Salisbury Paper 5 Vol 17 5
PAY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT: TWO CONSUMER
ISSUES—PRO & CON
Paul Allen Salisbury
ABSTRACT
All organizations need to acquire new customers to maintain and grow revenue as well
as to replace customers lost through attrition. Cost-effective marketing requires a
targeting strategy to focus on appropriate candidates for acquisition. Organizations that
are marketing green products and services, or plan to do so, need to know who they
should target for acquisition. This paper examines this issue for two similar green
issues on who will pay more to protect the environment? Everyone is never a prospect
for a given product or service.
Keywords: Customer acquisition, target marketing, marketing sustainability, CHAID,
data mining
INTRODUCTION
What do we mean when we say sustainability or green? Sustainability (green) is a broad
concept (Manget et al. 2009) that covers both personal issues (e.g., buying organic food,
using compact fluorescent light bulbs (cfls), riding mass transit, etc.), as well as broader
social concerns for the environment (e.g., supporting research for alternative fuels and energy
sources, balancing economic and environmental priorities, paying higher federal taxes for
gasoline, etc.). One comprehensive marketing perspective (Belz & Peattie 2009)
emphasizes the satisfaction of consumer and business needs within the limits of our global
ecosystem—keep our planet healthy, as well as our global/regional/local economy, while we
satisfy our customers. However, in a democracy we may differ on what will keep the planet
healthy—short term or long term, or even what is green (The Economist 2010). People may
have different priorities on green social and personal issues, even when we agree on the
general importance of green strategies and tactics.
In this paper a decision-tree model (Magidson 2005) is used to develop two U.S. consumer
segmentations regarding personal willingness to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
The emphasis is on actionable implications to help social marketers target segments to
develop support for environmental concerns. One objective is to use the learning about the
segments that support or oppose paying higher prices for sustainability in order to target them
for customer acquisition campaigns.
Client Acquisition. One major issue for most organizations and their marketing managers is
the acquisition of new clients, both for growth and to compensate for attrition (lost clients).
Implicit in a typical segmentation analysis is the objective of improving targeted client
acquisition and retention (Kotler & Armstrong 2004). Marketing managers need to be
cost-effective in acquisition efforts and avoid outreach to the wrong segments. For example,
focus on lookalikes of best customers, or best customers at the time of acquisition if there is a
growth or client development period for becoming a best customer. Similarly, it is imperative
to focus retention marketing efforts on the right (profitable) segments.
Paul Allen Salisbury is an adjunct associate professor of business at the New York City College of Technology
– part of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11201 (Telephone + 1 718.260.5783;
Telephone + 1 347.244.3235).
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Volume 17(4), pp. 48-60
© PA Salisbury
ISSN 1440-5377
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Dolnicar and Lazarevski (2008) found a disconnect for marketing managers in translating
methodologically sophisticated academic segmentation research into actionable information.
The industry managers view the academic work as a ‘black box’—difficult to interpret and
apply for day-to-day marketing campaigns. One objective here is to translate the results of
decision tree model into usable guidelines for industry, NGO, etc. marketers to test or use to
develop support for environmental issues. For example, industry marketers will examine how
their best customers perceive the benefits and values of their respective green campaigns.
Then they will look for any overlap with the segments reviewed in this paper (Estrin 2010).
We need to understand more about green consumer segments. About 61% of U.S. consumers
believe that green goods do not perform as well as conventional products (Bonini &
Oppenheim 2008). Yet between 2005 and 2007 cfls went from under five percent of the U.S.
light bulb market to about 20%. Who will pay more to protect the environment? Are we
being too simplistic? Do consumers multi-task objectives in dealing with environmental
issues?
In this paper we examine public opinion segmentations in the U.S. for two disparate
sustainability issues with one common element—paying more to protect the environment:
Government Policy—Pay higher prices for gasoline through higher taxes
Government Policy—Pay more to support the environment.
THEORY
Yes, we need to understand more about green consumer segments, as well as consumers who
do not support environmental social action. We need theory to guide us in the right
directions.
In this paper we are trying to understand the meaning of environmental support as a type of
social action in terms of who supports it (or is opposed to it). In future analyses we will look
for other data sets that we can use to explore the why influences on support for both social and
personal green issues, (e.g., family, community, and lifestyle) plus how they support a green
issue, (e.g., pay extra, buy organic). Why should formal education, ideology and age play
such a key role in support for paying extra to support environmental issues? More data needs
to be collected to examine lifestyle impacts on support for environmental issues to help
understand the who, how, when, where and why of tangible support.
Belz and Peattie remind us that while traditional marketing theory focuses on consumers as
individuals, we are also susceptible to other influences:
Groups, (e.g., family, household, ethnic affiliation, political party).
Community groups, (e.g., social networks, clubs), local services, (e.g., available mass
transportation, mandatory/voluntary home recycling, ease/difficulty of home
recycling)
Lifestyles (Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 87)
o Material Simplicity—consume less, consider environmental impact of goods
o Human Scale-practising ‘small is beautiful’ and simplifying a lifestyle
o Self-Determination—become more independent, less reliant on large suppliers
49
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
o Ecological Awareness—conserve resources, reduce waste, reuse/recycle more
o Personal Growth—develop personal abilities, less reliance on commercial
sources
We need to understand how we integrate our subjective meaning with external influences to
form social action plans (Giddens 1973). Our ways of making sense of the world, doing the
right thing and appearing to do so, all impact our behaviour whether or not we support
environmental issues.
Marketing managers of green products and services regularly review their customer
segmentations to refine target groups and positioning strategies (Belz & Peattie 2009;
McDonnell & Barlett 2009; Kotler & Armstrong 2004). In effect, they are constantly
updating their understanding of what influences, drives and satisfies their client action
segments. Furthermore, marketing managers must continually test the impact of new
information about sustainability in fostering behaviour on their client segments (Vermeir &
Verbeke 2006). On the flip side of practicality, marketers know that demographics are more
available and reliable than lifestyle variables when renting lists for prospecting (client
acquisition campaigns). This often means using demographic combinations as surrogates for
lifestyle variables.
In the end, the key issue is always behaviour regardless of any attitudinal position. How do
we impact behaviour and whose behaviour can we influence? Who are the low hanging fruit?
Who are the challenges? What segments are in the middle?
Over time, market researchers may be able to develop a segmentation taxonomy for
sustainability marketing. Consumers who value one priority (e.g., carbon tax by polluters)
need not value another sustainable issue or behaviour, (e.g., gasoline tax to fund mass transit).
