bs_bs_banner
International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423
Adolescents’ sustainability concerns and reasons for not consuming sustainably Julie E. Francis1 and Teresa Davis2 1 2
School of Management, Operations, and Marketing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia Discipline of Marketing, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Keywords Sustainability, environment, social responsibility, adolescents, attitude-behaviour gap, young consumers. Correspondence Julie E. Francis, School of Management, Operations, and Marketing, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected] doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12150
Abstract Many consumers report being concerned about sustainability but they do not necessarily consume in a sustainable manner. Understanding why this occurs is vital to encouraging sustainable consumption practices. Understanding the phenomenon in relation to adolescents is particularly important. In addition to being a significant segment of current consumers, adolescents are learning consumption habits and preferences that they will carry into adulthood. This research contributes to the domain by fulfilling two research objectives. The first objective was to develop and use a scale for measuring adolescents’ sustainability concerns (ASC). The second objective was to identify and examine adolescents’ reasons for not consuming sustainably. The research used a three-stage multimethod design that included small group interviews and two online surveys with adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. The ASC scale that we produced identifies 14 key sustainability concerns across the dimensions of environment, well-being and society. The reasons for not consuming sustainably varied across these dimensions. For example, the most frequently reported reasons in the environmental dimension included cost and convenience whereas peer pressure and hedonic preferences were the dominant reasons for well-being. More broadly, three groups of reasons for unsustainable consumption emerged. These included (i) limited application of sustainability concerns across consumption; (ii) deviating from concerns due to competing priorities; and (iii) limiting or eliminating personal responsibility. The contributions of this research have theoretical, methodological and practical implications for consumer researchers, social marketers and policy makers.
Introduction Sustainability is a matter of great importance to many consumer researchers, social marketers, educators and policy makers. The research in this area continues to grow, delivering an array of theoretical and practical contributions. Nevertheless, unsustainable consumption practices persist and a more comprehensive understanding of the related issues is needed (Prothero et al., 2011). An important, yet particularly underresearched, area is the sustainability concerns and behaviour of young consumers. Children represent a powerful segment of consumers: they spend billions of dollars of pocket money each year and influence family purchase decisions valuing tens of billions more (Hill, 2011; Nadeau, 2011). Notably too, childhood is the period of socialization when young people learn many of the consumption attitudes, preferences and behaviours that they will carry into adulthood (Ward, 1974; John, 1999). Mainstream marketing has long recognized the significance of children as current and future consumers. However, this segment is underrepresented in sustainability research.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This paper contributes to the domain by helping to develop a better understanding of adolescents’ sustainability concerns (ASC) and their self-reported reasons for not consuming sustainably. We achieve this by conducting a three-stage multimethod investigation that commences with exploratory small group interviews followed by two sequential online surveys. Overall, the research develops, refines and uses a scale that identifies and measures the sustainability concerns of adolescent-aged children. The research also uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques to identify and examine why adolescents who are concerned about sustainability do not necessarily consume in a sustainable manner.
Literature review Literature relating to children’s environmental education and awareness is relatively vast with researchers having conducted studies across North America, Europe, Australasia and South America (Larsson et al., 2010). Such studies reveal that children from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds hold similar 43
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
concerns about climate change, eco-damage, pollution, resource depletion, deforestation, animal welfare, endangered species, oceans and river systems (e.g. Strong, 1998; Barraza, 1999; Tucci et al., 2007; Sargeant, 2008; Hampel et al., 1996). One study also observed that while the views of younger and older children differ in terms of complexity and elaboration, their underlying concerns do not necessarily differ (Sargeant, 2008). The consistency with which children from various continents report concerns about environmental sustainability reflects the level of attention that these matters receive from educators, policy makers, social marketers and the media. Increasingly, children also speak of consumption concerns relating to the personal well-being and societal aspects of sustainability. For example, numerous educational and social marketing campaigns raise children’s awareness of the benefits of good nutrition and exercise as well as the hazards of smoking, alcohol and illicit substances (e.g. Desrochers and Holt, 2007; Dority et al., 2010). Many children link material possessions with happiness, friendships and feeling good about oneself (Chan, 2006) while others are troubled by perceived pressure to own certain products or to consume in certain ways (Autio et al., 2009). Furthermore, research from Scandinavia shows that some older children are aware of and concerned about societal