Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: 


you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Consumer attitudes towards sustainability and sustainable
business: An exploratory study of New Zealand
consumers.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilent of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Commerce and Management
at
Lincoln University
by
David Anthony Thompson
Lincoln University
2015
Abstract
The concept of sustainability has undergone considerable discussion and analysis by the
academic, commercial and legislative communities since it first rose to prominence with the
publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987. From that debate and assessment has developed
widespread acceptance of the importance of living and working sustainably, and as a result, it
is rapidly becoming one of the most influential drivers of contemporary business planning. It
could be readily argued that business, political and academic leaders are in concordance on the
subject, yet there has been very little attention paid to how consumers respond to sustainability.
Understanding consumer attitudes towards sustainable business practices is of major
importance because it is them, the consumers, that will ultimately make the decisions and
engage in the activities that lead to sustainability. Without their engagement, any attempts to
achieve sustainable commercial activities will struggle to succeed, therefore understanding
how they perceive and respond to sustainability as a concept is of considerable importance.
This study sought to fulfil that need through the analysis of how a sample of consumers
responded to sustainability as a holistic concept and identified that while there is some
awareness of and commitment to both social and environmental sustainability, when it comes
to economic sustainability there is much less certainty. From this, a number of potentially
valuable future-research opportunities have been identified,
i
Acknowledgements
Without my wife Nic, this would simply never have happened and while I have had the
support and encouragement of many others, I will never forget or cease to appreciate what she
has done for me.
I would also like to thank my supervisors, Dr Sharon Forbes and Dr David Cohen. I cannot
even begin to imagine how frustrating a student I have been, yet you were always there and
ready to assist me in this taxing journey.
Finally I’d like to thank my son Sean and daughter Michelle for believing that your dad could
do it because I certainly didn't.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
ii
Table of Contents
iii
List of Figures
iv
List of Tables
v
1.
INTRODUCTION
Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... - 2 1.2 Business sustainability ........................................................................................ - 4 1.3 Consumer need for sustainable business ............................................................. - 5 1.4 Research motivation and benefits ....................................................................... - 5 1.5 Research design overview ................................................................................... - 6 2.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
-82.1 Sustainability ....................................................................................................... - 8 2.2 Attitudes ............................................................................................................ - 15 3.
METHOD
- 20 3.1 Data collection................................................................................................... - 21 3.2 Instrument design .............................................................................................. - 23 RESULTS
- 26 4.
4.1 Response rate..................................................................................................... - 26 4.2 Sample description ............................................................................................ - 26 4.4 Environmental sustainability
- 30 4.5 Social sustainability........................................................................................... - 36 4.6 Economic sustainability .................................................................................... - 40 4.7 Comparison of the three dimensions of sustainability ...................................... - 46 4.8 Assessing the research questions....................................................................... - 50 4.9 Summary of results............................................................................................ - 53 CONCLUSION
- 55 5.
5.1 Theoretical contribution .................................................................................... - 55 5.2 Practical contribution ........................................................................................ - 55 5.3 Limitations of the research ................................................................................ - 56 5.4 Future research opportunities ............................................................................ - 57 6.
REFERENCES
- 61 7.
Appendixes
- 61 7.1 Appendix 1 Questionnaire ................................................................................. - 77 -
iii
i
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Sustainable businesses consider their impact on the natural environment .......................... - 30 Figure 3-2. Sustainable businesses use resources efficiently ................................................................. - 30 Figure 3-3. The impact of business activity on the environment is (not) overstated .............................. - 31 Figure 3-4 I’m worried about the impact of business activity on the environment. ............................... - 32 Figure 3-5 I’m glad that sustainable businesses do not waste resources like water or electricity. ......... - 32 Figure 3-6 I don’t like excessive packaging because that’s a needless waste. ....................................... - 33 Figure 3-7 I prefer to deal with companies that operate in an environmentally responsible way. ......... - 34 Figure 3-8 Environmental claims about products have an impact on whether I buy them. ................... - 34 Figure 3-9 When I go shopping I look for products that damage the environment. ............................... - 35 Figure 3-10 Sustainable businesses avoid creating problems for people living nearby. ........................ - 36 Figure 3-11 A sustainable business invests in its employees’ long-term development......................... - 36 Figure 3-12 A sustainable business values its suppliers and makes sure they are treated fairly. ........... - 37 Figure 3-13 I like it when businesses make the welfare of customers a priority.................................... - 37 Figure 3-14 I like it when successful businesses reward their employees fairly. ................................... - 38 Figure 3-15 I care whether businesses support charities. ....................................................................... - 38 Figure 3-16 I prefer to deal with businesses that support charities in my community. .......................... - 39 Figure 3-17 I try not to deal with businesses that have poor working conditions. ................................. - 39 Figure 3-18 How a business treats people influences whether I support that business. ......................... - 40 Figure 3-19 The most important role of a business is to make money for its owners. ........................... - 41 Figure 3-20 Sustainable businesses are profitable businesses. ............................................................... - 41 Figure 3-21 Sustainable businesses invest in research to find more sustainable ways to operate. ......... - 42 Figure 3-22 I admire people who have become wealthy through business success. .............................. - 43 Figure 3-23 I don’t like it when companies make excessive profits. ..................................................... - 43 Figure 3-24 don’t like it when businesses encourage people to buy things they don’t need. ................. - 44 Figure 3-25 I trust companies that have been around a long time more than new companies. .............. - 45 Figure 3-26 I am willing to pay more for well-known brands. .............................................................. - 45 Figure 3-27 When I buy something, price is less important than the ethics of the company. ................ - 45 Figure 3-28 Mean of all environmental items. ....................................................................................... - 47 Figure 3-29 Mean of all social items. ..................................................................................................... - 47 Figure 3-30 Mean of all Economic items, .............................................................................................. - 48 Figure 3-31 Mean of responses for each of the three dimensions of sustainability................................ - 49 -
iv
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Demographic characteristics of the sample
- 27 -
Table 3-2 Responses to cognitive items
- 50 -
Table 3-3 Responses to Affective items
- 51 -
Table 3-4 Responses to behavioural items
- 52 -
v
1. Introduction
Businesses increasingly find they are being forced to adapt to major shifts in the technological,
political, environmental or economic environments they operate in: shifts that result in changes
that are of such a magnitude that have become described as megatrends. One such megatrend
is the fast-growing demand for businesses to adopt sustainability as a primary business
imperative (Lubin & Esty, 2010). This has come about in response to a growing realisation that
the capacity of the natural environment to provide the resources humans have come to depend
on and to absorb the waste resulting from human activities is unlikely to meet the demands
being placed on it (e.g. Atkinson, Dietz, & Neumayer, 2007; Folke et al., 2002; Kremen, 2005;
Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972; Scerri & James, 2010; WWF, 2012).
The status of sustainability as a business megatrend is evidenced by organisations such as
global business advisors Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) stating that “it is critical that
business incorporates sustainability in a way that guides strategy development, decision
making and practical action” (PwC New Zealand, 2014). The Australasian bank Westpac
describe sustainability as a “core value” (Westpac, 2014) assert that “sustainability continues
to be an important part of our business strategy and our vision is to be clearly recognised by
our customers, employees, investors and the community as a global leader in sustainability”
(Westpac New Zealand, 2013).
These examples illustrate that leading participants in the corporate sector are asserting the
importance of sustainability as a key factor for deciding business directions into the future.
This growth in interest in sustainability is not unique to the business community and has
become a key driver in academic thinking (e.g. Beddoe et al., 2009; Christensen, Peirce,
Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier, 2007; Corcoran & Wals, 2004). This is further reflected in the
-1-
growing influence being exerted on governmental and non-governmental agencies (Kraemer &
Negrila, 2014; Nordhaus, 2006).
It is therefore apparent that the concept of sustainability has gained the attention of many
individuals and groups. It is increasingly featuring in research, education, legislation and
strategic business planning, but is this interest shared by consumers? It can be reasonably
argued that those human activities which most challenge sustainability are concerned with the
consumption of goods and services (Barnett, Cloke, Clarke, & Malpass, 2005; Belz & Peattie,
2012; James & Scerri, 2012; Peattie & Peattie, 2008; Zukin, 2008). From within the context of
achieving sustainable business practices, it is, therefore, useful to understand the attitudes of
consumers towards sustainability. Litvin & MacLaurin (2001, p. 821), argue that the “ultimate
purchase decision is a direct behavioural response to attitudes”. This study seeks to respond to
that through gaining an understanding of the attitudes held by consumers towards sustainability
and to what extent these attitudes influence their behaviour.
Background
The concept of sustainability as it is discussed in this study had its genesis in the 1960s when
best-selling books such as Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962) and The Population Bomb
by Paul R. Ehrlich (1968) created widespread public awareness that increasing human activity
was having a deleterious impact on a finite natural environment. This concern was a factor in
the formation of The Club of Rome in 1968 as “an informal association of independent leading
personalities from politics, business and science” (Club of Rome, n.d.). One of their first acts
was to commission a group of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) to conduct a study that would explore the relationship between exponential economic
and population growth with finite resources. Through the use of computers and computer
modelling, this was a ground-breaking work and resulted in the publication of The Limits to
Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972). This book argued that human
-2-
activity was using earth’s resources in an unsustainable manner and initially received
widespread criticism and even ridicule, particularly from conservative economists and the
mainstream business community (Kaysen, 1972; Simmons, 2000; Solow, 1973). However
subsequent analysis and the passage of time have revealed that its overall findings were in fact
realistic and Limits to Growth has become a regularly updated and influential publication
(Norgard, Peet, & Ragnarsdotir, 2010; Turner, 2008).
A further development occurred in 1980 when the International Union for the Conservation of
Natural Resources (IUCN) published the World Conservation Strategy (WCS). This document
had a major impact on the evolution of sustainable development in that it “marked a shift away
from the traditional focus on cure rather than prevention” (McCormick, 1986, p. 177). Until
then, the focus of the environmental movement had been on preserving wildlife and limiting
growth, but this report recognised that the successful conservation of nature is dependent on
alleviating poverty. The report “stressed the interdependence of conservation and development
in which development depends on caring for the earth” (UNCSD, 2014), introducing the
concept of sustainable development and the contents laid much of the groundwork that allowed
for the development of the triple bottom line (TBL) model in years to come. It played an
influential part in the formation of the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) in 1983 which was subsequently tasked with formulating ‘A global agenda for
change’ (Reid, 2013, p.55).
The subsequent work of the WCED resulted in the publication of the seminal document ‘Our
Changing World’ which has since become known as the Brundtland Report after the Chair of
the Council, Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report argued that despite widespread scientific and
technological advances that had been able to create major improvements to life (e.g., reduced
infant mortality, improved overall life expectancy, more children in school and food
production that increased at a greater level than the population grew), humanity was still facing
-3-
potentially devastating problems. The Report argued that in order to avoid this impending
catastrophe it had become imperative for humanity to engage in what was termed as
sustainable development. This was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED,
1987, p.1). This definition, commonly referred to as the Brundtland definition, is “the most
frequently cited one and seems to be more exhaustive than the majority of other definitions”
(Ciegis, Ramanauskiene, & Martinkus, 2009, p. 30) and all use of the terms sustainable,
sustainability, sustainable business or sustainable development in this study will use this
definition as their basis.
Business sustainability
Since the late 1980s there has been “a deluge of sustainability literature” (Toman & Pezzey,
2002, p. 12) as interest in the concept and concern at the implications it presented grew,
particularly within academic institutions and non-government agencies. However, this concern
was not universal (Beckerman, 1994; Common & Perrings, 1992). Until the early 21st century,
the commercial sector largely rejected the concept as being a hindrance to the successful
pursuit of commerce (Holliday, Schmidheiny, Watts, & World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, 2002). However, by then the impacts of unsustainable human
activity were no longer able to be ignored, and it became increasingly accepted that existing
business models needed to adapt in response.
An increasing number of business thinkers and leaders began to reassess the idea of
sustainability, evaluating ways that sustainable business practices could practically be applied.
This led to the realisation that rather than simply being a cost, there were in fact many direct
business benefits that were able to be enjoyed through operating sustainably (Dyllick &
Hockerts, 2002; Elkington, 1998; Snierson, 2008). Interest in sustainable business grew rapidly
as increasing numbers of businesses began to implement appropriate business practices, a trend
-4-
that is evidenced by the growth in membership of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. The
Index reported that in 1989, there were 469 companies listed and by 2014 this number had
grown more than 380 percent to 1,813 companies listed as being assessed (Dow Jones
Sustainability Indices, 2014). This trend has continued, and as has been previously discussed,
sustainability is becoming a common and influential driver of business decision making. In
their 2010 survey of global business leaders, consultants McKinsey & Company reported that
three percent of Chief Executives identified sustainability as their most important priority with
a further 31 percent placing it in their top three business priorities. By 2014, these numbers had
grown to 13 percent noting sustainability as their top priority with 36 percent placing it in their
top three (Bonini & Bove, 2014).
Consumer need for businesses to be sustainable
What is sometimes disregarded in the sustainability debate, is the need that consumers have for
the businesses that supply them with the majority of their daily requirements, from food and
shelter to entertainment and education. At the same time, businesses provide the paid
employment that allows consumers agency in how they satisfy these needs. If businesses are
not able to sustain continuous operation, then they are likely to be unable to satisfy consumers
with many of their daily survival needs or provide security and employment. It is therefore
arguably at least as important for consumers that businesses are able to operate sustainably as
it is for the businesses themselves.
Research motivation and benefits
As sustainability has been the subject of a considerable volume of research, it could be argued
that the concept is becoming well understood and the veracity of the ideas behind it have
become generally accepted by both the academic and corporate communities. A review of the
literature suggests that how consumers understand sustainability and the attitudes they hold
towards the concept have received comparatively little attention. The concept of ‘green
-5-
consumers’ has been widely discussed, as has how consumers respond towards corporate
social behaviour. However it is apparent that little has been done to gain an understanding of
whether consumers see sustainability as a holistic systems oriented concept and not merely
another form of environmentalism. The OECD recognises that consumers are central to
“driving sustainable production and play a central role in sustainable development” (OECD,
2008, p.1), therefore this deficit warrants attention.
