Explaining Sustainable Food Consumption using Category and Consumer Characteristics

(1)

ABSTRACT

Explaining Sustainable Food

Consumption using Category and

Consumer Characteristics

An Empirical Investigation in the Netherlands

(2)

ABSTRACT

Raalte, July 9th 2010

Master thesis

Master of Business Administration

Marketing Management and Marketing Research

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business University of Groningen The Netherlands Dennis Nijenhuis Singraven 15 8103 HE Raalte The Netherlands Telephone: +31(0)642752890 E-mail: dfjnijenhuis@live.nl

LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dennis-nijenhuis/12/835/b61 Student number: 1536990

Supervision

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Marketing First supervisor: dr. J. (Jenny) van Doorn, Assistant Professor of Marketing

Second supervisor: prof. dr. P.C. (Peter) Verhoef, Professor of Marketing

Explaining Sustainable Food

Consumption using Category and

(3)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS ABSTRACT

A

BSTRACT

In this thesis the relationships between product category and consumer characteristics and sustainable consumer behavior are studied. A framework for understanding these relationships is presented and used to generate hypotheses. In total, seven product category characteristics, thirteen consumer characteristics (socio-demographics, attitudes and consumer type) and seasonality effects are considered. Scanner panel data of 1353 households and 29 product categories is used in combination with survey data. The results indicate that education level, a biospheric value orientation, being a male, NEP-score (environmentalism) and susceptibility to normative influence are consumer characteristics that are strongly and positively related to sustainable consumer behavior. Furthermore, the results indicate that an egoistic or altruistic value orientation, loyalty and price sensitivity are consumer characteristics that are negatively related to sustainable consumer behavior. No (strong) statistically significant relationships are found between the consumer characteristics age, income per capita, CFC-score, health prevention, innovativeness and quality sensitivity and sustainable consumer behavior.

Additionally, this research demonstrates that sustainable consumer behavior is higher in categories that offer utilitarian products, in categories that offer relatively more sustainable products, in categories that are more competitive and in categories that are characterized by a high promotional intensity. Category advertising intensity and category perishability appear to be category characteristics that are negatively related to sustainable consumer behavior.

Moreover, this thesis demonstrates that seasonality effects are important in explaining sustainable consumer behavior, since consumers purchase relatively more sustainable products in the beginning of the year than in the last two months of the year.

Finally, the reasons for these results and their implications for retail managers, food manufacturers and public policy makers are discussed.

(4)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS PREFACE

P

REFACE

In front of you lies my final piece of work as a student. In September 2005 I went to the north of the Netherlands and started with the challenge to get my university degree. After five memorable years in Groningen, this thesis represents the end of my study MSc Business Administration Marketing Management and Marketing Research. I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people

who made it possible for me to write this thesis and to graduate from university.

First, I would like to thank Dr. Jenny van Doorn for providing me the opportunity to work with a valuable dataset on sustainable consumer behavior. I would also like to thank Dr. van Doorn for her suggestions and the critical comments on the drafts I handed in. With her advice I kept an academic focus during the research. Moreover, I want to show my gratitude to my second supervisor, Prof. Dr.

Peter Verhoef, for his feedback on my work.

In addition, I also have to thank Marleen Tijs for the years we experienced together in Groningen and for being a sparring partner. With her discipline, intelligence and love she motivated and supported

me during my studies.

Last but not least I want to thank my parents for giving me the opportunity to study at the university in the first place and for the continuous support of them in all aspects in accomplishing my challenge,

a Master’s degree in Marketing.

(5)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS TABLE OF CONTENTS

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

ABSTRACT III

PREFACE IV

LIST OF FIGURES VII

LIST OF TABLES VII

LIST OF EQUATIONS VII

GLOSSARY VIII

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1.SCOPE OF THE STUDY:SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION IN THE DUTCH FOOD MARKET 3

1.2.RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3

1.3.THEORETICAL AND SOCIAL RELEVANCE 4

1.4.STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 6

2.1.DEFINITION 6

2.2.RELEVANT LITERATURE 6

2.2.1.PRODUCT-RELATED DETERMINANTS OF SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOR 7 2.2.2.CONSUMER-RELATED DETERMINANTS OF SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOR 8

2.2.2.1. Consumer’s socio-demographics 9

2.2.2.2. Consumer’s psycho-social variables 10

2.2.2.2.1. Consumer’s value orientation 10

2.2.2.2.2. Consumer’s environmental concern 11

2.2.2.2.3. Consumer’s consideration of future consequences 11

2.2.2.2.4. Consumer’s health concern 11

2.2.2.2.5. Consumer’s social/moral norms 12

2.2.2.3. Other consumer characteristics 13

2.3.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 15

2.3.1.THE EFFECT OF PRODUCT/CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 15

2.3.1.1. Hedonic or utilitarian product categories 15

2.3.1.2. Sustainable products’ price premium 17

2.3.1.3. Category’s competitiveness 17

2.3.1.4. Category’s perishability 19

(6)

2.3.1.6. Category’s promotional intensity 20

2.3.1.7. Sustainable products’ availability 20

2.3.2.THE EFFECT OF CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 21

2.3.2.1. Socio-demographic variables 21

2.3.2.2. Psycho-social variables 22

2.3.2.3. Consumer type 24

2.3.3.THE EFFECT OF SEASONALITY ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 25

3. RESEARCH DESIGN 26

3.1.RESEARCH METHOD 26

3.2.DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT 26

3.2.1.DEPENDENT VARIABLE 27

3.2.2.INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS 27 3.2.3.INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS 28

3.3.DATA DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND QUALITY 30

3.4.PLAN OF ANALYSIS 30

3.5.MODEL VALIDATION 32

4. RESULTS 34

4.1.CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS 35

4.2.CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS 36

4.2.1.SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 36

4.2.2.PSYCHO-SOCIAL VARIABLES 37

4.2.3.CONSUMER TYPE 38

4.3.SEASONALITY EFFECTS 38

5. DISCUSSION 39

5.1.CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS 39

5.2.CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS 42

5.2.1.SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 42

5.2.2.PSYCHO-SOCIAL VARIABLES 43

5.2.3.CONSUMER TYPE 44

5.3.SEASONALITY EFFECTS 45

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46

6.1.WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS ON THE LEVEL OF SUSTAINABLE EXPENDITURES OF

CONSUMERS IN DUTCH SUPERMARKETS? 46

6.2.WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS ON THE LEVEL OF SUSTAINABLE EXPENDITURES OF

CONSUMERS IN DUTCH SUPERMARKETS? 47

6.3.WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF SEASONALITY ON THE LEVEL OF SUSTAINABLE EXPENDITURES OF CONSUMERS IN

