Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Abstract
This paper examines green consumption in the context of an increasing focus on sustainable
lifestyles. The authors argue that green buying must be seen in the context of wider debates
surrounding the development of sustainable ways of living that incorporate other environmental
actions in an holistic conceptualisation of sustainable lifestyles. This framework is operationalised in
a study of environmental action in and around the home, in which 1600 households in Devon were
asked questions concerning their everyday environmental actions. These results were manipulated so
as to investigate how the different behaviours related to each other and also whether different groups
of individuals could be identified, conforming to different lifestyles. The results suggest that
conventional forms of green consumption can indeed be related to other forms of environmental
action and that at least four different types of environmentalist can be identified. The implications of
these results for policy makers are discussed at the end of the paper.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Green consumption is a term that has come to mean all things to all people. In any one
context, there are alternative discourses that surround alternative forms of green buying,
which might pertain to a range of activities, from purchasing fairly traded tea bags to
buying organic meat. In some cases, these behaviours appear to be in conflict: buying local
food to support local producers (a brand of defensive localism identified by Winter [31]),
as compared to purchasing organically farmed produce (a choice based mainly on
ecological principles, as described by Ilbery et al. [11]). This ever-expanding liturgy of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C44 1392 26 3350; fax: C44 1392 26 3342.
E-mail address: a.w.gilg@exeter.ac.uk (A. Gilg).
0016-3287/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016
482 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
activities and products, which can be used as proxies for green consumption has
necessarily diluted the environmental dimension and incorporated numerous alternative
discourses that relate more readily to sustainability in general.
This paper seeks to examine these diverse set of green behaviours within the context of
research that has examined the social and psychological bases of sustainable lifestyles,
relating not merely to consumption practices, but also to habitual behaviours within the
home. By evaluating such activities in this way, it is anticipated that a more efficacious
understanding of progress towards sustainable lifestyles can be achieved in line with
similar research aims. For example, work by Green and Vergragt [8] who are examining
how consumers might alter their attitudes via a series of stakeholder workshops. Our
research however, is based on a major questionnaire survey of households and thus
provides a better indication of how widespread the adoption of green behaviours might be.
This paper thus examines a study of forty environmental actions and examines how
activities conventionally defined as green consumptive behaviours interact with other
activities, and whether individuals can be categorised according to these interactions.
Putting aside for a moment the arguments relating to the definition of green consumption,
previous research into green consumerism has been dominated by rural sociologists and
geographers. In the UK this work has mostly been focused on the links between agricultural
production and consumers, particularly the new food economy (e.g. Gilg and Battershill [7])
and the growth in sales of organic produce (Ilbery et al. [11]). However, considerably less
work has been undertaken on the social and psychological bases of green consumption. In
other words, who buys what, when and why? Researchers have identified three sets of
variables that appear to be influential in classifying the green consumer. These focus around
environmental and social values, socio-demographic variables and psychological factors.
This is a relatively recent area of research in green consumerism and as such definitive
results and conclusions regarding the role of concern and values are lacking. Research
examining other environmental actions has examined the impact that underlying values
have on behaviour. For example, Steel [27] found compelling evidence to suggest that
high levels of environmental activism were strongly linked to values that considered the
natural environment to be of great importance in someone’s life.
Work on the conceptualisation of environmental values has been given extra impetus in
recent years by the pioneering work of Schwartz [22] who examined the structure of social
values in various nations. He argued that there were essentially two social value
dimensions, pertaining to ‘altruistic—egoistic’ (or pro-social and pro-self) and
‘conservative—open to change’. Stern et al. [28] argued that environmentalists were
more likely to be both altruists and more open to change.