However, there may be sustainability issue clusters that future research will uncover. Each
perspective seems to be a constraint based on consumer knowledge or the lack of it (Press &
Arnould 2009; Sharp 2008), experience, indirect information or experience from other people,
some combination of influences, etc. Any consistency across sustainability issues will rely on
subjective consumer perceptions of social meaning and action, rather than any external
perceptions of logic.
Data and Analysis
The CHAID models reviewed below are based on a secondary analysis of the 2009 Values
Survey sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Princeton
Research Associates 2009). The survey secured telephone interviews with a nationally
representative sample of 3,013 adults living in the continental United States. Princeton
Survey Research International conducted the survey with interviews completed in English and
Spanish by Princeton Data Source, LLC from March 31 to April 21, 2009. Statistical results
are weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies. The margin of sampling error for
the complete set of weighted data is 2.1±%. For details on the survey see the full report by
Princeton Research Associates (2009). (More information is available from the Pew Research
Center web site at people-press.org).
50
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
CHAID: A Brief Overview
CHAID is an acronym for Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector. It is often used for
data mining. The analysis here uses a categorical, (e.g., binary), dependent variable. CHAID
employs the chi-square test (for categorical independent variables) to find the next best split
among the independent variables and displays the results in a tree or waterfall diagram. It is
effective for exploratory market segmentation, but larger data sets are needed due to the splits.
The splits segment and reduce the total sample, akin to an extensive, multivariate crosstabular model. Variables may be combined or split depending upon what produces the lowest
p-value (Magidson 2005; Breur 2008).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Issue I. People Should Be Willing to Pay Higher Prices to Protect the Environment—
Socio-Demographics Rule
‘People should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. Do you
completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree?’ (No opinion or no
answer were categorized with oppose for this analysis because they do not favor this
position). This question does not specify how we may be impacted by higher prices. It is a
general perspective and does not address specific objectives, (e.g., pay more for clean air,
etc.).
Those who do not favor higher prices to protect the environment are more likely to: be
conservative, be age 25 to 34, and be a high school graduate with no additional education,
(see univariate information below).
Those who favor higher prices are more apt to be liberal and have a BA/BS or higher degree.
At the univariate level supporters seem to be more liberal, educated, and may have higher
incomes (high refusal rate). The loyal opposition is younger, less educated, and conservative.
Maybe everyone shouldn’t have to pay more to protect the environment? The logic of carbon
taxing is that polluters pay more.
51
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Table 1: Socio-demographic Overview: Willing to Pay Higher Prices to Protect the
Environment
% Favor % Do Not Favor
Ideology
Conservative
26
43
Moderate
41
37
Liberal
27
12
6
8
18 to 24
14
12
25 to 34
14
20
35 to 44
18
18
45 to 54
20
19
55 to 64
16
15
65 plus
17
17
Less than high school graduate
14
13
High school graduate
30
39
Some college/technical training 24
26
College graduate plus
22
Don’t know/refused
Age
Education
32
CHAID Analysis
Among all the respondents queried, almost half (49%) believe that people should be willing to
pay higher prices to protect the environment (see Table 2). This segment is clearly a target
group of people willing to pay more (or have others pay more) for at least one green issue.
Note the role of ideology as the primary segmentation variable—68% of the liberals vs. 37%
of the conservatives and 50% of the others are willing to pay more. However, these liberals
are just 19% of the population. They are a sizeable minority—something to build on rather
than a broad spectrum to influence politicians and industry representatives. (However,
background information on likelihood of voting and/or providing financial support can be
useful information in discussions with both politicians and industry representatives.) The role
52
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
of education is vital too. We see that 80% of the liberals with a BA plus support paying
higher prices, though they are just six percent of the population.
There is a key role for education in support for higher prices among moderates. Note that
66% of the moderates with a BA plus support paying higher prices, and they are 12% of the
population. When we total the most educated groups across the ideological span between
moderates and liberals, we see 18% of this sub-group contain significant percentages of
people who support higher prices to protect the environment.
Next we see how age refines this group. For moderates, the people with a BA plus, or who
are less educated and aged 45 or younger, are more apt to favour paying higher prices.
Education and age clearly impact this position—especially education. Combining the
educated moderates with all of the liberals provides 31% of the population with majorities to
support higher prices to protect the environment. Lookalikes of these people should be fertile
ground to look for potential converts to environmental support.
While demographics are key determinants in this study, demographics and sociodemographics have a mixed record on influencing green consumer behaviour, sometimes with
contradictory results (McDonald & Oates 2006; Straughan & Roberts 1999). Gilg, Barr and
Ford (2005) find socio-demographics (i.e.., age, gender, income, education and community
involvement) impact green lifestyles along with psychological factors and socialenvironmental values (Olli, Grendstad & Wollebark 2001). Lin, Yen, Huang and Smith
(2009) find that household income is what impacts the purchase of organic (vs. conventional)
fruit. Zhang, Hussain, Deng and Letson (2007) saw a mix of demographics (having a fulltime job, $75, 000 plus annual income, being an adult younger than age 56), and attitudes
(willing to donate money to causes and interest in donating time to urban forestry) were
predictors of awareness for urban tree programs. Similarly, Saphores, Nixon, Ogunseitan and
Shapiro (2006) saw a mix of demographics (gender, education) and attitudes (convenience,
environmental beliefs) were key factors in willingness to drop-off e-waste at recycling
centers.
It is important to continue exploring this role for demographics in further research. This
seeming inconsistency may be an indicator of the varying impact of demographics depending
upon the specific sustainability issue. In addition, marketing managers must test the impacts
of current information about availability and peer pressure in fostering behaviour on any
green issue (Vermeir & Verbeke 2006). In the end, the key issue is always behaviour
regardless of any attitudinal position. Who should we target? Whose behaviour can we
influence, and how? Who will be the loyal opposition?
Marketing managers who may be working with political groups or NGOs supporting this type
of position can target educated people aged 45 or younger for campaigns. Social marketing
can certainly help encourage conservation of resources (Peattie & Peattie 2009). Energy
companies who may want to support any political opposition to such tax increases can see
that voters with lower educational levels should be targeted—especially conservatives. In
general, people with less than a BA are the basic target group of anti-pay more campaigns.
Given that the data is from a national sample, it should be beneficial for local (as opposed to
national) marketers to test this learning within specific regions, metropolitan areas, even states
to look for potential variations. Who is willing to pay more, and for what? Who is unwilling
to pay more for X, but is willing to spend more Y?