issues, such as globalization, corporate motives, wasteful consumption, relative affluence, poverty, inequity and human rights (Benn, 2004; Autio et al., 2009). However, the prevalence of well-being and societal concerns across broader populations of children is unclear due to a scarcity of research. Overall, the literature shows that children hold concerns about various aspects of environmental, personal well-being and societal sustainability. Notably, the literature does not offer a reliable and valid instrument to identify, measure and monitor children’s concerns across all three dimensions. For instance, certain scales will focus in detail on a single dimension of interest (e.g. environmental concerns) but not necessarily examine that dimension relative to the spectrum of other sustainability concerns. Also, many scales are formed to measure pre-determined issues that are of interest to the researcher as opposed to issues that represent the concerns of the child respondents. These types of scales have a role in the domain. Nevertheless, the absence of a scale that holistically measures children’s sustainability concerns across all three dimensions and from the child’s perspective represents a distinct gap in the literature. A further consideration is the prospect of children’s concerns varying in substance or expression across stages in consumer socialization. Consumer socialization, where children learn to function as consumers, is part of the broader socialization process and comprises three stages. The stages integrate theories of cognitive development (e.g. Piaget) and social development (e.g. Selman) (Ward, 1974; John, 1999). The perceptual stage (3–7 years) aligns with Piaget’s preoperational stage, the analytic stage (7–11 years) aligns with the concrete operational stage while the reflective stage (11–18 years) integrates Piaget’s formal operational stage of cognitive development with Selman’s final stage of social perspective taking (John, 1999). The stages represent the general characteristics of the age groups, with some variation among children transitioning at the lower and upper boundaries (Gupta, 1995; John, 1999). These stages represent the general characteristics of children in the middle consumer socialization 44
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
theory highlights the need to develop stage-specific measurement scales that cater to different stages of cognitive and social development. Because it is beyond the scope of this project to develop multiple scales, the current research will focus on one stage only. Specifically, this work focuses on children in the reflective stage of consumer socialization (i.e. 11–18 years) – also described less formally as adolescents. Therefore, this research will develop a scale to identify, measure and monitor the sustainability concerns of adolescents aged 11–18 years who are in the reflective stage of consumer socialization. The scale development approach will apply measurement theory and practice (e.g. Cattell, 1978; Churchill, 1979; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Diamantopoulos et al., 2008; Gilliam and Voss, 2013). We label the research construct ASC and define it as the sustainability issues about which adolescents are aware and concerned. Further, the construct is conceptualized as a reflective first-order, formative second-order construct – type II in Diamantopoulos et al.’s (2008) discussion of measurement models. In this case, the dimensions of environment, well-being and society form the second-order level of ASC. The first-order level, being the items that measure the domain of these dimensions, will reflect the concerns of adolescents – as will be established by examining their perspective. Thus, the first objective of the research is as follows: Objective 1: Develop and use a scale for measuring ASC. A further part of understanding the sustainability concerns of adolescents is to understand their behavioural responses to those concerns. In this regard, Autio et al.’s (2009) study of adolescents formulated three illustrative consumer identities: the anti-hero, the hero and the anarchist. The anti-hero is aware of sustainability issues but consciously rebels against green discourse and sustainable consumption to be environmentally unfriendly. The hero identity acts on their concerns and is often proud of doing so. Notably, their repertoire of sustainable behaviours is characteristically limited to mainstream or popularized acts, such as recycling, using environmentally friendly shopping bags and not littering. This Hero-like consumption is prominent in other studies of children (e.g. Strong, 1998; Benn, 2004). Meanwhile, the anarchist from Autio et al.’s (2009) work looks disparagingly upon consumerism and engages in counter-consumption activities. This consumer type is similar to the market activists, boycotters and anti-consumers from adult-centric literature (e.g. Kozinets and Handelman, 2004; Hoffmann and Muller, 2009; Varman and Belk, 2009). Typologies aside, only a few studies directly examine why adolescents who are concerned about sustainability do not necessarily consume sustainably. Studies of adult consumers point to various self-reported reasons for not consuming in a sustainable, green or ethical manner. For instance, some adults have limited faith in the efficacy of personal action and instead rely on institutions or governments to take the necessary action (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2004; Eckhardt et al., 2010). Adults also discuss deviating from their sustainable intentions because of various situational factors relating to the purchase process, product-specific issues or uncertainty about the best option (Eckhardt et al., 2010; Luchs et al., 2010; White et al., 2012). Intentions to consume sustainably can also conflict with evolutionary tendencies, including selfinterest, disregard for impalpable concerns and future discounting (Griskevicius et al., 2012). The research with adult consumers
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Figure 1 Overview of research stages.