This theme runs alongside Inglehart’s [12] theory of post-materialism, where
environmentally concerned individuals are more likely to hold non-material values.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 483
Indeed, Leonard-Barton [15] has drawn the distinction between those who like an
‘indulgent’ lifestyle and those who are more frugal. These themes are shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 1, running from top left to bottom right. However, these
continua reflect general social values, rather than specific environmental concerns. Two
further continua can be identified. Firstly, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) which
relates to Dunlap and Van Liere’s [4] and Dunlap et al.’s [5] measure of environmental
values. These range from the notions of ‘spaceship earth’ and ‘nature as delicate’ at one
end of the spectrum to ‘no limits to growth’ and ‘man over nature’ at the other end. These
fundamentally relational values (that is, the relationship between humans and nature) can
also be related to a continuum, reflecting O’Riordan’s [18] concepts of ecocentrism and
technocentrism. In this continuum actions taken towards the environment are evaluated
according to whether individuals believe environmental protection is achieved via
working with nature or by changing it by the use of technology.
Within this context, only a small number of research projects have examined the role of
values on green consumer behaviour although there is a growing interest as exemplified by
Thogerson and Olander [29] who tested the hypothesis that sustainable consumption is
influenced by individual value priorities. There is evidence from a study by Karp [13] that
those engaged in green consumer activities were more likely to hold altruistic values. Stern
et al. [28] also examined Schwartz’s [22] value orientations, although they only found a
relationship between green consumption and a general measure of environmental concern.
More compelling evidence has come from studies by Chan [2] and Roberts [20]. In the
former study, Chan [2] found that those who shopped regularly for ‘green’ products and
spent more on green produce in relation to other products, were more likely to score highly
on his measure of biospherism, which related to a ‘man-nature’ orientation. In the latter
study by Roberts [20] there was evidence that those who scored highly on his
‘Ecologically Conscious Consumer Scale’ were more likely to believe in ‘limits to
growth’, a ‘spaceship earth’ and an ‘equality with nature’. This provides further evidence
484 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
that those more heavily engaged in green consumption are more likely to hold ecocentric
and biospheric values.
Thirdly, there are what can be termed psychological factors that are personal attitudes
held by the individual concerning the behaviour in question. The psychological influences
relating to green consumption can be categorised into the following groups:
† Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). This examines the extent to which any one
consumer can have an impact on the environment. It has generally been found that a
high level of PCE results in greater levels of green consumerism (Kinnear et al. [14];
Tucker [30]; Roberts [20]);
† Self efficacy, relating to one’s own ability to take part in green consumption
(Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Sparks and Shepherd [26]);
† Social responsibility. The extent to which an individual feels morally responsible to
take part (Tucker [30]; Schwepker and Cornwell [24]; Mainerei et al [16]);
† The interaction of the effects of price, quality and brand loyalty (Schuhwerk and
Lefkoff-Haguis [23]; Shrum et al [25]; Mainerei et al. [16]).
Given the different factors that potentially influence green consumer activities, the
research reported in this paper sought to examine these influences within the context of
sustainable lifestyles and the way in which different groups of individuals may form
behavioural types that relate to some or all of the qualities listed above.
The research on which this paper is based was undertaken in the summer of 2002 as part
of a large ESRC-funded project examining environmental action in and around the home
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 485
in Devon, UK. The research sought to examine how different types of environmental
action, such as energy saving, water conservation, waste management and green
consumption were related and what factors influenced different levels of behavioural
commitment.
The study was focused around a fourteen page questionnaire that asked respondents
how often they undertook a series of pre-determined environmental actions, scoring their
responses on a five point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Respondents were also asked
questions relating to their socio-demographic profile, attitudes and values. The
questionnaire was hand-delivered to 1600 households and collected two to three days
later. Of the 1600 surveys, 400 each were delivered to households in Plymouth, Exeter,
Barnstaple and Mid-Devon, in order to provide a representative sample from both urban
and rural areas. Households were selected by a random procedure developed for sampling
from the Electoral Register. If no response was received at a property, or the householder
declined to participate, the next house was selected.
The response rate was 59%, indicating the number of households originally selected
who participated in the survey, but rose to a 79% return rate from respondents who agreed
to take part and returned usable questionnaires.