(7)

7. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 50

8. REFERENCES 52

9. APPENDICES 61

APPENDIX 1:OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE REVIEW 61

APPENDIX 2:DATA SOURCES PER VARIABLE 65

APPENDIX 3:29 PRODUCT CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY 67

APPENDIX 4A:OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT LABELS 68

APPENDIX 4B:OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT LABELS (LOGOS) 69

APPENDIX 5A:AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SUSTAINABLE PURCHASES PER CATEGORY PERIOD 1 70

APPENDIX 5B:AVERAGE PERCENTAGE SUSTAINABLE PURCHASES PER CATEGORY PERIOD 2 71

APPENDIX 6:MEASURES CONSUMERS’ PSYCHO-SOCIAL VARIABLES 72

APPENDIX 7:MEASURES CONSUMER TYPE VARIABLES 74

APPENDIX 8:ASSESSMENT OF CATEGORY COMPETITIVENESS: NUMBER OF BRANDS PER CATEGORY 76

APPENDIX 9:ASSESSMENT OF CATEGORY’S SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS’ AVAILABILITY: % SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS

PER CATEGORY 77

APPENDIX 10:ALL CATEGORY VARIABLES 78

APPENDIX 11A:DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS EXPLANATORY VARIABLES PERIOD 1 79

APPENDIX 11B:DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS EXPLANATORY VARIABLES PERIOD 2 80

APPENDIX 12A:CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXPLANATORY VARIABLES PERIOD 1 81

APPENDIX 12B:CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXPLANATORY VARIABLES PERIOD 2 82

APPENDIX 12C:LEGEND APPENDIX 12A AND APPENDIX 12B 83

(8)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS LIST OF FIGURES, LIST OF TABLES & LIST OF EQUATIONS

L

IST OF

F

IGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework 14

L

IST OF

T

ABLES

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the households (N = 1353) 28

Table 2: Model evaluation 33

Table 3: Model results period 1 34

Table 4: Model results period 2 34

Table 5: Summary of hypotheses and results 40

L

IST OF

E

QUATIONS

Equation 1: Share sustainable food purchasesij (dependent variable) 27

Equation 2: Share sustainable food purchasesij (specified model) 31

Equation 3: Share sustainable food purchases November and Decemberij 32

Equation 4: Share sustainable food purchases January, February and Marchij 32

(9)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS GLOSSARY

G

LOSSARY

CFC: Consideration of Future Consequences. CFC concerns differences in the extent to which individuals are influenced by the immediate versus distant consequences of their behavior (Strathman et al., 1994).

MLwiN (Version 2.17): A statistical software package for fitting multilevel models (Rasbash, Charlton, Browne, Healy and Cameron, 2009).

Multilevel model: Multilevel models recognize the existence of a hierarchical or clustered data structure/hierarchy (Hox, 1995). Equivalents: hierarchical linear models, nested models, mixed models, random coefficient, random-effects models.

NEP: New Environmental Paradigm. This scale has become the most widely used measure of pro-environmental concern. The NEP scale focuses on beliefs about humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978).

(10)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS GLOSSARY

(11)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS INTRODUCTION

1. I

NTRODUCTION

Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral (Bertolt Brecht, Die Dreigroschenoper, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1979 (1928): 69).

World food consumption, together with economic development, increased significantly in the last decades (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2002). From the mid-1960s till the late 1990s the availability of calories per capita per day increased globally by approximately 450 kcal. However, the observed consumption growth did not come without consequences. Numerous reports discuss the downside effects of increased consumption. In Sustainable Consumption: Facts and Trends (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2008), the authors state that consumerism is putting unsustainable stress on our ecosystems. Parallel to the increase in consumption, 60 percent of the Earth’s ecosystem services have been degraded in the past 50 years. Examples of these destructive changes are damage to the ozone layer, loss of agricultural land and depletion of natural resources. Hence, it is not surprising that the consumption problem entered the international policy discussions.

Already since the early 1970s, debate on consumption, in particular in the report ‘The Limits to Growth’ (Club of Rome, 1972), raised considerable public attention. More recently, in 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Rio Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro. During that conference the terminology of sustainable consumption entered the discussion. Alternative energy sources, scarcity of water and poisonous production waste are issues that were addressed. Moreover, ‘an increased recognition that human activities are altering the ecosystems on which the existence of all living species is dependent and growing acknowledgement of the necessity of achieving more sustainable forms of development gave credence to suggestions that we are in the midst of a fundamental reevaluation of the underlying worldview that has guided our relationship to the physical environment’ (Milbrath, 1984). The concept of sustainable consumption itself was introduced in the chapter ‘Changing Consumption Patterns’ of the Rio Declaration. It encouraged ‘new concepts of wealth and prosperity which allow higher standards of living through changed lifestyles and are less dependent on the Earth’s finite resources’.

(12)

Generally, achieving sustainable development includes strategies to achieve goals in three aspects (World Bank, 2003), i.e. social (people), economic (profit) and environmental (planet). Consequently, sustainable products are products that contribute to one or a combination of these aspects (Reheul et al., 2001). The first aspect, social, comprises a better integration of society and the agro-food sector. Secondly, the economic aspect has mainly to do with a fair price for the agricultural producers. Finally, the ecological component refers to sustainability in the strict sense of preserving the environment and sustainable use of natural resources (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2005).

Since consumers are often appointed to play the key role in solving the problems caused by extreme consumerism (e.g. Stern et al., 1997) and especially consumers’ behavior is found to be important in achieving sustainable development (Levett et al., 2003), it is important to understand which factors influence consumers’ decision to consume sustainable. This thesis aims to uncover these influencing factors.

Considering sustainable consumer behavior, a lot is already known about relevant determinants of sustainable behavior nowadays. This is especially the case for consumer-related determinants. However, since both consumer and market factors are important drivers of product choices (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991), the primary concern of this study is to examine simultaneously whether market factors (supply side: category or product characteristics), such as hedonic/utilitarian nature of the category, category’s competitiveness, category’s promotional intensity and price difference between sustainable products and regular products and consumer characteristics (demand side), like gender, income, education, psycho-social variables and consumer type, affect the level of socially sustainable consumption by Dutch households. Notwithstanding the importance of consumer-related factors in explaining sustainable consumption, it is hypothesized that certain product-related factors, controlled by manufacturers or retailers, are relevant drivers of sustainable consumption. Additionally, it is examined whether seasonality effects play a role in sustainable consumer behavior.