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
Stage 1: Small group interviews
Stage 2: Online survey
Stage 3: Online survey
Objectives: Identify preliminary set of sustainability concerns (ASC) Explore reasons for not consuming sustainably
Objectives: Construct and refine the ASC scale
Objectives: Validate and use ASC scale Examine reasons for not consuming sustainably across three aspects of sustainability
offers insights that may apply to adolescents. Crucially, this research is primarily interested in the adolescent’s perspective, their self-reported insights and explanations. Therefore, the second objective of the research is as follows: Objective 2: Explore adolescents’ self-reported reasons for not consuming sustainably.
Methodology Overview The research used a three-stage multi-method approach to develop a better understanding of ASC and reasons for not consuming sustainably. The three stages included exploratory small group interviews followed by two online surveys (Fig. 1). Objective 1 of the research – develop and use an ASC scale – was completed over the three stages: stage 1 identified the preliminary set of concerns; stage 2 constructed and statistically refined the scale; stage 3 validated the instrument and enumerated the concern scores. As discussed earlier, the scale development work for objective 1 applied construct measurement theory and precedents. In relation to objective 2 – exploring the self-reported reasons for not consuming sustainably – stage 1 used open-ended direct questions while stage 3 used indirect techniques and third-person scenarios to examine the various reasons. The participants for each research stage were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. This age category corresponds with the reflective stage of consumer socialization and Piaget’s formal operational stage of cognitive development (John, 1999). A marketing research firm recruited participants by contacting adult members of their consumer panel who were the parents/guardians of adolescents. The panel included residents of each Australian state and territory from city, suburban and rural areas. The stage 1 participants were from a single city for practical reasons while the online surveys recruited national samples. Informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians and children. To avoid learning effects, only one child per household could participate and they could participate in only one stage of the research. The following sections elaborate on the method details and present the results for each of the three research stages.
Stage 1: small group interviews Method The objectives of stage 1 were to identify the range of sustainability concerns and explore reasons for not consuming sustainably. This stage interviewed 12 adolescents (girls = 6, boys = 6) in groups of three: small groups provide a friendship setting that helps to put children at ease (Bartholomew and O’Donohoe, 2003;
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Lawlor and Prothero, 2003). An accredited female interviewer who specializes in research with children conducted the interviews. The discussions ranged from 44 to 73 min. A portion of the time involved questions and tasks that were not part of the current study but helped to animate and focus the discussions (Barraza, 1999; Chan, 2006). The questions for this study asked children whether and in what ways consuming things effects the environment, themselves and the society. Further questions explored whether those effects influence their consumption behaviour and if not, why not. The data analysis examined audio recordings of the interviews as well as verbatim transcripts: inductive thematic analysis identified key statements from the transcripts while reviewing the audio files revealed the tenor and conviction of statements (King, 1994). The researchers initially developed their own findings before comparing, refining and combining their interpretations of the data. The analysis also determined that the data satisfied the exploratory information needs and that no further interviews were required. Results Sustainability concerns Informants reported that they were aware of and concerned about various environmental, personal well-being and societal aspects of sustainability. Table 1 summarizes the themes that emerged from analysing the discussions and includes all of the issues the informants raised (even if raised by only one informant). During the environment portion of the interviews, adolescents spoke enthusiastically of caring about conservation, nature and animal welfare. The specific content or concerns in these areas were relatively consistent with previous studies. In relation to personal well-being, adolescents readily identified ways consuming things can affect their physical health. However, they also spoke of well-being concerns that are related to austerity (e.g. the usefulness and longevity of products) and the ways consuming – or not consuming – affects social fit and personal growth. In the society portion of the interviews, informants raised concerns about commerce (e.g. corporate motives, reliance on imported goods), consumerism (e.g. materialism, overconsumption) and inequity (e.g. poverty, child labour, unsafe working conditions). Regarding inequity, the informants independently raised concerns about so many products being made in countries that have poor working conditions and legal systems compared with Australia. They felt that this was not fair and should be fixed. However, there was also disagreement and uncertainty about how to fix such problems. For instance, one group of boys could not agree on whether it was best to buy such products to support the workers or to boycott the products to send a message to the government.