The increasingly evident growth in interest shown by the business community suggests that
they are listening, but if consumers are not engaged it could be argued that the efforts of the
business community will, at best, be limited. The motivation behind this study is to add to the
available information through identifying the attitudes consumers hold towards the concept.
This knowledge will be of interest to both political policy makers and businesses.
Research design overview
This study will seek to achieve its aims through canvassing the views of a group of New
Zealand consumers selected to be representative of the population of interest using a
quantitative data collection methodology. The data collected will undergo analysis using SPSS
software in order to answer the following three research questions:
1. “What does sustainability mean to consumers?”
2. “How do consumers feel about sustainability?”
3. “Does sustainability influence consumer behaviour?”
These three questions address the cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes
and the data collection method will be designed to be able to provide answers to all three
questions in regards to the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability.
-6-
By taking this approach, this study aims to assess whether the respondents see sustainability as
a holistic concept as well as identifying their attitudes to sustainability.
-7-
2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainability
As has been previously discussed, interest in the concept of sustainability, as discussed in this
study, is a relatively recent phenomenon, yet has attracted considerable attention resulting in
an abundance of discussion and analysis from virtually every sector (e.g. Clark & Dickson,
2003; Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos, 2014; Toman & Pezzey, 2002; Yates, 2012; Zollo,
Cennamo, & Neumann, 2013).. This review will focus its attention on how it has come to be
defined and conceptualised, with emphasis on the perspective of the business community.
Challenges to defining sustainability
Despite the volume of research conducted, with the attendant high levels of debate, the
formation of a definition has continued to prove challenging with Gow (1992) remarking that
“sustainability is like happiness--everyone believes in it and everyone has a different
definition. In fact, sustainability has become so all-encompassing as to be virtually toothless”
(p. 51). Hrivnak remarked (2007, p. 167) that “the term ‘sustainability’ is often-used as a
woolly term for everything that is good and desirable”. Owens (2003) argues that there is no
single meaningful definition of sustainability and recognises that the definition changes to
reflect the social, economic and environmental factors relevant to the situation. Jabareen
(2008) noted “a critical review shows that the definitions of sustainability are vague; there is a
lack of operative definitions and disagreement over what should be sustained” (p. 179). Aras
and Crowther (2009) commented that “sustainability” is used so often that it has become
“effectively meaningless” (p. 979). Hume (2010) recognises that there is no clear framework
or terms of reference with which to develop strategies to change attitudes and behaviours and
thereby develop appropriate policies. As a result, it is harder for the business community to
develop and implement sustainable strategies (Battisti, Lee & Cameron, 2009; Epstein & Roy,
2000; Eweje, 2011).
-8-
Another factor hampering the formation of a commonly accepted definition of sustainability is
an argument that by its definition sustainability, especially when applied to commercial
activities, is illogical and therefore impossible. Johnson (2007) argued that one reason
sustainability is difficult to define is because unless an entity is able to operate infinitely, it is
logically not sustainable. This challenge to the ideal of continuous growth is supported by
Bonevac (2010), who states that sustainable growth cannot be applied to material things for an
infinite period, and that because of this the Brundtland definition of sustainability is logically
impossible. This argument is supported by Aras and Crowther (2009) who maintain that a
sustainable activity is one in which decisions made in the present do not restrict the choices
available in the future and that those choices and the situations influencing them are unknown.
Despite these and other challenges, there continue to be extensive efforts to answer the
question of how to define sustainability and Luchsinger (2009) identified themes common to
most definitions. These include attention to resource use while recognising the need for
constraint in consumption; awareness of relationships between economy, society and the
environment; responsibility for impact on the natural world while ensuring ongoing economic
viability and managing stakeholder relationships to ensure they remain viable and healthy. It
was becoming increasingly obvious that overcoming the challenges that threatened
sustainability would require a holistic and inclusive approach that addressed the needs of the
environment as well as working for a robust and vital society while ensuring that the business
sector could continue and thrive.
-9-
The triple bottom line (TBL)
By the 1990s, there was little doubt that for sustainable development to succeed, it needed to
maintain social equity and to ensure ongoing economic stability in addition to protecting the
natural environment. It was becoming apparent that sustainable development was only possible
when it was approached as an “interconnected, social and ecological network governed by
biological and physical processes” (Stead & Stead, 1994, p. 15). In 1994 John Elkington, the
founder of a British consultancy called SustainAbility, introduced the term triple bottom line
or TBL (Elkington, 1997) which is sometimes described as the three Ps: people, planet, and
profit (Slaper & Hall, 2011). Luchsinger (2009), provided a succinct definition: “conducting
business in a manner of economic, social and environmental responsibility” (p. 163). By
framing sustainability with language and concepts familiar to the business community it has
become easier for corporations to gain awareness of their impact on social and environmental
values and to engage in effective measurement and management of factors influencing
economic sustainability (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2007; Brown, Dillard, &
Marshall, 2006; Gibson, 2006). This was supported by Gladwin, Kennelly & Krause (1995) in
their recognition that there needed to be an integration of humanity and the environment for
sustainable development to be possible.
Despite the widespread acceptance of the TBL model, it has nonetheless been subjected to
some criticism. Sridhar and Jones (2012) identify three fundamental weaknesses in the
difficulty of measuring corporate social performance, in the need for a systemic approach for
all factors and problems with the integration of the three dimensions. These and similar
limitations have been widely acknowledged (Norman & MacDonald, 2003; Robins, 2006),
however the extent of the limitations does not support adopting any of the alternative models
currently being discussed (Pava, 2007; Savitz & Weber, 2013). Interest in the TBL,
particularly by businesses and the media, is growing rapidly (Tullberg, 2012). This has led to
- 10 -
widespread development of standards and systems to improve the quality of reporting (Scerri
& James, 2010; Skouloudis, Evangelinos, & Kourmousis, 2009) and the publication of
material assisting businesses in the use of TBL reporting to improve their sustainability
performance are now readily available ((Dalal-Clayton, 2014; Henriques & Richardson, 2004).
As a result, TBL reporting is an important and valuable tool for businesses to achieve
sustainable operations (Perrott, 2014).
It is worth noting however, that despite the widespread acceptance of the TBL model, there are
arguments in support of additional dimensions and even adoption of new models (Lawn, 2003;
Teriman, Yigitcanlar, & Mayere, 2009). While these alternative models have gained some
support and acceptance, within the business community the TBL is still the most respected and
widely used model (Fauzi, Svensson, & Rahman, 2010; Perrott, 2014).
However, although there has been widespread recognition of the need for both social and
environmental sustainability, the acceptance of the role of economic sustainability has been
somewhat more elusive (Doane & McGillivray, 2001). This is in part due to the long-held
belief that it not only costs money to adopt socially or environmentally sustainable strategies,
but it can even be a distraction from engaging in core business activities (Aupperie, Carroll, &
Hatfield, 1985; Clark, 2005; Reinhardt, Stavins, & Victor, 2008). At the same time, the term
sustainability is often used by business commentators to describe a business as merely
remaining profitable, with economic sustainability having been defined as “using the assorted
assets of the company efficiently to allow it to continue functioning profitability over time”
(Satish Pandian, Jawahar, & Nachiappan, 2013, p.92).
Business explanation of sustainability
Consulting firm KPMG argues that business sustainability requires: “adopting business
strategies that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while sustaining the
- 11 -
resources, both human and natural, that will be needed in the future” (KPMG, 2011, p. 12).
Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) describe sustainable business as “a process of change in
which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of
technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both
current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (PwC, 2011). This
somewhat more embracing explanation perhaps reflects the function of PWC as advisors to
business in that it considers the role and impact of investments, technology and institutional
change on sustainability. Other consultants and business advisors either use or base their
definition on the Brundtland definition but generally expand to define and explain how they
address the process of engaging in sustainable business practices (ARUP, 2014; Aura
Sustainability, 2014).
As with the academic world, the business community has undertaken considerable effort to
understand and define sustainability and found the task to be similarly challenging; however a
factor common to almost all explanations is the triple bottom line (TBL). Morrish, Miles and
Polonsky (2010) argue that the acceptance and use of the TBL is a requirement for the ongoing
viability of New Zealand businesses. This position was previously presented by Goldberg
(2001) in a paper prepared for the New Zealand Government regarding the policy implications
of sustainability. Goldberg (2001) argued that any form of sustainability would be difficult
without engaging in all three aspects of sustainability, and described a need for “the integration
of economic, social and environmental factors in decision-making at all levels” (p. 7).
Luchsinger (2009) and Kemp and Martens (2007) also argued that effectively operationalising
sustainability involves attention to all three dimensions. This was the position that The
Department of the Prime Minister (NZDPM) worked from when discussing sustainability for
New Zealand (Goldberg, 2001). They used the Brundtland definition to define sustainable
development, expanding it by adding “looking after people, taking the long term view, taking
- 12 -
into account social, economic, environmental and cultural effects of our decisions” (NZDPM,
2003). It is interesting to note that the NZDPM document was produced 16 years after the
Brundtland definition was first aired, yet this was the definition of sustainability the authors
used which is indicative of the strength of the original conceptualisation of the challenges
perceived.
Hume (2010) argues that the diversity of definitions is a limiting factor because individual
businesses operate under a great many differentiating factors such as location, size, purpose
and nature of business. This makes it difficult, particularly for individual businesses, to fully
understand and operationalise business sustainability. When evaluating sustainability from the
perspective of small and medium enterprises (SME) Battisti et al. (2009) identified that many
definitions of sustainability are not context specific and therefore have limited relevance to
small organisations. Lawrence, Collins, Pavlovich & Arunachalam (2006) agreed that the
“very concept of sustainable business practice for small firms is elusive” (p.242). This is
especially important when exploring sustainability from a New Zealand perspective as small
businesses are the dominant face of commerce in this country, with 97.2% of New Zealand
businesses having nineteen or fewer employees (MED, 2011).
Consulting firms and lobby groups have a major influence on the way the business community
operates, so it is appropriate to consider how these groups define and understand sustainability.
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development (NZBCSD) recognises that
the Brundtland definition expresses the idea, but lacks the ability to be transposed to specific
industries and individual situations. They do not present a solution to this issue, instead
suggesting adoption of the definition used by the United Kingdom government: "sustainable
development is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to
come” (NZBCSD, 2014). While this may be simple and easily understood, it is little more than
a rewording of the original Brundtland definition.
- 13 -
The concept of corporate social responsibility, or CSR, having existed in the business lexicon
since the 1950s (Carroll, 1999; Runhaar & Lafferty, 2009) is often taken as synonymous with
sustainability as they both address the role of business in protecting the needs of society.
Although sustainably run businesses are engaged in CSR behaviour and demonstrating a
commitment to CSR will contribute to corporate sustainability, they are not the same thing
(Kolk & Tulder, 2010; Montiel, 2008). Engaging in CSR, regardless of motivation, is the
process of addressing specific impacts of business on society (Ablander, 2011; Galbreath,
2010; Smith & Alexander,2013). Sustainability, as has been discussed previously in this
study, is focused on a business’s ability to operate in an economically viable manner for an
indefinite period.
Consumer definition of sustainability
Despite the wide-ranging debate and extensive work that has gone into finding ways to
understand and define sustainability from an academic and/or business perspective, what
consumers understand sustainability to mean would appear to have received little attention.
Extensive searches of published material from both the academic and public literature has
found nothing substantive that specifically examines how consumers define and understand the
concept of sustainability.
It is possible that this deficit is influenced by the wide-ranging and heterogeneous nature of the
construct 'consumers' making a common definition elusive. This argument is in part supported
by the fact that there is some research on knowledge and feelings towards sustainability in
specific groups such as students (Ng & Burke, 2010), tourists (Tribe, Rathouse, Scarles, &
Holmes, 2010), wine consumers (Forbes, Cohen, Cullen, Wratten & Fountain, 2009) and fast
moving consumer goods (FMCG) users (Harris, 2007). However, many of the populations
assessed by these studies have little in common with one another and contain limited
discussion on how consumers understand sustainability as an overarching concept. Market
- 14 -
research company Shape NZ was commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry for the
Environment to “to benchmark New Zealanders’ attitudes and behaviour with regard to acting
sustainably in the home" (Johnson, Fryer & Raggett, 2008, p.4). In this analysis of the attitudes
of over 1000 consumers, there was no recognition of the social and economic dimensions of
sustainability and no analysis of consumer attitudes towards business behaviour.
Consumer support for sustainable business
The limited volume of research conducted on consumers’ definitions of sustainability has
made assessing consumer response and support for sustainability as a concept problematic
because there is insufficient confidence that the same concept is being assessed by all
consumers. There has, however, been considerable and sustained agreement over that
consumers respond positively to claims of environmentally responsible corporate behaviour
(Green & Peloza, 2014; Lemke & Pereira Luzio, 2014; Peattie, 2001). This support is
tempered by consumer distrust that claims made by manufacturers and suppliers are
exaggerated or inaccurate (Peattie & Crane, 2005) and prices are higher or availability is
constrained (Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006). This deficit in the available literature has had a
major influence in developing the research questions posed by this study.
