citizenship’’, Business and Society, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 32-3.

Webster, F.E. Jr (1975), ‘‘Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer’’,
The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, December, p. 188.

Wells, R.P. (1990), ‘‘Environmental performance will count in the 1990s’’, Marketing News, Vol. 19,
March, p. 22.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. and Freeman, E. (2003), ‘‘Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social
responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world’’, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-23.

Corresponding author
Narendra Singh can be contacted at: profnsingh@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2009 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 211