4. Results
The findings of the research are divided into three sections. First, the relationship that
conventionally defined green consumer behaviours have to other environmental actions is
considered. Second, an analysis of the frequency with which individuals undertook such
activities is examined. Finally, the different levels of behavioural commitment are
examined in the context of the various factors that have been linked to green consumerism,
such as environmental values, socio-demographics and psychological factors.
Given the premise that green consumption has become so widely defined that its
efficacy as a term has become somewhat meaningless, the research was concerned with
examining the extent to which traditionally defined green consumer behaviours were
linked empirically to other activities. A ‘conventional definition’ refers to the behaviours
that are most regularly referred to as being examples of green consumption. In the case of
this research, these were selected from specific advice provided by the county authority in
Devon (Devon County Council), alongside recommendations from district authorities
(Plymouth City Council, Exeter City Council, North Devon and Mid Devon District
Councils). These focused on the following activities:
The frequency results for the total sample (N 1265) were compared to those for
alternative behaviours by means of a factor analysis, in order to examine whether green
consumer behaviours were both related to each other and different activities. Factor
analysis is commonly used amongst social scientists in order to evaluate the empirical
links between large numbers of questionnaire items and to establish whether items in a
questionnaire represent an underlying theme or pattern. Table 1 provides the results of the
factor analysis.
Of the three distinct factors to emerge, only one (Purchase decisions) contains the
green consumer items. The other two factors relate either to habitual activities within
the home or recycling behaviour. However, the purchase decisions factor contains not
only green consumer items as one might expect by convention, but also items
pertaining to energy saving, waste management and also waster conservation.
Accordingly, if one accepts that the factor analysis provides an accurate representation
of the empirical relationships observed, there appears to be a wider behavioural
dimension to green purchasing than merely those activities which have conventionally
been classified as green consumption.
This has particular relevance with regard to the inclusion of energy saving behaviours
(looking for energy efficient appliances and light bulbs). It would appear that behaviours
that relate to a given form of consumption activity are related, which can cross into other
realms, such as energy conservation. This model evidently does not fit as well with the
two items relating to composting activities in the immediate sense. However, this
apparently habitual activity may be related more to consumptive behaviours by virtue not
of the activity itself, but rather the conscious purchase decision that might be required to
buy the materials for composting organic waste. This is different to the relatively
unconscious habitual activities in the habitual factor, relating to switching off lights or
heating.
These data have two significant implications for research on green consumerism and
sustainable lifestyles. First, they suggest that different forms of behaviour are linked such
that traditional boundaries relating to energy saving, water conservation and so on are
inappropriate in the study of sustainable lifestyles and that a more holistic approach is
required. Second, they provide evidence that green consumption encompasses even more
behaviours than even those mentioned by policy makers. Accordingly, given this finding,
it may be more appropriate to refer to such activities as either sustainable consumption
(referring as this can to purchases from a local shop, for example, which are not
intrinsically green) or sustainable purchasing.
Although there was a clearly definable ‘purchase decisions’ factor evident in the data,
this did not imply that everyone who undertook these activities did so with the same
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 487
Table 1
Factor solution for behavioural data
regularity. Fig. 2 provides data on the frequency with which individuals undertook each of
the behaviours within the purchase decisions factor. As can be seen, there was wide
variation between the particular activities, with the purchase of energy efficient light bulbs
being the most popular, whilst composting of kitchen waste was the least popular.
Nonetheless, despite these variations, there is one overriding pattern, which is defined by
the low levels of activity in almost all cases. For example, fewer than 5% of the sample
always purchased organic foods and fairly traded products. Although some 20%
sometimes did, almost 60% of the sample either rarely or never did. This is in the context
488 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
Fig. 2. Purchase decisions, Purchase decisions (item order relates to the order in the factor solution in Table 1),
EN1, Purchase high efficiency light bulbs; EN2, Purchase energy efficient items; GC1, Buy organic food; GC2,
Buy FairTrade goods; GC3, Do not purchase aerosols; W1, Compost garden waste; W2, Compost kitchen waste;
GC4, Purchase less harmful detergents; W3, Reuse glass; W4, Reuse paper; GC5, Buy recycled writing paper;
GC6, Buy recycled toilet tissue; GC7, Buy Local produce; GC8, Buy food from a local store; GC9, Use own bag
when shopping; GC10, Look for less packaging; WA1, Use plants that need less water.