Attitudes
Attitude as a construct has been extensively debated and explored, and Allport (1968, p.59)
was cited by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as stating that attitude was: “the most distinctive and
indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology”. An early and frequently
cited definition of attitude is “the readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way”
(Jung, 1923, p. 687). A later definition was “the predisposition of the individual to evaluate
some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favourable or unfavourable manner” (Katz,
1960, p. 168) which introduced the idea that attitudes result in value-based assessments of the
attitude object. This led Fishbein and Ajzen to extend the definition to “a learned
- 15 -
predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner with respect to a
given object” (1975, p.6). This extension includes the impact of learning and that attitudes
precede actions. More recently Bohner & Dickel (2010, p. 392) argue that attitudes can be
defined as “stable entities stored in memory versus temporary judgments constructed on the
spot from the information at hand” which reinforces the idea that they are in part learned and,
though durable, can therefore be changed.
The components of attitudes
This leads to recognising that attitudes consist of three specific components: the cognitive; or
what is believed by the attitude holder, the affective component; or what is a felt by the attitude
holder and the behavioural or action tendency component (Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981; Cottam,
2004; Moorman, 1993). Action tendencies are directed towards attitude objects, which can be
concepts, physical items or other stimuli in the environment towards which the attitude is
directed. The attitude object of interest to this study is the concept of sustainability.
Influencing attitudes
There is a strong argument supporting the effectiveness of using advertising as a tool to
influence the action tendencies of consumers through the cognitive and affective components
(Aaker, Stayman, & Vezina, 1988; Baron, 2004; Batra & Holbrook, 1990; Ruth, Brunel, &
Otnes, 2002). Lavidge & Steiner (1961, p.2), as cited by Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley &
Barnes (1997), recognise the value to be achieved through separating “the objectives of
advertising into three main functions: cognitive, affective and conative”. Singh & Smith (2005)
identified that advertising increased consumer knowledge and provided a sense of
empowerment, which in turn influenced behavioural intentions, an argument supported by
Grewal et. al. (1997). Product labelling also fulfils a role in influencing consumer cognition.
Charters, Lockshin & Unwin (1999) identified that wine back label content influenced
consumer behaviour, a finding that was supported by Lalor, Madden, McKenzie & Wall
- 16 -
(2010), who reported that consumer buying intentions were influenced by health claims in food
labelling.
The role of attitudes in sustainable behaviour
Attitude has been used in attempts to account for a wide range of human behaviour, leading to
vague and even ambiguous ways of framing the concept and to difficulty in finding valid
methods with which to measure attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Hale, Householder and
Greene (2003) report that Fishbein and Ajzen’s frustration with the ambiguity led to the
development of the Theory of Reasoned Action. This theory seeks to measure and predict
behavioural intention using attitude as one variable with subjective norms as the other. From
the perspective of influencing behavioural change towards sustainability, this is important as
the core aspects of sustainable behaviour are increasingly becoming normative behaviour
(McDonald and Oates, 2010; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Young, Hwang, McDonald & Oates,
2010). Participating in the activities required to live sustainably could be described as a
reflection of a consumer’s personal values as there are few intrinsic benefits attached to this
behaviour. This, therefore, engages the value-expressive function of attitudes (Katz, 1960).
The relationship between attitudes and behaviour has been widely studied. Ajzen (1991, p.
179) identified “intentions to perform behaviours of different kinds can be predicted with high
accuracy from attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural
control”. Glasman & Albarracin (2006) identified that attitudes had a correlation with future
behaviour. However, the strength of that correlation was influenced by a number of factors,
including the confidence with which the attitudes are held and their accessibility (RoskosEwoldsen & Fazio, 1997). This would suggest that the ability of consumers to form positive
thoughts and feelings toward sustainability would influence the likelihood that their attitudes
would support sustainability and the likelihood that their behaviour would be determined by
- 17 -
these attitudes. It is therefore important to identify what consumers think and feel about
sustainability.
Until very recently there has been limited discussion regarding consumers and their attitudes or
awareness of sustainability as a holistic concept with most of the attention being directed
towards identifying common characteristics of consumers who are already engaged in or
strongly supportive of environmentally responsible behaviour (e.g. Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005;
Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010; Peattie, 2001; Moisander & Pesonen, 2002; Straughan &
Roberts, 1999; Thøgersen, 2006). While this strategy appeals to marketers because it makes it
relatively easy to identify and target these consumers (Straughan & Roberts, 1999), there is a
growing body of evidence against this approach (Straughan & Roberts, 1999). This is because
the characteristics of sustainability, whether environmental, social or economic, are in fact
attractive to the majority of consumers (Grail Research, 2009; Ottman, 2011; Peattie, 2001;
Shrum, McCarty & Lowery, 1995; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). There is even the argument
that we are all ‘green consumers” (Norris, 1997; Townsend, 2013) and that displaying green
behaviour would seem to be a core societal value (Ottman, 1998; Peattie, 2001; Johnson, Fryer
& Raggett, 2008), or general cultural behaviour (Caruana, 2007). As a result, some green
behaviour such as recycling and not littering has become normative social behaviour
(McDonald and Oates, 2010; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Young, Hwang, McDonald & Oates,
2009) while other green behaviours (e.g. using energy saving light bulbs, cutting back on car
usage) simply make economic sense.
How consumers think and feel towards sustainability is likely to be wide-ranging and shaped
by a complex mix of social interaction, media communication and formal education (Bridges
& Wilhelm, 2008; Kearins & Fryer, 2011; Keys, Thomsen & Smith, 2010; Kolandi-Matchett,
2009). Finding a single cohesive thread in how consumers see and understand sustainability
presents a major challenge, especially as sustainability is inherently subjective (Kemp &
- 18 -
Martens, 2007). Schaefer and Crane, (2005) recognised that sustainable consumption was a
contested subject, and that changing consumer behaviour was going to be shaped by providing
these consumers with the answers to questions such as “what is meant by sustainability” (p.
77). As with business and academic definitions there are inevitably going to be common
threads, and it is important to be able to identify these and to put them into a framework that
will provide greater understanding of consumer attitudes. Developing this framework will
allow more effective understanding of the drivers of consumer behaviour.
- 19 -
METHOD
This is an exploratory study intended to gain knowledge regarding the attitudes New Zealand
consumers hold towards sustainability and sustainable business practices. As has been
previously discussed, there is widespread agreement that sustainability is comprised of three
dimensions: environmental, social and economic sustainability. These dimensions, while
distinct from one another, are nonetheless interdependent and must all be fulfilled for
sustainability to be possible.
Due to its exploratory nature, this study will not attempt to describe or explain the factors that
determine consumer attitudes or behaviour. The intention of this study is rather to gain an
appreciation of whether consumers recognise sustainability as a holistic concept and their
attitudes towards each dimension of sustainability.
To that end, it will seek to answer the following three research questions:

Cognitive response: “What does sustainability mean to consumers?”

Affective response: “How do consumers feel about sustainability?”

Behavioural response: “How does sustainability influence consumer behaviour?”
Although exploratory studies typically use qualitative research methods such as focus groups
and interviews, the fact that a definition of sustainability has proven somewhat elusive
suggested that an effective strategy would be to use quantitative methods instead. It was felt
that a data collection instrument collecting the cognitive, affective and behavioural responses
of a representative sample to each of the three dimensions of sustainability would be able to
provide the data required to answer the research questions.
- 20 -
Data collection
To resolve the challenges created by the diverse and widespread characteristics of the
population of interest (New Zealand consumers), the data collection method needed to be easy
to distribute, readily accessible and quick to complete by as many different people as possible.
The issues created by the contested and increasingly value-charged nature of sustainability
required the data collection method to be anonymous and able to be completed privately.
These factors suggested that appropriate data collection methods for this study were selfcompleted postal or internet based surveys.
Postal surveys have been widely used as an effective method of data collection for many years
and have resulted in good results in comparable situations. They allow respondent anonymity
and are able to survey large and geographically widespread populations in a cost effective way;
however they are susceptible to non-response bias due to the effort required to complete and
post the survey back to the researcher (Kelly, 2007). In addition, their effectiveness in
conducting attitudinal surveys of this nature can be limited because the respondent is able to
read the entire survey before completing (Brace, 2004; Kelly, 2007; Smith, 2007).
Online surveys, while a relatively new data collection method, are now widely used and
proving to be effective (Couper & Miller, 2008; Kypri, Gallagher & Cashell-Smith, 2004; Sills
& Song, 2002). They benefit from good response rate, are low cost and typically need less data
entry than mail surveys (Alessi & Martin, 2010; Brace, 2004; Kelly, 2007); important factors
given the resources available to this study. The quality of the data produced by online surveys
is reported to be comparable in quality to the data from mail surveys (Brace, 2004; Truell,
2003). This characteristic is of value to this study because the contested nature of defining
sustainability means there is often a degree of controversy over the subject.
- 21 -
Historically, online surveys have been considered to be susceptible to sample validity because
internet use has been more prevalent among certain demographic groups (Duda & Nobile,
2010). However, this limitation has been largely overcome due to a widely reported substantial
increase in the percentage of consumers who have ready access to the internet. This is
supported in a comparison of the results obtained by mail and internet surveys which identified
that there were no significant differences in the data collected by the two methods (Gigliotti,
2010). Van Gelder, Bretveld & Roeleveld (2010) reported that the profile of respondents to
internet based surveys now compares very closely to that of traditional data collection methods
and argued that any limitations of internet based surveys were diminishing rapidly. Following
an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both methods and in consideration of the
needs presented by this study it was decided that a self-completed internet based survey would
be both an effective way of collecting the data and would serve to overcome the challenges
discussed earlier.
Sampling plan
With the decision made to use a self-completed online survey, the next challenge was to
develop a sampling plan that would provide the appropriate data while continuing to resolve
the identified challenges. This entailed providing concurrent access to the instrument by a large
group of individuals representing as wide a range of demographic profiles as possible. Out of
the options considered, it was decided that promoting the survey to the members of a large
organisation would be the most appropriate and after assessing the options available the
employees of Christchurch City Council (CCC) were was seen as being suitable for this study.
With over 2500 employees (CCC, 2012) this would be a large enough sample and a strict equal
opportunity employment policy increases the range of demographic profiles represented.
However, a limitation of this population was that it would not include self-employed people;
therefore it was decided to approach the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce
- 22 -
(CECC). The CECC, with in excess of 2500 members, claims to represent the interests of 3000
commercial enterprises (CECC, 2013). In addition to self-employed business people, the
CECC membership also includes executives employed by member corporations. It was felt
that these two groups combined would result in a sample that was representative of New
Zealand consumers.
Instrument design
The recognised contentious nature of sustainability suggested directly asking the respondents
for a definition of sustainability or what they felt or did would be unlikely to produce any
useful data, and many respondents would potentially avoid answering such questions. It was
therefore decided to canvas the sample by recording their responses using a Likert scale to a
series of twenty seven statements that each addressed a single aspect of the environmental,
social and economic dimensions of sustainability from either a cognitive, affective or
behavioural perspective.
Likert scales were assessed as being an effective tool to achieve this as well as to gain the
information needed to learn consumer attitudes towards sustainability because they are widely
used in attitudinal surveys and are therefore familiar and easily understood (McLeod, 2008).
These statements were written using plain English and avoiding jargon or any technical term
that was outside of common usage. Ambiguity was avoided; however there were a number of
negatively worded statements placed at random throughout the instrument to discourage
pattern answering (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011).
All items used the same scale and point descriptions to minimise respondent confusion and to
permit calculation of internal consistency reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
(Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011). There has been much debate and limited agreement over the
number of points in a Likert-type scale (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011; Leung, 2011). However,
- 23 -
for this study, ease of completion was an important consideration which supported the decision
to use the five-point scale. A neutral option was included as Johns (2005) argued that it is of
value in attitudinal studies and it prevents respondents feeling “forced to commit to a certain
position” (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011, p. 20).
Following the Likert items were five simple demographic questions. These were included in
order to compare the demographic characteristics of the sample with that of New Zealand
society as recorded in the 2006 New Zealand Census.
Instrument distribution
Permission was gained from the CCC to place a link to the survey on the internal intranet
which is available to all staff members. Although initial concern was that this would be limited
to staff with access to a computer as part of their job, however the researcher was advised that
the majority of staff access the intranet as part of their work. Those employees whose role
denies them ready access to computers are expected to access the intranet at home.
In the case of the CECC, the link was only able to be placed in the members-only section, and
the researcher was advised that most members do not visit this on a regular basis. Internal
policy prohibited active promotion of the survey to members. Therefore it was likely that the
survey would not be viewed unless a member was accessing this section of the website for
other purposes. However given the size of the organisation, it was anticipated that there would
be sufficient day-to-day traffic to generate enough responses to provide a representative
sample.
Pre-testing the questionnaire
Pre-testing the questions in their questionnaire context was an important step to ensure that the
questions and instructions were able to be understood by all respondents (Collins, 2003) and to
help identify any ambivalent or confusing statements (Evans & Mathur, 2005). The final draft
- 24 -
of the questionnaire was sent to twenty of the researcher’s personal contacts individually
selected in order to represent as wide a range of demographic profiles as possible. They were
given five days to complete the survey and of the twenty recipients, fourteen completed it. At
the end of the survey additional questions were included that were only used in the pre-test that
sought to identify any ambiguous statements, how relevant the respondents found the
statements and the time taken to complete the survey. In the accompanying email, they were
asked to note any statements that they felt needed attention and for any comments they wanted
to make. In addition, ten members of the test sample were interviewed by phone. The feedback
gained from this pre-testing identified that minor changes were needed in the wording of some
statements and resulted in slight alterations to the layout of the questionnaire on the Qualtrics
website. See Appendix 1 for the final questionnaire utilised in this study.
Data collection
The link to the questionnaire on the Qualtrics website was made available to the employees of
the CCC through the council intranet at 9.00 am on Monday 5 November, 2012 and withdrawn
at 5.00 pm Friday 16 November, 2012. The questionnaire was also placed on the CECC
website on Monday 12 November, 2012 and withdrawn on Friday 23 November, 2012. The
accompanying explanation on both websites explained that the survey was being conducted by
a Lincoln University student as part of a Masters project and that all data collected would be
completely anonymous.