45
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Table 1 Adolescents’ sustainability concerns Component
Themes
Examples/Criteria
Environment
Conservation Nature Animal welfare Physical health Austerity Social fit Personal growth Commerce
Reuse, recycle, conserve water, avoid wasteful packaging, use green/clean energy Appreciate and care for nature, enjoy nature-based activities, do not litter Cruel production processes, damage to habitats, testing products on animals Healthiness and sugar content of food, exercise; avoid drugs, cigarettes and alcohol Usefulness, size and price alternatives, second-hand options Ability to use/share with friends, thoughts and feelings of friends Relevance to true interests and values, educational value, avoid distractions Motives of businesses and global brands, industrial waste and accidents, factories, dependence on imports Affluence, materialism, overconsumption, wastefulness, unnecessary consumption Poverty, human rights, child labour, lower health and safety standards, imitations, piracy
Well-being
Society
Consumerism Inequity
Reasons for not consuming sustainably The majority of informants tended to view themselves as responsible consumers, often speaking proudly of their ‘good’ behaviour and being unable to identify instances of ‘bad’ behaviour. Nevertheless, instances of not consuming sustainably were observable and these tended to take one of three forms. First, there were instances when informants did not generalize or apply a sustainability concern across their consumption. For example, most children spoke of switching off lights or using energy-saving light bulbs to reduce electricity consumption. However, they did not recognize many other ways in which they consumed, and could save, electricity (e.g. watching television, using a computer). Second, there were instances when informants would identify a concern then externalize responsibility for the issue to some ‘other’, such as a company, a government, a particular country or a collective of people. Third, there were times when individuals acted on a concern but whether those actions were the best options was debatable. For example, one boy reported boycotting products from China because of concerns about perceived human rights violations while another boy criticized the boycott action and argued that purchasing the products would help to lift people out of poverty.
Stage 2: online survey Method The objectives of stage 2 were to construct and refine the ASC scale. Various sources guided the scale construction and refinement procedures, including Cattell (1978), Churchill (1979), De Villis (1991) and Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). For each sustainability concern that stage 1 identified, we constructed two items with slightly different wording. Item responses were captured on a 5-point, fully labelled, Likert scale that ranged from ‘not at all concerned’ to ‘very concerned’ with a mid-point of ‘half concerned, half not concerned’. The preliminary scale was administered in an online survey to 349 adolescents (girls = 186, boys = 163) aged 12 to 17 years. Initially, parents received a recruitment email with a secure link to the online survey. The survey site provided parents/guardians and children with age-appropriate background information and obtained the participation consent. The questionnaire for 46
adolescents presented the preliminary ASC scale and gathered demographic details. Participants submitted their responses online. The collected data were used to perform reflective scale refinement procedures. This included assessing the suitability of the data through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity values. The iterative exploratory factor analysis (EFA) steps included principal components analysis, direct oblimin rotation, checking item factor loadings, removing items with split or low loadings and retaining the items that attained a primary factor loading greater than 0.5 with no secondary loadings above 0.3. The analysis also examined Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, corrected item total correlations (CITC) and alpha-if-item-deleted (AIID) values to assess the reliability of the retained items. Results The scale construction and refinement produced an instrument with favourable statistical properties. The KMO value of 0.965 and significant Bartlett’s test result (P < 0.000) indicated that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The iterative process of EFA, reliability analysis and deleting items produced the ASC scale shown in Table 2. The analysis extracted three dimensions that align with the concepts of environment, well-being and society. The initial pool of items was refined to a set of 16 items that explained 74% of the variation in the data. Fourteen of the retained items displayed high primary factor loadings (range: 0.605 to 0.905) without secondary loadings above 0.3. The two items that produced split loadings were retained with the intention of testing revised items in the next survey. Also, the CITC and AIID statistics supported the set of retained items and the Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged from 0.844 up to 0.941. These results indicated that the stage 2 version of the ASC scale was favourable but that the scale would benefit from some minor revisions.