53
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Table 2: Results of CHAID Analysis: People Should Be Willing to Pay Higher
Prices to Protect the Environment
49% Agree
(n=3651)
Conservative* 37% Agree
(n=1276), 35% sample
Less than BA/BS*
38% Agree
(n=952),
26% sample
BA/BS+*,
31% Agree
(n=324),
9% sample
Moderate/DK*, 50% Agree
(n=1666), 46% sample
Less than
BA/BS*, 45%
45% Agree
(n=1239),
34% sample
Less than 46
39% Agree,
(n=648),
18% sample
Age 46+*
51% Agree
(n=591)
16% sample
Liberal*, 68% Agree
(n=709), 19% sample
BA/BS+*
66% Agree
(n=427),
12%
sample
Less than
BA/BS*,
Agree 62%
(n=487),
13% sample
Less than 46
66% Agree
(n=280),
8% sample
BA/BS+*
80% Agree
(n=222)
6% sample
Age 46+ **
57% Agree
(n=207),
6% sample
* Adjusted P-value = 0.000
** Adjusted P-value = 0.05
Issue II. Higher Taxes and Prices for Gasoline: Demographics Rule
‘As I read some possible government policies to address America’s energy supply, tell me
whether you would favor or oppose each. Would you favor or oppose the government
increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage conservation?’ (The answer categories, plus no
opinion/no answer are the same for both issues. No opinion or no answer were categorized
with oppose because they do not favor this position). This issue may impact respondents
directly (e.g., drivers) and/or indirectly (e.g., mass transit customers). Many people use mass
transit as commuters and drive vehicles in their personal lives. As drivers they will be
impacted by higher gasoline taxes. If local mass transit is crowded, (e.g., New York City),
then current mass transit customers may not want to see additional commuters on the bus or
subway or railroad. Whether we drive our vehicle to the railroad, or to the mall, higher
gasoline taxes can hit us hard.
54
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Those who favor increasing taxes on gasoline to increase conservation are more likely to:
have some long term investments in the stock market, report an annual income above $100k,
be liberal, and be more likely to have attended college or have a BA or additional education.
At the univariate level they seem more educated, wealthier and more liberal.
Table 3: Socio-Demographic Overview: Support Gasoline Tax to Encourage
Conservation
% Favor % Do Not Favor
Investments (Wealth Indicator)
Trade stocks and other funds pretty regularly
7
7
Have some long term investments, don’t trade regularly 50
38
Don’t have money in the stock market
40
51
2
4
Less than $50,000
44
48
$50,000 to $99,999
27
25
$100,000 plus
20
11
8
16
Conservative
23
43
Moderate
38
35
Liberal
35
10
4
6
Less than high school graduate
11
14
High School graduate
26
38
Some college/technical training
15
26
College graduate plus
47
21
Don’t know/refused
Annual Household Income (2008)
Don’t know/refused
Ideology
Don’t know/refused
Education
55
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
CHAID Analysis
Among all the respondents queried, just 23% favoured increasing gasoline taxes to encourage
conservation. This segment is clearly a target group of people willing to pay more (or have
others pay more) for at least one issue. Note the role of education: 40% of those with a BA+
support the higher tax while only 16% of those with lower educational levels support the tax.
People with a BA+ are 27% of the population, a substantial group for political campaigns.
Next, we see how age refines this group. Forty-eight percent of the people with a BA+ and
who are 45 or younger favour this tax increase. While only 33% of folks who have a BA +
and are age 46 or older favour this tax increase; however, they are significantly more
supportive than the overall sample. Education and age clearly impact this position—
especially education.
People with less than a BA show far less support for increasing gasoline taxes. Even when
refined by political philosophy, the support of liberals with less than a BA only reaches 27%.
While demographics are key determinants in this study, demographics and sociodemographics have a mixed record on influencing green consumer behaviour, sometimes with
contradictory results (McDonald & Oates 2006l Straughan & Roberts 1999).
Gilg, Barr and Ford (2005) find socio-demographics (i.e.., age, gender, income, education and
community involvement) impact green lifestyles along with psychological factors and socialenvironmental values (Olli, Grendstad & Wollebark 2001). Lin, Yen, Huang and Smith
(2009) find that household income is what impacts the purchase of organic (vs. conventional)
fruit. Zhang, Hussain, Deng and Letson (2007) saw a mix of demographics (having a fulltime job, $75, 000 plus annual income, being an adult younger than age 56), and attitudes
(willing to donate money to causes and interest in donating time to urban forestry) were
predictors of awareness for urban tree programs. Similarly, Saphores, Nixon, Ogunseitan and
Shapiro (2006) saw a mix of demographics (gender, education) and attitudes (convenience,
environmental beliefs) were key factors in willingness to drop-off e-waste at recycling
centres.
It is important to continue exploring this role, or the lack of it, in further research. This
seeming inconsistency may be an indicator of the varying impact of demographics depending
upon the sustainability issue.
In addition, marketing managers must test the impacts of information about availability and
peer pressure in fostering behaviour on any green issue (Vermeir & Verbeke 2006). In the
end, the key issue is always behaviour regardless of any attitudinal position. How do we
impact behaviour and whose behaviour can we influence?
Marketing managers who may be working with political groups or NGOs supporting this type
of position can target educated people age 45 or younger for campaigns. Social marketing
can certainly help encourage conservation of resources (Belz & 2009). Energy companies
who may want to support any political opposition to such tax increases, can see that voters
with lower educational levels should be targeted—especially conservatives. In general,
people with less than a BA should be the basic target group of anti-gasoline tax campaigns.
Given that the data is from a national sample, it should be beneficial for local (as opposed to
national) marketers to test this learning within specific regions, metropolitan areas, even states
to look for potential variations. For example, it should be productive to compare regions
56
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
with few mass transit options, higher or lower local gasoline taxes, more usage of personal
vehicles, etc.
Table 4: Results of CHAID Analysis: Support Gasoline Tax to Encourage
Conservation
23% Favor Gasoline tax
(n=1770)
Educ: Less than BA*
16% Favor
(n=1289), 73% sample
Conservative &
Moderates*
14% Favor
(n=1061), 60%
sample
Educ: BA+*
40% Favor
(n=481), 27%
sample
Age: 45 or less*
48% Favor
(n=227), 13%
sample
Ideology: Liberal*
27% Favor
(n=228), 13% sample
Age: 46+*
33% Favor
(n=254), 14%
sample
* Adjusted P-value = 0.000
CONCLUSIONS
Socio-demographics are key determinants of support for higher prices to protect the
environment. There are differences on details:
Best customers. Liberal, educated people aged 46 plus are far more likely to support
paying higher prices to protect the environment. Educated people under age 45 are
more apt to support paying higher gasoline taxes. The common element is higher
education—typically income is higher and we are better prepared to focus on
environmental issues. Ideology, education and age are common influences of support
in both issues—though the specifics may vary.