The collected data was able to be directly transferred to SPSS for analysis as discussed in the
following chapter.
- 25 -
3. RESULTS & Discussion
Response rate
The CCC employed approximately 2500 people when the survey was made available. A total
of 169 completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 8.4 percent. Unfortunately, the
survey placed on the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce website failed to attract any
respondents, therefore, the results discussed below only apply to responses from the instrument
made available to CCC employees.
Sample description
The data collection instrument included six questions that were intended to gain data on the
demographic profile of the respondents. Demographic characteristics were then compared with
those from the 2006 New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings in order to identify the
extent that the sample reflected New Zealand consumers. This demographic data is illustrated
in Table 3.1 below.
- 26 -
Table 3-1 Demographic characteristics of the sample
Gender
Age bracket
Education
Employment
Income (NZD)
Sample %
2006 Census %
Male
35.8
48.8
Female
64.2
51.2
20 - 29
10.0
18.2
30 - 39
23.0
20.0
40 - 49
33.0
20.9
50 - 59
18.0
17.0
60 – 69
13.0
11.8
70 plus
2.0
12.0
High school
17.0
28.0
Diploma, trade or workplace qualification
25.0
48.0
Undergraduate degree
35.0
10.0
Postgraduate degree
22.0
4.0
Other or prefer not to say
2.0
10.0
Self-employment
11.1
11.0
Employed by someone else
78.4
39.6
Not in paid employment
3.7
29.7
Studying
2.5
1.4
Retired
3.3
13.8
Prefer not to say
1.0
4.4
0-10,000
3.1
19.3
10,001 – 15,000
0.6
11.3
15,001-20,000
1.9
8.2
20,001 to 25,000
3.1
7.0
25,001 to 30,000
3.1
6.8
30,001 to $35,000
4.9
6.4
35,000 to 40,000
6.2
6.4
40,001 to 50,000
14.2
8.3
50,001 to 70,000
30.3
8.9
70,001 to 100,000
14.8
4.0
100,001 plus
9.2
3.3
Not stated
8.6
10.0
Gender
When taken in its entirety, women were over-represented in the sample relative to both the
gender profile of the CCC and of the New Zealand population. A possible explanation for this
discrepancy is that while the instrument was made available to everyone employed by the
- 27 -
CCC, the mechanism for responding meant that it was more readily accessible to those
employees with regular access to a computer during working hours. While specific data was
unavailable, the researcher was advised by a CCC representative that there are typically more
women working in office based roles and more men in field-based roles. Thus, men would be
less likely to have ready access to a computer and the internet, at least during working hours.
Age
Compared to the New Zealand population, the sample was under-represented in the over 70
age group. This was to be expected as the sample was sourced from a workplace and thus
unlikely to include a representative number of respondents older than the retirement age of 65.
The lower representation of younger respondents is less easy to explain. However, the
percentage of respondents in the higher income brackets and those with tertiary qualifications
were both higher than in the New Zealand population. This suggests that the respondents were
typically employed in more senior positions. This might thus explain why younger respondents
were under-represented.
Education
The percentage of respondents with an undergraduate or postgraduate university degree was
substantially greater than that of the New Zealand population. This would suggest that the
sample was primarily made up of respondents who held office-based jobs where a higher level
of education is more likely to be a requirement.
Employment
The respondents were predominantly employees of the CCC, although it was surprising that 22
per cent of the sample described themselves as non-CCC employees. In a telephone
conversation with a representative of the CCC the researcher was advised that the selfemployed people in this sample are likely to be independent contractors working for the CCC.
- 28 -
Further, some of the respondents identified themselves as either students or not in paid
employment. This group was most likely to contain volunteers or students in work experience
schemes.
Income
The distribution of incomes in the sample was quite different to distribution in the general
population. Specifically, the higher income brackets were overrepresented in the sample. As
above, this was more likely a reflection of the employment profile of the CCC and nature of
the work respondents do; those working in white-collar roles were more likely to repond than
those working in the field. The former group are more likely to be better educated and better
paid.
Data analysis
The data underwent analysis using SPSS to calculate descriptive statistics and to assess the
internal reliability of the items measuring the dimensions of sustainability and components of
attitudes. As has been previously discussed, there were a number of negatively worded
statements included in the survey. To allow for easier interpretation, the data for these items
has been reverse-coded, and the wording of the accompanying statement has been altered
appropriately. These items are all identified in the accompanying text.
- 29 -
Environmental sustainability
The nine items sought to gain an awareness of the extent that the respondents knew
sustainability had an environmental dimension, how they felt about it and the extent that it
influenced their behaviour.
Cognitive component
Figures 3.1 to 3.3 illustrate the responses to the three items measuring the cognitive dimension
of attitudes towards environmental sustainability. The item illustrated by Figure 3.3 was
negatively worded in the questionnaire. The label and presentation of the responses to the item
in Figure 3.3 have been adjusted to reflect this.
70%
60%
44.62%
50%
40%
25.81%
30%
15.59%
20%
10%
0.00%
3.23%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-1. Sustainable businesses consider their impact on the natural environment (n=166)
70%
60%
50%
43.01%
40%
26.34%
30%
16.13%
20%
10%
0.00%
2.69%
0%
I strongly disagree I disagree somewhat
I neither disagree nor agree
I agree somewhat
Figure 3-2. Sustainable businesses use resources efficiently (n=164)
- 30 -
I strongly agree
70%
60%
50%
40%
31.18%
27.42%
30%
29.57%
20%
10%
1.08%
0.00%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-3. The impact of business activity on the environment is (not) overstated ( n=166)
The responses to these three items suggest that most of the respondents understand that
sustainability has an environmental component. This is especially evident in Figures 3.1 and
3.2 with 70.43 percent and 69.35 percent respectively either agreeing somewhat or agreeing
strongly with the item; however there was a lower level of certainty displayed with the
statement illustrated in Figure 3.3 that “the impact of business activity on the environment is
overstated” with 27.42 percent neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
A possible explanation for this is that negatively worded statements have an increased
potential to confuse respondents (Ebesutani et al., 2012; Stewart & Frye, 2004; Weems &
Onwuegbuzie, 2001). This argument has some support when the percentage of “unsure” and
missing responses to all seven negatively worded statements in this study was compared with
the twenty positively worded statements. Just over 37 percent of the respondents selected the
“neither agree nor disagree” in response to the negatively worded statements. This is compared
to somewhat fewer than 29 percent of the respondents selecting the same option in response to
the positively worded statements. This is discussed further in the limitations section of this
study.
Alternatively, it is possible that the respondents were less confident in their knowledge of the
impact of business activity on the environment and were, therefore, unwilling to commit to a
- 31 -
position on the subject. This would support the view that modern urban consumers are
increasingly disconnected from the natural environment, resulting in limited awareness of the
extent of the impact caused by human activities (Arcury & Christianson, 1990; Kals,
Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Mikels-Carrasco, 2010). This is an area that would warrant
further study.
Affective component
How the respondents felt about environmental sustainability is illustrated in Figures 3.4 to 3.6
following. Figure 3.4 refers to a negatively worded item; therefore the data presented and
wording have been altered to suit.
70%
60%
50%
41.40%
40%
31.72%
30%
20%
10%
12.37%
2.15%
0.00%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-4 I’m worried about the impact of business activity on the environment (n=163).
70%
60%
50%
42.47%
35.48%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
3.23%
8.06%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-5 I’m glad that sustainable businesses do not waste resources like water or electricity ( n=166)
- 32 -
70%
56.45%
60%
50%
40%
30%
23.12%
20%
10%
2.15%
2.69%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
6.99%
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-6 I don’t like excessive packaging because that’s a needless waste (n=170).
The environmental dimension produced some interesting results with low numbers of
respondents disagreeing with the importance of environmental sustainability which contrasted
strongly with the number of respondents agreeing or agreeing strongly. These results are
similar to those obtained for cognitive awareness of environmental sustainability, therefore it
could be surmised from this that a relationship exists between how the respondents think about
the environmental component of sustainability and their feelings towards it. While this study
does not specifically address that relationship, it supports the argument that understanding
environmental sustainability results in greater emotional commitment (Al-Rafee & Cronan,
2006; Cook & Berrenberg, 2010; Nicholson & Xiao, 2010).
- 33 -
Behavioural component
The results from the items measuring the behavioural component are illustrated in Figures 3.7
to 3.9 below. Figure 3.8 refers to a negatively worded item with the data and wording altered
accordingly.
70%
60%
50%
38.17%
40%
39.78%
30%
20%
10%
10.22%
1.08%
0.54%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-7 I prefer to deal with companies that operate in an environmentally responsible way( n=167).
70%
60%
50%
41.40%
40%
33.33%
30%
20%
10%
12.90%
1.61%
0.00%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-8 Environmental claims about products have an impact on whether I buy them (n=166)
- 34 -
70%
60%
47.85%
50%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
10%
16.13%
9.68%
1.08%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-9 When I go shopping I look for products that damage the environment (n=168)
These three items indicate that the behaviour of consumers is likely to align with what they
know and what they feel about environmental sustainability. This was especially evident in
Figure 3.7, with 77.95 percent of the respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the
statement expressing support for environmentally responsible businesses. These results
indicate that consumers’ behaviour towards environmental sustainability mirrors their
knowledge and feelings. This is in accordance with the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein &
Ajzen,1975; Homer & Kahle 1998). Despite this, these results may not, in fact, present an
accurate picture of how the respondents actually behave due to a phenomenon often described
as the value-action gap. It has been widely recorded that with regards to environmentally
supportive actions, even declared behavioural intentions are often at variance from what
actually occurs in the marketplace (e.g. Chung & Leung, 2007; Cook & Berrenberg, 2010;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Pelsmacker, Driesen, & Rayp, 2005; Sammer & Wüstenhagen,
2006). Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the respondents’ behaviours are those that they
claim them to be. It would require research beyond the scope of this study to collect the data
required to examine the contention. This is further discussed in the limitations section below.
- 35 -
Social sustainability
Cognitive component
Gaining an understanding of what social sustainability means and how it can be achieved has
been a universally slow process (Vifell & Soneryd, 2012); documenting the extent that New
Zealand consumers recognise the social dimension of sustainability was an important objective
of this study. Figures 3.10 to 3.12 illustrate how the sample responded to the three items used
to measure the cognitive component of attitudes towards social sustainability.
70%
60%
50%
39.02%
40%
29.88%
30%
22.56%
20%
10%
7.93%
0.61%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-10 Sustainable businesses avoid creating problems for people living nearby (n=165).
70%
60%
50%
42.77%
40%
28.31%
26.51%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
2.41%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-11 A sustainable business invests in its employees’ long-term development (n=166)
- 36 -
70%
60%
46.63%
50%
40%
32.52%
30%
15.34%
20%
10%
5.52%
0.00%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-12 A sustainable business values its suppliers and makes sure they are treated fairly (n=164).
The social dimension of sustainability has not received the same level of attention as
environmental sustainability (Cuthill, 2009); however the results from this study would seem
to suggest that the respondents were aware of its role within sustainability.
Affective component
The data revealed by Figures 3.13 to 3.15 illustrates how the respondents feel about behaviours
supporting social sustainability. Figure 3.15 presents responses to a negatively worded item.
As above, data has been reverse-coded and the stimulus statement has been duly reworded.
70%
60%
50.30%
50%
39.39%
40%
30%
20%
10%
7.88%
0.61%
1.82%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-13 I like it when businesses make the welfare of customers a priority (n=166)
- 37 -
68.71%
70%
60%
50%
40%
29.45%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
1.84%
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-14 I like it when successful businesses reward their employees fairly (n=166).
70%
60%
50%
36.59%
40%
41.46%
30%
16.46%
20%
10%
5.49%
0.00%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-15 I care whether businesses support charities (n=166).
In all three items, the number of respondents that disagreed with the statements was
considerably lower than those that agreed, suggesting that consumers feel strongly in favour of
the idea of social sustainability. In items 3.13 and 3.14 there were also very few respondents
that neither agreed nor disagreed. However in the negatively worded item represented by
Figure 3.15, nearly 36.59 percent of the respondents were unable or unwilling to commit to a
position. While this could suggest that there was uncertainty resulting from the negative
wording, another possible explanation is that Figures 3.13 and 3.14 apply to how direct
stakeholders (customers and suppliers) are treated, whereas 3.15 queries the importance of
supporting charities. It is, therefore, possible that consumers feel businesses should place
greater emphasis on supporting their direct stakeholders and communities as opposed to third
- 38 -
party charities. An answer to this question is outside of the scope of this study, however it may
warrant further research.
Behavioural component
This study seeks to ascertain the influence that the social dimension of sustainability exerts on
behaviour. This is illustrated by Figures 3.16 to 3.18 with Figure 3.18 referring to a negatively
worded item. For the sake of consistency, this item is presented with positive wording, and the
distribution of responses reflects this.
70%
60%
49.40%
50%
40%
26.51%
30%
19.88%
20%
10%
1.81%
2.41%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-16 I prefer to deal with businesses that support charities and organisations in my community (n=167)
70%
60%
50%
41.76%
44.71%
40%
30%
20%
10%
3.53%
3.53%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
6.47%
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-17 I try not to deal with businesses that have poor working conditions (n=167).
- 39 -
70%
60%
50%
43.90%
40%
39.63%
30%
20%
10%
0.61%
5.49%
10.37%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-18 How a business treats people influences whether I support that business (n=165).
Mirroring the responses to the cognitive and affective items presented above, there is a marked
level of behavioural support for organisations that engage in socially responsible business
practices. It is also of interest that the level of support is comparable to that for environmental
sustainability. Yet, as has been previously discussed, explaining the social sustainability
concept and engaging in behaviours consistent with it are less likely to occur than for
environmental sustainability. Therefore lower levels of agreement would be expected.