(13)

1.1. Scope of the Study: Socially Sustainable Consumption in the Dutch Food Market

This study focuses on sustainable consumption in the Dutch food market. In general, sustainable consumption comprises socially-oriented consumer behavior, i.e. buying organic and Fair Trade products that carry labels such as Eko, Bio, Fair Trade and MSC. These products claim to protect the environment or divide income more equally than products that do not carry these labels (Pelsmacker, Driesen and Rayp, 2005).

Despite the consequences of the 2007-2010 financial crises on spendable income of households in the Netherlands, market shares of more expensive eco-products grew considerably. Revenues of Dutch supermarket chains from products with an eco-label rose by 10 percent in the first two quarters of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. In comparison, total revenues of supermarkets rose by 2,9 percent in that period (www.distrifood.nl). Moreover, according to the Max Havelaar Foundation, total revenues generated by Fair Trade products grew by 28 percent in 2008. Nevertheless, until today, the results of the efforts and intentions at the supply side and increasing levels of concern and awareness towards social and environmental issues at the demand side are mixed. In absolute figures, most consumers have not made the shift in lifestyle and purchasing decisions yet (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). In other countries, similar patterns are visible. The ‘Fair Share’, market shares of organic food products, products free from child labor and fair trade products is often less than 1 percent in practice (MacGillivray, 2000). Loureiro, McCluskey and Mittelhammer (2001) found similar trends. They argue that organic products satisfy a niche market for consumers who trade off quality for higher environmental care. In conclusion, many consumers appear to be locked into current consumption patterns (Sustainable Development Commission, 2003).

1.2. Research Questions

Consumers’ decision whether to purchase and consume sustainable products is influenced by several factors. Roughly, these factors can be characterized as consumer specific or controlled by manufacturers and retailers of sustainable products. In this thesis, both kinds of potential drivers of sustainable consumer behavior are investigated.

(14)

product perishability and sustainable products’ price premium, on consumer sustainable behavior is examined.

Secondly, this research considers the effect of consumer characteristics on sustainable behavior. First, it is examined whether socio-demographics, such as gender, age, income and education level, help to explain the variance in consumer’s sustainability level. Secondly, the influence of consumers’ values, norms and attitudes towards the environment on sustainable consumption is determined. In addition, this thesis includes consumer type as an explanatory variable.

Finally, this study considers the effect of seasonality on sustainable behavior as well. In short, this thesis aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the influence of category characteristics on the level of sustainable expenditures of consumers in Dutch supermarkets?

2. What is the influence of consumer characteristics on the level of sustainable expenditures of consumers in Dutch supermarkets?

3. What is the influence of seasonality on the level of sustainable expenditures of consumers in Dutch supermarkets?

1.3. Theoretical and Social Relevance

Sustainable consumption is a topic that has been researched in many papers in the last two decades. This thesis contributes to the existent literature in four respects.

At first, this research is unique in the sense that until now the effects of category characteristics on sustainable behavior is not examined in existing literature on this topic. Thereby, managers of supermarket formulas, who strive to actively pursue and promote sustainable consumption, possess no information about the influence of category characteristics on sustainable expenditures of consumers. In fact, compared to other studies, in this study more disaggregated data, data on category level, is used to account for heterogeneity among products and categories.

(15)

Reinartz (2005) purchase intentions are not always valid indicators of actual purchase behavior. Batson et al. (1999) paid attention to instances in which people appear to be practicing ‘moral hypocrisy’ by not reflecting their supposed moral beliefs in their observed actions. For example, 46 percent of European consumers stated to be willing to pay more for socially-oriented sustainable products (MORI 2000). However, despite the stated willingness of these consumers to pay a premium, sustainable products have still small market shares (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). Moreover, another drawback of examining sustainable purchase intentions is that respondents might overstate their actual sustainable purchases due to social desirability effects (Paulhus, 1991).

Thirdly, research on product selection typically focused either on market variables or on consumer characteristics as predictors (e.g. Henard and Szymanski, 2001). This thesis follows Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) and Inman, Winer and Ferraro (2009) by examining both factors simultaneously. Moreover, besides the frequently examined consumer predictors socio-demographics and attitudes, the effects of five consumer types on sustainable purchases are investigated in this research. So far, no study is found that explores these relationships. In addition, this research is unique in the sense that potential seasonality patterns of sustainable behavior are examined.

Finally, since many product categories and different time periods are examined in this research, a more complete overview of actual sustainable purchase decisions is provided compared to current research, which usually is limited to a few product categories and aggregated or pooled data.

1.4. Structure of the Thesis

(16)

DENNIS NIJENHUIS LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2. L

ITERATURE

R

EVIEW

AND

C

ONCEPTUAL

F

RAMEWORK

In this chapter, sustainable consumption will be defined and previous research about sustainable consumption will be discussed and evaluated to indicate the contribution of this thesis. Subsequently, in Chapter 2.3, a conceptual framework will be developed and hypotheses underlying this framework are formulated.

2.1. Definition

Sustainable consumption is generally defined in accordance with the United Nations Environment Programme as ‘an umbrella term that brings together a number of key issues, such as meeting needs, enhancing quality of life, improving efficiency, minimizing waste, taking a lifecycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension; integrating these components parts in the central question of how to provide the same or better services to meet the basic requirements of life and the aspiration for improvement, for both current and future generations, while continually reducing environmental damage and the risk to human health’ (UNEP, 2001).

Van Doorn and Verhoef (2009) found three sustainable behavioral components: social sustainable behavior, health-related sustainable behavior and common/non-conscious sustainable behavior. The first component comprises products that represent benefits to other people (Fair Trade label) or to the natural environment (e.g. organic claims) and the second component concerns the purchase of products with a health or nutrient claim (e.g. light and healthy choice). Since the focus in this study is solely on the social dimension of sustainability, sustainable consumption is best defined as a decision-making process that takes the consumer’s social responsibility into account next to consumer’s individual needs and wishes (Meulenberg, 2003).

2.2. Relevant Literature

(17)

literature on the effect of product characteristics on sustainable consumption will be discussed. Subsequently, literature on the effect of consumer characteristics on sustainable consumption is discussed.