Additional support. Even among moderates, educated folks aged 46 plus are more
likely to support paying higher prices for sustainability. While there is far less support
for higher gasoline taxes among people with less than a college education, note that
liberals are more supportive than conservatives and moderates by almost a two to one
ratio. Again, education plus age and ideology help us find support for higher prices to
protect the environment across two issues.
57
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
However, it remains to be tested by industry, NGO and public sector marketers to see if this
agreement translates into behaviour—actually paying higher prices for products and services
to protect the environment. These educated consumer segments are people who are more
formally sophisticated and apt to have socio-economic resources. The literature (see above)
on the segments who support other green products or services also tend to be people with
greater educational and financial resources—sometimes along with specific attitudes or
lifestyles. This suggests that recommendations to educate the public on sustainability issues
should be amended to include programs at institutions of higher education. In the long term,
higher education seems to help people appreciate the value of green products and accumulate
resources to pay for them.
While some of the segments that support green products include people with specific attitudes
or lifestyle perspectives, this is apt to have limited value for hands-on communicators
developing a communications strategy and media mix. They need to know more about media
use by purpose, etc. The relative impact of socio-demographics, along with lifestyle
characteristics and media use needs to be estimated to see if the socio-demographic influences
are strong enough to warrant use as a surrogate for more detailed lifestyle information.
Clearly there is much to be learned about the many segments for sustainable products,
services and policies. The long term goal of developing taxonomy of green segments should
be productive.
REFERENCES
Belz, FM & Peattie, K 2009, Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex.
Bonini, SMJ, Oppenheim, JM 2008, ‘Helping ‘Green’ Products Grow’, McKinsey Quarterly,
online publication
Breur, T 2008, ‘Decision Trees: Divide and Conquer’, paper, Xintconsulting, London, UK:
Conner, D, Colasanti, K, Ross, RB & Smalley, SB 2010, ‘Locally Grown Foods and Farmers
Markets: Consumer Attitudes and Behavior’, Sustainability, 2, (3), 742-756.
Dolnicar, S & Lazarevski, K 2009, ‘Methodological Reasons for the Theory/Practice Divide
in Market Segmentation’, Journal of Marketing Management, 25, (3-4), 357-373.
Giddens, A 1973, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of
Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber, Cambridge University Press, London.
Gilg, A, Barr, S & Ford, N 2005, ‘Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles? Identifying
the Sustainable Consumer’, Futures, 37, 481-504.
Hopkins, MS 2010. ‘How SAP Made the Business Case for Sustainability: The MIT
Sustainability Interview’, MIT Sloan Management Review, August 12, (e-publication).
Kassaye, WW 2001 ‘Green Dilemma ,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, (6/7), 444-455.
Keeling-Bond, J, Thilmany, D & Bond, CA 2006, ‘Direct Marketing of Fresh Produce:
Understanding Consumer Purchase Decisions’ Choices, 21, 4, 1-6.
58
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Kotler, P & Armstrong, G 2004, Principles of Marketing, 10th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Liang, K, CP & Kamkatwong, S 2010, ‘Green Strategies and Green Marketing, International
Journal of Strategic Marketing, February, online publication.
Lin, B-H, Yen, ST, Huang, CL & Smith, TA 2009, ‘U.S. Demand for Organic and
Conventional Fresh Fruit: The Roles of Income and Price’, Sustainability, 1, (3), September,
464-478.
Luchs, M G, Naylor, RW, Irwin, J R & Ragahunathan, R 2010, ‘The Sustainability Liability:
Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference’, Journal of Marketing, 74, (5),
September, 18-36.
Lueneburger, C & Goleman, D 2010, ‘The Change Leadership Sustainability Demands’,
MITSloan Management Review, May 17, 1-6, (Reprint 51412)
Magidson, J 2005, SI-CHAID 4.0 User’s Guide, Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont, MA.
Manget, J, Roche, C & Felix, M (2009), ‘Capturing the Green Advantage: What Green
Consumers Want and How to Deliver it. For Real, Not Just for Show’, MITSloan
Management Review (special report), (e-publication).
McDonald, S & Oates, CJ 2006, ‘Sustainability: Consumer Perceptions and Marketing
Strategies’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, (3), May/June, 157-170.
McDonnell, JJ & Bartlett, JL 2009, Marketing to Change Public Opinion On Climate
Change: A Case Study’, The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
Responses, 1, (3), 54-73.
Olli, E, Grendstad, G & Wollebark, D 2001, ‘Correlates of Environmental Behaviors:
Bringing Back Social Context’, Environmental Behavior, 33, (2), 181-208.
Pekala, N 2009, ‘From Virtual Tote Bags to Earth-Friendly Deeds, Marketers Get Creative
With 2009 Earth Day Campaigns’, AMA Marketing Matters Newsletter, April 20, online
edition.
Peattie, K & Peattie, S 2009, ‘Social Marketing: A Pathway to Consumption Reduction?’
Journal of Business Research, 62, (2), 260-268.
Press, M & Arnould, EJ 2009, ‘Market System and Public Policy Challenges and
Opportunities’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28, (1), Spring, 102-113.
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. 2009, ‘Methodology 2009 Values
Survey’. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Saphores, J-D M, Nixon, H, Ogunseitan, OA & Shapiro, AA 2006, ‘Household Willingness to
Recycle Electronic Waste: An Application to California’, Environment & Behavior, March,
38, 183-208.
Schultz, PW, Oskamp, S & Mainteri T 1995, ‘Who Recycles and When?’, A Review of
Personal and Situational Factors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, (2), June,
105-121.
59
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Straughan, RD & Roberts, JA 1999, ‘Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at
Green Consumer Behavior in the New Millennium’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, (6),
558-575.
The Economist. 2010, Technology Quarterly, June 12, 1-28.
Tregear, A & Ness, M 2005, ‘Discriminant Analysis of Consumer Interest in Buying Locally
Produced Foods’, Journal of Marketing Management, 21, (1-2), 19-35.
Vermeir, I & Verbeke, W 2006, ‘Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
Attitude – Behavioral Intention Gap’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19,
(2), 169-194.
Zhang, Y, Hussain, A, Deng, J & Letson, N 2007, ‘Public Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and
Supporting Urban Tree Programs’, Environment & Behavior, November, 39, 797-814.