This may reflect the fact that many urban consumers are reported to have limited awareness of
the environmental impact of business activity (Gatersleben, Steg, & Vlek, 2002; Roberts &
Bacon, 1997; Torgler, 2007). This would therefore make it more likely that they respond
positively to the way companies practice social sustainability in the treatment of their
communities and stakeholders.
Economic sustainability
The purpose and significance of economic sustainability is conceivably less well recognised
among consumers than those of environmental and social sustainability (Lorenzo, 2000;
Moffat, 2000; Pinter, Hardi, Martinuzzi & Hall, 2012). In order to identify the level that it was
understood and in turn to measure the extent that it influenced how people felt and behaved for
the present study, nine items were presented in the questionnaire. As with the environmental
- 40 -
and social dimensions of sustainability three items each measured the cognitive, affective and
behavioural components of economic sustainability.
Cognitive component
What people think about economic sustainability was measured by three questionnaire items.
Figures 3.19 to 3.21 illustrate how the sample responded to the cognitive component of this
concept.
70%
57.23%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
17.47%
12.05%
10%
13.25%
0.00%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-19 The most important role of a business is to make money for its owners (n=168).
70%
60%
44.58%
50%
40%
34.34%
30%
20%
10%
10.84%
9.64%
0.60%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
Figure 3-20 Sustainable businesses are profitable businesses (n=167).
- 41 -
I strongly agree
70%
60%
50%
39.78%
40%
33.87%
30%
20%
10%
11.83%
0.00%
2.69%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-21 Sustainable businesses invest in research to find more sustainable ways to operate (n=167).
The results illustrated for each of the economic-cognitive items vary from one another to an
extent that has not been observed in any other groups of items. Figure 3.19 shows that 57.23
percent of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, with the remainder
relatively evenly distributed across three of the four other response options. This suggests that
the wording of this item was ambiguous and was therefore unlikely to accurately represent
what the participants thought. In figure 3.20, the number of respondents who neither agreed
nor disagreed is also high at 44.58 percent; however a similar total number of the respondents
either agreed somewhat or agreed strongly (45.18%). While this indicates that respondents
sufficiently confident to assert a position were those that agreed with the concept of economic
sustainability, it also indicates that more than half of all respondents were unsure or in doubt
that sustainability results in economic gain. The results illustrated in both figures 3.19 and 3.20
indicate clearly that there was a considerable degree of uncertainty regarding the economic
dimension of sustainability, something that is widely reported in the commercial sector
(Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Goerner, Lietaer, & Ulanowicz, 2009). The data produced for this
study is unable to further assess whether this is correct, however this is a topic that is of
considerable interest and therefore warrants further study.
- 42 -
Affective component
The above results illustrating the cognitive component suggested that the respondents lacked
confidence in their understanding of the economic dimension of sustainability It is thus of
interest to see whether this lesser confidence continues with the affective component. This is
revealed in Figures 3.22 to 3.24 below.
70%
60%
50%
37.80%
40%
29.88%
30%
20%
10%
17.07%
12.20%
3.05%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-22 I admire people who have become wealthy through business success (n=169).
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
23.12%
16.67%
15.59%
20%
10%
25.81%
6.99%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
Figure 3-23 I don’t like it when companies make excessive profits (n-166)
- 43 -
I strongly agree
70%
60%
44.62%
50%
40%
30.11%
30%
20%
9.68%
10%
2.69%
2.69%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-24 don’t like it when businesses encourage people to buy things they don’t need (n=168).
Of interest with these responses is that Figures 3.22 and 3.23 have similarly distributed
responses, whereas 3.24 reveals a more singular perspective. This could be explained by the
fact that Figure 22 reveals feelings towards individual wealth and Figure 3.23 illustrating
responses to corporate profits, neither of which directly impact individuals. However, Figure
3.24 addresses the potentially negative impact of corporate behaviour on people. This would,
therefore, indicate that while people may be somewhat ambivalent as to how much money is
made, they are considerably less comfortable when that money is made at the expense of
consumers. This is reinforced by the results of the social sustainability items which showed a
generally higher level of support for corporate social responsibility than for environmentally
responsible actions, something that has been reported previously (Goettsche, Goettsche, &
Gietl, 2014).
Behavioural component
Following on from the assessment of responses to the cognitive and affective components of
economic sustainability, the study sought to identify the extent that economic sustainability
influenced the behaviour of the respondents. This is illustrated in Figures 3.25 to 3.27
following.
- 44 -
70%
60%
50%
41.40%
40%
24.73%
30%
20%
10%
13.44%
5.91%
4.30%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-25 I trust companies that have been around a long time more than new companies (n=165).
70%
60%
50%
40.86%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
10%
19.35%
8.60%
5.91%
0%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-26 I am willing to pay more for well-known brands (n=166).
70%
60%
50%
40.86%
34.95%
40%
30%
20%
10%
12.90%
0.54%
0.00%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-27 When I buy something, price is less important than the ethics of the company(n=166)
Figures 3.25 and 3.26 reveal very similar response rates to all options; however Figure 3.27
presents a very different picture. The first thing that may provide an explanation is that Figures
3.25 and 3.26 assess how the respondents react in response to the material substance of a
- 45 -
company whereas Figure 3.27 considers the ethical values of a business. Secondly, Figure 3.27
used a negatively worded statement. As has previously been discussed, statements worded this
way result in the respondents having less confidence in choosing a position, a view that is
supported by 40.86 percent of the respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This is in
contrast to Items 3.25 and 3.26 which recorded the same answer from only 24.73 and 19.35
percent of the respondents respectively.
However despite the comparatively high level of uncertainty, only 0.54% of the respondents
disagreed with the statement against 47.85 percent who agreed. This would suggest that
business ethics are of concern to consumers.
Comparison of the three dimensions of sustainability
When examining each of the three dimensions of sustainability there was a clear indication that
the respondents were generally cognisant of the dimensions of both environmental and social
sustainability. It was also apparent that their thoughts were in turn mirrored by what they felt
and how they behaved. However, that was less evident with respect to the economic dimension
of sustainability. There was some uncertainty apparent in the responses to the statements
regarding economic sustainability and while there was a degree of consistency in their
responses to the affective statements, it was less consistent than for either social or
environmental sustainability. However, the responses to the behavioural statements were
arguably even more disparate than those for the cognitive statements.
To better understand why this occurred, the mean of the percentage responses to all
environmental, social and economic statements were calculated individually. These are
presented in Figures 3.28 to 3.30. Cronbach's alpha was also calculated for each of the
summated indices, and appear in the Figure titles.
- 46 -
70%
60%
50%
38.17%
40%
31.54%
30%
16.31%
20%
10%
1.02%
2.45%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
-10%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-28 Mean of all environmental items. Chronbach’s Alpha = 0.818.
It is apparent in Figure 3.28 with an alpha of 0.818, that these nine items display sufficient
internal consistency to have confidence that they are all measuring responses to environmental
sustainability. With an average of nearly 70 percent of respondents agreeing with the
statements, and less than four percent disagreeing, it could be comfortably argued that the
majority of respondents are supportive of environmental sustainability.
70%
60%
50%
41.53%
40%
36.63%
30%
17.19%
20%
10%
1.41%
3.23%
I strongly disagree
I disagree
somewhat
0%
I neither disagree I agree somewhat
nor agree
I strongly agree
Figure 3-29 Mean of all social items. Chronbach’s Alpha = 0.787
Similarly, the statements applying to social sustainability can be described as having sufficient
internal consistency producing an alpha of 0.787. The responses are also very similar to those
produced by the environmental statements, with an average of nearly 78 percent in agreement
with the ideas proffered suggesting that the respondents are in favour of issues supporting
social sustainability.
- 47 -
70%
60%
50%
40%
30.01%
34.67%
30%
19.83%
20%
10%
4.27%
11.74%
8.71%
0%
I strongly
disagree
I disagree
somewhat
I neither
disagree nor
agree
I agree
somewhat
I strongly agree
Missing
Figure 3-30 Mean of all Economic items, Chronbach’s Alpha = 0.244
Of interest in these results has been the fact that both the environmental and social dimensions
of sustainability are recognised as being an intrinsic part of the concept and the respondents
have indicated that they are generally positively inclined towards them. However, 12.98
percent disagreeing with those items supporting economic sustainability as opposed to 3.47
percent and 4.64 percent respectively disagreeing with the items addressing environmental and
social sustainability. The difference in how the sample responded when asked to consider
economic sustainability is further highlighted with 30.01 percent neither agreeing nor
disagreeing, whereas 16.31 percent selected that response for environmental sustainability and
17.19 percent for social sustainability. This lends weight to the previously discussed argument
that consumers are less certain about economic sustainability than they are over the
environmental and social dimensions.
The fact that these results differ markedly from those pertaining to the social and
environmental dimensions, and when combined with the low alpha score, raises questions that
warrant more detailed discussion. As has been previously identified, the nature and role of
economic management as a fundamental dimension of sustainability has not been as readily
accepted or understood by the public (Doane & McGillivray, 2001). This comparative lack of
clarity about economic sustainability could be an influencing factor in the relative low scores
- 48 -
attained in the survey. This position gains credence when the responses to the items relevant to
each dimension are assessed and compared. This is illustrated by Figure 3.31 below.
Environmental
Social
5%
Disagree strongly
4%
2%
2%
0%
7%
20%
10%
34%
15%
30%
28%
30%
40%
60%
50%
59%
51%
60%
59%
70%
68%
70%
80%
Economic
Disagree
somewhat
Neither agree nor Agree somewhat
disagree
Agree strongly
Figure 3-31 Mean of responses for each of the three dimensions of sustainability
The response choices made for the items referring to the environmental and social dimensions
are very similar across all options; however there is a marked difference in the response
choices made for economic sustainability. While both the negative options were proportionally
much higher than they were for the social and environmental dimensions which suggests
disagreement with the value of economic sustainability, the total numbers responding was still
comparatively low. This can be seen as a limit to the significance of these responses.
Comparatively, the results for the neutral option of “I neither agree nor disagree” are of interest
with 51 percent of all respondents being unwilling or unable to declare a position in response
to the items concerning economic sustainability compared to 30 percent for the environmental
and 28 percent for the social dimensions. Further, slightly fewer respondents chose to commit
to agreeing somewhat, and only 34 percent agreed strongly with the economic sustainability
statements compared to 59 percent and 60 percent for environmental and social sustainability
respectively.
- 49 -
These results may provide an explanation for the lower recorded scores for economic
sustainability. That so many more chose not to provide an opinion, when combined with the
lower numbers agreeing and even fewer respondents agreeing strongly, may well suggest that
rather than more of the respondents disagreeing with the statements; in fact that they were
comparatively unaware of or unfamiliar with the dimension of economic sustainability. It is
beyond the capabilities of the data collected to answer this question definitively. However, it
would be apposite to conduct future studies in order to test this hypothesis. If it were
supported, then the answer to the first research question would need to reflect this by stating
that consumers are not as aware of economic sustainability as they are with the other
dimensions. This is discussed further in the following future research opportunities section.
Assessing the research questions
First Research Question: “What does sustainability mean to consumers?”
It can be reasonably assumed that lay people find it as difficult to frame a definition of
sustainability as the academic and business communities. Therefore the first stage in this study
was to gain an understanding of the participants’ cognitive engagement with sustainability.
Table 3-2 Responses to cognitive items
Dimension
N
Range
Mean
Environmental
164
3
4.0
Social
163
3
3.9
Economic
161
4
3.6
The responses to the cognitive items indicate that the respondents generally understood that
sustainability had both an environmental and a social dimension with both results being higher
than the mean for all cognitive items. Responses to the economic items resulted in a mean of
3.64, which falls between “I neither agree nor disagree” and ‘I agree somewhat’ on the item
scales, suggesting that the respondents were not confident that sustainability has an economic
- 50 -
dimension. These results indicate that the respondents generally agreed or agreed strongly that
sustainability has both environmental and social dimensions, however there was apparent
uncertainty about the economic dimension which is something that warrants further analysis
and will be discussed in the further research opportunities section of this study.
Answer to the first research question:
It is apparent that consumers generally understand that operating sustainably requires both
environmentally and socially responsible behaviour; however there is some uncertainty as to
the need and purpose of economic sustainability. Despite this, there is some awareness that
sustainability is something that is good for business and has economic benefits for all
stakeholders.
Second Research question: “How do consumers feel about sustainability?”
Table 3-3 Responses to Affective items
N
Range
Mean
Environmental
162
4
4.3
Social
161
3.3
4.2
Economic
164
4
3.7
The results for this, the affective component, were comparable to those recorded for the
previous cognitive component with overall positive feelings towards social and environmental
sustainability, revealing that an affective-cognitive consistency is evident in the response
patterns (Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981 Millar & Tesser, 1986; Moorman, 1993; Norman, 1975).
While the mean score for both of these dimensions was similar, it is of interest that the mean
range is 3.3 for social and 4 for environmental. This would suggest that while the overall
sentiments are similar, there is a greater strength of feeling in favour of social sustainability as
supported by Creyer (1997) and Davis (2012). As was evident with the cognitive component,
- 51 -
the respondents demonstrated that they were less sure of their feelings pertaining to the
economic dimension than they were to the environmental and social dimensions.
Answer to the second research question:
Overall, New Zealand consumers display feelings that are positive and supportive of both the
need for sustainability and for those businesses that choose to engage in sustainable business
processes. While they express positive and supportive feelings towards both social and
environmental sustainability, there is a slightly more positive overall response apparent in
regards to social sustainability. Although their affective responses towards economic
sustainability were more likely to be positive than negative, more people could not elucidate a
position than with either environmental or social sustainability.
Third Research Question: “Does sustainability influence consumer behaviour?”
Table 3-4 Responses to behavioural items
N
Range
Mean
Environmental
166
4
3.92
Social
161
4
4.0
Economic
164
4
3.5
The pattern of support for the cognitive and affective components of sustainability is continued
with the behavioural, with the respondents generally asserting that they agree with and support
socially and environmentally responsible conduct by themselves and by the businesses they
support. Similarly to the results from the cognitive and affective components, there is a low
level of commitment to engaging in or supporting economically sustainable behaviour.
Answer to the third research question:
The responses from the sample indicate that the way they choose to behave and the extent that
they demonstrate support for sustainably operated businesses is in line with their understanding
and feelings towards sustainability. Overall, consumers much prefer to support businesses
- 52 -
operating sustainably and to personally act in an environmentally and socially responsible
manner.
Summary of results
In its goal of gaining an understanding of consumer attitudes towards sustainability, this study
was able to determine that those consumers represented by the sample are cognisant of the fact
that sustainability has both environmental and social dimensions; an awareness that is reflected
in positive feelings towards and a desire to engage in those environmentally socially
responsible behaviours connected with sustainability. This has therefore been able to
contribute to gaining an understanding of consumer response to sustainability, a limitation that
has been discussed previously in the literature review. However, the sample’s responses
indicated that they had limited understanding of economic sustainability which in turn was
mirrored by ambivalence towards the dimension and its relevant behaviours.
This is a valuable outcome. Because sustainability is a holistic concept, the needs of all three
dimensions must be fulfilled in order for businesses to operate sustainably. In the same way
that it is important for consumers to recognise and in turn respond to environmentally or
socially sustainable behaviour, they need to be able to identify when organisations are not
satisfying the requirements of being economically sustainable. This will allow consumers to
assess whether the business they are seeking to satisfy their needs is in fact sustainable and
therefore able to provide continuity of supply.
If there is widespread doubt or confusion held by consumers regarding what economic
sustainability means and why it's important, this potentially places the ability of businesses to
achieve economic sustainability at some risk. The holistic nature of sustainability means that
challenges to attaining economic sustainability impact negatively on both environmental and
social sustainability.
- 53 -
Consumers’ attitudes and responses towards sustainability are arguably a reflection of how
well they understand and are familiar with the concepts involved. Therefore, in order for
consumer engagement with and support for sustainability to occur, there is a need for greater
awareness and understanding of all three dimensions, particularly economic sustainability, and
the ways that they are interdependent.
- 54 -
4. CONCLUSION
Theoretical contribution
The nature and purpose of this study meant it was always going to be somewhat constrained in
its capabilities, however subsequent analysis of the results derived from the data analysis and
review of existing literature indicated that it has nonetheless been of value. As an exploratory
study, there was neither the intention nor the ability to explain any aspect of consumer attitudes
towards sustainability or determine why consumers act or behave the way they do towards
sustainability. It did however present analysis based on primary research that posited that there
was a relationship between consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to the dimensions of
sustainability, and that this relationship was in turn reflected in the behaviours that they
supported or engaged in. It also suggested that consumers are more likely to respond positively
towards the things that they understand and are familiar with, hence the greater uncertainty
with the less-widely discussed dimension of economic sustainability. This is also reflected in
the greater level of support for social sustainability over environmental sustainability, an
outcome likely to be due to modern consumers being increasingly disconnected from the
natural environment, whereas many of the factors that are influenced by social sustainability
are part of their day-to-day lives.
Practical contribution
From a purely pragmatic perspective, this study has indicated that consumers are generally
likely to be supportive of not just purchasing sustainably produced goods and services, but that
they feel positively towards companies that demonstrate sustainable social and environmental
behaviour. This has implications for reputation building for organisations and in turn hints at
benefits when it comes to securing supply contracts, recruiting staff and relationships with
their physical communities. The study also suggests that understanding and knowledge play a
- 55 -
contributory role in forming these attitudes, therefore supporting the value in education and
information strategies for sustainably run businesses.
The exploratory nature of this work has also identified a number of future research
opportunities; some in response to limitations of this study, but others have arisen from the
observations made.
Limitations of the research
The purpose of this study was to learn about New Zealand consumers, however this population
is large and comprised of a widely dispersed and diverse range of people. As a result, it is
inherently challenging for any study, regardless of scope, to recruit a sample that is able to
represent the views of all New Zealand consumers with any confidence. While this study
attempted to overcome that hurdle by the sample selection strategy, the demographic profile of
the respondents eventually recruited was different from that of the New Zealand population as
a whole. This is problematic as there is agreement that those specific demographic
characteristics that were over-represented (e.g. women, people with a higher education and
people who earn more money) may be more likely to be associated with people who assert
positive attitudes towards environmental and social responsibility (Diaz-Rainey & Ashton,
2011; Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan, & Oskamp, 1997; Peattie, 2001). Therefore, a major
limitation of this study is that the sample canvassed did not accurately represent the population
of interest.
It was also identified that the respondent’s claims regarding their behaviour are unable to be
verified. While there is no reason to expect them to have deliberately selected an incorrect
option, the gap between intentions and actual action taken with green behaviour is well
recorded. That means the degree that the respondents claim that they engage in prosustainability actions may not mirror their actual behaviour.
- 56 -
A further limitation was identified regarding the collection of data used for assessing
respondent's attitudes towards economic sustainability. When the items used were tested for
internal reliability using Chronbach’s alpha, the results fell well short of what is traditionally
deemed acceptable, therefore the results gained that pertain to economic sustainability are
potentially less useful to this study. While identifying the specific reasons for this low alpha
score falls outside the scope of this study; there is agreement that a low number of items in an
instrument is likely to increase low internal reliability (De Vaus, 2002; Tavakol & Dennick,
2011). It was originally decided to use negatively worded statements to minimise response
bias, however there is growing agreement that they are not effective in achieving that result
and can create confusion or uncertainty in survey participants (Ebesutani et al., 2012; Hughes,
2009; Van Sonderen, Sanderman, & Coyne, 2013; Weems & Onwuegbuzie, 2001). Therefore
adopting this method in the instrument design process has likely created a limitation to the
results from this study.
Future research opportunities
A primary reason to conduct exploratory research of any form is to identify future research
opportunities (Babbie, 2007; Blaikie, 2000) and this study has identified a number of areas that
present opportunities for valuable and interesting research.
Consumer understanding
While one of the strengths of this study was the assessment of the cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses to sustainability, there is considerable value likely to be gained from
focussing solely on consumer knowledge and understanding of sustainability as a concept in
and of itself. This would mean educators and business communication specialists would know
whether consumers had the same concepts in mind when sustainability and sustainable
business practices were being presented or discussed, or whether there was a need for
education and/or the use of different terminology.
- 57 -
While this study suggested that consumers were cognisant that the pursuit of sustainability
requires attention to both environmental and social issues, there was somewhat less confidence
in the purpose and value of the economic dimension. It would, therefore, be of value to
conduct further research on whether they are, in fact, aware of the economic dimension, and if
so what they believed it to mean. As it is likely that this confusion is not confined to
consumers, there would be value in extending the study beyond consumers, and to canvass the
views of business owners and key decision makers. This would identify whether this confusion
is confined to consumers, or is in fact something that is shared by both businesses and
consumers.
The respondents to this study, who were primarily employed in a central-city location,
demonstrated greater interest and commitment to social sustainability than to environmental
sustainability. It is possible that this is because they would predominantly live and work in an
urban environment with limited exposure to the natural environment and to the impacts of
human activity on that environment. Replicating this study with a comparable organisation that
employed demographically similar people, but who experienced greater interaction with the
environment, such as LandCare Research or The Department of Conservation, would serve to
test this theory.
Gaining of a better understanding of consumer response to economic sustainability and
whether the apparent consumer preference for supporting social sustainability is a factor of the
make-up of the sample in turn leads to an additional research opportunity. Achieving
sustainable development is, at best, likely to be problematic unless the sustainability needs of
all three dimensions of the triple bottom line are met. Therefore an appreciation of the holistic
nature of sustainability is needed in order to avoid one dimension being given greater priority
in the belief that sustainable operation can still be attained when the needs of only one or two
dimensions are met. Having a better understanding of the ways that consumers understand and
- 58 -
explain each dimension and whether there are any causal relationships influencing their
attitudes towards each dimension will allow the assessment of the extent that sustainability is
perceived as a balanced and holistic concept.
Consumer attitudes and behaviour
The recognised gap between stated behavioural intentions and actual behaviour with regards to
environmentally responsible actions also warrants further research. An observation of this
study was that consumer responses to sustainably oriented behaviour is likely to be in
accordance with their cognitive and affective positions. There would therefore be value in a
study that measured the respondent’s actual behaviour in relation to their cognitive and
affective responses to sustainability.
Research that is able to canvass the views of those demographic profiles that were underrepresented in this study would also make a useful contribution to the discussion. This could be
achieved by recruiting respondents that represented those demographic profiles that were
under-represented and using the same or a substantially similar study. Alternatively, a more
representative sample could be recruited and a study undertaken that focussed more on
whether or not there was a relationship between demographic characteristics and attitudes
towards sustainable business as a holistic concept.
Final Comment
This study has identified that the attitudes that are held by consumers within the demographic
profiles represented by this sample regarding environmental and social sustainability are
comparable in both strength and valence. There is however less certainty in the attitudes held
towards economic sustainability which is likely to result from greater confusion regarding the
nature and function of economic sustainability compared to the social and environmental
dimensions. Nonetheless, this study supports the argument that the majority of New Zealand
- 59 -
consumers hold attitudes that are in favour of all three dimensions of sustainability, and
therefore are likely to have preference for supporting sustainably run businesses.
- 60 -
5. REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A., Stayman, D. M., & Vezina, R. (1988). Identifying feelings elicited by
advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 5(1), 1-16. doi:10.1002/mar.4220050102
Adams, W. M. (2006). The future of sustainability: re-thinking environment and development
in the twenty-first Century. IUCN.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179 - 211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alessi, E. J., & Martin, J. I. (2010). Conducting an internet-based survey: benefits, pitfalls, and
lessons learned. Social Work Research, 34(2), 122 - 127.
Al-Rafee, S., & Cronan, T. P. (2006). Digital piracy: factors that influence attitude toward
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1902-9
Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Making sustainable development sustainable. Management
Decision, 47(6), 975. doi:10.1108/00251740910966686
Arcury, T. A., & Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to
environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 Compared. Environment and
Behavior, 22(3), 387 - 407. doi:10.1177/0013916590223004
ARUP. (2014). Sustainability consulting | Arup | A global firm of consulting engineers,
designers, planners and project managers. Retrieved from
http://www.arup.com/Services/Sustainability_Consulting.aspx
Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Handbook of sustainable development.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Aupperie, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. The Academy of
Management Journal, 28(2), 446 - 463. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256210
Aura Sustainability. (2014). Aura Sustainability | Sustainability Home. Retrieved from
http://www.aurasustainability.com/page/Sustainability_Home
Aßländer, M. S. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility as Subsidiary Co-Responsibility: A
Macroeconomic Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 115-128.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0744-x
Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Pub. Co.
Barbarossa, C., & Pastore, A. (2015). Why environmentally conscious consumers do not
purchase green products. Market Research: An International Journal, 18(2), 188-209.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2012-0030
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental
Conservation, 14(02), 101 - 110. doi:10.1017/S0376892900011449
- 61 -
Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N., & Malpass, A. (2005). Consuming ethics: articulating the
subjects and spaces of ethical consumption. Antipode. doi:10.1111/j.00664812.2005.00472.x
Baron, R. A. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering
entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221239. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9
Batra, R., & Holbrook, M. B. (1990). Developing a typology of affective responses to
advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7(1), 11-25. doi:10.1002/mar.4220070103
Battisti, M., Lee, L., & Cameron, A. (2009). Changing Business Focus – People, Planet,
Profit: A report on New Zealand SMEs and their Sustainability Practice. New Zealand
Centre for SME research,.
Beckerman, W. (1994). “‘Sustainable development’: is it a useful concept?”. Environmental
Values, 3, 191 - 203.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate
social responsibility on consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46 53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., . . . Woodward, J.
(2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign
of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106(8), 2483–2489.
Belz, F. -M., & Peattie, K. (2012). Sustainability marketing: A global perspective. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2007). Mainstreaming Corporate
Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue. California Management Review,
49(9), 132-157. doi:10.2307/41166409
Blaikie, N. W. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (0). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology,
62(1), 391 -417. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609
Bonevac, D. (2010). Is sustainability sustainable? Academic Questions, 23(1), 84 - 101.
doi:10.1007/s12129-009-9152-4
Bonini, S., & Bove, A. T. (2014). Sustainability’s strategic worth: McKinsey Global Survey
results | McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company website:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mcki
nsey_global_survey_results
Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? Highlighting the attitude—behaviour gap. Journal of Communication
Management. doi:10.1108/eb023532
- 62 -
Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure, and write survey material for
effective market research, Volume 1. London, England: Kogan Page Publishers.
Bridges, C. M., & Wilhelm, W. B. (2008). Going beyond green: the “why and how” of
integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing
Education, 30(1), 139 - 141. doi:10.1177/0273475307312196
Brown, D., Dillard, J., & Marshall, R. S. (2006). Triple Bottom Line: A business metaphor for
a social construct. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona: Departament d'Economia de
l'Empresa.