2.2.1. Product-related determinants of sustainable behavior

Despite the increasing levels of awareness and interest in sustainable development (European Commission, 2005), this has not always gone hand in hand with changes in the public’s decisions as consumers (Grunert, 1993). Hence, market shares of sustainable products remain quite small (e.g. Thompson, 1998; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). This holds for both kinds of socially oriented sustainable products: organic (Haumann, 2008; Padel et al., 2008) and fair trade (Hulm, 2006). In trying to understand the relative small market shares of sustainable products, several researchers studied the product-related determinants of sustainable consumer behavior. Some studies focus on reasons why regular consumers do not consume sustainably, whereas in other studies the focus is on explaining why sustainable consumers buy products with sustainable features.

In the first stream of research, some articles concentrate on economic reasons to explain the degree of pro-environmental behavior. For example, consumers are not willing to pay the price premium which is inherent to the sustainable feature of the product (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Verhoef, 2005). What is the reason for this? To answer this question, one needs to understand the consequences of including a sustainability label on a product’s package.

Firstly, in some studies consumers seem to associate sustainable products with lower quality, since socially oriented claims have a negative effect on consumers’ product quality perceptions (e.g. the Roper Organization Inc., 1990; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). The reason for this is probably that consumers find the appearance of sustainable products less attractive (Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998) and therefore associate sustainable products with lower quality or a lack of functional superiority.

Secondly, consumer’s perceptions of the product’s functionality and ease of use appear to be important. Some studies focus on consumer’s willingness to sacrifice functionality for social desirability. Often, consumer’s willingness to buy products with social features is low since consumers are not willing to sacrifice functionality for social desirability (Auger et al., 2008). Whenever the functional features of a product are sacrificed, consumers are likely to switch to products with less or no social features to get the optimal functional features.

(18)

another important factor. In a research on the American consumers' sustainable behaviors, the Roper Organization Inc. (1990) found that the sustainable alternatives were too expensive in the eyes of consumers. Several other studies confirmed that price is still one of the most important criteria in the buying process (e.g. Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Weatherell et al., 2003).

Additionally, other researchers examined the effect of marketing efforts for sustainable products, such as distribution and promotion, on the success of these products (e.g. Shamdasani et al., 1993). It seems that the low perceived availability of sustainable products is negatively influencing consumer’s intention to behave sustainable. Vermeir and Verbeke (2005) showed that green and ethical food consumption can be stimulated through raising the perceived availability of sustainable products. In addition, consumers themselves argue that there is a need for more promotion of sustainable products, through special displays and dissemination of information. This suggests that the lack of marketing of sustainable products forms a barrier to the acceptance of sustainable products, since consumers are unable to make informed purchasing decisions. The finding by Rogers (1983), that the perceived relative benefits of, in this case, sustainable products over non-sustainable alternatives is likely to influence sustainable products’ rate of adoption positively, supports this suggestion.

As indicated earlier, in other studies the focus is on explaining why sustainable consumers buy products with sustainable features. According to Van Doorn and Verhoef (2009), consumers think of buying sustainable products as a social and/or healthy activity. Moreover, consumers who frequently buy sustainable products, state that improved product quality is one of the primary reasons to buy sustainably (e.g. Vermeir and Verbeke, 2005).

It can be concluded that product characteristics, in the form of perceived quality or perceived pro-social benefits, influence consumer’s willingness to buy sustainable products. Moreover, it seems that product/category hedonicity moderates these relationships. According to Van Doorn and Verhoef (2009), the negative effect of organic and nutrient food claims on quality perceptions is stronger for hedonic than for utilitarian categories. In this thesis, it is examined whether other characteristics of sustainable products, like price premium, availability and perishability, influence the sustainable consumption patterns of consumers. However, since different consumers (sustainable and non-sustainable) seem to appreciate product characteristics differently, consumer-related determinants of sustainable behavior are also studied.

2.2.2. Consumer-related Determinants of Sustainable Behavior

(19)

explaining why some consumers behave sustainable and others do not. In this part the focus is on the impact of consumers’ socio-demographics and consumers’ personal values, social norms, attitudes and orientation on consumers’ intention to purchase sustainable products. Lastly, existing literature on the effect of other consumer characteristics is discussed.

2.2.2.1. Consumer’s socio-demographics

Socio-demographics are often important determinants of consumer behavior. Education level, income level, household size, age and gender are the most frequently studied socio-demographics. The level of education appears to be the most important consumer characteristic in explaining the degree of sustainable behavior. Consumers with a higher level of education are more inclined to consume sustainable products than consumers with a lower level of education (e.g. Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1987; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009; Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998). Connected to the level of education is the level of household income. In line with the level of education, there is a positive correlation between the level of household income and consumer’s sustainable consumption patterns (e.g. Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1987).

In some studies household size is included in the set of predictor variables. Household size, probably due to higher prices of labeled products, mostly had a negative effect on sustainable behavior (e.g. Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998). Contrarily, in a limited number of studies, the number of children appears to influence self-reported or intentional sustainable behavior positively.

The existing knowledge about the effect of age on sustainable consumer behavior is not straightforward. In a few studies, age appears to be non-significant in explaining sustainable behavior (Thompson, 1998; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009), whereas in other studies the variable age seems to be important in determining sustainable consumption (e.g. Arbuthnot, 1977; Kohut and Shriver, 1989; Lansana, 1992; Brécard et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the effect of age seems to change over time. Arbuthnot (1977) and Weigel (1977) found that the ‘environmental public’ is young, whereas more recent studies (e.g. Gallup and Newport, 1990) have found a reversed trend, with sustainable behavior being stronger among older consumers.

(20)

In short, socio-demographics are relevant determinants of sustainable behavior. In this thesis, it is examined whether the relationships found in literature hold for this study as well. However, since a number of studies found that socio-demographics alone are not very significant in defining the social sustainable consumer (e.g. Samdahl and Robertson, 1989; Scott and Willits, 1994; Roberts, 1995; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), and psycho-social variables like attitudes, values, and social norms appear to predict purchase intention for sustainable products even better (Webster, 1975; Robinson and Smith, 2002), these psycho-social variables are considered too.

2.2.2.2. Consumer’s psycho-social variables

Many researchers analyzed the association between environment-related psycho-social variables and pro-environmental behavior and indicate that specific consumer values can predict environmentally friendly behavior (e.g. Shamdasani et al., 1993; Shrum et al., 1995; Schlegelmilch, Bohlen and Diamantopolous, 1996; Osterhus, 1997; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999; Bower, Saadat and Whitten, 2003; De Pelsmacker et al., 2003; Verhoef, 2005; Auger, Devinney, Louviere and Burke, 2008). Although the effects might not be straightforward (Steg, Dreijerink and Abrahamse, 2005), some attitudes are likely to be drivers of sustainable behavior. Consumers with certain environment-friendly attitudes might attach more value to certain sustainability features and are guided by these in their consumption patterns (Grunert and Juhl, 1995). In literature, several measures have been used to describe consumer’s attitudes. With regard to sustainable consumption, the most important constructs are consumer’s value orientation, environmental concern (NEP), consumer’s consideration of future consequences, consumer’s health concern and consumer’s social norms.