60
ISSUES—PRO & CON
Paul Allen Salisbury
ABSTRACT
All organizations need to acquire new customers to maintain and grow revenue as well
as to replace customers lost through attrition. Cost-effective marketing requires a
targeting strategy to focus on appropriate candidates for acquisition. Organizations that
are marketing green products and services, or plan to do so, need to know who they
should target for acquisition. This paper examines this issue for two similar green
issues on who will pay more to protect the environment? Everyone is never a prospect
for a given product or service.
Keywords: Customer acquisition, target marketing, marketing sustainability, CHAID,
data mining
INTRODUCTION
What do we mean when we say sustainability or green? Sustainability (green) is a broad
concept (Manget et al. 2009) that covers both personal issues (e.g., buying organic food,
using compact fluorescent light bulbs (cfls), riding mass transit, etc.), as well as broader
social concerns for the environment (e.g., supporting research for alternative fuels and energy
sources, balancing economic and environmental priorities, paying higher federal taxes for
gasoline, etc.). One comprehensive marketing perspective (Belz & Peattie 2009)
emphasizes the satisfaction of consumer and business needs within the limits of our global
ecosystem—keep our planet healthy, as well as our global/regional/local economy, while we
satisfy our customers. However, in a democracy we may differ on what will keep the planet
healthy—short term or long term, or even what is green (The Economist 2010). People may
have different priorities on green social and personal issues, even when we agree on the
general importance of green strategies and tactics.
In this paper a decision-tree model (Magidson 2005) is used to develop two U.S. consumer
segmentations regarding personal willingness to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
The emphasis is on actionable implications to help social marketers target segments to
develop support for environmental concerns. One objective is to use the learning about the
segments that support or oppose paying higher prices for sustainability in order to target them
for customer acquisition campaigns.
Client Acquisition. One major issue for most organizations and their marketing managers is
the acquisition of new clients, both for growth and to compensate for attrition (lost clients).
Implicit in a typical segmentation analysis is the objective of improving targeted client
acquisition and retention (Kotler & Armstrong 2004). Marketing managers need to be
cost-effective in acquisition efforts and avoid outreach to the wrong segments. For example,
focus on lookalikes of best customers, or best customers at the time of acquisition if there is a
growth or client development period for becoming a best customer. Similarly, it is imperative
to focus retention marketing efforts on the right (profitable) segments.
Paul Allen Salisbury is an adjunct associate professor of business at the New York City College of Technology
– part of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11201 (Telephone + 1 718.260.5783;
Telephone + 1 347.244.3235).
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Volume 17(4), pp. 48-60
© PA Salisbury
ISSN 1440-5377
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Dolnicar and Lazarevski (2008) found a disconnect for marketing managers in translating
methodologically sophisticated academic segmentation research into actionable information.
The industry managers view the academic work as a ‘black box’—difficult to interpret and
apply for day-to-day marketing campaigns. One objective here is to translate the results of
decision tree model into usable guidelines for industry, NGO, etc. marketers to test or use to
develop support for environmental issues. For example, industry marketers will examine how
their best customers perceive the benefits and values of their respective green campaigns.
Then they will look for any overlap with the segments reviewed in this paper (Estrin 2010).
We need to understand more about green consumer segments. About 61% of U.S. consumers
believe that green goods do not perform as well as conventional products (Bonini &
Oppenheim 2008). Yet between 2005 and 2007 cfls went from under five percent of the U.S.
light bulb market to about 20%. Who will pay more to protect the environment? Are we
being too simplistic? Do consumers multi-task objectives in dealing with environmental
issues?
In this paper we examine public opinion segmentations in the U.S. for two disparate
sustainability issues with one common element—paying more to protect the environment:
Government Policy—Pay higher prices for gasoline through higher taxes
Government Policy—Pay more to support the environment.
THEORY
Yes, we need to understand more about green consumer segments, as well as consumers who
do not support environmental social action. We need theory to guide us in the right
directions.
In this paper we are trying to understand the meaning of environmental support as a type of
social action in terms of who supports it (or is opposed to it). In future analyses we will look
for other data sets that we can use to explore the why influences on support for both social and
personal green issues, (e.g., family, community, and lifestyle) plus how they support a green
issue, (e.g., pay extra, buy organic). Why should formal education, ideology and age play
such a key role in support for paying extra to support environmental issues? More data needs
to be collected to examine lifestyle impacts on support for environmental issues to help
understand the who, how, when, where and why of tangible support.
Belz and Peattie remind us that while traditional marketing theory focuses on consumers as
individuals, we are also susceptible to other influences:
Groups, (e.g., family, household, ethnic affiliation, political party).
Community groups, (e.g., social networks, clubs), local services, (e.g., available mass
transportation, mandatory/voluntary home recycling, ease/difficulty of home
recycling)
Lifestyles (Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 87)
o Material Simplicity—consume less, consider environmental impact of goods
o Human Scale-practising ‘small is beautiful’ and simplifying a lifestyle
o Self-Determination—become more independent, less reliant on large suppliers
49
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
o Ecological Awareness—conserve resources, reduce waste, reuse/recycle more
o Personal Growth—develop personal abilities, less reliance on commercial
sources
We need to understand how we integrate our subjective meaning with external influences to
form social action plans (Giddens 1973). Our ways of making sense of the world, doing the
right thing and appearing to do so, all impact our behaviour whether or not we support
environmental issues.
Marketing managers of green products and services regularly review their customer
segmentations to refine target groups and positioning strategies (Belz & Peattie 2009;
McDonnell & Barlett 2009; Kotler & Armstrong 2004). In effect, they are constantly
updating their understanding of what influences, drives and satisfies their client action
segments. Furthermore, marketing managers must continually test the impact of new
information about sustainability in fostering behaviour on their client segments (Vermeir &
Verbeke 2006). On the flip side of practicality, marketers know that demographics are more
available and reliable than lifestyle variables when renting lists for prospecting (client
acquisition campaigns). This often means using demographic combinations as surrogates for
lifestyle variables.
In the end, the key issue is always behaviour regardless of any attitudinal position. How do
we impact behaviour and whose behaviour can we influence? Who are the low hanging fruit?
Who are the challenges? What segments are in the middle?
Over time, market researchers may be able to develop a segmentation taxonomy for
sustainability marketing. Consumers who value one priority (e.g., carbon tax by polluters)
need not value another sustainable issue or behaviour, (e.g., gasoline tax to fund mass transit).