of a range of supermarkets, most notably Iceland, promoting organics. Indeed, the Co-op
group has also been keen to promote fairly traded produce, such as tea, coffee, bananas and
chocolate. Even for the more widely available products, such as recycled toilet tissue, only
just over 10% reported always purchasing this. More individuals were engaged in
purchases of local produce and buying from local shops, although it is acknowledged that
both of these could indeed cover a range of (not necessarily sustainable) behaviours.
Whichever way one interprets the data, there is little doubt that sustainable consumption is
not on the minds of the majority of individuals.
In order to investigate whether there were differences between individuals in the sample
according to their consumption habits and to attempt to classify these lifestyles, a cluster
analysis of the data was undertaken. Cluster analysis is a technique that is used by social
scientists in order to classify individuals into a manageable set of groups. The procedure is
based on the premise that at the beginning of the analysis, all individuals in the sample can
be paired into clusters. Individuals are paired and paired again according to the similarity
of their scores on a range of items until there is only one cluster left. At some point that
seems appropriate, a given number of clusters are retained for analysis, This is usually
based on how the data have grouped together and is interpreted using a dendrogram.
In the case of the current research, four clusters were chosen. The behavioural qualities
of these four groups can be seen in Fig. 3. Compared to Fig. 2, there are significant
differences.
Committed environmentalists were the most enthusiastic group, who were the most likely
to always compost their waste and were far more likely to ‘usually’ undertake sustainable
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 489
purchase activities, especially the purchase of local produce and from buying a local store.
However, although this group were indeed more likely to buy organic produce and fairly
traded products, there were still a minority of individuals involved in these activities.
Mainstream environmentalists undertook the range of behaviours with the same
regularity on the whole as committed environmentalists, although they were considerably
less likely to compost their waste.
Fig. 3. Behavioural types, Please see Fig. 2 for explanation of labels, (a) Committed environmentalists (Group 1),
(b) Mainstream environmentalists (Group 2), (c) Occasional environmentalists (Group 3), (d) Non-
environmentalists (Group 4).
490 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
Fig. 3 (continued )
This is in contrast to occasional environmentalists who were more likely to either never
or rarely undertake sustainable purchasing behaviours. This was especially the case in
respect of buying organic or fairly traded produce, alongside local purchases.
However, non-environmentalists were the least active, with the majority of individuals
never undertaking almost all of the activities listed. These individuals were clearly not
inclined to undertake any of the behaviours in question.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 491
These four groups represent clear behavioural boundaries that may assist policy makers
to more accurately focus policies that seek to promote green consumption. However, to do
this, they must appreciate the nature and characteristics of the individuals involved.
