Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Determinants of Green Purchases by Swiss Consumers

Carmen Tanner
Northwestern University

Sybille Wolng Kast

University of Bern

ABSTRACT
Given that overconsumption in industrial countries is a main cause of environmental degradation, a shift toward more sustainable consumption patterns is required. This study attempts to uncover personal and contextual barriers to consumers purchases of green food and to strengthen knowledge about fostering green purchases. Survey data are used to examine the inuence of distinct categories of personal factors (such as attitudes, personal norms, perceived behavior barriers, knowledge) and contextual factors (such as socioeconomic characteristics, living conditions, and store characteristics) on green purchases of Swiss consumers. Results from regression analysis suggest that green food purchases are facilitated by positive attitudes of consumers toward (a) environmental protection, (b) fair trade, (c) local products, and (d) availability of action-related knowledge. In turn, green behavior is negatively associated with (e) perceived time barriers and (f) frequency of shopping in supermarkets. Surprisingly, green purchases are not signicantly related to moral thinking, monetary barriers, or the socioeconomic characteristics of the consumers. Implications for policy makers and for companies and marketers engaged in the promotion and commercialization of green products are discussed. 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20(10): 883902 (October 2003) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.10101
883

Over the last decades, a number of environmental problems that threaten the environment and human life have been identied; these include global warming, ozone depletion, water and air pollution, loss of species, and farmland erosion. One main cause of these problems is overconsumption of natural resources, with the industrial nations showing the highest per-capita consumption. Any remedy will require urgent changes in human behavior and cultural practices to reduce consumption, as well as the development of cleaner and more efcient technologies (Oskamp, 2000). These goals are also captured in the notion of sustainable development. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, this concept has been acknowledged and emphasized as a superordinate goal that all nations and peoples should adopt to combat environmental degradation and its threat to human welfare. Among environmentally signicant activities, the production, trade, and consumption of food products have been identied as crucial contributors to numerous environmental problems (e.g., Stern, Dietz, Ruttan, Socolow, & Sweeney, 1997). Recent research has demonstrated that processes involved throughout the entire life cycle of food products, from production to consumption, contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases, farmland erosion, excess sewage, avoidable waste, and loss of species, to name only a few of the negative consequences (Jungbluth, 2000; Jungbluth, Tietje, & Scholz, 2000). Thus, fostering changes in the food chain, such as changes in production, trade practices, or consumption, are crucial steps in the quest for sustainable development. The present research attempts to add knowledge about how to foster purchases of green food. In doing this, the focus is on the consumer whose actions and demands can be powerful signals to retailers and manufacturers. On the other hand, the extent of consumers environmentally friendly behaviors can be facilitated or inhibited by acts of marketers or other contextual barriers. For instance, it is obviously far more difcult to buy environmentally friendly food products when they are not available at the local market. Traditionally, psychological research has explored the role of attitudes, values, and knowledge in understanding consumer behavior. However, as other researchers have pointed out (Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995), situational factors may also matter. They can block environmentally friendly behaviors and undermine the inuence of positive attitudes or values. The present study is conceptually based on an approach that holds that human behavior is subjected to numerous barriers (Frey & Foppa, 1986; Tanner, 1998, 1999; see also Gardner & Stern, 1996; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Barriers to (or facilitators of) a behavior may be personal (e.g., ignorance about green products) or contextual (e.g., lack of environmentally friendly products locally). This study is designed to uncover relevant personal and contextual factors that may inhibit or