2.2.2.2.1. Consumer’s value orientation

(21)

2.2.2.2.2. Consumer’s environmental concern

Another way to make consumer’s environmental values or attitudes explicit is to focus on the degree of environmental concern. Since environmental issues achieved a prominent place on the international agenda, many attempts have been made to measure public concern for environmental quality, i.e. environmental concern.

Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale has become the most widely used measure of pro-environmental concern. Many studies have found significant relationships between the NEP scale score and types of pro-environmental behavioral intentions as well as both observed and self-reported behaviors. In general, environmentally friendly behavior is positively influenced by the level of environmental concern (e.g. Scott and Willits, 1994).

2.2.2.2.3. Consumer’s consideration of future consequences

A fourth important construct used in the literature to explain sustainable behavior is called consideration of future consequences (CFC). In fact, the CFC construct distinguishes individuals who are willing to forgo direct benefits for long-term gains from individuals who want to maximize immediate gains, without considering long-term consequences. The CFC construct is quite similar to the theories of future orientation and future time perspective (Kastenbaum, 1961).

Previous literature has linked the CFC construct to environmental attitudes (Joireman, Van Lange and Van Vugt, 2004), self-stated pro-environmental behavior (Strathman et al., 1994) and actual sustainable purchasing data (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). In short, individuals who score high on the CFC construct are more likely to have a pro-environmental attitude, pro-environmental behavioral intentions or are more inclined to behave sustainably in their consumption patterns.

2.2.2.2.4. Consumer’s health concern

(22)

sustainable consumer behavior (Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1997). In several European countries and in the USA, consumer surveys revealed that health and food safety are the most important motives to buy sustainable food products (e.g. Dauchez, 1985; Dixon and Holmes, 1987; Langerbein and Wirthgen, 1987; Ekelund, 1989; Tregear et al., 1994; Wilkins and Hillers, 1994; Huang, 1996). Generally, sustainable consumers find themselves responsible for their own health and think that they can affect their own health by choosing and consuming the right food products (Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998).

2.2.2.2.5. Consumer’s social/moral norms

As indicated earlier, sustainable behavior comprises the consumption of products which claim to protect the environment or divide income more equally than products that do not carry sustainable labels. Therefore, sustainable consumption is often linked to consumer’s social obligation towards the environment and other people. These moral norms are mostly conceived as feelings of social obligations that individuals experience for themselves to engage in social behavior (Schwartz, 1977). Various studies found a link between social norms and sustainable behavior (e.g. Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1987). This means that consumers, who have a stronger feeling of moral obligation to treat the environment and other people with care and respect, behave more sustainably.

To conclude, numerous researchers have analyzed the association between (environment-related) psycho-social variables and pro-environmental behavior. Nevertheless, before psycho-social characteristics have an influence on consumer’s sustainable behavior, consumers should be aware of the consequences of their consumption choices. In other words, problem awareness is a necessary prerequisite of sustainable behavior (Bamberg and Möser, 2007). Considering consumption-related problem awareness, several researchers found that consumers’ awareness about the consequences of their choices continuously increases. The last decade has witnessed a remarkable increase in environmental consciousness on the one hand (e.g. Gore, 2006) and an increase in consciousness about third-world issues related to food consumption on the other hand (Cornwell, 2007).

(23)

gap. Nevertheless, in this thesis it is examined whether the described relationships between consumer attitudes and sustainable consumer behavior do apply to this study.

2.2.2.3. Other consumer characteristics

Some studies discuss the effect of other consumer characteristics on sustainable behavior. Irwin and Walker Naylor (2009) found a relationship between consideration set formation and sustainable behavior. They demonstrate that consumers place more weight on ethical attributes if they form a product consideration set by excluding, i.e. starting considering all options, versus including alternatives. Since today’s marketplaces are crowded, Irwin and Walker Naylor (2009) argue that it is likely that the majority of consumers use an including mode and thus are not expressing the level of ethical values they might if they were using an excluding consideration set formation mode.

Other papers examine the degree of environmental knowledge as facilitator of socially oriented sustainable behavior. Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1987), Schahn and Holzer (1990) revealed that environmental knowledge is a motivator of environmental behavior. Moreover, distinguishing between knowledge about problems (factual knowledge) and knowledge about potential solutions (action-related knowledge) appears to be important. Unlike factual knowledge, action-related knowledge positively affects pro-environmental behavior.

Another important characteristic is the number of criteria consumers use in deciding which product they buy. In the subchapter ‘Product-related determinants of sustainable behavior’ literature on the effects of sustainability labels on product perception is described. These studies implicitly assume that consumers consider sustainable product features during the product selection process. However, this assumption seems to be wrong, since price, ease of use, product quality and brand familiarity are still the most important criteria in product selection (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Weatherell et al., 2003), while ethical factors are considered by just a minority of consumers. Consequently, consumers’ set of decision criteria is an important determinant of sustainable behavior. Since consumers should first consider sustainable features as sufficiently relevant, the level of sustainability concern in a consumer’s set of decision criteria probably mediates the relation between psycho-social consumer characteristics and consumer’s sustainable behavior.

(24)

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Category utilitarian dimension

Category competitiveness Sustainable products’ price premium

Category perishability

% Sustainable purchases i,j,t

Category advertising intensity

Product/Category characteristics Period of purchases

Consumer characteristics Seasonality effects

Psycho-social variables:  Value orientations (3)  Environmental concern (NEP)  Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC)  Health prevention Socio-demographics:  Gender  Age  Income  Education

Category promotional intensity

H1 H4 H5 H6 H2 H8a,b,c,d H9a,b,c,d ,e,f H11

Sustainable products’ availability H7

(25)

2.3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

After reviewing the scientific literature, a conceptual framework (Figure 1), which guides this thesis, is made. In this part of the report, the conceptual framework is described using literature. Furthermore, specific predictions, hypotheses, for each potential determinant of sustainable consumption are described. First, the effect of several category characteristics on sustainable consumer behavior is hypothesized. Subsequently, predictions for the effects of consumer characteristics and seasonality patterns on sustainable consumption are formulated.