† The mean age of committed environmentalists is highest, with the mean age of non-
environmentalists being the lowest;
† There were significantly more males in the non-environmentalist cluster. The gender
balance remains relatively stable in the three remaining clusters;
† Committed and mainstream environmentalists tended to have smaller household sizes
than occasional or non-environmentalists. A significantly large number of households
in these latter groups had more than five individuals in the home;
† Car access fluctuated according to the cluster examined, although this was not
statistically significant;
† Committed environmentalists tended to own their home, whilst a greater proportion of
non-environmentalists were either private tenants or rented their home from a local
authority;
† Committed individuals tended to live in terraced properties, whilst mainstream
environmentalists were more likely to live in semi-detached homes;
† Non-environmentalists were on significantly lower incomes. This was the case for the
lowest income band of under 7500 a year. However, a significantly higher proportion of
committed environmentalists earned between 7500 and 10,000 pounds. The higher
income brackets were equally spread between groups;
† Committed environmentalists were less likely to have received any formal education,
but at the same time, were also more likely to have a degree. In the case of non-
environmentalists, a large proportion had received no formal education, with low levels
of GCSE, A-level and degree qualifications. Mainstream and occasional environmen-
talists tended to have GCSE qualifications;
† Non-environmentalists contained a large amount of Labour voters as well as a
significant proportion that did not vote. There were markedly fewer Liberal Democrat
voters amongst this group. Committed environmentalists were more likely to vote
Green and Liberal Democrat. They were also the most likely to vote. Mainstream and
occasional environmentalists represented what one might expect to be the national
situation, with Labour the dominant party of choice, followed by the Conservative’s
and Liberal Democrat’s;
492 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
Table 2
Demographic characteristics of behavioural clusters
Table 2 (continued)
Evidently there are more trends that can be described from the table, but for the
purposes of brevity it is interesting to note that those most committed to sustainable
consumption were older, tended to own their home, lived in a terraced property, voted
Green/Liberal Democrat and were members of community groups. In contrast, those who
were non-environmentalists tended to be younger, male, on low incomes, who had
received less formal education, were less involved in the community and were more likely
to be politically apathetic.
These assertions are clearly generalisations. However, they are based on discernible
statistical patterns. What must be noted is that there are not clear distinctions that can be
drawn along a continuum, from ‘committed’ to ‘non-environmentalist’. There are variable
demographic characteristics depending on which cluster one examines. Nonetheless, there
are clear trends that have significant implications for policy makers.
Table 3
Social value factors
Individuals were asked how important each value was to their own life, rating each from 1 (very unimportant) to 5
(very important).
pattern emerges relating to apparent differences between clusters 1–3 and cluster 4. For
example, those in cluster 4 (non-environmentalists) were least likely to regard being
helpful as an important principle in their lives. However, it is with regard to the
conservative and egoism factors that substantive differences are observed. Committed
environmentalists were the most likely to feel that unity was important, along with
obedience, alongside placing little emphasis on wealth and personal influence.
With regard to environmental values, Table 4 shows the factorial structure of the three
factors that emerged, conforming to well-known concepts. Fig. 5 provides data on each of the
factors and the scores for each group. Non-environmentalists in this case were the most likely
to believe that there were no limits to growth for the UK and that humankind was created to
rule over nature. Indeed, they were least likely to believe that the balance of nature is delicate,
that the Earth was like a spaceship, or that plants and animals were not solely for human use.
These findings are significant, as they show that those individuals who are less involved
in sustainable purchasing behaviours share significantly different values to those who are
more heavily involved. These range over both social and environmental values and a
variety of these in turn. Clearly, the environmentalist is less concerned with material
wealth and personal influence, alongside holding values that place nature in an equal
position with humans and believing that nature has critical limits which must not be
crossed by human developments.
contained variables that have previously been found to influence green consumer
behaviour. These related to response efficacy or perceived consumer effectiveness, the
influence of responsibility, the effect of price sensitivity, and health and safety concerns.
As for environmental and social values above, the individual scores for each variable are
given for every one of the four behavioural groups.
Fig. 6a provides data relating to the outcome beliefs and response efficacy of the sample.
It is immediately apparent that there is a discernible trend in the data, with committed
Fig. 4. Group properties for social values, Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), Mood’s
Median statistic computed for each factor, denoting whether there was a statistically significant difference
between the four cluster groups. (a) Altruistic (MZ5.8; pO0.05), (b) Openness to change (MZ2.6; pO0.05), (c)
Conservative MZ7.8;p!0.05), (d) Egoistic (MZ9.8; p!0.05).
496 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
Fig. 4 (continued )
environmentalists the most likely to believe that environmental actions will have a positive
outcome, whereas non-environmentalists are significantly less likely to have faith in their
actions. This conclusion should be qualified by noting that although statistically there was a
significant difference between the four groups, the majority in all cases agreed that their
actions would be effective. This is encouraging, but also highlights the difficulties policy
makers face in engaging citizens in participation, given that even individuals who are the
least committed report fairly high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness.