884

TANNER AND KAST

facilitate green purchases. Our claim is that there is considerable latent potential for green consumerism to develop. Detecting factors that restrict its growth is essential to initialize further developments. This leads to the question as to how green products may be dened. In terms of food products, green is often loosely translated to mean support for organically grown food. Despite the relevance of this aspect, other crucial product features affecting sustainability are neglected by this narrow denition. These are, for instance, conservation practice, origin of the product, and packaging. Previous studies are extended by taking into account research that assessed the environmental impact of food products on resource and energy use, and on the extent of harmful emissions associated with food production, transportation, and packaging. For example, an analysis of the environmental impact of Swiss food products yielded that greenhouse production of vegetables creates more environmental burdens in terms of energy and resource use than does open-air production; in addition, the impact of vegetables shipped to Europe across the Atlantic is eight times more negative than the impact of domestically grown vegetables (Jungbluth, 2000; Jungbluth et al., 2000). Furthermore, recent literature suggests fair trade (fair prices and working conditions for workers) as another feature of sustainability (e.g., Abramovitz et al., 2001). In sum, green food products are dened this way: They are domestically cultivated rather than imported from foreign countries; they are organically rather than conventionally grown; they are seasonal and fresh rather than frozen; they are not wrapped; and they support fair trade. In the sections below, previous research ndings and a theoretical framework are outlined. Then, ndings of a survey of Swiss households will be reported. The surveys focus was on those consumers who were the primary shoppers in their household, and therefore took the role of the gatekeepers (the people who make purchasing decisions and regulate what the other members of the household eat). Theoretical Framework and Research Background Previous psychological environmental research has typically focused on the role of factors within the individual, such as knowledge, environmental concern, attitudes, norms, and values (e.g., Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986/87; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). Similarly, in the domain of green consumerism, research has examined the relation between consumer behavior and consumer attitudes and motives or has searched for the prole of the green consumer (e.g., Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Ebreo, Hershey, & Vining, 1999; Roberts, 1996). The specic variables that have been posited to have a relevant impact on environmental behavior can be classied into four categories.

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

885

Measures of Specic Attitudes. Research indicates that measures of specic attitudes (e.g., judgments about products or behaviors) rather than general measures of environmental concern (e.g., judgments about environmental problems) are likely to manifest in environmental behavior (Hines et al., 1986/87; Gardner & Stern, 1996; Maloney & Ward, 1973; Schlossberg, 1991; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). A consumer survey by Mainieri et al. (1997) clearly supports the suggestion that specic consumer beliefs predict environmentally friendly consumer behavior more accurately than does general environmental concern. Perceived Barriers. Several studies have posited that notions of perceived control or perceived behavioral barriers are additional signicant predictors of environmental behavior (e.g., Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Grob, 1995; Hines et al., 1986/87; Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas, 1999). Likewise, Roberts (1996) suggests that in order to motivate behavioral changes, consumers must be convinced that their behavior has an impact on the environment or will be effective in ghting environmental degradation. Knowledge. Environmental knowledge has been found to be positively related to environmental behavior, but the literature also reports contradictory ndings on the question of how ecological knowledge is related to environmental behavior (Arbuthnot & Lingg, 1975; Hines et al., 1986/87; Grob, 1995; Maloney & Ward, 1973). Schahn and Holzer (1990) demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between knowledge about facts and knowledge about actions. The term factual knowledge refers to knowledge about denitions and causes/consequences of environmental problems (e.g., what is the greenhouse effect?), whereas action-related knowledge is used to refer to information about possible actions (e.g., which human behaviors are related to the greenhouse effect). Unlike factual knowledge, action-related knowledge is more likely to affect behavior. Personal Norm. Numerous studies have revealed that a personal norm a feeling of moral obligation is a powerful motivator of environmental behavior (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Black, 1986; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). In a recent study on recycling and consumerism, Ebreo et al. (1999) found that the degree to which people feel obliged to recycle is related to conservation-related product attributes. These investigations suggest that environmentally friendly behavior may be characterized as morally demanding. Overall, a large body of studies asserts that personal factors are necessary and essential to foster behavioral changes, even though the correspondence between attitudinal variables and behavior is often moderate. Other research, however, suggests that contextual factors of the social, economic, or physical environment within which people act also
886 TANNER AND KAST

matter and can keep pro-environmental attitudes from being expressed in action (e.g., Black, Stern, & Elworth, 1985; Geller, 1987; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Tanner, 1999). Although contextual factors are also very important, they have not received the attention they deserve in psychological research. For example, even if a person is motivated to buy green products, he or she cannot buy such goods if they are not offered for sale in an accessible location. In the domain of energy use, research indicates that social structure, ethnicity, and household technology all have a relevant impact on household energy consumption (e.g., Black et al., 1985; Lutzenhiser, 1997). As a conclusion, studies may benet from considering both personal and contextual variables to advance knowledge about environmental behavior. The framework adopted here advocates research into both personal and contextual barriers. Research Goals The present study is designed to uncover personal and contextual factors that inuence green food purchases by Swiss consumers. The personal factors incorporated in this study were based upon previous research and on interviews with Swiss consumers. The interviews were conducted with customers of a Swiss supermarket and an organic food store (N 27) about their purchasing motives and about product features they take into account in purchase decisions. In accordance with previous studies, specic rather than general measures have been developed (Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997). Generally, the personal factors incorporated can be divided into four categories: (a) attitudes toward food products, (b) personal norms, (c) perceived barriers, and (d) ecological knowledge. As for the contextual factors, the study used the following three groups of socio-cultural conditions as indicators of external barriers. Socioeconomic Characteristics. Previous literature identied education, occupational level (e.g., high rank, low rank), employment status (e.g., full-time, part-time), and income as the classical dimensions of social class in Western industrial societies (see Lamprecht & Stamm, 1994). They are indicators of purchasing power and time constraints. Living Conditions. Place of residence and household size were used as two features that may indicate differences in buying opportunities and household activities (see e.g., Uusitalo, 1986). Store Types. Because different stores necessarily differ in what they supply, they are likely to affect consumers purchases. It is assumed that green purchases would be harder to make in a supermarket than in other kinds of stores (e.g., organic food stores). However, in the present
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 887

case, what is particularly interesting is that prominent Swiss supermarkets have recently increased the merchandising of green products. This has raised the question, in the minds of some, as to whether store type matters (the position here is that it still does). Overall, this study is designed to examine the relative importance of those variables in facilitating or inhibiting the consumers tendency to make green purchases. METHOD Participants and Procedure Survey data for rural and urban households in and around the city of Bern were collected in November 1996. For 6500 randomly selected households, the households primary shopper was asked to volunteer. Then, 745 questionnaires were sent to those who had returned a consent form (response rate: 12%).1 Of these, a total of 547 German-speaking Swiss adults returned the completed questionnaire. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents were female. Respondents mean age was 47 years (range: 18 90 years); 59% lived in the city of Bern, whereas 41% lived in rural settings. Even though representativeness was not the goal (nding people holding the role of the gatekeeper was the main goal), the composition of this sample was compared with census data from the Swiss Statistical Yearbook 1997. This showed quite a good match. Noteworthy differences were related to gender, household size, and education. Not surprisingly, the proportion of women in our sample (68%) was found to be higher than in the Swiss population (51%). This indicates that shopping on behalf of the household is still done more by women than by men. Compared to the Swiss population, our sample had a somewhat smaller percentage of single-person households (20% vs. 32%), and a larger proportion of people with higher education (45% vs. 30%). Survey Instrument After two pretests, a nal draft of the questionnaire was created to assess personal and contextual dimensions. Personal Factors. The rst section of the questionnaire contained questions assessing personal dimensions. Usually, respondents indicated their level of agreement on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Negatively formulated ques1

People were rst asked to conrm their participation in the study by sending back a consent form. This procedure was necessary because the research consisted of two parts: a questionnaire and a diary study. Permission to keep the participants address was needed. Clearly, the response rate is low, but compares favorably with other studies.

888

TANNER AND KAST

tions were reversed in coding. Twenty-two items were used to assess attitudes toward food products. They covered six factors: environmental protection, genetically engineered food, fair trade, health, regional products, and food taste. A set of six items was used to assess two factors of perceived barriers: perceived time and monetary barriers. Four items assessed personal norms. Eleven items served to obtain measures for factual knowledge, action-related knowledge, and condence in product labels. For some knowledge questions, respondents had to choose the correct answer from among four choices (including an I dont know option). For instance, in one item respondents were presented with several eco-labels used in Switzerland that represent different ecological standards.2 Respondents were asked which of these labels would reect the highest ecological standards. For other knowledge items, the yes/ no and I dont know response format was used. The knowledge scales were changed into a dichotomous scale (wrong/correct). I dont know answers were coded as wrong responses. Finally, the items were used to obtain respondents level of agreement on condence in labels, again based on a 5-point scale. Four principal-component analyses with promax rotation were conducted to determine the dimensionality of each group of items. These analyses sorted the attitudinal scales neatly into six categories, the perceived barriers into two, and the knowledge scales into three categories. The coherence of the personal norm was also conrmed. The factors account for 63%, 57%, 51%, and 49% of the variances, respectively. Computing the average across the individual item scores created the nal scales. The scale items, along with the scale means, standard deviations, reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha coefcient), and factor loadings are displayed in Appendix 1. Contextual Factors. Ten questions were used as indicators of contextual barriers. In terms of stores, participants were asked where they mainly buy milk products, vegetables, and meat. Respondents could choose from among several options that constitute a broad array of possible shopping opportunities in Switzerland, such as supermarkets and smaller retailers, organic food stores, farmers markets, farmers, fairtrade stores, and health food stores, as well as food procurement by selfproduction. The scores were combined in an index of frequency of supermarket use that ranged from 0 (no supermarket) to 3 (exclusively supermarkets). Finally, the questionnaire included questions assessing the respondents socioeconomic dimensions (education, occupational
2

In general, the various eco-labels of this type used in Switzerland indicate differences in agricultural practice. The standards differ considerably. Although some labels stand for products that are characterized by limited use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, other labels stand for agricultural practices that include the complete avoidance of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and greenhouse production. In the case of meat, the logos indicate whether the animals were humanely kept. Other logos indicate fair trade practices.

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

889

level, employment status, and household income) and household living conditions (place of residence, household size). Extent of the Consumers Green Food Purchases. Most of the items included in the behavioral measure referred to purchases of food products varying in environmentally relevant product characteristics, such as means of production, packaging, type of preservation, and origin. Respondents were asked how often they buy different kinds of food products, such as canned food, products with an eco-label, frozen meat, fresh produce, or local goods. One item addressed the purchase of fair trade products (products that guarantee fair prices and working conditions for workers). Respondents were also asked to estimate how many liters (1 liter 1.8 pints) per week they buy of different beverages, such as imported beer or milk bought in bulk.3 Unlike the previous scales, the present assessment of green purchases was based on a probabilistic measurement approach (Rasch scale) (Bond & Fox, 2001; Kaiser, 1998; Wright & Masters, 1982). One main advantage of this approach is that it allows one to include a broad range of behavioral items, even with extreme item difculties. Based on this approach the behavioral measure is an estimate of number of green purchases a consumer has undertaken (more specically, it is the number of behavior difculties a person has overcome) (for more details see Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). Aggregating across the positive behaviors reveals the individuals extent of purchases of green food products. The original 6-point response format had to be converted into a dichotomous response format, so that 1 indicated not purchasing environmentally friendly and 2 indicated purchasing environmentally friendly. This measure was advisable because the more sophisticated response format made responses more arbitrary rather than more reliable.4 With the use of the Rasch dichotomous model, the items on a unidimensional scale were assessed and the mistting items were then excluded. The nal measure was composed of 19 items (see Appendix 2) with a reliability of 0.70. As mentioned above, the extent of the individuals green food purchases was attained by aggregating across the entire range of specic self-reported purchases of green food products (for more details, see Tanner, Kaiser, & Wolng Kast, in press).
3

Frequency measures (e.g., how often . . .) as behavioral indicators correspond to the measures most often used in previous research. One reviewer correctly emphasized that such a measure is inuenced by frequency of shopping. Using a dichotomous response format reduces this problem. The variety of possible responses was obviously reduced by converting the polytomous response format into a dichotomous one. Kaiser and Wilson (2000) found that a polytomous format does not necessarily enhance a behavior scales reliability or increase the proportion of tting participants. Furthermore, using a dichotomous format reduces the problem of confounding frequency of purchases with frequency of shopping.

890

TANNER AND KAST

RESULTS In a rst step, simple bivariate correlations were calculated to assess the association between all variables. Table 1 displays the intercorrelations of the measures developed in this study. Because some of the intercorrelations may indicate possible problems of multicollinearity, the variance ination factors (VIF) of the predictors were examined, a more subtle test of multicollinearity (Stevens, 1996). These analyses revealed very low variance inuence factors (VIF 2.04), indicating that each predictor has only weak associations with the other predictors. Next, all subscales were entered into a regression equation to examine the relative contribution of the variables in predicting the extent of consumers green food purchases. Because only the best predictors that make an essential contribution to the variance explained were of primary interest, a stepwise regression procedure was run. Table 2 displays the major results with the standardized (B) and unstandardized beta ( ) coefcients. As expected, the rst predictor to enter the model was attitude toward environmental protection. That scale alone already accounted for approximately 19% of the variance. After that, variables were entered in the following order (incremental gain in R2 is shown in parentheses): frequency of supermarket use (.10), attitude toward fair trade (.05), perceived time barriers (.02), attitude toward domestic products (.02), and nally, action-related ecological knowledge (.03). As a whole, the multiple correlation was .64. Simultaneously, the amount of explained variance increased to 41%. (A regression equation containing all variables revealed only a marginal increase of the model. The total variance explained by the full model yielded an R of .65 and an R2 of .42.) In summary, ve personal factors but only one contextual factor were found to be highly signicantly associated with the extent of a consumers green food purchases. Specically, green food purchases were facilitated by proenvironmental attitudes, by positive attitudes toward fair trade, and by local products. In addition, they were facilitated by having adequate knowledge to distinguish between environmentally friendly and environmentally harmful products. However, the extent of peoples green food purchases decreased when people perceived a need to save time, and when they shopped mainly in supermarkets. None of the other personal factors (attitude toward genetically engineered food, food taste, health, factual knowledge, condence in eco-label, personal norms, perceived monetary barriers) proved to be a relevant predictor. Particularly surprising is the discovery that personal norms and perceived monetary barriers were not signicant. Similarly, place of residence and household size were not among the relevant predictors. Nor did the analyses reveal that any of the social-economic dimensions, such as education, occupational level, employment status, and household income, were signicantly correlated with the extent of green behaviors.
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 891

892

Table 1.

Correlation Matrix of all Subscales.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Environmental protection Rejection of GE food Fair trade Health Regional products Taste Perceived monetary barrier Perceived time barrier Action-related knowledge Factual knowledge Condence in label Personal norm Supermarket use Education Employment status Occupational level Place of residence Household size Household income Green purchases

.34 .47 .35 .21 .27 .58 .26 .25 .31 .20 48 .21 .44

.35 .36 .25 .26 .23 .22 .38 .16 .16 .29

.43 .38 .21 .39 .31 .29 .19 .59 .24 .43
360 and N

.30 .40 .24 .19 .21 .45 .17 .15 .20 .31

.14 .23 .12 .20 .34 .31 .13 .19 .34

.17 .11 .16 .16 .29 .18 .12 .12 .22 .27 .18

.11 .25 .30 .25 .36 .20 .16 .31

.12 .15 .18 .13 .30 .27

.28 .24 .21 .22 .14 .17 .24

.01.

.29 .13 .32

.11 .13 .24

.13 .30

.22 .15 .42

.18 .32 .13 .26 .15

.14 .15 .31 .35 .25 .16

TANNER AND KAST

Note: N of the bivariate correlations between N

547. Table contains only correlations p

Table 2. Multiple Regression Results with Personal Variables Used to Predict Ones Extent of Green Food Purchases (N 554). Predictor Environmental protection Frequency of supermarket use Fair trade Perceived time barrier Local products Action-related knowledge
Note: Only predictors p .01 included.

B 0.61 0.31 0.30 0.18 0.20 0.48 0.45 0.33 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.12

t 10.20 7.79 5.43 3.86 3.81 3.03

R2 .19 .29 .34 .36 .38 .41

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The current study extends previous research about environmental consumerism by incorporating personal and contextual dimensions, by including more features of sustainability, and by adopting a Rasch model to the measurement of green purchases. Consistent with earlier ndings (e.g., Ebreo et al., 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997), the study conrms that personal attitudes and beliefs are powerful predictors of green purchases. First, positive attitudes toward environmental protection, fair trade, and local production are major facilitators of green purchases. Second, perceived time barriers restrain ones motivation to buy green products. Third, action-related knowledge is an additional predictor of green purchases. Even though the relationship between knowledge and behavior was not strong, the study provides evidence that some sort of appropriate knowledge is needed for taking appropriate behavior. One striking result is that cost does not play an integral role in green purchases. Yet it is possible that the potential impact of perceived monetary barriers has been covered in this analysis because they are signicantly associated with other predictors. However, as further analyses (VIF) revealed, there is absolutely no evidence that multicollinearity was a problem in this study. Thus, the present results are more likely to indicate that people with a high environmental motivation are less sensitive to price. This is in line with previous studies that indicated that consumers who are concerned about the environment are more willing to pay a premium for green products (e.g., Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, & Traichal, 2000). Furthermore, the study revealed no significant association between personal norms and green food purchases. Earlier studies suggested that various categories of environmental behaviors, such as recycling (e.g., Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Stern et al., 1986; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Vining & Ebreo, 1992) or transportation behaviors (Tanner, 1999) involve moral thinking. The current study contradicts the notion that green food purchases reect a moral standpoint. In regard to the contextual variables, the ndings provide little evidence that differences in social status and income account for behavioral
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 893

differences. This provides additional support for the claim that monetary dimensions, at least for the Swiss sample, do not play such a dominant role, as might be expected. However, the ndings do provide evidence that food purchases are remarkably susceptible to conditions in the stores where consumers mainly shop for edibles. Specically, consumers who mainly shop in supermarkets show a lower level of green purchases. The question may arise as to whether the measure of supermarket use is a measure of preference rather than a situational inuence. This problem was recently addressed in a more thorough analysis of external factors (Tanner et al., in press) by making further use of the adoption of the Rasch model to the measurement of green purchases. An important feature of the Rasch model is that it brings up a measure that makes use of aggregation both across behaviors (e.g., estimating the number of environmentally friendly behaviors one person undertakes) and across people (e.g., estimating the number of people who undertake one specic behavior). Although the former is especially useful to study personal inuences on the individuals extent of environmental behavior, the latter is especially valuable to disclose situational inuences that are responsible for facilitating and inhibiting certain performances (for more details, see Kaiser & Biel, 2000; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000). This measure was adopted to test whether supermarket use still proved to be an essential factor. In fact, the importance of stores was conrmed. In addition, place of residence and household size were found to be additional essential factors. Again, social status and income were not relevant (Tanner et al., in press). This analysis provides further evidence that supermarket use is likely to reect a situational inuence rather than the consumers preferences. Nevertheless, subsequent research would be valuable to get further clarication. It is not surprising that what people buy is strongly related to where they shop. What does come as a surprise, however, is the fact that supermarket use actually diminishes the likelihood of green food purchases despite the recent shift in Swiss supermarket practices toward supplying more environmentally friendly goods. A closer look, however, reveals that when it comes to green food products, many supermarkets have tended to pay primary attention to the production of food (organic versus conventional production), while neglecting other product features affecting sustainability (such as conservation, packaging, origin of the products) It is of paramount importance not to neglect these other environmentally signicant aspects. These ndings suggest a number of implications on how to foster sustainable food purchases among Swiss consumers. 1. The study strongly suggests that green marketing should address women, because they are still the main group responsible for shopping the gatekeepers.
894 TANNER AND KAST

2. The demand for green products may be encouraged not only by fostering proenvironmental beliefs but also by promoting additional motives, such as preference for domestically produced food and for products that are traded fairly. Therefore, local and fairtrade products appear to be useful foci for marketing efforts. 3. Informational interventions should be considered to educate consumers, so that they can accurately identify which products are environmentally friendly and which are not. 4. The nding that perceived time barriers reduce purchases of green food products implies that there is potential for products that are both environmentally friendly and time saving (so-called ecoconvenience products). 5. People involved in production and promotion of green products, as well as policy makers, need to reect on which products and behaviors have a signicant destructive environmental impact. Some aspects of these ndings deserve comment. First, the results apply most directly to the Swiss sample. The concepts and behavioral items used in the study can be traced, at least partially, to culturespecic factors. Although this limits the generalizability of the results, it simultaneously increases their practical relevance. Research has to account for such emic factors in understanding consumption patterns. Second, given the low response rate, the results may reect biases. This response rate is not unusual for environmental and consumer studies; however, further research is needed to determine whether any of the differences between these ndings and those in other studies stem from differences in the characteristics of the sample. Despite these limitations, the study provides additional and generalizable insights to the understanding of green purchases. Specically, focusing on the gatekeepers and examining their beliefs and their contextual conditions, taking account of research that examines which kinds of products or behaviors are environmentally signicant, and uncovering crucial personal and contextual barriers to behaviors are crucial and general steps to adopt to support sustainable development.

CONCLUSION Given that per-capita consumption in industrial countries is a main cause of environmental degradation, the need for sustainable development will require alternative consumption patterns. Because of the complexity of the factors involved, it is clear that no simple remedies will sufce to accomplish the long-term goals. Rather, multifaceted effort will have to be carried out by a broad coalition of interrelated actors. Alterations in peoples attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors may stimulate
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 895

changes in the political and economic systems, which in turn might encourage lifestyle changes. On the other hand, product manufacturers can affect the market and consumers by encouraging new developments. It seems that there is considerable potential for green consumerism to develop, but that its growth is inhibited by various barriers. Furthermore, this research emphasizes to address three questions to initiate expansion of green purchases: 1. Who is the gatekeeper? Interventions have to address those actors who have decisional power and the potential to implement changes. In this study, the women turned out to have this position. 2. What are relevant features of green products or environmentally signicant behaviors? The present study emphasized that agricultural practice (such as organically grown products) is only one aspect. Green is often translated to mean support for organically grown products. However, other features, such as type of conservation, packaging, origin of the product, or fair trade are also important. Obviously, addressing sustainable development is not done by adopting a simple interpretation of green. 3. What are the relevant personal and contextual barriers to consumers green purchases? Green consumerism can be encouraged by supporting factors that facilitate and by breaking down the barriers that restrict environmentally friendly behaviors. These ndings suggest that addressing several beliefs (attitudes toward environmental protection, fair trade, and local production), actionrelated knowledge, time barriers, as well as store differences can support this goal. Clearly, more research would be valuable to advance understanding of green behaviors and its consequences on environment, economy, and society. However, the belief is that this study provided further insights about environmental consumerism and useful implications on how to promote sustainable development. REFERENCES
Abramovitz, J. N., Brown, L. R., Dunn, S., Flavin, C., French, H., Gardner, G., Halweil, B., Hwang, A., Larsen, J., Lenssen, N., Mastny, L., Mattoon, A., McGinn, A. P., Nierenberg, D., Renner, M., Roodman, D. M., Sampat, P., Sheehan, M. O., Young, J. E., & Starke, L. (2001). Vital signs 2001. New York: Norton. Arbuthnot, J., & Lingg, S. (1975). A comparison of French and American environmental behavior, knowledge and attitudes. International Journal of Psychology, 10, 411 423. Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns:

896

TANNER AND KAST

What factors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149 159. Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449 468. Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual inuences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 3 21. Bond, T. B., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., & Vining, J. (1999). Reducing solid waste. Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 31, 107 135. Frey, B. S., & Foppa, K. (1986). Human behavior: Possibilities explain action. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 137 160. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Geller, E. S. (1987). Applied behavior analysis and environmental psychology: From strange bedfellows to a productive marriage. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 361 388). New York: Wiley. Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 209 220. Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Inuences on attitude behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699 718. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on environmental behavior. A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1 8. Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195 220. Jungbluth, N. (2000). Umweltfolgen des nahrungsmittelkonsums: Beurteilung von produktmerkmalen auf grundlage einer modularen okobilanz. [Environ mental consequences of food consumption: Using a modular life cycle assessment to evaluate product characteristics]. Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland. Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. (2000). The modular LCA: Environmental impacts of food purchases from the consumers point of view. International Journal of LCA, 5, 134 142. Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395 422. Kaiser, F. G., & Biel, A. (2000). Assessing peoples general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 44 52. Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing peoples general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 952 978. Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

897

and Ajzens theory of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441 460. Lamprecht, M., & Stamm, H. (1994). Die soziale ordnung der freizeit [The social order of leisure]. Zurich: Seismo. Lutzenhiser, L. (1997). Social structure, culture, and technology: Modeling the driving forces of household energy consumption. In P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, V. W. Ruttan, R. H. Socolow, & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmental significant consumption (pp. 77 91). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The inuence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189 204. Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Lets hear from the people: An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583 586. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531 537. Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55, 496 508. Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Prole and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217 231. Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22. Schlossberg, H. (1991). Green marketing has been planted Now watch it grow. Marketing News, 4, 26 30. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65 84. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1986). Support for environmental protection: The role of morale norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204 222. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V. W., Socolow, R. H., & Sweeney, J. L. (1997). Environmentally signicant consumption. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tanner, C. (1998). Die ipsative handlungstheorie: Eine alternative sichtweise okologischen handelns. [The theory of ipsative action: An alternative per spective about environmental behavior]. Umweltpsychologie, 2, 34 44. Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 145 157. Tanner, C., Kaiser F.G., & Wolng Kast, S. (in press). Contextual conditions of ecological consumerism: A food-purchasing survey. Environment & Behavior. Uusitalo, L. (1986). Environmental impacts of consumption patterns. New York: St. Martins Press. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how its measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651 676. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specic environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1580 1607. Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA.

898

TANNER AND KAST

APPENDIX 1
Items, Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies, and Factor Loadings of the Personal Subscales (English Translations of Original Items). Mean Attitudes toward food products Environmental protection It is not important to me whether the produce was grown organically or conventionally. Environmental protection is important to me when making purchases. If I can choose between organic and conventional food products, I prefer organic. Genetically engineered food Genetic engineering should be more used in agriculture. ( ) I am opposed to genetically altered food products for ethical or moral reasons. Genetically engineered food products are dangerous for human beings. Fair trade Solidarity with third-world countries is important to me. I would refrain from buying bananas or coffee if I were not sure whether growers and workers were fairly paid. When buying coffee, I pay attention to fair trade labels (e.g., Max Havelaar). I would be willing to pay a higher price to support small growers from third-world countries. Health It is important to me that food products contain no preservatives. I avoid products containing too much sugar. When making purchases, I pay attention to whether the food products contain unhealthy substances. Health issues play an important role for me when I make up my menus. Regional products It is important to me to support local farmers when making purchase. It is good to support domestic agriculture by buying regional products. Consumers should show solidarity with domestic farmers. It is not important to me whether food products are grown locally or not ( ). 3.80 SD 0.84 Alpha 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.69 3.97 0.98 0.78 0.76 0.87 0.85 2.97 0.89 0.79 0.83 0.70 0.77 0.79 Loadings