Stage 3: online survey Method The objectives of stage 3 were to validate and use the ASC scale in addition to further examining the reasons why adolescents do not necessarily consume sustainability. Certain aspects of stage 3 emulated stage 2. For instance, the same sources that guided the
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
Table 2 Stage 2 version of adolescents’ sustainability concerns scale Component/Items Environment (α = 0.942) If the product or package is wasteful If the production damaged trees or plants If producing or using it causes pollution How much rubbish is created How it effects oceans and rivers generally Whether or not animals are effected Well-being (α = 0.834) The possible effects on my health The ingredients in food or drinks The effect on my fitness Whether or not it is really necessary Society (α = 0.925) Where the product was made or produced How the product was made or produced Supporting local businesses The size of the company involved How people are treated where the product was made Whether the company is socially responsible
Factor loadings
0.605 0.823 0.848 0.680 0.840 0.790 0.905 0.757 0.746 0.633
0.408 0.801
0.386
0.771 0.746 0.878 0.474 0.647
Proportion of variation in data explained = 73.9%.
scale construction and refinement now guided the scale validation (see stage 2). The participant recruitment procedures replicated those of stage 2, including contacting parents/guardians via email and obtaining consent from parents/guardians and the children. Stage 3 also used the same online survey procedures, with participants submitting their completed responses online. The stage 3 participants were 322 adolescents (girls = 164, boys = 158) aged 12–17 years. The online questionnaire had two main parts: one part related to the ASC scale and a second part dealt with not consuming sustainably. The ASC part of the questionnaire included the refined ASC scale from stage 2 along with a three-item measure of overall sustainability concern that provided a regression analysis dependent variable. The relevant data were used to perform some final scale refinements, to validate the instrument and to enumerate the sustainability concern scores. The specific analyses included confirmatory factor analysis, removal of less statistically desirable items, extraction of alpha coefficients, multiple regression analysis and computation of mean component scores from the final retained items. The part of the questionnaire that dealt with reasons for not consuming sustainably used quantitative and qualitative techniques. The premise of the quantitative aspect was that at least some unsustainable consumption stems from not recognizing consumption implications. Respondents were asked to indicate how many products they had consumed the previous day and to then indicate how many of those products had implications for (i) the environment; (ii) their well-being; and (iii) society. For each respondent, the analysis extracted the number of products with implications as a proportion of the products consumed to identify tendencies in recognizing (or not) the extent to which consumption has sustainability implications.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
The premise of the qualitative aspect was that the topic area may be vulnerable to socially desirable responding. To minimize such effects, three open-ended items employed the third-person approach (Aaker et al., 2005) to examine reasons why ‘others’ may not consume sustainably. Each item looked at a different dimension of sustainability, as follows: 1 Kym describes herself as environmentally friendly but there are times when Kim’s choices are bad for the environment. Why do you think this sort of thing happens? 2 Remi looks like someone who takes care of their health and well-being but last weekend Remi did some risky things with potentially bad health consequences. Why do you think this sort of thing happens? 3 Lee gave a presentation about companies that are not socially responsible but Lee owns products that were made by some of the ‘bad’ companies. Why do you think this sort of thing happens? The qualitative responses were coded and content analysed to identify the emergent themes. Again, the researchers worked separately to compile preliminary findings before they combined their findings and reached a consensus view. Results Sustainability concerns The final stage of refining and assessing the ASC scale produced the instrument in Table 3. The scale retains the original dimensions of environment, well-being and society. Two items were removed leaving a more parsimonious set of 14 items, all of which have high primary factor loadings above 0.800 and no secondary loadings above 0.3. The reliability coefficients for the scale dimensions are strong, ranging from an alpha of 0.874 up to 0.941. The regression analysis shows that each dimension has a significant positive relationship with the dependent variable and together they explain 78% (R2 = 0.78) of overall sustainability concerns. In conjunction with the foundations on which the scale was constructed, these results support the reliability and validity of the ASC measurement scale. Subsequently, the issues or criteria in the scale items represent the content domain of the sustainability issues about which adolescents are aware. In