Fig. 6b provides evidence for a more discernible difference between committed
environmentalists and non-environmentalists. Whereas 90% of committed environmen-
talists rejected the idea that environmental problems were the government’s responsibility,
only 43% of non-environmentalists agreed with this notion. This is significant, since
previous research into green consumption has made explicit the links between
personalisation of responsibility and effective environmental action. These data therefore
support this assertion. Differences may also be seen with regard to the trust that individuals
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 497
Table 4
Environmental value factors
Individuals were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
placed in the different sources of information provided. Whilst three of the four groups
believed that environmental groups provided trustworthy information, more than twice the
number of non-environmentalists stated that they disagreed with this. This might point to a
link between the level of trust in specific information providers and the efficacy of the
arguments in changing behaviours, which that organisation promotes.
The impact of price on sustainable consumption can be seen in Fig. 6c, where it is clear
that committed environmentalists were more likely to purchase products on their
environmental credentials, with price being less of a factor in the purchase decision. In this
case, the trend is almost uniform between the four groups, with attitudes changing
incrementally from committed to non-environmentalist groups. Such data indicate the
different perceptions of price that impact on personal attitudes towards purchasing in a
sustainable way.
Finally, Fig. 6d provides data relating to green consumer beliefs. In this case, the difference
between the committed and non-environmentalist groups are distinctly uniform, with
committed environmentalists stating that health issues, safety concerns, buying locally and
believing that green consumption helped the environment all scoring over 70% agreement.
Non-environmentalists were the least concerned with these issues, with under 40% stating that
498 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
they felt buying locally was important and only 49% agreeing that green consumption helped
the environment, compared to 83% of committed environmentalists. These data therefore
clearly demonstrate the impact of health and safety concerns in purchase decisions made by
individuals who choose to participate in sustainable consumption.
5. Discussion
The data presented in this paper provide compelling evidence to support the assertion
that green consumption may be more appropriately termed sustainable consumption or
Fig. 5. Environmental Values (please see Table 4 for statement wording) Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster
membership (Fig. 3) (a) Faith in Growth (MZ12.6; p!0.05)), (b) Spaceship Earth (MZ10.2; p!0.05), (c)
Ecocentrism-technocentrism (MZ3.9; pO0.05).
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 499
Fig. 5 (continued)
The evidence provided in this research supports the work of Stern et al. [28], Roberts
[19] and Chan [2] in their assertions that green consumers tend to hold more pro-
environmental and pro-social values. The data in Figs. 3 and 4 clearly demonstrate that
committed environmentalists valued wealth, personal influence and power less than unity
and other aspects of altruism. In contrast, non-environmentalists scored the lowest on these
measures. Indeed, committed environmentalists were more likely to hold biospheric
and ecocentric values, emphasising equality with nature and a need to work with the
environment, rather than relying on technological solutions. Such data provide a good
basis on which to argue that sustainable lifestyles may be formulated around a distinctive
pro-social ethic, which is open to change and values nature intrinsically. From the
perspective of policy, this may provide certain difficulties, since values are not easily
manipulated by conventional policy measures, as perhaps attitudes can be.