Camphor, H. (2013, March 20). Our obsession with sustainability: in search of the lesserspotted green consumer [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/766-our-obsession-with-sustainability-in-search-ofthe-lesser-spotted-green-consumer
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social ResponsibilityEvolution of a Definitional Construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Caruana, R. (2007). A sociological perspective of consumption morality. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 6(5), 287 - 304. doi:10.1002/cb.222
Chaiken, S., & Baldwin, M. W. (1981). Affective-cognitive consistency and the effect of
salient behavioral information on the self-perception of attitudes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 1 - 12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.1
Charters, S., Lockshin, L., & Unwin, T. (1999). Consumer responses to wine bottle back
labels. Journal of Wine Research, 10(3), 183 - 195. doi:10.1080/09571269908718177
Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., & Carrier, J. (2007). Ethics,
CSR, and Sustainability Education in the Financial Times Top 50 Global Business
Schools: Baseline Data and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Ethics.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9211-5
Chung, S., & Leung, M. M. (2007). The Value-Action Gap in Waste Recycling: The Case of
Undergraduates in Hong Kong. Environmental Management. doi:10.1007/s00267-0060363-y
Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene, J., & Martinkus, B. (2009). The Concept of Sustainable
Development and its Use for Sustainability Scenarios. Inzinerine EkonomikaEngineering Economics, 2(62), 28 - 37.
Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Science and Technology for Sustainable Development
Special Feature: Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings
of The National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8059 - 8061.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1231333100
Clark, M. (2005). Corporate environmental behavior research: informing environmental
policy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(3), 422 - 431.
doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2004.04.006
- 63 -
Club of Rome. (n.d.). About the CLUB OF ROME | THE CLUB OF ROME
(www.clubofrome.org). Retrieved from http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=324
Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality
of Life Research, 12(3), 229 - 238. doi:10.1023/A:1023254226592
Common, M., & Perrings, C. (1992). Towards an ecological economics of sustainability.
Ecological Economics, 6(1), 7 - 34. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(92)90036-R
Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2011). Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for
sustainability research in marketing. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science,
39(1), 86 - 100. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0199-0
Cook, S. W., & Berrenberg, J. L. (2010). Approaches to Encouraging Conservation Behavior:
A Review and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Social Issues. doi:10.1111/j.15404560.1981.tb02627.x
Corcoran, P. B., & Wals, A. E. (2004). Higher education and the challenge of sustainability:
Problematics, promise, and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cottam, M. L. (2004). Introduction to political psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Couper, M. P., & Miller, P. V. (2008). Web survey methods. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5),
831 - 835. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn066
Creyer, E. H. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers
really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421 - 432.
doi:10.1108/07363769710185999
Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (n.d.). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal
of Adult Education, 40(1), 19 - 22.
Cuthill, M. (2002). Exploratory research: citizen participation, local government and
sustainable development in Australia. Sustainable Development. doi:10.1002/sd.185
Cuthill, M. (2009). Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: Developing a
conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in
Australia. Sustainable Development. doi:10.1002/sd.397
Dalal-Clayton, D. B. (2014). Sustainability appraisal: A sourcebook and reference guide to
international experience.
Davis, I. (2012). How (not) to market socially responsible products: A critical research
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(2), 136 - 150.
doi:10.1080/13527266.2012.696076
De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research. London: Taylor & Francis.
Diaz-Rainey, I., & Ashton, J. K. (2011). Profiling potential green electricity tariff adopters:
green consumerism as an environmental policy tool? Business Strategy and the
Environment, 20(7), 456 - 470. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1002/bse.699
- 64 -
Doane, D., & McGillivray, A. (2001). Economic sustainability: the business of staying in
business. Retrieved from New Economics Foundation website:
http://projectsigma.co.uk/RnDStreams/RD_economic_sustain.pdf
Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. (2014). DJSI 2014 Review Results. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainabilityindices.com/images/DJSI_Review_Presentation_09_2014_final.pdf
Duda, M. D., & Nobile, J. L. (2010). The fallacy of online surveys: no data are better than bad
data. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(1), 55 - 64. doi:10.1080/10871200903244250
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and The Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.323
Ebesutani, C., Drescher, C. F., Reise, S. P., Heiden, L., Hight, T. L., Damon, J. D., &
Young, J. (2012). The Loneliness Questionnaire–Short Version: An Evaluation of
Reverse-Worded and Non-Reverse-Worded Items Via Item Response Theory. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 94(4), 427 - 437. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.662188
Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Elliott, R. (2013). The taste for green: The possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation
through “green” consumption. Poetics, 41(3), 294 - 322. Retrieved from DOI:
10.1016/j.poetic.2013.03.003
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2000). Strategic evaluation of environmental projects in SMEs.
Environmental Quality Management, 9(3), 37 - 47. doi:10.1002/15206483(200021)9:33.0.CO;2-T
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195 219. doi:10.1108/10662240510590360
Eweje, G. (2011). A shift in corporate practice? Facilitating sustainability strategy in
companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(3),
125 - 136. doi:10.1002/csr.268
Fauzi, H., Svensson, G., & Rahman, A. A. (2010). “Triple Bottom Line” as “Sustainable
Corporate Performance”: A Proposition for the Future. Sustainability, 2(5), 1345 1360. doi:10.3390/su2051345
Fazio, R. H., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. (1997). The role of belief accessibility in attitude
formation. The Southern Communication Journal, 62(2), 107-116.
doi:10.1080/10417949709373045
Finisterra do Paço, A. M., & Raposo, M. L. (2008). Determining the characteristics to profile
the “green” consumer: an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and
Nonprofit Marketing, 5(2), 129 - 140. doi:10.1007/s12208-008-0010-9
- 65 -
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Fishbein & Ajzen (1975). Retrieved from
http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002).
Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of
Transformations. Ambio. doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031[0437:RASDBA]2.0.CO;2
Forbes, S. L., Cohen, D. A., Cullen, R., Wratten, S. D., & Fountain, J. (2009). Consumer
attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: an exploratory study of the New
Zealand marketplace. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(13), 1195 - 1199.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.008
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its
profits. New York Times Magazine, 122-124.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and Determinants of
Environmentally Significant Consumer Behavior. Environment and Behavior.
doi:10.1177/0013916502034003004
Gelder, M. M., Bretveld, R. W., & Roeleveld, N. (2010). Web-based questionnaires: the future
in epidemiology? American Journal of Epidemiology, 172(11), 1292 - 1298.
doi:10.1093/aje/kwq291
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for
effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant
decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3).
doi:10.1142/S1464333206002517
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a framework for
effective integration of social, economic and ecologcial considerations. Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3).
doi:10.1142/S1464333206002517
Gigliotti, L. M. (2011). Comparison of an internet versus mail survey: A case study. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 52 - 61. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.535241
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying
the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481 - 504. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming Attitudes That Predict Future Behavior: A
Meta-Analysis of the Attitude–Behavior Relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778822. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
Goerner, S. J., Lietaer, B., & Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). Quantifying economic sustainability:
Implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and practice. Ecological Economics,
69(1), 76-81. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.018
Goettsche, M., Goettsche, T., & Gietl, S. (2014). Do Customers Affect the Value Relevance of
Sustainability Reporting? Empirical Evidence on Stakeholder Interdependence.
Business Strategy and the Environment. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.1856/abstract
- 66 -
Goldberg, E. (2001). Profit, people, planet. Policy issues and options around triple bottom line
reporting. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry for the Environment.
Gow, D. (1992). Poverty and natural resources: Principles for environmental management and
sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 12, 49 - 65.
doi:10.1016/0195-9255(92)90005-I
Grail Research. (2009). The Green Revolution. Retrieved from
http://grailresearch.com/pdf/ContenPodsPdf/The_Green_Revolution.pdf
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising
appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2),
128-141. Retrieved from DOI:10.1080/00913367.2013.834805
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative Versus
Noncomparative Advertising: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1 15.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus
noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1 - 15.
Harris, S. M. (2007). Does sustainability sell? Market responses to sustainability certification.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(1), 50 - 60.
doi:10.1108/14777830710717712
Henriques, A., & Richardson, J. (2004). The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: Assessing
the sustainability of business and CSR. London: Earthscan.
Holliday, C. O., Schmidheiny, S., Watts, P., & World Business Council for Sustainable
Development. (2002). Walking the talk: The business case for sustainable development.
Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value–attitude–behavior
hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638 - 646.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638
Hrivnak, J. (2007). Is relative sustainability relevant? Arq-architectural Research Quarterly,
11(02), 167 - 176. doi:10.1017/S1359135507000644
Hume, M. (2010). Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption
and attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 385 - 394.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.007
The impact of perceived CSR initiatives on consumer’s buying behaviour: An empirical study.
(n.d.).
Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 10(2), 179 - 192. doi:10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z
James, P., & Scerri, A. (2012). Globalizing Consumption and the Deferral of a Politics of
Consequence. Globalizations. doi:10.1080/14747731.2012.658249
- 67 -
Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: determinants of
curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358370. doi:10.1108/07363761011052396
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal
of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 15(2), 237 - 264.
doi:10.1080/13689880500178849
Johnson, M., Fryer, K., & Raggett, N. (2008). “Household Sustainability Survey 2008. New
Zealand Ministry for the Environment.
Johnson, M. (2007). Stakeholder dialogue for sustainable service (Doctoral dissertation,
Karlstad University Studies, Karlstad, Sweden). Retrieved from http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:5162/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types; or, The psychology of individuation. London: Paul,
Trench, Trubner.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a
motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178 - 202.
doi:10.1177/00139169921972056
Katz, D. (1960). The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24(2), 163 - 204. doi:10.1086/266945
Kaysen, C. (1972). The Computer That Printed out W*O*L*F*. Foreign Affairs, 50(4), 660 668. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20037939
Kearins, K., & Fryer, M. (2011). Relating sustainability theory to practice at Auckland airport:
An engaged scholarship endeavour involving students. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 18(3), 151 - 161. doi:10.1002/csr.270
Kellt, J. (2007). Data Collection: Key Stone and Cornerstones. In M. Van Hamersveld & C. De
Bont (Eds.), Market Research Handbook (pp. 61 - 98). Chichester, England: Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: how to manage something that is
subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 3(2),
5 - 14. Retrieved from http://www.google.co.nz/archives/vol3iss2/0703-007.kemp.html
Keys, N., Thomsen, D. C., & Smith, T. F. (2010). Opinion leaders and complex sustainability
issues. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 21(2), 187 197. doi:10.1108/14777831011025535
Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009). Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the
alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 113 - 125. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00754.x
Kolk, A., & Tulder, R. V. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and
sustainable development. International Business Review.
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.003
- 68 -
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401
KPMG International, issuing body. Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, issuing body. (2014).
Future state 2030: The global megatrends shaping governments.
KPMG. (2011). Corporate Sustainability: A progress report. Retrieved from
http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/c
orporate-sustainability-v2.pdf
Kraemer, M., & Negrila, L. (2014). Climate Change Is A Global Mega-Trend For Sovereign
Risk. Retrieved from Standard & Poors Ratings Services website:
https://www.globalcreditportal.com
Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their
ecology?: Ecology of ecosystem services. Ecology Letters. doi:10.1111/j.14610248.2005.00751.x
Kypri, K., Gallagher, S. J., & Cashell-Smith, M. L. (2004). An Internet-based survey method
for college student drinking research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 76(1), 45 - 53.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.04.001
Lalor, F., Madden, C., McKenzie, K., & Wall, P. G. (2011). Health claims on foodstuffs: A
focus group study of consumer attitudes. Journal of Functional Foods, 3(1), 56 - 59.
doi:10.1016/j.jff.2011.02.001
Lavidge, R., & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. The Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59 - 62.
Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic
Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes.
Ecological Economics, 44(1), 108 - 122. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00258-6
Lawrence, S. R., Collins, E., Pavlovich, K., & Arunachalam, M. (2006). Sustainability
practices of SMEs: the case of NZ. Business Strategy and The Environment, 15(4), 242
- 257. doi:10.1002/bse.533
Lemke, F., & Pereira Luzio, J. P. (2014). Exploring green consumers’ mind-set toward green
product design and life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(5), 619630. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12123
Leung, S. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11
point Likert scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 412 - 421.
doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.580697
Litvin, S. W., & MacLaurin, D. J. (2001). Consumer Attitude and Behavior. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(3), 821 - 823. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00072-4
Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2010, May). The Sustainability Imperative. The Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2010/05/the-sustainability-imperative
- 69 -
Luchsinger, V. (2009). Strategy Iissues in business sustainability. Business Renaissance
Quarterly, 4(3), 163 - 174.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green
Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior. Journal of
Social Psychology, 137(2), 189 - 204. doi:10.1080/00224549709595430
McCormick, J. (1986). The Origins of the World Conservation Strategy. Environmental
Review:, 10(3), 177 - 187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3984544
McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2006). Sustainability: Consumer Perceptions and Marketing
Strategies. Business Strategy and The Environment, 15(3), 157-170.
doi:10.1002/bse.524
McLeod, S. (2008). Qualitative Quantitative | Simply Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to
growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New
York: Universe Books.
Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 18(6), 493 - 520. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5
Mikels-Carrasco, J. (2010). Nature in our own backyards: Urban ecology and children.
Children, Youths and Environments, 20(2), 190 - 199.
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and aognitive Focus on the attitude–
aehavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 270 - 276.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.270
Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2002). Narratives of sustainable ways of living: constructing the
self and the other as a green consumer. Management Decision, 40(4), 329 - 342.
doi:10.1108/00251740210426321
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404 - 409. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x
Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability:
Are We There Yet? Organisation & Environment, 27(2), 113 - 139. doi:
10.1177/1086026614526413
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations, 46(6), 759 - 776. doi:10.1177/001872679304600604
Morrish, S. C., Miles, M. P., & Polonsky, M. J. (2011). An exploratory study of sustainability
as a stimulus for corporate entrepreneurship. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 18(3), 162 - 171. doi:10.1002/csr.271
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner
Books.
- 70 -
Ng, E. S., & Burke, R. J. (2010). Predictor of Business Students’ Attitudes Toward Sustainable
Business Practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 603 - 615. doi:10.1007/s10551010-0442-0
Nicholson, M., & Xiao, S. H. (2010). Consumer behaviour analysis and social marketing
practice. Service Industries Journal. doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.531124
Nordhaus, W. D. (2006). The "Stern Review" on the economics of climate change. Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Norgard, J. S., Peet, J., & Ragnarsdotir, K. V. (2010). The History of The Limits to Growth.