turn, the responses to those items indicate the magnitude of concern for the issues. In the current study, the five points on the response scale were coded from zero to four (0 = not at all concerned; 4 = very concerned) and data for the retained ASC scale items were used to compute mean component scores. The results indicate mean component scores of 2.3 for the environment and society dimensions and a mean score of 2.4 for well-being (Table 3). This indicates that the magnitude of concern resides only slightly above the scale mid-point that was labelled ‘half concerned, half not concerned’. Reasons for not consuming sustainably Table 4 presents the results obtained from calculating the proportion of consumption that adolescents believed had sustainability implications. The data indicate that participants believe that less than half of their previous day consumption had sustainability implications. Specifically, they indicated that 45% of consumption had environmental implications, 46% had personal health and well-being implications and only 24% of goods and services 47
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
Component/Items
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Table 3 Refined and validated adolescents’ sustainability concerns scale
Factor Loadings
Environment (α = 0.941; M = 2.3) If producing it damaged trees or plants If producing or using it causes pollution How much rubbish is created The effects on oceans and rivers generally Whether animals are effected Well-being (α = 0.874; M = 2.4) The possible effects on my health The ingredients in food or drinks The effect on my fitness Whether something is really necessary Society (α = 0.937; M = 2.3) Where it was made or produced How it was made or produced Supporting local businesses Human rights in the country where it was made Whether the company is socially responsible
0.878 0.934 0.899 0.874 0.779 0.802 0.856 0.784 0.748 0.896 0.928 0.814 0.840 0.847
Regression analysis (dependent variable: overall sustainability concern)
Environment Well-being Society
Coefficient β
t-value
Significance
0.171 0.172 0.550
4.71 4.61 14.27
0.000* 0.000* 0.000*
R2 = 0.78. *Significant at P < 0.01 level. Table 4 Proportion of consumption believed to have sustainability implications Sustainability dimension
Mean (%)
Median (%)
Environment Well-being Society
45.1 46.2 24.0
40 50 0
consumed had implications for society. Also, the heavily skewed society scores produced a median of 0%. That is, more than half of the sample believed that their previous day consumption had no implications or connections to social sustainability. Table 5 presents the results obtained from the third-person questions that asked adolescents to explain why a person’s behaviour may not be consistent with their concern about sustainability. The analysis identifies a range of reasons, most of which vary across the dimensions of sustainability. In relation to environment, the most prevalent reasons for not consuming sustainably related to the utilitarian considerations of cost (n = 53) and convenience (n = 38) as well as a lack of knowledge or information (n = 47). To a lesser extent, some respondents spoke of apathy and ‘cannot-be-bothered’ attitudes (n = 36) while others explained that being imperfect was normal and human (n = 31). The remaining responses externalized responsibility to others (n = 22), spoke about peer-group pressure (n = 20) or suggested that the reason was a lack of suitable alternatives (n = 8). The well-being question elicited fewer different reasons and the reasons given focused on normative or hedonic influences. Peer pressure (n = 127) was the most frequently reported reason, reflecting that the perceived need to conform with peers can over48
Table 5 Reported reasons for unstainable consumption Sustainability dimension Theme
Environment
Cost Knowledge Convenience/Time Apathy/Indifference Normal to be imperfect External responsibility Peer pressure Availability Hedonic preference Don’t know why
53 47 38 36 31 22 20 8 68
Well-being
Society 91
27
39 127 63 67
44 30 8 11 21 6 63
ride other concerns. This was followed by hedonic motives (n = 63) whereby participants variously referred to prioritizing fun, pleasure, youthfulness and experimental behaviour. The remaining respondents explained that transgressions are the result of normal human imperfections (n = 39) or a lack of relevant knowledge (n = 27). For the society question, the most frequently reported reason for not consuming sustainably was cost (n = 91). Apathy with a strong subtheme of hypocrisy (n = 44) and normalizing transgressions as only human (n = 30) accounted for the next clusters of explanations. The remaining respondents identified a lack of better alternatives (n = 21), peer pressure (n = 11), external factors outside of one’s control (n = 8) and hedonic motives (n = 6) as the reasons for inconsistencies between society-related concerns and behaviour.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Across the dimensions, 63–68 respondents indicated that they did not know why concern-behaviour inconsistencies occur. These were not necessarily the same participants across each question: case analysis revealed that only a small number of individuals indicated ‘don’t know’ for two or more items. Thus, not knowing appears to be a further issue.