2.3.1. The Effect of Product/Category Characteristics on Sustainable Consumer Behavior

The left part of the conceptual framework in Figure 1 displays several potential product/category-related drivers of sustainable consumption. As mentioned before, until now, existing literature largely ignored product and category characteristics as potential drivers of sustainable consumption. However, various studies discuss the effects of product/category characteristics on consumer behavior. Often, the focus in these studies is on trial probability of new products (Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003). Although the EU Eco-labels were already introduced in 1992, the wide roll out of similar schemes, especially health-related claims, began recently. Hence, the adoption of sustainable products can, to some extent, be considered similar to the adoption of new products.

Inman, Winer and Ferraro (2009) partitioned category characteristics in relatively stable characteristics (e.g. purchase frequency and hedonic nature of the product/category) and transitory characteristics (e.g. coupon usage and in-store display). In this study, the focus is solely on stable product/category characteristics. In the upcoming sections, relevant theory on each of the included product/category characteristics is described and used to hypothesize the direction of the relationships between the characteristics and sustainable consumer behavior.

2.3.1.1. Hedonic or utilitarian product categories

(26)

Several studies have shown that a category’s hedonic/utilitarian nature (Inman, Winer and Ferraro, 2009) has a moderating effect on the relationship between marketing variables and consumer behavior in general (e.g. Chandon, Wansink and Laurent, 2000; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000; Sloot, Verhoef and Franses, 2005). In this thesis, it is examined whether product/category hedonicity is a relevant factor in explaining consumer’s sustainable behavior.

The focus of consumers in the process of buying a hedonic product is often on enjoyment and pleasure (Raghunathan, Naylor and Hoyer, 2006). This means that quality and taste are, contrarily to utilitarian products, probably the most important features of a product consumers consider in their product selection process. Since empirical evidence of taste improvements, due to organic producing methods, remains unconvincing (Bourn and Prescott, 2002) and consumers generally seem to be unsecure about the characteristics of sustainable products (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2005), it can be argued that consumers are less inclined to consume sustainable hedonic products.

On the other hand, since hedonic categories elicit more positive feelings than utilitarian categories (Shiv and Fedorikhin, 1999), some researchers argue that this pleasurable hedonic consumption has a ‘pain’ or ‘price’ dimension too and stimulates a feeling of guilt (Higgins, 2006; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998). According to Lascu (1991), this feeling of guilt requires special justifications, such as contributing to a good cause, e.g. behave more socially. In other words, consumers can ‘pay their debt’ by consuming sustainable products. Therefore, it can be reasoned that, because of social reasons, consumers are more inclined to consume sustainable hedonic products than sustainable utilitarian products. This view is supported by the finding that the positive effect of organic and fair trade claims on the perceived prosocial product benefits is stronger for hedonic than for utilitarian products (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009).

In addition, since hedonic products/categories are often perceived as less healthy, compared to utilitarian products/categories (Wansink, van Ittersum and Painter, 2004), and organic claims have a positive effect on healthiness perceptions (e.g. Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009), consumers may be more likely to buy sustainable products in hedonic categories because of the contrast effect. This contrast effect is more likely to increase the healthiness perception of hedonic products compared to utilitarian products since utilitarian products already are perceived as quite healthy (Wansink, van Ittersum and Painter, 2004).

In short, due to the feeling of guilt and a stronger contrast effect, consumers are more inclined to purchase sustainable hedonic products or sustainable products in hedonic categories. The net result is the following hypothesis:

(27)

2.3.1.2. Sustainable products’ price premium

Sustainable products’ price premium is the second category-level variable included in this study. Despite a more favorable attitude towards sustainable products, consumers consider other product characteristics, such as price, quality, convenience and brand familiarity, as more important in the buying process (e.g. Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Roberts, 1996; Tallontire, Rentsendorj and Blowfield, 2001). Since price is still one of the most important issues in marketing and sustainable products are more expensive than regular products (PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008) found that the average price premium for environmentally and ethically-friendly products is 45 percent), the price gap can be an important determinant of the demand for sustainable products.

The importance of pricing for firms has fueled a stream of research on the elasticity of this marketing instrument (e.g. Tellis, 1988; Bijmolt, van Heerde and Pieters, 2005). The average price elasticity found by Tellis (1988), based on 367 elasticities, equals –1.76. The meta-analysis by Bijmolt, van Heerde and Pieters (2005), based on 1851 elasticities, found an average price elasticity that is larger: –2.62.

The results of the meta-analyses mentioned above confirms economic theory’s suggestion that the higher the price of a product relative to alternatives in the product category, the lower the inclination of consumers to buy the product. In this thesis, it is examined whether the level of price difference between sustainable products and regular products has an effect on consumer’s sustainable purchase behavior. In short, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2: In categories where the level of price difference between sustainable products and regular products is higher, consumers are less inclined to purchase sustainably.

2.3.1.3. Category’s competitiveness

Since category competitiveness seems to be an important variable in explaining consumer behavior (e.g. Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003), the third relationship studied in this thesis is the one between category competitiveness and consumers’ sustainable purchases. In general, a category is more competitive if there is no dominant brand. In such a category each brand has a number of substitutes within the product category and brand switching effects will dominate. Furthermore, in a category which consists of similar brands, each brand is less likely to have loyal consumers (e.g. Bawa, Landwehr and Krishna, 1989; Raju, 1992).

(28)

In categories that are less competitive, the smaller brands have fewer buyers than larger brands. Additionally, buyers of small brands tend to buy the brand’s products less often than buyers of large brands. This phenomenon is called double jeopardy (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise, 1990). Since sustainable products are relatively new in each category, it can be reasoned that those products have a better chance of success in categories where no brand is dominant and each brand is less likely to have loyal consumers, i.e. a more competitive category.

Contrarily, a more competitive category, in which each brand has a number of substitutes, can also indicate that consumers switch less easily to the relative new sustainable products since the trial probability of new products is lower in categories with many existing brands (Steenkamp and Gielens, 2003). In other words, in categories with high brand proliferation, i.e. many brands in a category, consumers appear to be more loyal than in categories with low brand proliferation (Sloot and Verhoef, 2008). This finding supports the arguing that retailers tend to offer many brands in a category only when they assume a large variety in consumer needs, i.e. a segmented market (Hoch et al., 1999).

In addition, a marketing interpretation of Weber’s law (Weber, 1834) suggests that the larger the number of brands in a category, the less likely it is that consumers notice category changes such as a change in category composition due to the introduction of sustainable products (e.g. Broniarczyk, Hoyer and McAlister, 1998).