However, there may be sustainability issue clusters that future research will uncover. Each
perspective seems to be a constraint based on consumer knowledge or the lack of it (Press &
Arnould 2009; Sharp 2008), experience, indirect information or experience from other people,
some combination of influences, etc. Any consistency across sustainability issues will rely on
subjective consumer perceptions of social meaning and action, rather than any external
perceptions of logic.
Data and Analysis
The CHAID models reviewed below are based on a secondary analysis of the 2009 Values
Survey sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Princeton
Research Associates 2009). The survey secured telephone interviews with a nationally
representative sample of 3,013 adults living in the continental United States. Princeton
Survey Research International conducted the survey with interviews completed in English and
Spanish by Princeton Data Source, LLC from March 31 to April 21, 2009. Statistical results
are weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies. The margin of sampling error for
the complete set of weighted data is 2.1±%. For details on the survey see the full report by
Princeton Research Associates (2009). (More information is available from the Pew Research
Center web site at people-press.org).
50
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
CHAID: A Brief Overview
CHAID is an acronym for Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector. It is often used for
data mining. The analysis here uses a categorical, (e.g., binary), dependent variable. CHAID
employs the chi-square test (for categorical independent variables) to find the next best split
among the independent variables and displays the results in a tree or waterfall diagram. It is
effective for exploratory market segmentation, but larger data sets are needed due to the splits.
The splits segment and reduce the total sample, akin to an extensive, multivariate crosstabular model. Variables may be combined or split depending upon what produces the lowest
p-value (Magidson 2005; Breur 2008).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Issue I. People Should Be Willing to Pay Higher Prices to Protect the Environment—
Socio-Demographics Rule
‘People should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. Do you
completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree?’ (No opinion or no
answer were categorized with oppose for this analysis because they do not favor this
position). This question does not specify how we may be impacted by higher prices. It is a
general perspective and does not address specific objectives, (e.g., pay more for clean air,
etc.).
Those who do not favor higher prices to protect the environment are more likely to: be
conservative, be age 25 to 34, and be a high school graduate with no additional education,
(see univariate information below).
Those who favor higher prices are more apt to be liberal and have a BA/BS or higher degree.
At the univariate level supporters seem to be more liberal, educated, and may have higher
incomes (high refusal rate). The loyal opposition is younger, less educated, and conservative.
Maybe everyone shouldn’t have to pay more to protect the environment? The logic of carbon
taxing is that polluters pay more.
51
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Table 1: Socio-demographic Overview: Willing to Pay Higher Prices to Protect the
Environment
% Favor % Do Not Favor
Ideology
Conservative
26
43
Moderate
41
37
Liberal
27
12
6
8
18 to 24
14
12
25 to 34
14
20
35 to 44
18
18
45 to 54
20
19
55 to 64
16
15
65 plus
17
17
Less than high school graduate
14
13
High school graduate
30
39
Some college/technical training 24
26
College graduate plus
22
Don’t know/refused
Age
Education
32
CHAID Analysis
Among all the respondents queried, almost half (49%) believe that people should be willing to
pay higher prices to protect the environment (see Table 2). This segment is clearly a target
group of people willing to pay more (or have others pay more) for at least one green issue.
Note the role of ideology as the primary segmentation variable—68% of the liberals vs. 37%
of the conservatives and 50% of the others are willing to pay more. However, these liberals
are just 19% of the population. They are a sizeable minority—something to build on rather
than a broad spectrum to influence politicians and industry representatives. (However,
background information on likelihood of voting and/or providing financial support can be
useful information in discussions with both politicians and industry representatives.) The role
52
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
of education is vital too. We see that 80% of the liberals with a BA plus support paying
higher prices, though they are just six percent of the population.
There is a key role for education in support for higher prices among moderates. Note that
66% of the moderates with a BA plus support paying higher prices, and they are 12% of the
population. When we total the most educated groups across the ideological span between
moderates and liberals, we see 18% of this sub-group contain significant percentages of
people who support higher prices to protect the environment.
Next we see how age refines this group. For moderates, the people with a BA plus, or who
are less educated and aged 45 or younger, are more apt to favour paying higher prices.
Education and age clearly impact this position—especially education. Combining the
educated moderates with all of the liberals provides 31% of the population with majorities to
support higher prices to protect the environment. Lookalikes of these people should be fertile
ground to look for potential converts to environmental support.
While demographics are key determinants in this study, demographics and sociodemographics have a mixed record on influencing green consumer behaviour, sometimes with
contradictory results (McDonald & Oates 2006; Straughan & Roberts 1999). Gilg, Barr and
Ford (2005) find socio-demographics (i.e.., age, gender, income, education and community
involvement) impact green lifestyles along with psychological factors and socialenvironmental values (Olli, Grendstad & Wollebark 2001). Lin, Yen, Huang and Smith
(2009) find that household income is what impacts the purchase of organic (vs. conventional)
fruit. Zhang, Hussain, Deng and Letson (2007) saw a mix of demographics (having a fulltime job, $75, 000 plus annual income, being an adult younger than age 56), and attitudes
(willing to donate money to causes and interest in donating time to urban forestry) were
predictors of awareness for urban tree programs. Similarly, Saphores, Nixon, Ogunseitan and
Shapiro (2006) saw a mix of demographics (gender, education) and attitudes (convenience,
environmental beliefs) were key factors in willingness to drop-off e-waste at recycling
centers.
It is important to continue exploring this role for demographics in further research. This
seeming inconsistency may be an indicator of the varying impact of demographics depending
upon the specific sustainability issue. In addition, marketing managers must test the impacts
of current information about availability and peer pressure in fostering behaviour on any
green issue (Vermeir & Verbeke 2006). In the end, the key issue is always behaviour
regardless of any attitudinal position. Who should we target? Whose behaviour can we
influence, and how? Who will be the loyal opposition?
Marketing managers who may be working with political groups or NGOs supporting this type
of position can target educated people aged 45 or younger for campaigns. Social marketing
can certainly help encourage conservation of resources (Peattie & Peattie 2009). Energy
companies who may want to support any political opposition to such tax increases can see
that voters with lower educational levels should be targeted—especially conservatives. In
general, people with less than a BA are the basic target group of anti-pay more campaigns.
Given that the data is from a national sample, it should be beneficial for local (as opposed to
national) marketers to test this learning within specific regions, metropolitan areas, even states
to look for potential variations. Who is willing to pay more, and for what? Who is unwilling
to pay more for X, but is willing to spend more Y?
53
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Table 2: Results of CHAID Analysis: People Should Be Willing to Pay Higher
Prices to Protect the Environment
49% Agree
(n=3651)
Conservative* 37% Agree
(n=1276), 35% sample
Less than BA/BS*
38% Agree
(n=952),
26% sample
BA/BS+*,
31% Agree
(n=324),
9% sample
Moderate/DK*, 50% Agree
(n=1666), 46% sample
Less than
BA/BS*, 45%
45% Agree
(n=1239),
34% sample
Less than 46
39% Agree,
(n=648),
18% sample
Age 46+*
51% Agree
(n=591)
16% sample
Liberal*, 68% Agree
(n=709), 19% sample
BA/BS+*
66% Agree
(n=427),
12%
sample
Less than
BA/BS*,
Agree 62%
(n=487),
13% sample
Less than 46
66% Agree
(n=280),
8% sample
BA/BS+*
80% Agree
(n=222)
6% sample
Age 46+ **
57% Agree
(n=207),
6% sample
* Adjusted P-value = 0.000
** Adjusted P-value = 0.05
Issue II. Higher Taxes and Prices for Gasoline: Demographics Rule
‘As I read some possible government policies to address America’s energy supply, tell me
whether you would favor or oppose each. Would you favor or oppose the government
increasing taxes on gasoline to encourage conservation?’ (The answer categories, plus no
opinion/no answer are the same for both issues. No opinion or no answer were categorized
with oppose because they do not favor this position). This issue may impact respondents
directly (e.g., drivers) and/or indirectly (e.g., mass transit customers). Many people use mass
transit as commuters and drive vehicles in their personal lives. As drivers they will be
impacted by higher gasoline taxes. If local mass transit is crowded, (e.g., New York City),
then current mass transit customers may not want to see additional commuters on the bus or
subway or railroad. Whether we drive our vehicle to the railroad, or to the mall, higher
gasoline taxes can hit us hard.
54
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Those who favor increasing taxes on gasoline to increase conservation are more likely to:
have some long term investments in the stock market, report an annual income above $100k,
be liberal, and be more likely to have attended college or have a BA or additional education.
At the univariate level they seem more educated, wealthier and more liberal.
Table 3: Socio-Demographic Overview: Support Gasoline Tax to Encourage
Conservation
% Favor % Do Not Favor
Investments (Wealth Indicator)
Trade stocks and other funds pretty regularly
7
7
Have some long term investments, don’t trade regularly 50
38
Don’t have money in the stock market
40
51
2
4
Less than $50,000
44
48
$50,000 to $99,999
27
25
$100,000 plus
20
11
8
16
Conservative
23
43
Moderate
38
35
Liberal
35
10
4
6
Less than high school graduate
11
14
High School graduate
26
38
Some college/technical training
15
26
College graduate plus
47
21
Don’t know/refused
Annual Household Income (2008)
Don’t know/refused
Ideology
Don’t know/refused
Education
55
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
CHAID Analysis
Among all the respondents queried, just 23% favoured increasing gasoline taxes to encourage
conservation. This segment is clearly a target group of people willing to pay more (or have
others pay more) for at least one issue. Note the role of education: 40% of those with a BA+
support the higher tax while only 16% of those with lower educational levels support the tax.
People with a BA+ are 27% of the population, a substantial group for political campaigns.
Next, we see how age refines this group. Forty-eight percent of the people with a BA+ and
who are 45 or younger favour this tax increase. While only 33% of folks who have a BA +
and are age 46 or older favour this tax increase; however, they are significantly more
supportive than the overall sample. Education and age clearly impact this position—
especially education.
People with less than a BA show far less support for increasing gasoline taxes. Even when
refined by political philosophy, the support of liberals with less than a BA only reaches 27%.
While demographics are key determinants in this study, demographics and sociodemographics have a mixed record on influencing green consumer behaviour, sometimes with
contradictory results (McDonald & Oates 2006l Straughan & Roberts 1999).
Gilg, Barr and Ford (2005) find socio-demographics (i.e.., age, gender, income, education and
community involvement) impact green lifestyles along with psychological factors and socialenvironmental values (Olli, Grendstad & Wollebark 2001). Lin, Yen, Huang and Smith
(2009) find that household income is what impacts the purchase of organic (vs. conventional)
fruit. Zhang, Hussain, Deng and Letson (2007) saw a mix of demographics (having a fulltime job, $75, 000 plus annual income, being an adult younger than age 56), and attitudes
(willing to donate money to causes and interest in donating time to urban forestry) were
predictors of awareness for urban tree programs. Similarly, Saphores, Nixon, Ogunseitan and
Shapiro (2006) saw a mix of demographics (gender, education) and attitudes (convenience,
environmental beliefs) were key factors in willingness to drop-off e-waste at recycling
centres.
It is important to continue exploring this role, or the lack of it, in further research. This
seeming inconsistency may be an indicator of the varying impact of demographics depending
upon the sustainability issue.
In addition, marketing managers must test the impacts of information about availability and
peer pressure in fostering behaviour on any green issue (Vermeir & Verbeke 2006). In the
end, the key issue is always behaviour regardless of any attitudinal position. How do we
impact behaviour and whose behaviour can we influence?
Marketing managers who may be working with political groups or NGOs supporting this type
of position can target educated people age 45 or younger for campaigns. Social marketing
can certainly help encourage conservation of resources (Belz & 2009). Energy companies
who may want to support any political opposition to such tax increases, can see that voters
with lower educational levels should be targeted—especially conservatives. In general,
people with less than a BA should be the basic target group of anti-gasoline tax campaigns.
Given that the data is from a national sample, it should be beneficial for local (as opposed to
national) marketers to test this learning within specific regions, metropolitan areas, even states
to look for potential variations. For example, it should be productive to compare regions
56
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
with few mass transit options, higher or lower local gasoline taxes, more usage of personal
vehicles, etc.
Table 4: Results of CHAID Analysis: Support Gasoline Tax to Encourage
Conservation
23% Favor Gasoline tax
(n=1770)
Educ: Less than BA*
16% Favor
(n=1289), 73% sample
Conservative &
Moderates*
14% Favor
(n=1061), 60%
sample
Educ: BA+*
40% Favor
(n=481), 27%
sample
Age: 45 or less*
48% Favor
(n=227), 13%
sample
Ideology: Liberal*
27% Favor
(n=228), 13% sample
Age: 46+*
33% Favor
(n=254), 14%
sample
* Adjusted P-value = 0.000
CONCLUSIONS
Socio-demographics are key determinants of support for higher prices to protect the
environment. There are differences on details:
Best customers. Liberal, educated people aged 46 plus are far more likely to support
paying higher prices to protect the environment. Educated people under age 45 are
more apt to support paying higher gasoline taxes. The common element is higher
education—typically income is higher and we are better prepared to focus on
environmental issues. Ideology, education and age are common influences of support
in both issues—though the specifics may vary.
Additional support. Even among moderates, educated folks aged 46 plus are more
likely to support paying higher prices for sustainability. While there is far less support
for higher gasoline taxes among people with less than a college education, note that
liberals are more supportive than conservatives and moderates by almost a two to one
ratio. Again, education plus age and ideology help us find support for higher prices to
protect the environment across two issues.
57
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
However, it remains to be tested by industry, NGO and public sector marketers to see if this
agreement translates into behaviour—actually paying higher prices for products and services
to protect the environment. These educated consumer segments are people who are more
formally sophisticated and apt to have socio-economic resources. The literature (see above)
on the segments who support other green products or services also tend to be people with
greater educational and financial resources—sometimes along with specific attitudes or
lifestyles. This suggests that recommendations to educate the public on sustainability issues
should be amended to include programs at institutions of higher education. In the long term,
higher education seems to help people appreciate the value of green products and accumulate
resources to pay for them.
While some of the segments that support green products include people with specific attitudes
or lifestyle perspectives, this is apt to have limited value for hands-on communicators
developing a communications strategy and media mix. They need to know more about media
use by purpose, etc. The relative impact of socio-demographics, along with lifestyle
characteristics and media use needs to be estimated to see if the socio-demographic influences
are strong enough to warrant use as a surrogate for more detailed lifestyle information.
Clearly there is much to be learned about the many segments for sustainable products,
services and policies. The long term goal of developing taxonomy of green segments should
be productive.
REFERENCES
Belz, FM & Peattie, K 2009, Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex.
Bonini, SMJ, Oppenheim, JM 2008, ‘Helping ‘Green’ Products Grow’, McKinsey Quarterly,
online publication
Breur, T 2008, ‘Decision Trees: Divide and Conquer’, paper, Xintconsulting, London, UK:
Conner, D, Colasanti, K, Ross, RB & Smalley, SB 2010, ‘Locally Grown Foods and Farmers
Markets: Consumer Attitudes and Behavior’, Sustainability, 2, (3), 742-756.
Dolnicar, S & Lazarevski, K 2009, ‘Methodological Reasons for the Theory/Practice Divide
in Market Segmentation’, Journal of Marketing Management, 25, (3-4), 357-373.
Giddens, A 1973, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of
Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber, Cambridge University Press, London.
Gilg, A, Barr, S & Ford, N 2005, ‘Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles? Identifying
the Sustainable Consumer’, Futures, 37, 481-504.
Hopkins, MS 2010. ‘How SAP Made the Business Case for Sustainability: The MIT
Sustainability Interview’, MIT Sloan Management Review, August 12, (e-publication).
Kassaye, WW 2001 ‘Green Dilemma ,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19, (6/7), 444-455.
Keeling-Bond, J, Thilmany, D & Bond, CA 2006, ‘Direct Marketing of Fresh Produce:
Understanding Consumer Purchase Decisions’ Choices, 21, 4, 1-6.
58
Volume 17 (4)
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour
Kotler, P & Armstrong, G 2004, Principles of Marketing, 10th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Liang, K, CP & Kamkatwong, S 2010, ‘Green Strategies and Green Marketing, International
Journal of Strategic Marketing, February, online publication.
Lin, B-H, Yen, ST, Huang, CL & Smith, TA 2009, ‘U.S. Demand for Organic and
Conventional Fresh Fruit: The Roles of Income and Price’, Sustainability, 1, (3), September,
464-478.
Luchs, M G, Naylor, RW, Irwin, J R & Ragahunathan, R 2010, ‘The Sustainability Liability:
Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference’, Journal of Marketing, 74, (5),
September, 18-36.
Lueneburger, C & Goleman, D 2010, ‘The Change Leadership Sustainability Demands’,
MITSloan Management Review, May 17, 1-6, (Reprint 51412)
Magidson, J 2005, SI-CHAID 4.0 User’s Guide, Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont, MA.
Manget, J, Roche, C & Felix, M (2009), ‘Capturing the Green Advantage: What Green
Consumers Want and How to Deliver it. For Real, Not Just for Show’, MITSloan
Management Review (special report), (e-publication).
McDonald, S & Oates, CJ 2006, ‘Sustainability: Consumer Perceptions and Marketing
Strategies’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, (3), May/June, 157-170.
McDonnell, JJ & Bartlett, JL 2009, Marketing to Change Public Opinion On Climate
Change: A Case Study’, The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and
Responses, 1, (3), 54-73.
Olli, E, Grendstad, G & Wollebark, D 2001, ‘Correlates of Environmental Behaviors:
Bringing Back Social Context’, Environmental Behavior, 33, (2), 181-208.
Pekala, N 2009, ‘From Virtual Tote Bags to Earth-Friendly Deeds, Marketers Get Creative
With 2009 Earth Day Campaigns’, AMA Marketing Matters Newsletter, April 20, online
edition.
Peattie, K & Peattie, S 2009, ‘Social Marketing: A Pathway to Consumption Reduction?’
Journal of Business Research, 62, (2), 260-268.
Press, M & Arnould, EJ 2009, ‘Market System and Public Policy Challenges and
Opportunities’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28, (1), Spring, 102-113.
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. 2009, ‘Methodology 2009 Values
Survey’. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Saphores, J-D M, Nixon, H, Ogunseitan, OA & Shapiro, AA 2006, ‘Household Willingness to
Recycle Electronic Waste: An Application to California’, Environment & Behavior, March,
38, 183-208.
Schultz, PW, Oskamp, S & Mainteri T 1995, ‘Who Recycles and When?’, A Review of
Personal and Situational Factors’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, (2), June,
105-121.
59
PA Salisbury
Pay to Protect the Environment: Two
Consumer Issues – Pro & Con
Straughan, RD & Roberts, JA 1999, ‘Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at
Green Consumer Behavior in the New Millennium’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, (6),
558-575.
The Economist. 2010, Technology Quarterly, June 12, 1-28.
Tregear, A & Ness, M 2005, ‘Discriminant Analysis of Consumer Interest in Buying Locally
Produced Foods’, Journal of Marketing Management, 21, (1-2), 19-35.
Vermeir, I & Verbeke, W 2006, ‘Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
Attitude – Behavioral Intention Gap’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19,
(2), 169-194.
Zhang, Y, Hussain, A, Deng, J & Letson, N 2007, ‘Public Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and
Supporting Urban Tree Programs’, Environment & Behavior, November, 39, 797-814.
60