500 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
Fig. 6. Selected social-psychological factors, Figures on the X-axis refer to cluster membership (Fig. 3), (a)
Outcome beliefs (MZ45.1; p!0.05), Good economics, It makes good economic sense to help the environment,
NZ1245; Energy beliefs, Energy saving in the home helps reduce global warming, NZ1242; Response efficacy,
Each person’s behaviour can have a positive effect on society and the environment, NZ1245; Waste beliefs,
Reducing household waste and recycling saves rubbish being buried in landfill, NZ1241; (b) Trust and
responsibility (MZ12.3; p!0.05). Government responsibility, Environmental problems are the government’s
responsibility*, NZ1234; Trust in information, The information I receive about environmental issues is
trustworthy, NZ1233; Environmental group information, Environmental groups provide the most accurate
information about the environment, NZ1241; (c) Price (MZ32.5; p!0.05), Price of eco-friendly products,
Unless environmentally-friendly products come down in price, I will buy normal brands*, NZ1235; Importance
of nature, The price is uppermost in my mind when I buy products*, NZ1241; Prefer eco-friendly produce, I’d
rather buy environmentally-friendly products than purchase cheaper alternatives, NZ1238; Willing to pay more,
Paying higher prices for environmentally-friendly products is worth the extra cost, NZ1241; (d) Green consumer
beliefs (MZ84.9; p!0./05); Health concerns, The health benefits of certain foods are a key priority when I go
shopping, NZ1241; Safety concerns, Food safety is important when I go shopping, NZ1239; Importance of local
produce, Buying local produce is very important, NZ1238; Green consumer beliefs, Buying green produce helps
the environment, NZ1241; For all items marked * the raw scores (measured on a scale of 1Zstrongly disagree to
5Zstrongly agree) were reverse coded so that in all cases agreement/strong agreement reflects a pro-
environmental position; Mood’s Median test was used to examine any statistically significant differences between
the cluster groups.
A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504 501
Fig. 6 (continued)
5.2. Socio-demographics
Some of the conclusions reached by workers in this field can be substantiated from this
research. Roberts’ [20]) finding that age had a positive impact on green consumption is
supported by the evidence in Table 2, where there was a difference of 12 years in the mean
age of committed and non-environmentalists. Such a finding may support Hallin’s [9]
hypothesis that older age groups are more likely to save and ‘make do’, given that they are
from the Second World War generation. Nonetheless, the incorporation of other variables,
such as fairly traded goods and recycled products may hint at another hypothesis that is as
yet poorly understood.
Although gender does not show significant differences except for the non-
environmentalist group, this finding is significant, as it supports Roberts’ [20] assertion
502 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
of some gender imbalance. The male dominance (relatively) of this group supports
evidence from other environmental behaviour research (e.g. Barr et al. [1]; Hines et al.
[10]) that males may be less environmentally active. This may relate to Eagly’s [6] theory
of gender role expectations in which males and females seek to aspire to commonly
perceived gender roles and would have to be placed in the context of the division of labour
in households relating to the consumption of certain goods.
Olli et al.’s [17] thesis relating to the effect of income is partly substantiated by this
paper, in which a large proportion of committed environmentalists earned between 7.5 and
10 thousand Pounds. However, a larger proportion of non-environmentalists earned under
7.5 thousand Pounds. Such a position is difficult to interpret and does not appear to fall
within conventional thinking on environmental action (Hines et al. [10] that relates to a
general trend for higher income earning individuals to be more environmentally
conscious.
Finally, in regard to political attitudes, this research supports Dunlap’s [3] initial
assertion that liberal individuals were more likely to support environmentalism. More
Green and Liberal Democrat voters were committed environmentalists. However, more
concerning is the level of political apathy that non-environmentalists demonstrated, with a
larger proportion not voting.
A further finding that has not been reported in the literature includes the high proportion
of owner-occupiers in the committed environmentalists group and the high amount of non-
environmentalists in the renting/local authority sector.
From the perspective of policy, these results are important, as they may be able to
provide a means by which to focus specific measures to encourage sustainable living.
These might be demographically based, with emphasis being placed on younger
individuals, such as males. They may also be spatially distributed, focusing on individuals
in certain areas with high levels of renting/local authority tenancy.
such as the health and safety benefits, be that for organic produce or locally produced
foods.
6. Conclusion
Any move to sustainability and sustainable lifestyles will be a gradual process, but must
be seen in the context of an holistic move towards new lifestyles, incorporating purchase-
related and habitual elements that cross conventional behavioural boundaries. The
challenges for policy makers wishing to engage in this move relate to both a realigning of
the language of consumption, away from ‘green’ and towards ‘sustainable’, so as to
incorporate activities that do not necessarily have green credentials, but also a greater
focus on who does what. This research has clearly shown that specific demographic
groups, with particular behavioural qualities and attitudes, are engaging in a varied way in
sustainability. If policy makers can use this approach, which can be utilised to target
specific groups, then the move to sustainable lifestyles will be achieved with greater
efficacy.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks the Economic and Social Research Council for
financial assistance in undertaking this research (Grant No. R000239417).