This thesis aims to determine whether there is a relationship between the degree of competitiveness in a category and the amount of sustainable expenditures by consumers. Existing literature demonstrates that category competitiveness can influence sustainable consumer behavior positively and negatively. In this thesis, it is expected that category competitiveness is positively related to sustainable consumer behavior, i.e. the brand switching force of category competitiveness dominates. Therefore,

H3: In categories that are more competitive, consumers are more inclined to purchase sustainably.

However, following Narasimhan, Neslin and Sen (1996), this variable can also be viewed as providing a test between brand proliferation as trial inducement, i.e. higher level of sustainable purchases, or as market segmentation, i.e. lower level of sustainable purchases. If the relationship found between category competitiveness and sustainable consumption is positive, the former theory is confirmed. On the other hand, if the estimated effect is negative, the latter is supported.

(29)

2.3.1.4. Category’s perishability

The fourth variable in the left part of the conceptual framework is category’s perishability. Existing literature on category perishability merely focuses on the moderating effect of the perishability/non-perishability characteristic of products on the relationship between price promotions and category sales (e.g. Narasimhan, Neslin and Sen, 1996; Nijs, Dekimpe, Steenkamp and Hanssens, 2001). In this thesis, the effect of category’s perishability on sustainable consumer behavior is examined.

Generally, consumers who behave sustainably in their consumption patterns have a high level of environmental concern (e.g. Scott and Willits, 1994). In addition, several researchers (e.g. Steg, Dreijerink and Abrahamse, 2005) found a positive relationship between a biospheric value orientation and sustainable consumer behavior. Hence, it can be concluded that consumers who buy sustainable products have a stronger and more apparent link with the environment. Since perishable food products, like fresh fruit, vegetables, milk and eggs, are ‘produced’ by the natural environment, it can be argued that consumers are more likely to purchase sustainable perishable products than sustainable nonperishable products, which probably demonstrate a weaker/less direct link with the natural environment.

Since most categories which include products that are perishable score high on the utilitarian dimension (milk, bread, cheese, fruit, vegetables, etc.), it can be argued that there are variables, such as category’s utilitarian dimension, that already partly capture the relation between category’s perishability and the amount of sustainable expenditures by consumers. Nonetheless, despite the potential occurrence of multicollinearity, the following hypothesis is advanced:

H4: In categories that are perishable, consumers are more inclined to purchase sustainably.

2.3.1.5. Category’s advertising intensity

The fifth category characteristic included in this study is category’s advertising intensity. Advertising intensity in a category is high if all manufacturers spend, relative to manufacturers in other categories, a large amount of money on advertising.

(30)

competitive offerings in the category. Considering the relative newness of sustainable products, it can be argued that sustainable products have a better chance to succeed in categories with less loyal consumers, i.e. categories characterized by a relatively low advertising intensity.

Additionally, consumers’ ability to remember an advertisement for a product seems to be reduced by intensive competitive advertising reactions (Keller, 1987). Since it is important to increase awareness for relative new products like sustainable products (e.g. Lodish et al., 1995) and knowledge about sustainable products still need to be created (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2005), it can be reasoned that sustainable products are more frequently bought in categories with a less intensive advertising pattern. Therefore:

H5: In categories that are characterized by a relatively high advertising intensity, consumers are less inclined to purchase sustainably.

2.3.1.6. Category’s promotional intensity

Category’s promotional intensity is the sixth product-related factor that is considered in this thesis. Higher levels of price-oriented promotion, such as coupons and temporary price reductions, tend to reduce brand differentiation and increase consumers’ price sensitivity (e.g. Papatla and Krishnamurthi, 1996). The reason for this is that the frequent occurrence of price promotions causes product alternatives to be increasingly seen as commodities purchased on price, with their perceived differentiation subsequently diminished (Mela, Gupta and Jedidi, 1998). Since sustainable products are generally higher priced than non-sustainable alternatives (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008), it can be argued that consumers are more likely to consume sustainable products in categories that are less often on promotion. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: In categories that are characterized by a relatively high promotional intensity, consumers are less inclined to purchase sustainably.

2.3.1.7. Sustainable products’ availability

(31)

because of availability problems. Robinson and Smith (2002) argue that 52 percent of the consumers are interested in consuming sustainable products, but due to perceived barriers, such as limited availability, they do not purchase these products. In short, the following hypothesis is formulated: H7: In categories that are characterized by a relatively high distribution of sustainable products,

consumers are more inclined to purchase sustainably.

2.3.2. The Effect of Consumer Characteristics on Sustainable Consumer Behavior

The right part of the conceptual framework in Figure 1 displays potential consumer-related determinants of sustainable consumption. First, hypotheses for the effects of socio-demographics on sustainable consumption are formulated. Subsequently, hypotheses for the effects of psycho-social variables and consumer types on sustainable consumption are proposed.

2.3.2.1. Socio-demographic variables

The effects of four socio-demographic variables on sustainable consumer behavior are examined in this thesis. At first, the linkage between gender and sustainable consumer behavior is investigated. The role of gender in profiling the sustainable consumer is studied by many researchers. In general, males tend to have a better knowledge about environmental problems than females (e.g. Grunert and Kristensen, 1992; Meffert and Bruhn, 1996). Nevertheless, females appear to have an environmentally conscious attitude and to participate in sustainable behavior more often than males (e.g. Davidson and Freudenberg, 1996). The difference in socialisation patterns of males and females is used to explain the difference in sustainable behavior between males and females (Schahn and Holzer, 1990). Bakan (1966) differentiated between agentic and communal goals in behavior. Communal goals are related to a concern for the caring, welfare, and nurturing of other people, whereas the agentic dimension is associated with assertiveness and control, self-assertion, focus on the self and self-efficacy. Since communal goals typify a feminine gender identity and agentic goals are associated with a masculine gender identity (Bakan, 1966; Bem, 1974; Broverman et al., 1972; Carlson, 1971; Spence and Helmreich, 1978), it can be argued that females are more inclined to purchase sustainable products than males.

(32)

sustainable. Surprisingly, older people seem to display higher levels of actual sustainable behavior (e.g. Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Scott and Willits, 1994). Probably, the reason for this contradiction is that younger people have less financial resources to make their intentions explicit. Since financial motives are still important in consumer’s decisions (e.g. Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000), it can be reasoned that older people are more likely to buy the more expensive sustainable alternatives. In addition, the influence of income on sustainable behavior is examined. Since households with higher incomes are more likely to be able to afford the more expensive sustainable products, it can be argued that there is a positive link between income and sustainable behavior. Moreover, another explanation is that people with higher incomes, i.e. being member of a higher social class, display higher levels of sustainable behavior due to the responsibility vis-à-vis their positions in the society. Finally, education is included in the set of potential drivers of sustainable behavior. Since environmental issues and problems are often complex in terms of interactions between organisms and environment (e.g. Maloney et al., 1975), it is proposed that the higher educated understand these issues more easily, hence, are more concerned about the environment and more likely to display sustainable behavior.