Discussion and conclusion Encouraging the adoption of more sustainable consumption practices is a priority for many consumer researchers, social marketers, policy makers and educators. This domain sees regular advances in knowledge and practice. Nevertheless, continued effort is required to develop a better understanding of the relationship between consumers and sustainability. Our research focused on adolescent-aged consumers. Understanding this significant segment of current and future consumers is vital to fostering a sustainable future. However, adolescents are relatively underresearched (Autio et al., 2009; Francis and Davis, 2014). Subsequently, our work contributes by offering insights about ASC and reasons for not consuming in a sustainable manner. We also contribute to research methods in this area by providing a measurement scale that can be used in future studies. Crucially, too, the results of our research capture the adolescent’s own perspective – their concerns, their lived experience and their explanations. More specifically, the first objective of this research was to develop and use an ASC scale. As noted earlier, the literature does not otherwise provide a reliable, valid, age-appropriate scale that identifies and measures adolescents’ concerns across the three dimensions of sustainability. Our ASC scale construction, refinement and assessment provide evidence that supports the reliability and validity of the instrument. The scale delineates sustainability concerns into three dimensions – environment, well-being and society – while the 14 items indicate the content domain of each dimension. The environment dimension includes concerns relating to trees and plants, pollution, rubbish, oceans and rivers and animal welfare; well-being incorporates physical health, nutrition, fitness and the necessity of products; and society covers concerns about a product’s country of origin and production as well as supporting local businesses, human rights and corporate social responsibility. In addition, to identifying the common set of sustainability concerns, the ASC scale provides a means to measure those concerns. Using the scale in the current study revealed that adolescents were concerned, but only marginally above a level labelled as ‘half concerned, half not concerned’. Moreover, the ASC scale can be used in future studies as a standard instrument to measure, monitor and compare the concerns of other populations of children. The second objective of the research was to examine adolescents’ reasons for not consuming sustainably. This aspect of the research used a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques as well as personal and third-person questions. The different approaches helped to mitigate bias from low self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Moreover, each approach offered unique insights. For instance, the stage 1 interviews revealed that similarly concerned individuals may have disparate beliefs about the best consumption choice (e.g. boycott or buy from China). The
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
quantitative question in stage 3 revealed that more than half of the participants believed that their consumption choices had no implications for societal sustainability. And the third-person questions revealed that reasons for unsustainable consumption vary across the dimensions of sustainability. Looking more broadly at all of the reasons that emerged across the different stages of the research offers further insight. In particular, there appears to be three groups or clusters of reasons for not consuming sustainably. One cluster relates to limitations in applying sustainability concerns. This includes not generalizing concerns across consumption acts (stage 1), not recognizing the sustainability implications of many consumption acts (Table 4) and not knowing the most sustainable consumption option (Table 5). The second cluster involves deviating from concerns due to situational factors or competing priorities. The reasons here include utilitarian factors (i.e. cost, convenience and time), hedonic preferences and peer pressure (Table 5). The third cluster involves placing limitations or qualifications on one’s personal responsibility for sustainability. These reasons include being concerned but externalizing the responsibly for action to others (stage 1; Table 5), tolerating imperfection and inaction as well as general apathy (Table 5). These findings have a number of implications for academics and practitioners. For instance, our work highlights that the sustainability concerns of adolescents extend beyond the physical environmental but that their awareness and understanding of the societal aspects is comparatively low. Thus, social marketers, policy makers and educators could direct greater attention to this dimension. The findings also provide directions for more targeted campaigns or initiatives. For instance, more clearly demonstrating that all consumption has sustainability implications may help to combat limitations in the application of sustainability concerns. Conveying the role of everyday consumers in problems while empowering the individual to bring about positive change may mitigate externalizing responsibly and tolerance for inaction. Importantly, too, cost is a key issue for adolescents so marketers of sustainable products need to be more competitive. Overall, readers should consider the results relative to the limitations and emerging directions for research. One consideration is this study’s use of consumer socialization theory to justify examining reflective stage adolescents aged 11–18 years. Theory and precedents support that decision. However, the socialization stages – such as Piaget’s developmental stages – primarily represent children in the middle of an age bracket while children at the lower or upper boundaries may transition between stages across tasks or situations (Gupta, 1995; John, 1999). Subsequently, future research could verify the applicability of our scale at the stage boundaries. Extending the work to populations other than Australian residents would allow future studies to examine cultural similarities and differences. Meanwhile, extending the research to young adults (e.g. 18–25 years) could offer insights into the evolution of sustainable (or not) consumption as young people grow into adults. More broadly, readers may also note that the ASC scale is subject to the potential limitations of common method bias that apply to measurement scales that use a standard response format. A further consideration is this study’s emphasis on examining the adolescent’s perspective. Examining the self-reported concerns, experiences and views of adolescents addressed notable 49
Sustainability concerns and unsustainable consumption
gaps in the literature. At the same time, it meant that our research examined self-reported consumption behaviour, as opposed to actual consumption behaviour. Actual consumption was not critical to our research objectives. However, future research may generate additional insights from using measures such as reflective journals to record and analyse the actual consumption of adolescents. Finally, the ASC scale that this project developed focused on identifying and measuring the sustainability concerns of adolescents. Having established the reliability and validity of the construct measurement scale, future research could statistically examine the various factors that influence related consumption behaviours. For example, researchers could examine the nature and extent to which social norms influence sustainability concerns, as well as the gaps between sustainability concerns and consumption behaviour. Researchers may also wish to examine the links between concerns and behaviour from different theoretical perspectives, such as the theory of planned behaviour.
Acknowledgement This research was partly funded by a University of Wollongong Research Council (URC) Grant.
References Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., Day, G.S. & Lawley, M. (2005) Marketing Research: The Pacific Rim Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Milton, Australia. Autio, M., Heiskanen, E. & Heinonen, V. (2009) Narratives of green consumers – the antihero, the environmental hero and the anarchist. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 40–53. Barraza, L. (1999) Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5, 49–66. Bartholomew, A. & O’Donohoe, S. (2003) Everything under control: a child’s eye view of advertising. Journal of Marketing Management, 19, 433–457. Benn, J. (2004) Consumer education between consumership and citizenship: experiences from studies of young people. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 108–116. Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. Plenum Press, New York. Chan, K. (2006) Exploring children’s perceptions of material possessions: a drawing study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9, 352–366. Churchill, G.A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64–73. De Villis, R.F. (1991) Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Desrochers, D.M. & Holt, D.J. (2007) Children’s exposure to television advertising: implications for childhood obesity. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26, 182–201. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. & Roth, K.P. (2008) Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203– 1218. Dority, B.L., McGarvey, M.G. & Kennedy, P.F. (2010) Marketing foods and beverages in schools: the effect of school food policy on students’ overweight measures. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29, 204–218. Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R. & Devinney, T.M. (2010) Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (Nov– Dec), 426–436.
50
J.E. Francis and T. Davis
Francis, J.E. & Davis, T. (2014) Exploring children’s socialization to three dimensions of sustainability. Young Consumers, 15, 125–137. Gilliam, D.A. & Voss, K. (2013) A proposed procedure for construct definition in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 5–26. Griskevicius, V., Cantu, S.M. & van Vugt, M. (2012) The evolutionary bases for sustainable behaviour: implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31, 115–128. Gupta, D.P. (1995) Growing up in families. In Personal, Social, and Emotional Development of Children (ed. by P. Barnes), pp. 83–134. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Hampel, B., Boldero, J. & Holdsworth, R. (1996) Gender patterns in environmental consciousness among adolescents. Journal of Sociology, 32, 58–71. Hill, J.A. (2011) Endangered childhoods: how consumerism is impacting child and youth identity. Media, Culture and Society, 33, 347–363. Hoffmann, S. & Muller, S. (2009) Consumer boycotts due factory relocation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 239–247. John, D.R. (1999) Consumer socialization of children: a retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 183–213. King, N. (1994) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. In The Qualitative Research Interview (ed. by C. Cassell & G. Symon). Sage, Thousand Oaks. Kozinets, R.V. & Handelman, J.M. (2004) Adversaries of consumption: movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 691–704. Lawlor, M. & Prothero, A. (2003) Children’s understanding of television advertising intent. Journal of Marketing Management, 19, 411– 431. Larsson, B., Anderson, M. & Osbeck, C. (2010) Bringing environmentalism home: children’s influence on family consumption in the Nordic countries and beyond. Childhood, 17, 129–147. Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R. & Ranghunathan, R. (2010) The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74 (September), 18–31. Nadeau, M. (2011) Food Advertising Directed at Children: Review of Effects, Strategies and Tactics. Quebec: Quebec Coalition on WeightRelated Problems. Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilnourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K. & Thogersen, J. (2011) Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30, 31–38. Sargeant, J. (2008) Australian Children: Locally Secure, Globally Afraid. Humanities and Social Science Papers: Bond University. Strong, C. (1998) The impact of environmental education on children’s knowledge and awareness of environmental concerns. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16, 349–355. Tucci, J., Mitchell, J. & Goddard, C.C. (2007), Children’s Hopes, Fears, and Heroes: A Modern Childhood. Australian Childhood Foundation: Monash University. Varman, R. & Belk, R.W. (2009) Nationalism and ideology in an anticonsumption movement. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (December), 686–700. Vermier, I. & Verbeke, W. (2004) Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer attitude-behaviour gap. Faculty of Economics and Business Working Paper: Gent University. Ward, S. (1974) Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (September), 1–14. White, K., MacDonnell, R. & Ellard, J.H. (2012) Belief in a just world: consumer intentions and behaviours towards ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76 (January), 103–118.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 43–50 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