References
[1] S. Barr, A. Gilg, N. Ford, A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards
household waste management, Environment and Planning A 33 (2001) 2025–2048.
[2] R. Chan, Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior, Psychology and Marketing 18
(2001) 389–413.
[3] R. Dunlap, The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions, Environment and
Behavior 7 (1975) 428–453.
[4] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, The new environmental paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1978)
10–19.
[5] R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, R. Jones, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a
revised NEP scale, Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000) 425–442.
[6] A. Eagly, Sex Differences In Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.
[7] A. Gilg, M. Battershill, Quality food from Europe: a possible alternative to the industrialised food market
and to current agro-environmental policies, Food Policy 23 (1998) 25–40.
[8] K. Green, P. Vergragt, Towards sustainable households: a methodology for developing sustainable
technological and social innovations, Futures 34 (2002) 381–400.
[9] P. Hallin, Environmental concern and environmental behaviour in Foley, a small town in Minnesota,
Environmental and Behavior 27 (1995) 558–578.
[10] J. Hines, H. Hungerford, A. Tomera, Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental
behavior: a meta analysis, Journal of Environmental Education 18 (1987) 1–8.
[11] B. Ilbery, L. Holloway, R. Arber, The geography of organic farming in England and Wales in the 1990s,
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90 (1999) 285–295.
504 A. Gilg et al. / Futures 37 (2005) 481–504
[12] R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Western Society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990.
[13] D. Karp, Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior, Environment and Behavior 28 (1996) 111–
133.
[14] T. Kinnear, J. Taylor, S. Ahmed, Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they?, Journal of Marketing
38 (1974) 20–24.
[15] D. Leonard-Barton, Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation, Journal of Consumer Research.
8 (1981) 243–252.
[16] T. Mainerie, E. Barnett, T. Valdero, J. Unipan, S. Oskamp, Green buying: the influence of environmental
concern on consumer behaviour, Journal of Social Psychology 137 (1997) 189–204.
[17] E. Olli, D. Grendstad, D. Wollebark, Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context,
Environment and Behavior 33 (2001) 181–208.
[18] T. O’Riordan, Future directions in environmental policy, Environment and Planning A 17 (1985) 1431–
1446.
[19] J. Roberts, Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ behavior, Psychological Reports 73 (1993)
139–148.
[20] J. Roberts, Green consumers in the 1990’s: profile and implications for advertising, Journal of Business
Research 36 (1996) 217–231.
[21] C. Sanne, Willing consumers-or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption, Ecological Economics
42 (2002) 273–287.
[22] S. Schwartz, Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20
countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10 (1992) 221–279.
[23] M. Schuhwerk, S. Lefkoff-Hagius, Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when advertising a
green product, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 45–54.
[24] C. Schwepker, T. Cornwell, An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to
purchase ecologically packaged products, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10 (1991) 77–101.
[25] L. Shrum, J. McCarty, T. Lowrey, Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for
advertising strategy, Journal of Advertising 24 (1995) 71–82.
[26] P. Sparks, R. Shepherd, Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: the role of identification with
‘green consumerism’, Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (1992) 388–399.
[27] B. Steel, Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental attitudes, behaviour and activism, Journal of
Environmental Management 47 (1996) 27–36.
[28] P. Stern, T. Dietz, G. Guagnano, The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context,
Environment and Behavior 27 (1995) 723–743.
[29] J. Thogerson, F. Olander, Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel
study, Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2002) 605–630.
[30] L. Tucker, Identifying the environmentally responsible consumer: the role of internal–external control of
reinforcements, Journal of Consumer Affairs 14 (1980) 326–340.
[31] M. Winter, Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism, Journal of Rural Studies 19
(2003) 21–32.