3.44

0.82

0.63 0.78 0.60 0.76 0.45

3.98

0.89

0.86 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.73

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

899

APPENDIX 1. (Continued) Mean Food taste When making purchases I would primarily buy products which taste good. When making purchases, I am guided by what I like. People should eat what they like, even if what they eat is unhealthy ( ) When making purchases I am guided by my taste of gourmet cooking. Perceived Barriers Perceived monetary barriers I cannot afford to pay more for organic products. Green products are still too expensive. People should buy green products, even though they are more expensive ( ). Perceived time barrier I have too little time for cooking. I have little time available for preparation of meals. Because of lack of time, I am dependent on food products that do not need much time for preparation. Personal norm Everybody has a responsibility to contribute to environmental preservation by avoiding packaged food products. Everybody should make a contribution to promoting green food production by buying only green products. Consumers have the right to buy exotic fruits. I feel morally obligated to refrain from eating the meat of animals kept inhumanely. Knowledge Factual Ecological Knowledgea More energy is used for producing and transporting food products than the body receives through nutrition. (yes/no) Less energy is used for meat production than for the equivalent amount of vegetables. (yes/no) What is gray energy? (multiple choice) Action-related ecological knowledgea Milk in plastic packaging is more harmful for the environment than milk in cardboard cartons (yes/no). 3.01 SD 0.83 Alpha 0.73 0.70 0.76 0.64 0.81 Loadings

2.61

0.84

0.60 0.71 0.81 0.77

2.34

0.96

0.75 0.86 0.60 0.76

3.24

0.83

0.64 0.78 0.82 0.48 0.68

1.58

0.29

0.64 0.75 0.55 0.73

1.57

0.34

0.64 0.46

900

TANNER AND KAST

APPENDIX 1. (Continued) Mean Which of the following production practices follows higher standards regarding agriculture and animal care? (multiple choice) Which of the following eco-labels represents the highest ecological standards regarding agricultural practice? (multiple choice) Which of the following labels represent the highest standard regarding the care of animals? (multiple choice) Condence in product label In the store I cannot distinguish between environmentally friendly and harmful food products. ( ) I am insecure about which eco-labels are reliable and which are not. ( ) Eco-labels lack credibility. ( ) I do not believe in the quality guarantee of eco-labels. ( ) 3.03 0.91 0.80 0.67 0.85 0.86 0.81 SD Alpha Loadings 0.65 0.71 0.58

Note: ( ) Reversed in coding. Subscales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), except for factual and action-related knowledge. aFactual and action-related knowledge scales were changed into a dichotomous response format of 1 (wrong) and 2 (correct). Original items were in German.

APPENDIX 2
List of Behavioral Items (English Translation of Original Items). Purchases of unbottled milk. Purchases of fair trade products. Purchases of milk in plastic packaging. Purchases of milk in a cardboard carton. ( ) Purchases of products with an eco-label. Purchases of meat from humanely kept animals. Purchases of organically grown food. Purchases of open cheese. Purchases of packaged cheese. ( ) Purchases of exotic fruits. ( ) Purchases of fresh, locally grown vegetables. Purchases of imported beer. ( ) Purchases of convenience foods. ( ) Purchases of canned food. ( ) Purchases of frozen meat. ( ) Purchases of frozen sh. ( ) Purchases of frozen vegetables in summer. ( ) Purchases of sh in cans. ( ) Purchases of meat in cans. ( )
Note: The items were assessed on a unidimensional scale with the use of the Rasch model. The original 6point scale was converted to a dichotomous response format, with 1 indicating less environmentally friendly purchase and 2 indicating more environmentally friendly purchase. The consumers extent of green purchases is then based on the aggregation of positive behaviors a person undertakes. Original items were in German. ( ) Reversed in coding.

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

901

This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 5001-44666 and 8210-61241). The authors are grateful to Niels Jungbluth for performing the measurement of the environmental impact of food products, and Florian Kaiser for his support regarding the measure of green purchases based on the Rasch model. The authors also thank Judith Levi for valuable help with the language. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Carmen Tanner, Falkenhoeheweg 18, 3012 Bern, Switzerland (ctanner@bluewin.ch).

902

TANNER AND KAST