Solutions, 1(2), 59 - 63. Retrieved from http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/569
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2003). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”.
Business Ethics Quarterly.
Norman, R. (1975). Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 83 - 91. doi:10.1037/h0076865
Norris, P. (1997). Are We All Green Now? Public Opinion on Environmentalism in Britain.
Government and Opposition, 32(3), 320 - 339. doi:10.1111/j.14777053.1997.tb00773.x
NZBCSD. (2014). What is Sustainable Development? | Sustainable Business Council.
Retrieved from http://www.sbc.org.nz/about/definition
Ostrom, T. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive
components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(1), 12 - 30.
doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90003-1
Ottman, J. A. (2011, February 17). We Are All Green Consumers, Now and for the Future ·
Environmental Management & Sustainability News · Environmental Leader. Retrieved
from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/02/17/we-are-all-green-consumersnow-and-for-the-future/
Owens, S. (2003). Is there a meaningful definition of sustainability? Plant Genetic Resources,
1(1), 5 - 9. doi:10.1079/PGR20034
Pava, M. (2007). A response to "Getting to the Bottom of the Triple Bottom Line". Business
Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 105-110. Retrieved from ISSN 1052-150X
Paço, A. M., & Raposo, M. L. (2008). Determining the characteristics to profile the “green”
consumer: an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing, 50(5), 972 - 988. doi:10.1007/s12208-008-0010-9
Paço, A. M., & Raposo, M. L. (2008). Determining the characteristics to profile the “green”
consumer: an exploratory approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing. doi:10.1007/s12208-008-0010-9
Peattie, K., & Peattie, S. (2008). Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction?
- 71 -
Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business
Strategy and The Environment, 10(4), 187 - 199. doi:10.1002/bse.292
Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business
Strategy and The Environment, 10(4), 187 - 199. doi:10.1002/bse.292
Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware! environmental
labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business Strategy and The
Environment, 15(1), 15–29. doi:10.1002/bse.434
Pelsmacker, P. D., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do Consumers Care about Ethics?
Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x
Perrott, B. (2014). The sustainable organisation: blueprint for an integrated model. Journal of
Business Strategy, 35(3), 26 - 37. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBS-072013-0061
PwC New Zealand. (2014). Sustainability - PwC New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.pwc.co.nz/todays-challenges/sustainability/
Rahbar, E., & Wahid, N. A. (2011). Investigation of green marketing tools' effect on
consumers' purchase behavior. Business Strategy Series, 12(2), 73-83.
doi:10.1108/17515631111114877
Reid, D. (2013). Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. Hoboken: Taylor and
Francis.
Reijonen, S. (2011). Environmentally friendly consumer: from determinism to emergence.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(4), 403 - 409. doi:10.1111/j.14706431.2010.00956.x
Reijonen, S. (2011). Environmentally friendly consumer: from determinism to emergence.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(4), 403 - 409. Retrieved from DOI:
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00956.x
Reinhardt, F. L., Stavins, R. N., & Victor, R. H. (2008). Corporate social responsibility
through an economic lens (1389). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic
Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13989
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the Subtle Relationships between
Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. Journal of
Business Research. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising.
Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217 - 231. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6
Robins, F. (2006). The Challenge of TBL: A Responsibility to Whom? Business and Society
Review, 111(1), 1-14. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8594.2006.00258.x
Runhaar, H., & Lafferty, H. (2009). Governing Corporate Social Responsibility: An
Assessment of the Contribution of the UN Global Compact to CSR Strategies in the
- 72 -
Telecommunications Industry. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-0089720-5
Ruth, J. A., Brunel, F. F., & Otnes, C. C. (2002). Linking thoughts to feelings: Investigating
cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions context. Journal
of The Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 44-58. doi:10.1177/03079459994317
Sammer, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2006). The influence of eco-labelling on consumer
behaviour – results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business
Strategy and The Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.522
Satish Pandian, G., Jawahar, N., & Nachiappan, S. P. (2013). Composite Performance Index
for Sustainability. ournal Of Environmental Science, Toxicology And Food Technology,
3(1), 91 - 102. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/3249059/Composite_Performance_Index_for_Sustainability
Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2013). The triple bottom line: How today's best-run companies
are achieving economic, social and environmental success -- and how you can too. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scerri, A., & James, P. (2010). Accounting for sustainability: combining qualitative and
quantitative research in developing ‘indicators’ of sustainability. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 13(1), 41-53. doi:10.1080/13645570902864145
Scerri, A., & James, P. (2010). Accounting for sustainability: combining qualitative and
quantitative research in developing ‘indicators’ of sustainability. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology. doi:10.1080/13645570902864145
Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. (2005). Addressing Sustainability and Consumption. Journal of
Macromarketing, 25(1), 76 - 92. doi:10.1177/0276146705274987
Schmaedick, G. (1994). The road from Rio: Sustainable development and the
nongovernmental movement in the Third World Julie Fisher, 263 pp., 1993. Praeger,
New York, US$55 hbk, US$19.95 pbk. Journal of Rural Studies. doi:10.1016/07430167(94)90061-2
Shrum, L. J., McCarthy, J. A., & Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer Characteristics of the Green
Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising,
24(2), 71 - 82. Retrieved from DOI:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673477 L
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s
alpha. Psychometrika, 70(1), 107 - 120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in Survey Research: An Application of Web-Based
Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 22 - 30.
doi:10.1177/089443930202000103
Singh, T., & Smith, D. (2005). Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: a study of
consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(7),
369 - 378. doi:10.1108/07363760510631101
- 73 -
Singh, S., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2011). Green Marketing and Consumer Behavior: The
Case of Gasoline Products. Journal of Transnational Management, -106.
doi:10.1080/15475778.2011.571635
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009). Development of an Evaluation
Methodology for Triple Bottom Line Reports Using International Standards on
Reporting. Environmental Management. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9305-9
Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011, Spring). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does
It Work? Indiana Business Review, 86(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/article2.html
Smith, D. (2007). The role and changing nature of marketing intelligence. In M. Hamersveld &
C. Bont (Eds.), Market research handbook (pp. 22 - 30). Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons.
Snierson, J. F. (2008). Green is Good: Sustainability, Profitability, and a New Paradigm for
Corporate Governance. Iowa Law Review, 94(3). Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1276925
Solow, R. M. (1973). Is the end of the world at hand? Challenge, 16(1), 39 - 50. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40719094
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-Identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assesing
the role of identification with "green consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4),
388 - 399. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786955
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (n.d.). Self-Identity and the theory of planned behaviour: assesing
the Role of Identification with "green consumerism". Psychology Quarterly, 55(4),
388-399.
Sridhar, K., & Jones, G. (2012). The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line
approach: An empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the
Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 91111. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13520-012-0019-3
Sridhar, K., & Jones, G. (2013). The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line
approach: An empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the
Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 91 111.
Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1994). Can humankind change the eonomic myth? Paradigm
shifts necessary for ecologically sustainable business. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 7(4), 15 - 31. doi:10.1108/09534819410061351
Stebbins, R. A. (2008). Exploratory Research : SAGE Research Methods. In SAGE Research
Methods. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Stewart, T. J., & Frye, A. W. (2004). Investigating the Use of Negatively Phrased Survey
Items in Medical Education Settings: Common Wisdom or Common Mistake?
Academic Medicine, 79(10). doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00006
- 74 -
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at
green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
16(6), 558-575. doi:10.1108/07363769910297506
Streiner, D. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and
Internal Consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99 - 103.
doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
The Sustainability Imperative. (2010).
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal
of Medical Education, 2, 53 - 55. Retrieved from DOI: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2009). Sustainable urban development : a
quadruple bottom line assessment framework. The Second Infrastructure Theme
Postgraduate Conference : Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29546/1/c29546.pdf
Thøgersen, J. (2006). Media attention and the market for ‘green’ consumer products. Business
Strategy and The Environment, 15(3), 145-156. doi:10.1002/bse.521
Toman, M., & Pezzey, J. C. (2002). The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal
Articles.
Torgler, B. (2007). The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing
environmental damage. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.013
Townsend, J. C. (2013, November 9). Going Green: How A Simple Transparency Tool Can
Make Businesses And Consumers Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is - Forbes
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/09/11/goinggreen-how-a-simple-transparency-tool-can-make-businesses-and-consumers-put-theirmoney-where-their-mouth-is/
Tribe, J., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., & Holmes, K. (2010). Public understanding of sustainable
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627 - 645.
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002
Truell, A. (2003). Use of Internet Tools for Survey Research. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 31 - 37.
Tullberg, J. (2012). Triple bottom line – a vaulting ambition? Business Ethics: A European
Review, 21(3), 310 - 324. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01656.x
Tullberg, J. (2012). Triple bottom line – a vaulting ambition? Business Ethics: A European
Review, 21(3), 310-324. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01656.x
Turner, G. M. (2008). A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality. Global
Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions, 18, 397 - 411.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.05.001
UNCSD. (2014). Rio+20 - United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Retrieved
from http://www.uncsd2012.org/history.html
- 75 -
Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording
of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain. PLoS One, 8(7).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
“Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vifell, Å. C., & Soneryd, L. (2010). Organizing matters: how ‘the social dimension’ gets lost
in sustainability projects. Sustainable Development, 20(1), 18 - 27. doi:10.1002/sd.461
Vos, R. O. (2007). Defining sustainability: a conceptual orientation. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology. doi:10.1002/jctb.1675
Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). The Impact of Incorrect Responses to ReverseCoded Survey Items. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
34(3), 166-176. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-05693-004
Westpac New Zealand. (2013). Westpac New Zealand Limited Sustainability Review 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.westpac.co.nz/assets/Who-we-are/Sustainability-andCommunity/2013-Sustainability-Report-WEB.pdf
Whitson, D., Ozkaya, H. E., & Roxas, J. (2014). Changes in consumer segments and
preferences to green labelling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 458 456. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12103
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
WWF. (2012). WWF - Living Planet Report. Retrieved from World Wildlifeoundation website:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/2012_lpr/
Yates, J. J. (2012). Abundance on Trial: The Cultural Significance of “Sustainability”. The
Hedgehog Review, 14(2). Retrieved from http://www.iascculture.org/THR/THR_article_2012_Summer_Yates.php#endnotes
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2009). Sustainable consumption: green
consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18(1), 20 31. doi:10.1002/sd.394
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2009). Sustainable consumption: green
consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18(1), 305314. doi:10.1002/sd.394
Zollo, M., Cennamo, C., & Neumann, K. (2013). Beyond What and Why: Understanding
Organizational Evolution Towards Sustainable Enterprise Models. Organisation and
Environment, 26(3), 241 - 259. doi: 10.1177/1086026613496433
Zukin, S. (2008). Consuming Authenticity. Cultural Studies. doi:10.1080/09502380802245985
- 76 -
6. Appendixes
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
Cognitive Items
Environmental
Sustainable businesses consider their impact on the natural environment.
1
2
3
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
Sustainable businesses use resources efficiently.
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
The impact of business activity on the environment is overstated
5
I strongly
agree
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Social
Sustainable businesses avoid creating problems for people living nearby.
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
A sustainable business invests in its employees’ long term development.
5
I strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
A sustainable business values its suppliers and makes sure they are treated fairly.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
- 77 -
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Economic
The most important role of a business is to make money for its owners.
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
Sustainable businesses invest in research to find more sustainable ways to operate.
1
2
3
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
Sustainable businesses are profitable businesses.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Affective Items
Environmental
I’m not worried about the impact of business activity on the environment.
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
I am glad that sustainable businesses don’t waste resources like water or electricity.
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
I don’t like goods with excessive packaging because it is needless waste.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
5
I strongly
agree
Social
I feel good when sustainable businesses make the welfare of customers a priority.
1
I strongly
disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
I like it when successful businesses reward their employees.
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
I don’t care whether businesses support charities.
5
I strongly
agree
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
- 78 -
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Economic
I admire people who have become wealthy through business success.
1
2
3
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
I don’t like it when companies make excessive profits.
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
I don’t like it when businesses encourage people to buy things they don’t need.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Behavioural Items
Environmental
I prefer to deal with companies that operate in an environmentally responsible way.
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
Environmental claims on products have no impact on whether I buy them.
5
I strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
When I go shopping, I look for products that don’t damage the environment.
5
I strongly
agree
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Social
I prefer to deal with businesses that support charities and organisations in my community.
1
2
3
4
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
I try not to deal with businesses that have poor working conditions.
5
I strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
How a business treats people has no influence on whether I support that business.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
- 79 -
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Economic
When I buy something, price is more important than the ethics of the company.
1
2
3
4
5
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree I agree
I strongly
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
somewhat
agree
I trust companies that have been around a long time more than new companies.
1
2
3
I strongly
I disagree
I neither agree
disagree
somewhat
nor disagree
I am willing to pay more for well known brands.
1
I strongly
disagree
2
I disagree
somewhat
3
I neither agree
nor disagree
- 80 -
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
4
I agree
somewhat
5
I strongly
agree
Demographic questions:
What year were you born? ___________ (prefer not to say)
Are you:
Male
Female
What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
High school qualification
Trade qualification
Diploma or certificate from a technical institute or similar organisation
Degree from a technical institute or similar organisation
Undergraduate university degree (e.g. BA, BCom)
Professional university degree (e.g. MD, LLB, BDS)
Postgraduate university degree
Other
What was your income in the last 12 months?
$1 - $10,000
$10,001 – $15,000
$15,001 - $20,000
$20,001 – 25,000
$25,001 - $30,000
$30,001 - $35,000
35,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $60,000
$60,001 - $80,000
$80,001 - $100,000
$100,001 - plus
Prefer not to say
Are you:
Self employed
Employed by someone else
Not in paid employment
Studying
Retired
Prefer not to say
- 81 -