To summarize:

H8a: Females are more inclined to behave sustainably than males. H8b: Age is positively related to sustainable consumer behavior. H8c: Income is positively related to sustainable consumer behavior.

H8d: The level of education is positively related to sustainable consumer behavior.

2.3.2.2. Psycho-social variables

In this part of the report hypotheses for the effects of psycho-social variables (constructs) on sustainable consumption are proposed.

First, the effect of the value orientation of consumers on sustainable behavior is investigated. Since a biospheric value orientation means that a consumer has a high concern for the natural environment, as opposed to an egoistic or an altruistic value orientation, it is hypothesized that a biospheric value orientation is positively related to sustainable consumer behavior. A positive relationship between an altruistic value orientation and sustainable consumer behavior is also expected since altruism is the concern for the welfare of others. On the contrary, an egoistic value orientation, i.e. maximization of own outcomes, is expected to have a negative influence on sustainable consumer behavior.

(33)

focuses on beliefs about humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978), it can be argued that the environmentally concerned consumer has more responsibility feelings towards the environment. Hence, in this thesis, it is assumed that environmentally friendly behavior is positively influenced by the level of environmental concern. Consequently, the higher a consumer scores on the NEP scale, which measures environmentalism, the more likely he or she is to behave sustainably.

Thirdly, the effect of consumer’s consideration of future consequences (CFC) on sustainable behavior is studied. Since this construct measures the extent to which individuals consider distant outcomes of their current behaviors and the extent to which they are influenced by these potential outcomes (Strathman et al., 1994), consumers with a higher CFC score consider environmental issues more heavily than consumers with a lower CFC score. Moreover, consumers with a higher CFC score have more often an environmental friendly attitude than consumers with a lower CFC score (Joireman, Van Lange and Van Vugt, 2004). Consequently, consumers who score high on the CFC construct are more inclined to behave sustainably in their consumption patterns.

Lastly, consumer’s health prevention is included. Due to the fact that organic food production refrains from using pesticides, fertilizers etc., sustainable products are unlikely to contain residues of chemicals (LNV, 1992). Therefore, consumers who are health concerned and consider the health contributing abilities of food products are expected to be more likely to buy sustainable products than consumers who consider mainly other product features.

In short:

H9a: Having a biospheric value orientation is positively related to sustainable behavior. H9b: Having an altruistic value orientation is positively related to sustainable behavior. H9c: Having an egoistic value orientation is negatively related to sustainable behavior.

H9d: The more environmentally concerned a consumer is, the more inclined he/she is to purchase sustainably.

H9e: The more a consumer considers future consequences of his/her behavior, the more inclined he/she is to purchase sustainably.

(34)

2.3.2.3. Consumer type

The last consumer characteristic included in this thesis is consumer type. Consumers are different in the way they shop and in the factors they consider important in the buying and consuming process. In this research it is examined whether five consumer types differ in the degree of sustainable consumer behavior.

The first consumer type investigated comprises consumers who are susceptible to normative influence. Several researchers discuss consumer’s tendency to conform to the expectations of others (e.g. Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel, 1989). Some consumers appear to be quite susceptible to normative influence, whereas other consumers appear to be independent of social norms. Since sustainable behavior has almost become a social imperative (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009), due to increased media attention and consumer awareness, it can be argued that consumers who are influenced by norms of the social system are more inclined to behave sustainably.

Secondly, it is investigated whether innovative consumers can be regarded as sustainable consumers. Innovative consumers are consumers who buy innovative products rather than remaining with previous choices and consumption patterns. They are open to change, independent and take risks (Steenkamp, ter Hofstede and Wedel, 1999). Since sustainable products are new, provide some change of pace and increased risk through a change from current consumption patterns, it is likely that the more innovative a consumer is the more sustainably he or she behaves.

The third consumer type included in this thesis is the loyal consumer. Loyal consumers prefer to remain with previous choices and brands. They are not likely to purchase new products or products with distinctive features. Due to the newness and distinctiveness of sustainable products, it can be stated that the more loyal a consumer is to a particular product or brand, the lower the probability that he or she purchases sustainable products.

Price sensitive consumers form the fourth consumer group in this thesis. This group consists of consumers who search for the lowest price, love discounts and are extremely disloyal to a particular brand when another is on sale. Therefore, price sensitive shoppers are not likely to purchase the more expensive sustainable products.

(35)

higher the probability that he or she purchases sustainable products. On the other hand, previous studies show that organic products satisfy a niche market for consumers who trade off quality for higher environmental care (e.g. Loureiro, McCluskey and Mittelhammer, 2001) and that consumers associate sustainable products with lower quality (Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2009). Therefore, since literature is not unanimous about the effect of quality sensitivity on sustainable behavior, no directional hypothesis for this effect is advanced.

Shortly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H10a: Consumer susceptibility to normative influence is positively related to sustainable behavior. H10b: Consumer innovativeness is positively related to sustainable behavior.

H10c: Consumer loyalty is negatively related to sustainable behavior.

H10d: Consumer price sensitivity is negatively related to sustainable behavior.

2.3.3. The Effect of Seasonality on Sustainable Consumer Behavior

Finally, Figure 1 demonstrates that the potential effect of seasonality on sustainable consumer behavior is examined in this thesis. Considering seasonality patterns, the focus is particularly on the ‘Christmas spirit’ (Clarke, 2007) around the end of the year.

In his research, Clarke (2007) aims to create and validate a measure for Christmas spirit. In the sociological literature, Christmas spirit is generally described using terms like goodwill, generosity, altruism and giving (Belk, 1989). Additionally, Caplow and Williamson (1980) state that Christmas is a unique, multifaceted, ritualistic consumption occasion that suggests the season is the peak of consumption. In short, Christmas is the embodiment of a gift giving culture that endorses hedonistic behavior.

Besides the fact that the Christmas season is the peak of consumption, charitable donations also appear to be boosted by the end of the year, since 50 percent of the yearly charitable donations in the United States are made between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day (Charity Navigator, 2007). Thus, it seems that the last months of the year are a good time for people to start thinking about helping other people.

Since consumers appear to be more generous in several aspects by the end of the year, it can be argued that this ‘giving’ spirit has an effect on sustainable expenditures as well. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced: