Revealing Consumer Behavior toward Green Consumption

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors of the administrative staff of four Baku universities toward the consumption of environmentally friendly products. The study used 536 consumer questionnaires belonging to different socio-economic and demographic consumer groups. The survey evaluated the factors that affected purchasing decisions, purchase intentions, awareness, attitudes and behaviors toward green products of respondents living in an urban area. The results from the survey were analyzed using one-way MANOVA analysis. According to the results of the study, the green consumer behaviors of the survey participants differed according to age, the number of household members, marital status, education level and income. At the same time, the main indicators that consumers paid attention to were price, brand, appearance, advertising, expert opinion and label information. The level of importance of these indicators varied according to the education, income and number of household members of the participants. The results showed that the participants of the survey were partially sensitive to the environment.

1. Introduction

Global warming and climate change, the consequences of which have become even more serious, have contributed to the growth of many environmental problems, such as the reduction in water resources; the loss of biological diversity; air, water and soil pollution; and the depletion of natural resources [1,2]. The fact that today, environmental problems have reached their peak has led to the growth of environmental concerns [3] and made it necessary to shape consumer behavior more carefully in environmental approaches [4]. Therefore, current consumption patterns need to be shaped correctly in the fight against climate change [5,6]. On the other hand, rapid population growth and advances in technology have led to a further increase in production and consumption. In other words, over the past two centuries, advances in medicine have increased the average human life expectancy, which has led to a rapid increase in the world’s population. The world population, which was 2.5 billion in 1950 and increased to 6.1 billion in 2000 and 7.8 billion in 2020. The world population will be between 8.5 and 8.6 billion in 2030, between 9.4 and 10.1 billion in 2050, and between 9.4 and 12.7 billion in 2100 [7]. It is believed that the environmental problems observed with the growth of the population and the level of consumption will negatively affect the living standards of future generations [8]. In other words, it is very important to develop public consciousness on this issue, as the ongoing environmental problems will grow in the future if they are not prevented [9].

In academic studies, special attention is paid to the responsibility and behavior of the consumers [10,11]. One of the reasons this point of view needs to be heard is the power of consumer preferences to influence production [12]. That is, while increasing environmental awareness and concern for the environment is driving most people to use green products in their daily lives, companies are seeing the benefits of green marketing strategies [13,14,15].

Consumer preferences can have a significant impact on the solution of environmental problems [16,17]. Consumers’ preference for products that do not harm the environment and the use of recyclable packaging will make significant contributions to the environment. In other words, consumers play a key role in product policies for environmentalism [18]. Therefore, responsible consumption behaviors in society should be encouraged and supported [19].

A growing population should aim for sustainable food consumption [20,21]. Sustainable food consumption can be achieved by creating more favorable consumption patterns rather than reducing the quantity of goods and services [22]. Determining the attitudes of consumers toward food consumption will contribute to the further development of sustainable food consumption [23]. Meanwhile, reducing food waste plays an important role in sustainable food consumption [24,25]. Data from Eurostat reveals that around 20% of food production in the EU is wasted [26]. More than half of all food waste in the EU is generated by households. A total of 70% of all food waste is produced by households and catering and retail businesses [27].

Reducing waste should be a sense of obligation for consumers and a commitment to environmental action [28]. Considering that food waste includes natural resources, such as water, soil and energy used in food production, it can be easily said that it has negative effects on food safety and the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce food waste and improve global food and nutrition security, both throughout the food supply chain and in the consumption process [29,30].

Another environmental problem is caused by plastic packaging products. Plastic packaging products that are used daily are widely circulated among consumers and these products cause various environmental problems, such as polluting soil and water [31,32]. Therefore, one of the disadvantages of plastics today is related to their management. However, chemical recycling makes it possible to liquefy polymer waste and use them as fuel components, but such technologies are expensive [33]. Despite the fact that the recycling of plastic waste is increasing every year, more than 27% of plastic is thrown away [34]. Knowing the consumers’ attitudes toward green products enables the preparation of a more effective information and education policy by both the state and NGOs in society [35]. It would be possible to add a fiscal policy, especially a tax policy, because taxes imposed by the government can affect the behavior of consumers [36,37].

For this purpose, on the basis of national policies, consumers should be encouraged to change their behavior to be more environmentally friendly. In order to transform consumers into environmentally conscious consumers, it is necessary to recognize them, identify their distinctive features and develop appropriate strategies. In this regard, an important research topic is to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the environmental orientation of consumers and their socio-economic characteristics. From this perspective, this study attempted to determine whether there were significant relationships between the general characteristics of consumers and their environmental orientation and green behavior trends. To this end, the thoughts of various consumers on environmental orientations and trends in their environmentally friendly behavior in Azerbaijan were studied.

2. Literature Review

Issues related to the physical environment, such as air, water and soil, can be handled under the name of green, and environmental awareness associated with consumption can also be considered a sign of greenness [38,39].

There are many different and similar definitions in the literature on environmental awareness, which is called the green movement. One of these definitions was stated in the study named Promoting Environmentalism made by Zelezny and Schultz in 2000. According to Zelezny and Schult, environmental consciousness represents psychological factors related to individuals’ attitudes and evaluations toward the natural environment [18]. Therefore, environmental awareness can be defined as the development of an environmentally sensitive attitude and environmentally beneficial behavior for a sustainable life. The development of environmental awareness of consumers also affects their concerns about the environment [40,41,42,43,44].

2.1. Green Products

Generally, a green product is known as an ecological product or an environmentally friendly product [45]. In a broader sense, a green product refers to a product group that has recycling strategies or recyclable content to reduce its impact on the natural environment, is energy efficient (does the same job but consumes less energy than others), reduces the use of packaging or reduces the use of toxic materials [45,46,47,48,49,50].

The definitions given to green products show that they are environmentally friendly products. They can be recycled after use. Moisander [51] listed the characteristics of environmentally friendly products and services as follows:

• ▪ Should not be dangerous to the health of people and animals;
• ▪ Should not harm the environment during its production, use and disposal;
• ▪ Should not consume a disproportionate amount of energy and resources during its production, use and disposal;
• ▪ Should not cause waste due to excessive packaging.

According to Blair [52], environmentally friendly products have certain characteristics. They are:

• Provide an opportunity to reduce global environmental problems;
• Energy saving;
• Do not create pollution;
• Ease of repair;
• Designed to be reused or recycled;
• Produced with minimal packaging;
• Produced from renewable resources;
• Based on the security principle;
• Produced from local sources to reduce distribution costs;
• Designed to meet genuine and sincere human needs;
• Provide sufficient information on the label;
• Harmless to human health;
• Do not contain harmful substances;
• Not tested on animals.

The characteristics given for green products show that consumers should prefer products with the characteristics shown when they are environmentally friendly and that they should also adopt a holistic approach in order not to ignore one feature while supporting the other [53,54].

2.2. Green Consumers

Green consumers or environmental consumers can be defined as people who aim to protect themselves and the world through the power of their purchasing decisions [55]. In other words, the purchasing, product use and disposal decisions of environmentalist consumers are based on the desire to protect the ecological balance of nature [56,57,58]. The green consumer contributes to the protection of the environment by refusing to buy products that are harmful to the environment [58,59]. Therefore, green consumers avoid purchasing products that are considered unhealthy; that harm the environment during production, during use and after use; consume excess energy; are repackaged; or contain ingredients from endangered habitats or species [60,61,62,63]. This means that a green consumer is generally defined as one who adopts environmentally friendly behaviors and buys green products rather than standard products [49].

It is seen that green consumption is used together with various expressions that are important in terms of an environmental bias, being nature-friendly and engaging in sustainable consumption [48,64]. However, being sensitive to the environment and reflecting on consumption practices are different processes. Therefore, green consumers can be considered in two categories [65]:

• Active green consumers whose purchasing behavior is largely shaped by environmental concerns;
• Passive green consumers whose purchasing behavior is partly shaped by environmental concerns.

In order to ensure sustainable consumption in society, it is necessary to transform sensitivities toward nature into a lifestyle and to cover green consumption behavior practices. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the number of active green consumers in society. On the other hand, it is necessary for consumers to have sufficient information in order to make conscious choices because a lack of information may prevent consumers from making their purchasing decisions toward green consumption.

As mentioned earlier, environmentally conscious consumers who are aware of the fact that the quality of the environment will improve as a result of increased consumption of green products may tend to become more actively involved in green consumption activities. Therefore, an accurate determination of consumer behavior ensures that the direction of consumer needs and desires in society is known correctly.

Since green consumers have a high environmental responsibility, they will not harm the environment or they will try to minimize damage in their production or consumption in their daily lives [66]. Focusing on behavior that minimizes environmental damage [67] is the main goal of environmental consumption behavior.

2.3. Green Consumption Behavior

In studies that take into account the ecological concerns of the consumer, this type of behavior was examined within the framework of different concepts, such as “ecological behavior” [68,69], “environmentally friendly behavior” [70,71], “responsible consumer behavior” [7] and “sustainable consumer behavior” [49,53,72]. Even though they are handled in different ways, consumers with environmental awareness are not only interested in the consumption process, but also in the production, scarcity of consumed resources and post-use processes of products [8,73].

Many studies have examined demographic factors, such as age, gender, educational and income levels, and location, as well as psychographic variables that include various values and attitudes, to characterize environmentally sensitive consumers [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. Different results were reached in the studies on the demographic characteristics of environmentally sensitive consumers. Studies that identified age as an important factor in consumer behavior showed that younger people engaged in more responsible environmental behaviors compared to older people. Despite this, a qualitative study by Autio and Heinonen found that although young people aged 16–19 years are aware of the consumption of organic products, the image of a green consumer does not seem attractive to them and they do not buy green products [81,82].

A study by Kreidler and Joseph [83] showed that income and education have a positive effect on environmental behavior. This effect was defined as a linear effect. However, Qasim et al. [84] found that consumer income level did not affect Pakistani consumers’ intention to consume organic food.

Roberts and Bacon [44] and Straughan and Roberts [85] determined in their research that environmentally sensitive consumers are relatively younger, better educated, have higher incomes and mostly consist of women. There are also studies in the literature that argue that environmental commitment is higher in women than in men [70,82,86]. Because women perceive environmental health risks more than men, they are more sensitive to the environment [87,88,89]. The study conducted by Chen and Chai in 2010 revealed that there is no gender-related difference in attitudes toward the environment and green products.

However, studies by Schwartz [90] and Roper Organization [91] found that environmental consumers do not consist only of high-income, young, educated women. Straughan and Robert [85] also found that people living in cities are more environmentally aware than people living in rural areas.

There may be many reasons for differentiating environmental consumption behavior in studies conducted by different researchers at different times. This may include consumer hedonic desires [92], such as planting trees, purchasing organic products and achieving goals, such as saving energy. However, some studies found that there is a weak correlation between consumers’ positive attitudes toward environmental issues and their conversion to actual purchasing behavior [93,94,95,96].

The complexity of consumer environmental behavior is sometimes related to financial reasons, such as a lack of affordable green products, as well as a loss of comfort and/or loss of time, such as sorting waste for recycling and keeping it at home before sending it to collection points [97,98,99,100,101]. For example, some consumers are reluctant to pay more for green-packed products because their prices are higher and unaffordable [102,103,104]. A consumer who cannot afford to buy a product in eco-friendly packaging will choose to purchase the product in non-ecological packaging because the main motivation for these actions is need. On the other hand, some consumers are willing to pay more for organic products because they are of better quality [102,105]. However, if prices are cheaper, most customers will buy more organic food [106,107]. Even in the EU, about 43 million people today cannot afford quality food every two days [27].

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Technique and Questions

A questionnaire technique was used as the data collection method in the study. The survey was divided into two parts. The 7 items given in the first subsection of the first section were designed to understand the general characteristics of the participants. In the second subsection of the first section, the participants were asked to define green products.

In the second part of the questionnaire, items were given to measure the factors that affected the decisions of consumers while purchasing products, namely, their purchasing intentions, awareness, attitudes and behaviors toward ecological products. The first subsection of the second part of the questionnaire aimed to determine the indicators that consumers paid attention to when purchasing products by using 12 indicators. These indicators included the production and expiry date, being eco-friendly, freshness, ingredients, brand, expert opinions, appearance, price, label information and advertising.

In the second subsection of the second part, ecological consumer behaviors were evaluated. Eighteen statements were presented to measure the ecological consumer behavior of participants in the research. These expressions are given below:

• ✓ I prefer reusable products to disposable ones.
• ✓ I prefer to buy the same product in a larger package.
• ✓ I use the product until it is completely worn out.
• ✓ I buy used goods to reduce unnecessary consumption.
• ✓ I separate waste, such as paper, glass, plastic bottles, batteries, etc.
• ✓ I want to receive documents by e-mail so as not to use extra paper.
• ✓ Instead of buying products that I will use temporarily, I borrow them from my relatives and friends.
• ✓ I don’t use a plastic bag and put groceries in my bag when I’m shopping.
• ✓ I donate unused clothes to those who need them.
• ✓ I prefer to buy products that blend quickly with nature.
• ✓ I buy packaged products made from recycled papers.
• ✓ I buy products made from environmentally friendly materials.
• ✓ I pay attention to the type of energy I use so as not to increase air pollution.
• ✓ Although expensive, I buy lamps that consume less electricity.
• ✓ I buy energy-saving electrical appliances.
• ✓ When the weather gets colder, I prefer to wear warm clothes rather than raise the temperature.
• ✓ I turn off unnecessary lights.
• ✓ While brushing my teeth, washing dishes, etc., I turn off the faucet.

Consumers stated whether they agreed with these statements or not. These items are selected from the studies of Barr [108], Pepper et al. [109], Berger and Corbin [110], Gupta and Agrawal [111], Roberts and Bacon [44], Barbarossa and De Pelsmacker [112], Sütterlin et al. [50], Straughan and Roberts [85], and Barr and Gilg [113]. To determine the degree of agreement or disagreement of the participants with a particular statement, a 5-point Likert scale was used.

Thus, the main research questions in the study are given below:

• “What characteristics do survey participants attribute to environmental products?”
• “What factors do survey participants pay attention to when consuming?”
• “What are the main characteristics of the ecological consumer behavior of the survey participants?”

The consumer behaviors of the respondents were compared using one-way MANOVA analysis. The data collected in the survey were subjected to the post hoc data-cleaning technique. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28 was used for data analysis and evaluation.

3.2. Research Scope

Data were collected from 580 respondents over the age of 18, but due to incorrect and/or incomplete filling of some questionnaires, 536 of them turned out to be suitable. The survey was conducted both face-to-face and online. The questionnaire was prepared using a Google form and distributed via e-mail, Facebook and WhatsApp. In the face-to-face interview, participants were asked to fill out a paper-based questionnaire. The study was conducted among the administrative staff of four Baku universities living in urban areas. Participants from the Azerbaijan State University of Economics, Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Technical University and Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University were grouped into different categories, such as age, gender, education, marital status, number of households, income level and purchase frequency.

Residents of economically developed regions generally have higher education, higher incomes, etc. [30]. In this context, the respondents were selected from Baku, and universities are one of the most suitable places for the analysis.

The survey was conducted by the authors between November 2021 and January 2022.

4. Data Analysis and Findings

4.1. General Characteristics of Survey Participants

This section presents the data collected on general variables, such as gender, marital status, education level, age, number of household members, monthly income and frequency of purchases.

According to the results presented in

Table A1. General Characteristics of the Survey Participants.

	Number	Percent (%)		Number	Percent (%)
Gender			Marital Status
Male	253	47.2	Married	217	40.5
Female	283	52.8	Single	319	59.5
Education Level			Number of Household Members
High school	58	10.8	Up to 2 people	119	22.2
Bachelor’s	348	64.9	3 or 4 people	185	34.5
Master’s	98	18.3	5 or 6 people	143	26.7
Ph.D	32	6	More than 6 people	89	16.6
Monthly Income			Shopping Frequency
Up to 300 manats	123	22.9	Every day	160	29.9
Between 300–600 manats	199	37.1	2–3 times a week	133	24.8
Between 601–1000 manats	89	16.6	Once a week	94	17.5
Between 1001–1500 manats	98	18.3	2–3 times a month	71	13.2
More than 1500 manats	27	5.04	Once a month	78	14.6
Age
18–29 years	189	35.3
30–45 years	155	28.9
46–64 years	94	17.5
65 years and over	98	18.3
N = 535

, 47.2% of the study participants were men and 52.8% were women (see Appendix A). When considering the marital status of the survey participants, it can be seen that 40.5% were married and 59.5% were single. Considering the educational status of the participants, it can be seen that 10.8% of them had a high school diploma, 64.9% had a bachelor’s degree, 18.3% had a master’s degree and 6.0% had a doctoral degree. These results show that all participants were educated and the majority of participants had a high level of education.

Looking at the ages of the respondents, it can be seen that 35.3% of participants were between the ages of 18 and 29, while 18.3% were aged 65 or older. Considering the number of household members of the interviewed participants, it can be seen that 22.2% of them lived alone or with another person. A total of 34.5% of them had a family of 3 or 4 people and 26.7% had a family of 5 or 6 people. Only 16.6% of participants had more than six people in the household. Another difference that members had was to do with their monthly income. While the majority of respondents (37.1%) earned between 301 and 600 manats, only 5.04% of them earned more than 1500 manats. Meanwhile, the lowest salary in Azerbaijan was 250 manats in 2021 and 300 manats in 2022 [114]. Some of the respondents were paid less than 300 manats as they worked half-days. Approximately 30% of the participants noted that they did shopping every day, 24.8% of participants made purchases 2–3 times a week, 17.5% made purchases once a week, and 14.6% of participants made purchases once a month.

4.2. Results for Survey Participants’ Statements on Definition of Green Products

As mentioned earlier, green purchasing decisions provide an opportunity to reduce the negative impact on the environment through the consumption of green products [115,116].

Therefore, what is the consumer attitude and behavior toward ecological products in Azerbaijan? To answer this question, consumers were first asked the question, “What is a green product?” in order to identify consumer awareness.

The distribution of consumer responses about what a green product means is shown in Figure 1. More than one answer was selected by participants and the largest share (67%) in the definition of green products was marked as “Environmentally related products”. Other highly rated responses were “Naturally produced products” with 46% and “Products that generate less waste” with 39%. The lowest scoring responses were “High value products”, “Products that protect natural resources”, and “Production of more labor-intensive products”. The percentages of these options were 13%, 12% and 10%, respectively. A total of 16% of consumers said that they did not know what green products are.

4.3. Results for Indicators That Consumers Paid Attention To

This study aimed to determine the indicators that consumers pay attention to when purchasing products by using 12 expressions. Factor analysis was performed on the correlation matrix of these variables.

The factor was the weighted average of the original variables. With factor analysis, we aimed to find the factors from which the original correlation matrix could be formed [117]. As is known, the factor load should be at least 0.30 [118,119]. In addition, the difference between factor loadings given to a variable by more than one factor must be at least 0.1 [118]. However, two indicators—quality and taste—were loaded onto two factors. The factor loads were 0.417 and 0.431, and 0.523 and 0.554, respectively. These indicators were excluded from the analysis because the difference between the factor loadings was less than 0.1.

Before the factors of the variables were given, the KMO and Bartlett’s tests were performed. KMO and Bartlett’s tests evaluate all data together. A KMO value above 0.5 and a Bartlett’s test value below 0.05 indicate a significant correlation in the data. Variable collinearity indicates how strongly a single variable is related to other variables [120].

The KMO and Bartlett’s test outputs are shown in

Table A2. KMO and Bartlett’s test for indicators that consumers paid attention to.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.813
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	10,216.520
	Df	351
	Sig.	<0.001

(see Appendix B). The KMO value obtained was 0.813. This value was good and it meant that the sum of partial correlations was not large in comparison to the sum of the correlations. Therefore, the factor analysis was appropriate in this case. In other words, reliable and different factors were obtained from the factor analysis of these data. The approx. chi-square value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 10,216.520. The significance value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was less than 0.001. Thus, factor analysis could be applied to the data set of the indicators that consumers paid attention to.

In the next step of the analysis process, factor analysis was performed on 10 items using the principal component calculation method and a direct oblimin rotation. The analysis revealed a three-factor structure that explained 59% of the total variance. It was observed that the factor loads of the items varied between the lowest at 0.402 and the highest at 0.891. The pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha based on the standardized items for indicators that consumers pay attention to are presented in

Table A3. Pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items for indicators that consumers paid attention to.

Pattern Matrix a				Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items
	Component
	1	2	3
Production and expiration date	−0.709
Being eco-friendly	−0.690
Freshness	−0.612			0.504
Ingredients	−0.402
Brand		0.843		0.849
Expert opinions		0.832
Appearance		0.755
Price			0.762	0.813
Label information			0.624
Advertising			0.891

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalization. ^a: rotation converged in 18 iterations.

(see Appendix C).

When the factor structure was examined, it was seen that the “Production and expire date, Being eco-friendly, Freshness, Ingredients” were combined under a single factor. “Brand, Expert Opinions, Appearance” were combined under the second factor. Finally, “Price, Label information and Advertising” were combined in the third factor. “Brand” is loaded on both second and third factors. However, since the load of this indicator in the third factor (0.409) was lower than the load in the fourth factor (0.843), it remained in the second factor. “Advertising” was loaded on both the first and third factors. Since the load of the “Advertising” in the third factor (0.891) was higher than the load in the first factor (0.460), it remained in the third factor.

Cronbach’s alpha method was used to measure the reliability of the variables used in the study. Since the Cronbach’s alpha value for two factors was greater than 0.70, we could accept the analysis of only two factors as reliable. These factors were component 2 (brand, expert opinions, appearance) and component 3 (price, label information and advertising). One-way MANOVA results for the indicators that consumers paid attention to are shown in

Table A4. Results of one-way MANOVA for indicators that consumers paid attention to.

	Component 2
	Box’s Test Sig.	Pillai’s Trace Sig.	Wilks’ Lambda Sig.	Levene’s Test (Based on Mean)
				Brand	Expert Opinions	Appearance
Gender	0.001	0.067	0.000	0.816	0.532	0.970
Marital status	0.005	0.053	0.548	0.589	0.742	0.604
Education level	0.030	0.096	0.513	0.232	0.789	0.563
Income	0.683	0.000	0.000	0.871	0.425	0.386
Number of household members	0.542	0.000	0.000	0.140	0.158	0.013
Shopping frequency	0.025	0.083	0.263	0.708	0.391	0.663
Age	0.014	0.057	0.384	0.047	0.104	0.393
	Component 3
	Box’s Test Sig.	Pillai’s Trace Sig.	Wilks’ Lambda Sig.	Levene’s Test (Based on Mean)
				Price	Label Information	Advertising
Gender	0.003	0.084	0.156	0.003	0.089	0.367
Marital Status	0.001	0.091	0.329	0.360	0.419	0.224
Education level	0.136	0.000	0.000	0.037	0.270	0.163
Income	0.762	0.000	0.000	0.896	0.733	0.382
Number of household members	0.294	0.001	0.000	0.452	0.046	0.012
Shopping frequency	0.000	0.065	0.352	0.031	0.014	0.524
Age	0.000	0.043	0.572	0.429	0.603	0.187

(see Appendix D).

The p-values of Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices were higher than 0.05 for income and number of family members in component 2. On the other hand, education, income and number of family members had a value higher than 0.05 in component 3. This meant that the assumption of homogeneity of covariance was not violated and the outputs could be interpreted for these mentioned indicators. Therefore, for the next step, we only examined the values of these indicators.

To test the assumption of homogeneity of variance, we should look at Levene’s test of equality of error variances. The p-values for Levene’s test were higher than 0.05 for some mentioned indicators. This result allowed us to continue the analysis and interpretation only for indicators with values higher than 0.05. For Pillai’s trace, the mentioned indicators had a p-value less than 0.05. This meant that we had evidence of a significant main effect.

Wilks’ lambda sig. determines whether the one-way MANOVA is statistically significant. It can be seen from Table A4 that the value of “Sig” was smaller than 0.0005 for the selected indicators. Therefore, we could say that some examined elements of component 2 and component 3 varied according to the demographic characteristics of consumers.

4.4. Data Analysis and Results for Items Oriented toward Measuring Environmental Consumer Behavior

Factor analysis was performed on the correlation matrix of the variables. Four items were excluded from the analysis because the difference between the factor loadings was less than 0.1. These items and their factor loadings are given below:

-

“I donate unused clothes to those who need them.” (0.725 and 0.748);

-

“I don’t use a plastic bag and put groceries in my bag when I’m shopping.” (0.580 and 0.593);

-

“I use the product until it is completely worn out.” (0.715 and 0.791);

-

“Although expensive, I buy lamps that consume less electricity.” (0.814 and 0.863).

Table A5. KMO and Bartlett’s test for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.805
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	11,317.065
	Df	453
	Sig.	<0.001

presents the results of the KMO and Bartlett’s tests for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior (see Appendix E).

The KMO value obtained in this analysis was equal to 0.805. Therefore, factor analysis was appropriate in this case. On the other hand, the approx. chi-square value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 11,317.065. The significance value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was less than 0.001. Thus, factor analysis could be applied to the data set of the items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior.

As a result of the factor analysis, 14 items were gathered under four factors using the principal components calculation method and direct oblimin rotation. This four-factor structure explained 62% of the total variance. It was observed that the factor loads of the items varied between the lowest at 0.405 and the highest at 0.853. The pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior are given in

Table A6. Pattern matrix and Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior.

	Pattern Matrix a				Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items
	Component
	1	2	3	4
Instead of buying products that I will use temporarily, I borrow them from my relatives and friends.	0.679
I prefer to buy the same product in a larger package.	0.594
I want to receive documents by e-mail so as not to use extra paper.	0.707				0.835
I buy packaged products made from recycled paper.		−0.853
I buy products made from environmentally friendly materials.		−0.573
I prefer to buy products that blend quickly with nature.		−0.680
When the weather gets colder, I prefer to wear warm clothes rather than raise the temperature.		−0.827			0.449
I prefer reusable products to disposable ones.			0.747
I turn off unnecessary lights.			−0.658
I buy energy-saving electrical appliances.			−0.635
While brushing my teeth, washing dishes, etc., I turn off the faucet.			−0.623		0.769
I pay attention to the type of energy I use so as not to increase air pollution.				0.745
I buy used goods to reduce unnecessary consumption.				0.648
I separate waste such as paper, glass, plastic bottles, batteries, etc.				0.405	0.803

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: oblimin with Kaiser normalization. ^a: rotation converged in 23 iterations.

(see Appendix F).

In this analysis, three items were combined under component 1 and the Cronbach’s alpha value was greater than 0.835. Component 3 and component 4 contained four and three items, respectively, and had a value greater than 0.07. However, the Cronbach’s alpha value for component 2 was less than 0.07. This meant that we could only consider the analysis of three components as reliable.

The item “When the weather gets colder, I prefer to wear warm clothes rather than raise the temperature” was loaded on both the second and third factors. Since the load of this item in the second factor (0.827) was higher than the load in the third factor (0.411), it remained in the second factor. One-way MANOVA results for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior are shown in

Table A7. Results of one-way MANOVA for items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior.

Component 1
	Box’s Test Sig.		Pillai’s Trace Sig.	Wilks’ Lambda Sig.	Levene’s Test (Based on Mean)
					Instead of buying products that I will use temporarily, I borrow them from my relatives and friends.	I prefer to buy the same product in a larger package.			I want to receive documents by e-mail so as not to use extra paper.
Gender	0.020		0.035	0.305	0.325	0.783			0.453
Marital status	0.001		0.087	0.276	0.275	0.301			0.705
Education level	0.000		0.029	0.330	0.137	0.436			0.273
Income	0.351		0.001	0.000	0.482	0.120			0.032
Number of household members	0.016		0.001	0.0049	0.307	0.644			0.258
Shopping frequency	0.003		0.169	0.204	0.568	0.432			0.345
Age	0.487		0.000	0.000	0.008	0.638			0.597
	Component 3
	Box’s Test Sig.		Pillai’s Trace Sig.	Wilks’ Lambda Sig.	Levene’s Test (Based on Mean)
					I prefer reusable products to disposable ones.	I turn off unnecessary lights.		I buy energy-saving electrical appliances.			While brushing my teeth, washing dishes, etc., I turn off the faucet.
Gender	0.001		0.029	0.000	0.240	0.373		0.544			0.743
Marital status	0.243		0.000	0.002	0.358	0.011		0.493			0.022
Education level	0.002		0.004	0.000	0.518	0.407		0.190			0.673
Income	0.825		0.000	0.000	0.792	0.435		0.044			0.763
Number of household members	0.810		0.000	0.001	0.027	0.042		0.693			0.521
Shopping frequency	0.000		0.010	0.761	0.264	0.534		0.324			0.753
Age	0.001		0.000	0.007	0.621	0.614		0.021			0.279
	Component 4
	Box’s Test Sig.	Pillai’s Trace Sig.		Wilks’ Lambda Sig.	Levene’s Test (Based on Mean)
					I pay attention to the type of energy I use so as not to increase air pollution.		I buy used goods to reduce unnecessary consumption.			I separate waste such as paper, glass, plastic bottles, batteries, etc.
Gender	0.020	0.060		0.000	0.091		0.543			0.274
Marital status	0.000	0.000		0.001	0.282		0.365			0.327
Education level	0.000	0.038		0.000	0.438		0.439			0.193
Income	0.404	0.000		0.000	0.228		0.471			0.221
Number of household members	0.010	0.000		0.000	0.536		0.126			0.437
Shopping frequency	0.028	0.074		0.071	0.197		0.098			0.490
Age	0.653	0.000		0.001	0.472		0.019			0.024

(see Appendix G).

The analysis revealed that the p-values of Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices were higher than 0.05 for the income, number of family members and age groups in component 1. On the other hand, demographic characteristics, such as marital status, income and number of family members, had values greater than 0.05 in component 3. Component 4 had significant values for the income and age groups. This meant that outputs could be interpreted for specified groups. Therefore, we only examined the values of these indicators. The p-values for Levene’s test were higher than 0.05 for some indicators examined. At the same time, some indicators examined had a p-value that was less than 0.05 for Pillai’s trace. This means we had evidence of a significant main effect.

Wilks’ lambda sig. was smaller than 0.0005 value for some indicators examined. Therefore, we could say that the examined elements of component 1, component 3 and component 4 varied according to the items oriented toward measuring environmental consumer behavior.

5. Discussion

One of the aims of this research was to determine the meaning that the survey participants attached to environmental products. The distribution of participant responses revealed that 16% of consumers had no idea about green products. As stated in the literature, green products have basic features such as energy savings, benefits for human health, production from renewable sources, being designed for reuse or recycling, and not making waste [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Despite the fact that the majority of respondents, i.e., 67%, said that green products are related to the environment, they chose only some of the features of these products. For example, only 39% of respondents believed that green products produced less waste, while 33% and 19% believed that they reduce global environmental problems and are made from renewable resources, respectively. Considering the contemporary pollution challenges our Earth is facing, these indicators highlight that even in universities, the level of consciousness on organic products is not at a required level and should be increased. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the depletion and waste of natural resources are major human problems [1,2] and can be reduced through the use of environmentally friendly products [29,30].

The survey shows that only 12% of respondents considered green products as products that protect natural resources, and 24% of the survey participants knew that environmentally friendly products had energy-saving features.

One of the main causes of environmental problems is related to the use of plastic packaged products [31,32]. Solving this problem requires less consumption of plastic packaging products. However, 24% of the respondents defined green products as products without plastic packaging. If the interest in ecological products increases among consumers, then their tendency to consume plastic packaged products may decrease.

The price of green products is usually higher than conventional products [102,103]. Therefore, if consumers accept green products as more labor-intensive, chemical-free and healthier, they may be willing to pay more for those products. However, only 10%, 27% and 33% of the respondents considered green products as more labor-intensive, healthy and chemical-free products, respectively.

In general, the characteristics that participants attributed to green products revealed that they did not fully perceive what these products are.

The second aim of this study was to determine the differences between the demographic characteristics of the respondents regarding what they paid attention to when consuming. The study found that there was a significant difference between the averages of income groups that were related to certain characteristics, such as price, brand, appearance, expert opinion and label information. In particular, for consumers in the income group “1001–1500 manats”, the price was less important than for other groups. At the same time, low-income groups paid less attention to the brand, appearance, advertising, expert opinion and label information. For example, the “up to 300 manats” and “301–600 manats” income groups were basically not interested in label information, in contrast with other groups.

Another difference lay in the level of education of participants regarding label information and advertising. Participants belonging to the “master” group pay more attention to label information of products than the “high school” and “bachelor” groups. Advertising was more important for the “bachelor” group than for the “master” group.

Regarding the consumption process, price and brand were some of the indicators that affected consumers in large households. Households with up to four people were more nutritionally sensitive to these indicators than others. Participants with five or six people in the household paid less attention to the ingredients of products than other groups. However, expert opinion as an indicator was a more important factor for groups of “more than 6 people” than “up to 2 people”.

These data showed that green product sellers can use price, brand, appearance, expert opinion and label information to increase the consumption of eco-friendly products. However, the study found no statistically significant mean differences between the groups in terms of product production and expiry date, ingredients, freshness and being eco-friendly.

The third objective of the study was to determine the main characteristics of the ecological consumer behavior of the survey participants. The results of the one-way MANOVA analysis showed some differences between age groups. Those included in the “18–30 ages” group paid more attention to the type of energy to avoid increasing air pollution than the “65 and over” group. The young group preferred to buy the same product in a larger package more than others, and people in the “46–65” and “65+” groups were generally not interested in receiving documents by e-mail compared to other groups.

The findings showed that in order to become responsible consumers, people over the age of 46 years need to be trained to use less paper and pay attention to the type of energy in order to not increase air pollution. Meanwhile, the younger group should be encouraged to buy products in larger packages to generate less waste.

Another difference in the behavior of the respondents was related to the number of household members. Households with more than six people supported the statement “While brushing my teeth, washing dishes, etc., I turn off the faucet.” On the other hand, the “3–4 people” group was more interested in buying energy-saving electrical appliances than the “more than 6 people” group. Households with less than six members should be asked to be more sensitive about water use and appropriate policies should be prepared. Meanwhile, households with more than six members should be motivated to purchase energy-efficient electrical appliances.

Furthermore, there was a difference between the means of the single and married groups. Single people had a higher mean value than married people regarding preferring reusable products to disposable ones. At the same time, single people preferred energy-saving electrical appliances more than married people. The given data showed that married couples should be educated to use disposable products less and increase the use of energy-efficient electrical appliances.

Another difference between variables was observed between the income groups. Most people from the “up to 300 manats” group tended to buy the same product in a larger package. People in the income group “601–1000 manats” tended to separate waste, such as paper, glass, plastic bottles and batteries, more than other groups. Meanwhile, most people in the “1001–1500 manats” income group disagreed with the statement, “Instead of buying products that I will use temporarily, I borrow it from my relatives and friends.” This group was also not interested in turning off unnecessary lights. Among the income groups, the lowest income group (up to 300 manats) paid less attention to the type of energy that could increase air pollution. Therefore, in order to maintain personal, environmental and social benefits [121], consumers should become more responsible and reuse an undamaged product instead of buying a new one, as well as prefer reusable products instead of disposables one. Given the low interest in such behavior patterns in the mentioned groups, the benefits of such decisions should be explained to them.

This result indicated that consumers in the middle- and high-income groups should be educated on the use of larger-package products, and consumers in low- and high-income groups should be motivated to separate waste. In addition, people’s habits of buying temporary products should be reduced; in contrast, they should increase the habits of turning off unnecessary lights and paying attention to energy use to prevent pollution.

In addition, the study found no significant differences between the groups compared for some statements, such as wearing thick clothing instead of raising the temperature, buying products that biodegrade, buying packaged products made from recycled paper and purchasing products made from environmentally friendly materials.

6. Conclusions

As a result of the study, important factors were identified that increased the propensity of survey participants to choose green products in Azerbaijan. It was established that there was a relationship between the general characteristics of survey participants and product features in the decisions made by participants, where the product features of importance included price, expert opinion, brand, appearance and label information. This conclusion showed that in order to encourage the consumption of green products in society, it is necessary to offer consumers these products with appropriate properties. For example, price is an important factor for some consumer groups. That is, in order for consumers to choose environmentally friendly products, their prices should be more affordable. In addition, experts should provide consumers with detailed information about the importance of environmentally friendly products since some consumers attach great importance to the opinion of experts. Consumers who care about characteristics such as appearance and label information should find this feature in organic products. Moreover, since brands influence consumers, the presence of reliable brands of organic products will positively influence the consumption of these products because consumer confidence in well-known brands is high. If this happens, consumers will seek environmentally friendly products when buying brands they know.

As a result of the data obtained, it is possible to shape the consumption behavior of consumers and orient them toward more environmental characteristics because identifying the characteristics of consumers and assessing their behavior will help to find the shortcomings of consumption policies and increase environmental awareness. Studies show that survey participants in Azerbaijan are partially sensitive to the environment.

The environmental behavior of consumers differed depending on their age, marital status, education level and income, as well as the number of household members. By considering differences in consumer environmental attitudes, the right policies can be identified to increase sensitive consumer behavior.

Groups that do not care about the environment can be offered various aids, such as certain training, more affordable prices and price incentives. The change in consumers’ attitudes toward a more balanced consumption of green products is one of the driving forces in ensuring sustainable consumption. Providing information on the importance of green consumption can reduce excessive consumption, reduce water waste and unnecessary energy consumption, or prevent paper waste by increasing skills in the use of technological products because a conscious consumer that is educated will enable the economy and society to change since this education will help consumers to shape their purchasing behavior largely with environmental concerns in mind, that is, to turn them into active green consumers.

In addition to all the above, it should be noted that we cannot generalize these results to all of Azerbaijan since the sample used in the study was not representative. However, some results were identified that may be subject to further verification.

There were some limitations in the present study. As an online resource, the survey was distributed via e-mail, Facebook and WhatsApp. Using other channels, such as Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter, could lead to additional information being obtained and the results being slightly changed. At the same time, changing the interrogation group area from universities to hospitals, schools, business centers or other workplaces could have produced different results.

In the future, it would be useful to investigate the relationship between technology and consumption more comprehensively since the rapid change in technology affects consumer behaviors and attitudes.