Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Antecedents of Environmentally and Socially Responsible Sustainable Consumer Behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Responsible sustainable consumer behavior (RSCB) involves a complex pattern of environmental and social issues, in line with the view of sustainability as a construct with both environmental and social pillar. So far, environmental dimension was far more researched than social dimension. In this article, we investigate the antecedents of both environmentally and socially RSCB and willingness to behave in environmentally/socially responsible way. We include measures of concern, perceived consumer control/effectiveness, personal/social norms and ethical ideologies/obligation to better explain and extend the traditional theory of planned behavior. Additionally, we test the impact of information availability about environmental or social impact on RSCB. Our findings on a representative sample of 426 respondents (ages 18 to 65) show that in general, antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumption are similar in their effect on consumer behavior, with personal norms, concern and ethical ideologies having the strongest impact on RSCB. When comparing both types of behavior, socially responsible behavior is more influenced by perceived behavioral control and possibly social norms than environmentally responsible behavior, while information availability plays its role for both behaviors. Sustainable responsible consumption can be achieved by embracing both dimensions of sustainability and consumers need to have a sense for both social and environmental issues. The complexity and struggles between doing what is good for environment and society could be the reason why consumers have difficulties achieving sustainable responsible consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. (2007). Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2013). Theory of planned behaviour questionnaire. Measurement instrument database for the social science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie.

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The Handbook of Attitudes, 173, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, W. T., Jr., & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially conscious consumer. The Journal of Marketing, 3, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P., & Yi, Youjae. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belch, M. A. (1982). A segmentation strategy for the 1980’s: Profiling the socially-concerned market through life-style analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10(4), 345–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper.

  • Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catlin, J. R., Luchs, M. G., et al. (2017). Consumer perceptions of the social vs environmental dimensions of sustainability. Journal of Consumer Policy, 40(3), 245–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabowski, B. R., Mena, J. A., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

  • Currás-Pérez, R., Dolz-Dolz, C., Miquel-Romero, M. J., & Sánchez-García, I. (2018). How social, environmental, and economic CSR affects consumer-perceived value: Does perceived consumer effectiveness make a difference? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 733–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • de-Magistris, T., & Gracia, A. (2016). Consumers’ willingness to pay for light, organic and PDO cheese: An experimental auction approach. British Food Journal, 118(3), 560–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Lamb, P. (2006). An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11(2), 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, S. (2005). Talk the walk: advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications: United Nations Environmental Programme.

  • Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, P., & Brock, C. (2019). “Green cannibalism” or an “organic inside job”? Empirical insights into the rivalry of ethical grocery types. Psychology & Marketing, 36(6), 597–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone, O. M., & McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, S. M., Fischer, D., & Schrader, U. (2018). Measuring what matters in sustainable consumption: an integrative framework for the selection of relevant behaviors. Sustainable Development, 26(1), 18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, T. I., & Stoel, L. (2017). Explaining socially responsible consumer behavior: A meta-analytic review of theory of planned behavior. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental-beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: Who are they? The Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(6), 573–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leire, C., & Thidell, A. (2005). Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases—A review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 1061–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. A., & Murray, D. L. (2013). Ethical consumption, values convergence/divergence and community development. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(2), 351–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy–beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2005). Has the medium (roast) become the message? The ethics of marketing fair trade in the mainstream. International Marketing Review, 22(5), 494–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. N. (1976). The socially conscious consumer-another look at the data. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 113–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview (Vol. 13), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngobo, P. V. (2011). What drives household choice of organic products in grocery stores? Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., & Stoel, L. (2005). A model of socially responsible buying/sourcing decision-making processes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(4), 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saini, R., & Monga, A. (2008). How I decide depends on what I spend: Use of heuristics is greater for time than for money. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 914–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader, U. (2007). The moral responsibility of consumers as citizens. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1485–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., Shiu, E., & Clarke, I. (2000). The contribution of ethical obligation and self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour: An exploration of ethical consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(8), 879–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., Rallapalli, K. C., & Kraft, K. L. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1131–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), 808–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2015). Sustainable consumption and production, A handbook for policy makers, Global edition. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1951Sustainable%20Consumption.pdf

  • Uusitalo, O., & Oksanen, R. (2004). Ethical consumerism: A view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 214–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2015). Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 436–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, F. E., Jr. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors acknowledge the project “Challenges of inclusive and sustainable growth”, P5-0128, was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl.17, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Maja Hosta & Vesna Zabkar

Authors
  1. Maja Hosta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vesna Zabkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesna Zabkar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Data involving human participants for this study was gathered in 2014, when there was no committee for ethics in research at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana (the committee was established in 2017). This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Individual participants in the study were anonymized participants in a web-based panel. Access to respondents was provided by a research agency and respondents received compensation for their participation. No personal data was gathered by researchers beyond the data reported in this study (e.g., gender, age).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Measurement Scale Items

Appendix: Measurement Scale Items

  1. 1.

    Concern for the environment/society (CONCERN)

    (Antil 1984; The Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior scale (SRCB); only selected items from the original scale were used and environmental dimension was tested previously on another sample of 319 respondents, social dimension scale was adapted based on insights from interviews)

    1. (1.1)

      Pollution is presently one of the most critical problems facing this nation./Unemployment is presently one of the most critical problems facing this nation.

    2. (1.2.)

      Natural resources must be preserved, even if people must do without some products./Workers rights must be protected, even if people must do without some products.

    3. (1.3)

      Pollution is personally affecting my life./Irresponsible actions of other people are personally affecting my life.

    4. (1.4)

      You become incensed when you think about the harm being done to the plant and animal life by pollution./You become incensed when you think about the harm being done to some people by irresponsible actions of other people.

  2. 2.

    Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) (adapted from Ajzen 2013)

    1. (2.1)

      If I wanted to I could easily avoid buying products that are not environmentally friendly./If I wanted to I could easily avoid buying products that are not socially friendly.

    2. (2.2)

      There are likely to be little or no barriers for me in buying environmentally friendly products./There are likely to be little or no barriers for me in buying socially friendly products.

  3. 3.

    Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) (r) (Ellen et al. (1991)

    1. (3.1)

      There is not much that any one individual can do about the natural environment./There is not much that any one individual can do about the social environment.

    2. (3.2)

      The conservation efforts of one person are useless as long as other people refuse to conserve./The human rights protection efforts of one person are useless as long as other people refuse to take care of human rights protection.

  4. 4.

    Social norms (SOCNOR) (Thøgersen 2006)

    1. (4.1)

      Most people who are important to me think that I should buy environmentally friendly products./Most people who are important to me think that I should buy socially friendly products.

    2. (4.2)

      Most of my acquaintances expect of me that I buy environmentally friendly products instead of conventional product./Most of my acquaintances expect of me that I buy socially friendly products instead of conventional product.

      Original scale (Thøgersen 2006):

      Most people who are important to me think that… (7-point scale from I should not, to I should)… deliver my recyclable materials, such as glass packaging, newspapers and magazines, to recycling = buy organic food instead of conventional’.

      Most of my acquaintances expect of me that I deliver my recyclable materials, such as glass packaging, newspapers, and magazines, to recycling = buy organic food instead of conventional as far as possible’’

  5. 5.

    Personal norms (PERNOR)

    (first two items from Thøgersen 2006, other 3 items self-made, based on qualitative research)

    1. (5.1)

      I feel an obligation to choose environmentally friendly products/socially friendly products.

    2. (5.2)

      I feel I should choose environmentally friendly products instead of conventional products./I feel I should choose socially friendly products instead of conventional products.

    3. (5.3)

      I feel I have an ethical obligation to buy natural products/fair trade products.

    4. (5.4)

      I feel I have an ethical obligation to buy eco/bio products/local products.

    5. (5.5)

      I feel I have an ethical obligation to buy environmentally friendly products/socially friendly products.

      Original scale (Thøgersen 2006):

      I feel an obligation to deliver my recyclable materials, such as glass packaging, newspapers and magazines, to recycling = choose organic food.

      I feel I should deliver my recyclable materials, such as glass packaging, newspapers and magazines, to recycling = choose organic instead of conventional food products.

  6. 6.

    Willingness to behave in environmentally conscious way (WILLINGNESS)

    (Antil 1984; The Socially Responsible Consumption Behavior scale (SRCB; only selected items from the original scale were used and environmental dimension was tested previously on another sample of 319 respondents, social dimension scale was adapted based on insights from interviews)

    1. (6.1)

      I would be willing to sign a petition or demonstrate for an environmental cause./I would be willing to sign a petition or demonstrate for a human/workers’ rights cause.

    2. (6.2)

      I would be willing to ride a bicycle or take a bus to work in order to reduce air pollution./I would go several miles out of your way to buy from a store that you knew cares for its employee rights.

    3. (6.3)

      I would donate a day’s pay to a foundation to help improve the environment./I would donate a day’s pay to a foundation that improves human living conditions.

    4. (6.4)

      I would be willing to stop buying products from companies that are guilty of polluting the environment, even though it might be inconvenient./I would be willing to stop buying products from companies that are guilty of discriminating against women, even though it might be inconvenient.

    5. (6.5)

      I would be willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution, even though the immediate results may not seem significant./I would be willing to make personal sacrifices for the protections of human rights, even though the immediate results may not seem significant.

  7. 7.

    Environmentally/socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior (BEHAVIOR; RSCB)

    (Roberts and Bacon 1997, Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior scale (ECCB) and Webb et al. 2008, factor 1 “CSR performance”; only selected items from the original scale were used and environmental dimension was tested previously on another sample of 319 respondents)

    1. (7.1)

      When there is a choice, I always choose the product that contributes to the least amount of pollution./When I am shopping, I try to buy from companies that are working to improve conditions for their employees.

    2. (7.2)

      Whenever possible I buy products packaged in recyclable containers./I try to buy from companies that hire people with disabilities.

    3. (7.3)

      When I purchase products, I make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants./I make an effort to buy products and services from companies that pay all of their employees a living wage.

    4. (7.4)

      When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one less harmful to natural environment./When given a chance, I switch to brands where a portion of the price is donated to charity.

    5. (7.5)

      I do not buy a product if the company that sells it is environmentally irresponsible./I do not buy a product if the company that sells it is socially irresponsible.

    6. (7.6)

      I have switched products for ecological reasons./I have switched products for social reasons.

  8. 8.

    Information availability about environmental/social impact (INFORMATION) (self-made)

    1. (8.1)

      I usually verify the information given by the companies about their environmental impact/social impact.

    2. (8.2)

      I usually know where to verify the information about the products environmental impact/social impact.

    3. (8.3)

      I know the environmental impact/social impact of products I usually buy.

    4. (8.4)

      I know the production process impact of environmental products/socially friendly products I usually buy.

  9. 9.

    Ethical obligation

    (Ethics Position Questionnaire, Forsyth 1980 in Singhapakdi et al. 1996; selected 5 idealism items from 10 idealism and 10 relativism items, social dimension scale was adapted based on insights from interviews)

    1. (9.1)

      A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm environment even to a small degree./A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another person even to a small degree.

    2. (9.2)

      The existence of potential harm to environment is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained./The existence of potential harm to other people is always Wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.

    3. (9.3)

      One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of animals or environment./One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.

    4. (9.4)

      If an action could harm the environment, then it should not be done./If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.

    5. (9.5)

      The dignity and welfare of natural environment and animals should be the most important concern in any society./The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosta, M., Zabkar, V. Antecedents of Environmentally and Socially Responsible Sustainable Consumer Behavior. J Bus Ethics 171, 273–293 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation