Consumers’ Willingness to Adopt Pro-Environmental Attitudes

Abstract

Consumers have a key influence on reducing the energy and material flow (EMF) in economic processes and thus on minimizing the negative impact on the environment and climate (NIEC). A decisive factor for sustainable development will be the consumers’ willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors or taking action oriented towards reducing the environmental and climate impact of consumption. The authors try to answer the question of how to influence consumers to reduce their consumption. This study explores whether consumer behavior is best influenced through awareness campaigns, regulatory policies, economical incentives, or implicit design strategies. The aim of the research presented in this article is to provide the answer to the questions posed. This research consisted of preparing a questionnaire and conducting it on a group of 122 respondents aged 20–40 in Poznan (Poland). The results of the research indicate the validity of supporting the limitation of consumption with external stimuli. In the opinion of the respondents, the availability of products with high durability and reliability received the most indications as a factor limiting consumption.

1. Introduction

Consumers have a key influence on reducing the energy and material flow (EMF) in economic processes and thus on minimizing the negative impact on the environment and climate (NIEC). A critical success factor for sustainable development (SD) and/or Degrowth (DG) will be the willingness of consumers to adopt environmentally friendly attitudes, or attitudes geared toward reducing the environmental and climate impact of consumption [1,2]. Surveys conducted by GFK and Nielsen show that consumers are positively disposed to sustainability in the economic sphere, e.g., they support business involvement in green activities (e.g., green marketing and are willing to pay more for products offered by companies with a positive impact on the environment (product design strategies) [3]. This shows common aspects of perceiving the product from both the customer’s and the manufacturer’s perspective. This raises important questions: What kind of activities should be taken to prompt consumers to actively participate in the implementation of sustainability? What actions should be taken to cause a reduction in consumption and a change in purchasing habits? How to influence customers to consider sustainability in their purchasing decisions?

People’s willingness to reduce consumption and incorporate environmental considerations into purchasing decisions may encounter limits due to human nature [4]. It is not easy for a person, as a consumer, to willingly give up what they already own or what they are used to [5]. Therefore, external incentives, such as those of a political, legal, and economical nature, may be necessary (first approach).

Regarding the first factor, it is stated that the effectiveness of politicians in motivating the public to reduce consumption may face numerous barriers. First, related to the public’s lack of trust in them as a professional group, this is because the public senses that politicians primarily want to maintain or gain power. They interpret their appeals as a desire to please their potential voters. Such concerns were confirmed, for example, by Nielsen, 2015 [6].

Another way of influencing consumers is through legal and economical measures (second factor). These contain, in themselves, an element of coercion, so they should be presented as a society-wide agreement:

-

Sustainable economy;

-

Sustainable enterprise;

-

Sustainable processes and technology.

These are in the hands of governments, which, because of the availability of reliable data and information on the state of the environment and climate trends, should better know and understand these factors more. Therefore, governments have the right and even the duty to limit the consumption of goods known to have a particularly harmful impact on the environment and climate.

Despite doubts about the effectiveness of top-down regulations in pursuing development realized in a sustainable manner, regulatory changes have become a reality. The European Green Deal (hereinafter ‘EGD’) is a strategy of the European Union (EU) to transform the economy into becoming climate-neutral (reduced emissions) and more resource-efficient. The transformation includes climate protection, clean energy use, energy effectiveness, balanced mobility, a closed-loop economy, reduced pollution, biodiversity protection, and fairness in implementing the above processes through the use of appropriate financing mechanisms. The key tools for implementing the EGD strategy include finance and investment, research and innovation, and energy transition. The goals are to be achieved by 2050, through the implementation of sub-activities called the Roadmap [7,8]. The main elements of the Roadmap are

-

Investing in environmentally friendly technologies;

-

Supporting industry to innovate;

-

Introducing cleaner, cheaper, and healthier forms of private and public transportation;

-

Decarbonizing the energy sector;

-

Making buildings more energy efficient;

-

Working with international partners to improve global environmental standards [8].

One of the instruments for achieving the EGD objectives is the transition to a circular economy. The circular economy plan is a set of interlinked initiatives aimed at reducing the consumption of natural resources [9]. Efforts focus on changing the way products are designed, manufactured, and consumed so that no waste is generated. These initiatives cover a wide range of materials and products, such as packaging, technologies, vehicles, and textiles. The circular economy is a model of production and consumption that involves sharing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing, and recycling existing materials and products for as long as possible. This extends the life cycle of products and also affects the final phase of the product life cycle—disposal. Efforts are being made to use and keep materials recovered from the dismantling of end-of-life products in production. In order to achieve the objectives of a circular economy, it is necessary to analyze the life cycle of a selected product. Based on this analysis, circular economy business models are developed, initially for a specific organization and then for the entire sector, industry, and economy as a whole [9].

Great opportunities to influence consumer attitudes are available to product designers and manufacturers (second approach). They can influence the technical and market sustainability of the products they offer [10,11,12]. Technical durability refers to the period of use, after which the product loses its usefulness. Market durability, on the other hand, is the period after the expiration of which a product ceases to be used, despite being technically efficient, for social, economic, environmental, or other reasons. A product may, for example, go out of fashion, lack functions that improved or that new-generation products have, or negatively affect the environment.

Considerations related to circular economy, mentioned above, are closely related to the second approach, which involves changing priorities at the product design stage to encourage consumers to extend the useful life of a product until it is worn out in a technical sense. However, it is necessary to change product design paradigms. Currently, designers predominantly focus on existing consumer needs and expectations and on creating new needs so that the products they design have the greatest possible market potential and offer the opportunity to generate the highest possible profits from their sale. This approach has been influenced by the views of quality gurus, as presented in books by Feigenbaum [13], Crosby [14], Deming [15], and Juran [16], ‘tucked away’ in the quality award criteria [17]. This has been confirmed by empirical studies [18,19].

It is necessary to promote a change in this approach so that the quality of a product design is not determined solely by consumer needs and potential profits for the company but also by the environmental impact generated throughout the product’s life cycle. Designers should also be guided by the principle of not creating needs that do not enrich people. At the same time, they should design with a view to optimize energy consumption throughout the product’s life cycle. In other words, it is necessary to limit the uncontrolled flooding of the market with new products that are needed not because they improve living standards but only because someone has invented them. Manufacturers should be persuaded that an industry focused on the production of products, as such, should change into a product life cycle industry. Such an industry offers consumers products and related services that extend the use of the product. In other words, the product acts as a vehicle for the various services needed to extend market life. The sale of these services, provided at different periods of the product’s life, can bring the company similar profits as the sale of products with a shorter market life, sold for this reason in larger quantities.

Action on the largest scale requires the option of designing and manufacturing products that can be repaired repeatedly, undergoing upgrades that extend their life. Such product properties can be achieved by various means, such as product personalization, modularity of design, remanufacturing, and the abandonment of the practice of deliberately aging products.

Product personalization means providing consumers with products that meet their individual expectations and requirements [20]. In mass production, designers and manufacturers make all decisions themselves, matching the characteristics of products to expectations [21]. Personalization enables the active integration of consumers and users in the product development process [22,23]. It is based on a strong collaborative process in which consumers participate at various stages of the product life cycle. Consumers (or users) contribute by generating ideas for new products, co-creating concepts, and designing and configuring new products [24,25].

The most advanced and demanding is personalization, which requires the designer to collaborate with the consumer right from the design stage [26]. The most widespread, on the other hand, is personalization through the customization of functionality as well as features regarding appearance (esthetics) to the customer’s preferences only during the use phase, by the consumer themself. The possibilities for such personalization are planned already at the design stage. Thanks to built-in solutions (often mechatronic and assisted by artificial intelligence), it is possible to widely adapt the product to specific individual requirements (e.g., automotive seats). A form of personalization is also personalization by enrichment, which means leaving some of the the product’s individual features to the final stages of production or assembly, or even to the sales phase. According to this model, personalization applies to cars (e.g., by adapting the shape of car seats to the needs of a specific consumer), office furniture, etc.

Personalization should have a positive impact on the lifespan of products through the fact that the consumer anticipates their future needs better than the designer, and is therefore more attached to the personalized product. This should translate into longer product life.

Significantly extending the life of a product can yield an enriched product over its lifetime, such as through systematic upgrading by replacing physically worn or technically obsolete parts, components, or modules.

Personalization raises questions about product durability. With the ability to obtain a product that suits their current requirements, consumers may want to replace their products more often, believing that they will better meet their expectations. Manufacturers may then decide that it does not make sense to produce products with an excessively long shelf life. This type of thinking forms the basis of a frequently used strategy known as planned obsolescence [27,28]. You can achieve this by designing products with a pre-set shelf life (after which the product breaks down and is not worth fixing) or by introducing new, more advanced products after a certain amount of time.

This strategy is mainly used to benefit the product manufacturer. It aims to encourage consumers to buy new products as often as possible. To this end, manufacturers engage in intensive marketing and influence consumers using the latest technologies in their products, while at the same time (implicitly) giving them a deliberately limited useful life. Such practices contradict the idea of sustainable economic growth, but their complete elimination is rather impossible. This is because producers strive to make more and more profit, in line with the directions taken by economic models based on economic growth as measured by Gthe DP and GNP. In contrast to growth economics stands the bagel model proposed by English economist Kate Raworth, which assumes that economic development must have two boundaries: an outer ring (ecological limit) and an inner ring (social foundation). Thus, inside the ring are undesirable phenomena that should be eliminated by 21st century economic policies (extreme poverty, lack of access to water, etc.). Outside the ring is the sphere where economic growth leads to environmental destruction. The goal of “doughnut economics” is, therefore, to meet the needs of all people with the available resources [29].

The third aspect related to changing individual purchasing behavior is related to consumer awareness (third approach) [30,31,32,33]. Consumers’ attitudes are shaped by their own experience of observing unfavorable environmental changes and high awareness of the dangers of civilization. Companies that care about selling their products also develop and reach customers with their own product campaigns [34,35,36]. According to Severo et al. (2018) [37], there is an important relationship between cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation, which positively influences environmental awareness and, consequently, sustainable consumption through generations (from Baby Boomers to Generation X to Generation Y) [37]. Baby Boomers and Generations X, Y, and Z live in the same economic and social environment, relating to an organizational and educational society. Accordingly, these generations have different behaviors and characteristics [37,38,39]. Baby Boomers are regarded as the most conservative and optimistic; as for generation X, they seek professional stability, whereas generation Y appreciates challenges and risks, as well as being highly creative, innovative, and individualistic. According to Dabija et al. (2019) [40], Generation Z have completely different behaviors [41,42]. Members of Generation Z are more environmentally conscious, focused on sustainability, and tech savvy. Producers need to be more aware of the preferences and expectations of young consumers when designing their products and promoting their brands [40,43].

In order to reduce overconsumption, it is necessary to remind people of the consumer’s various roles in the economic environment (customer, employee, employer, person interested in protecting the environment—eco-friend). Each of these roles perceives sustainability in a different way.

As a customer, an environmentally conscious person is concerned that the products they use should have as little impact on the environment as possible throughout their entire life cycle. From this perspective, they expect products that are not only environmentally friendly in terms of their design and operation but also durable and reliable. After all, durable and reliable products need to be replaced or substituted less often and therefore consume fewer raw materials and energy and generate less waste. On the other hand, consumers are aware that new products are more environmentally friendly, so using products that are ‘obsolete’ in terms of design may be ‘overall’ harmful to the environment.

As consumers, people want their products not to break down, but for a service provider for these products, this is not necessarily in their interest.

For manufacturers, increasing the durability of a product makes it possible to charge a higher price for it. On the other hand, this often leads to a significant increase in production costs, which may reduce sales revenue. For people as employees, higher prices may reduce demand for certain products, which may lead to job losses.

Given these conflicting interactions, a product design that allows for the greatest difference between potential benefits and potential costs and losses can be considered optimal.

2. Materials and Methods

A decisive factor for sustainable development will be the consumers’ willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors or taking action oriented towards reducing the environmental and climate impact of consumption. The authors try to answer the question of how to influence consumers to reduce their consumption by considering the following:

-

Force certain behaviors through political, legal, or economical means.

-

Perhaps influence, implicitly, by offering consumers products designed to minimize their environmental impact throughout their life cycle.

-

Appeal to their consciousness [44].

Providing at least partial answers to these questions posed is the goal of the research presented in this article. This study was conducted in the form of a survey. Questions were formulated that addressed the following aspects:

-

What is the importance of Material Consumer Goods (MCGs) and Non-Material Consumer Goods (NMCGs) to people’s quality of life?

-

What factors drive people to purchase Material Consumer Goods (MCGs) and Non-Material Consumer Goods (NMCGs)?

-

Do consumers see a need to reduce consumption or change consumption patterns?

-

What is the acceptance of consumers of various options for reducing consumption?

-

What avenues for reducing or changing consumption patterns might be effective [45]?

Members of Generation Z were invited to participate in the study, as this is a key age group for the current environmental tasks. On the one hand, the results may be influential in educating the younger generation [46] or, on the other hand, in making strategic decisions for the economy and the environment.

Surveys on consumer willingness to adopt pro-environmental attitudes were conducted as part of a research project entitled ‘Research and development of production engineering methods in the context of Industry 4.0 requirements and sustainable development’. Students from the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the Poznan University of Technology (Poland) were selected for the research group, and the survey was conducted in May 2025. The recruitment of respondents consisted of verifying the age of students and providing them with a questionnaire. Completing the survey was voluntary and tantamount to consenting to participate in the study. Persons who did not consent to participate in the survey did not receive a questionnaire from the interviewer or could withdraw from the study at any time by returning the questionnaire to the researcher. No payment or rewards were offered. No personal data was collected, and the survey was completely anonymous. The results of the survey are presented in summary form. The survey was for informational purposes only; no statistical analysis or generalizations are made.

In total, 122 students representing Generation Z were invited to participate in the study; 120 completed survey questionnaires were analyzed. This study used a questionnaire containing closed questions, with respondents selecting answers using a 5-point Likert scale, so each response point was assigned a weight, respectively: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. From the number answered by a respondent for a question or opinion assigned to each of these weights, a weighted average—AW from (1)—was calculated:

$$AW={\displaystyle \frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^N{w}_i}{N}}$$

(1)

where

AW—weighted average of responses;

w_i—weight on the Likert scale;

N—number of responses.

3. Results

The results of the study are presented below according to the following scheme:

-

Presentation of the context of the question.

-

Content of the question.

-

Distribution of answers.

-

General commentary.

What is the importance of Material Consumer Goods (MCGs) and Non-Material Consumer Goods (NMCGs) to people’s quality of life?

What matters to a person’s quality of life is the ability to satisfy their lower- and higher-order needs. It has been assumed that the fulfillment of lower-order needs is often associated with the consumption of tangible and intangible goods, while higher-order needs, are spiritual, social, and cultural [4]. In the context of the purposes of this study, i.e., to identify whether a person is willing to reduce their consumption needs, it is necessary to know which of the two groups of needs mentioned above is dominant for them (

Table 1. Distribution of answers to the following question: Determine to what extent the satisfaction of the listed groups of needs affects the quality of your life.

Question (1): Determine to What Extent the Satisfaction of the Listed Groups of Needs Affects the Quality of Your Life?
Realizing one’s own ambitions and interests: satisfaction from work, developing cultural, sports, socialc interests	Crucial
Taking pleasure in being in a clean, undeveloped, natural environment	Crucial
Sense of security: basic income, basic medical care, protection from physical violence, protection from religious or social violence	Crucial
Maintaining relationships with people, feeling recognized and accepted, e.g., in the family, among friends	High
Travel to distant and exotic places	Moderate
Following a diet containing meat and highly processed products	Moderate
Owning, using and acquiring material consumer goods considered basic, to the extent that they exceed current needs	Moderate

).

The survey responses (Table 1) indicate that respondents’ needs for the consumption of material goods are significant but are of lesser importance to them than higher-order needs, represented by, among other things, the realization of their own ambitions and the enjoyment of being in a clean, unspoiled environment.

What factors drive people to purchase Material Consumer Goods (MCGs) and Non-Material Consumer Goods (NMCGs)?

With regard to motivation in making purchases, three groups of consumer attitudes can be distinguished:

-

Behavioral. I buy new products only when the old ones lose their usefulness.

-

Rational. I buy a new product when I recognize that it is more efficient than the old one. I am not guided by the degree of wear and tear of the products I have, but by the conviction that the new ones better meet my expectations, such as being more environmentally friendly. The purchase itself is preceded by a thorough ‘pros and cons’ analysis.

-

Emotional. I buy new products because they are available, because I like them, and because there is an opportunity. The purchase itself gives me a sense of satisfaction.

The responses show (

Table 2. Distribution of responses to the following question: To what extent do you identify with each of the listed attitudes?

Question (2): To What Extent Do You Identify with Each of the Attitudes Listed?
Conservative attitude	Very often
Rational attitude	Often
Emotional attitude	Occasionally

) that most of the purchasing decisions made by respondents are made on conservative, balanced grounds. This was followed by the indication of basing decisions on rational arguments, and emotional motives received the least indications.

In order to find out the rationale behind buyers’ ‘emotional’ purchases, an extension question was asked.

The most frequently indicated reasons (

Table 3. Response sheet to the following question: If you are making a purchase as an emotional consumer, what are your considerations?

Question (3): If You Are Making a Purchase as an Emotional Consumer, What Are Your Considerations?
I was convinced by a promotion (reduced price)	Often
It just “caught my eye”	Occasionally
I buy when something is better than what I have	Occasionally
I am persuaded by advertising or statements and behavior of celebrities	Rarely
I have the character of a “shopaholic”	Rarely
There is a desire to impress, it is a matter of prestige	Rarely

) for making an emotional purchase are discounting and spontaneous purchases and acting on impulse.

Do consumers see a need to reduce consumption or change consumption patterns?

The success of sustainable development (SD) and Degrowth (DG) strategies to reduce negative impact on the environment and climate for Material and Non-Material Consumer Goods depends to a large extent on consumer attitudes (Question (3)) and awareness as to existing environmental and climate risks.

The results indicate (

Table 4. Response sheet to the following question: What impact do the listed activities have on the emergence of climate and environmental hazards?

Question (4): What Impact Do the Listed Activities Have on the Emergence of Climate and Environmental Risks?
Human activity, especially the excessive, in relation to the planet’s capabilities, level of consumption of tangible and intangible goods	Significant
Population growth	Significant
Processes occurring naturally on our planet (and in space)	Moderate

) that consumers see the main source of negative impact on the environment and climate in human activity WA = 78%, followed by population growth WA = 55%.

An additional question was addressed to those who identified human activity as the main cause of environmental and climate risks in the previous item.

Awareness of climate and environmental risks most often (

Table 5. Question answer sheet: If you believe that over-consumption is affecting climate change and environmental pollution and degradation, identify which activities you most often try to implement in a sustainable manner?

Question (5): If You Believe That Over-Consumption Is Affecting Climate Change and Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Identify Which Activities You Most Often Try to Implement in a Sustainable Manner?
Dealing with waste (e.g., sorting)	Very often
Purchasing durable consumer goods	Often
Traveling (e.g., instead of by car—by train or bicycle	Often
Diet (e.g., giving up meat products)	Sometimes

) accompanies respondents’ handling of waste. To a relatively small extent, it influences decisions made in situations of dietary choice and planning.

What is the acceptance of consumers of various options for reducing consumption?

People’s willingness to reduce consumption may encounter limits due to human nature. Therefore, external incentives are necessary.

Of all the possible choices (

Table 6. Question answer sheet: Indicate the actions that can induce the consumer to reduce consumption.

Question (6): Indicate the Actions That Can Induce the Consumer to Reduce Consumption.
Availability of products with high durability and reliability, which can be repeatedly repaired, upgraded	I completely agree
Individual, unforced decisions of consumers, flowing from awareness of existing climatic and environmental risks	I somewhat agree
People’s experience of adverse effects of climate or environmental changes (epidemics, floods, forest fires, pollution	I somewhat agree
The introduction by governments of financial mechanisms that incentivize the reduction of consumption of certain goods (e.g., pricing policies, taxes, additional fees	I somewhat agree
Injunctions and penalties for non-compliance with administrative regulations (e.g., restrictions on the use of private cars, limits on the purchase of certain goods	I somewhat agree

), the prescriptive option received the least indications by far. According to respondents, experiencing unfavorable consequences, the top-down introduction of economical mechanisms, and individual actions based on consumer awareness influence purchasing decisions to a similar degree (WA about 0.6). The availability of products with high durability and reliability received the most indications as a factor limiting consumption.

Regarding consumer attitudes related to consumption reduction, at least two paths can be identified: sustainable development (SD) and Degrowth (DG). Both involve participation as both the consumer in social and economic life, playing various roles in it, including that of an employee, and some as an employer. A person has, therefore, a legitimate concern that reducing consumption means less income and profits for entrepreneurs and, therefore, lower wages and even loss of jobs. And this means that limiting consumption leads, in fact, to regression, and humanity does not accept regression.

This gives all the more reason to doubt whether people are ready to reorganize their lives so as to reduce consumption, and whether they are aware of the conditions for achieving such goals.

Respondents showed understanding and acceptance at a similar level for the concepts of sustainable development (SD) and Degrowth (DG) (

Table 7. Response sheet to the following question: To what extent are you open to the establishment of Sustainable Development SD and Degrowth DG?

Question (7): To What Extent Are You Open to the Assumption of Sustainable Development SD and Degrowth DG?
Degree of acceptance for DeGrowth strategy	Moderate
Degree of acceptance for each sustainable development strategy	High

).

What avenues for reducing or changing consumption patterns might be effective?

Referring to the issue of the market life of products, one should wonder how consumers can be influenced not to replace functional products just because, for example, they are no longer fashionable or have fewer functions than newer models. With the problem presented in mind, another survey question was formulated (

Table 8. Response sheet to the following question: To what extent would the following opportunities lead you to extend the life of your products?

Question (8): To What Extent Would the Following Opportunities Prompt You to Extend the Useful Life of Products:
Availability of products with high reliability and long service life	Critical
Extension of the life of products through the possibility of upgrading (remanufacturing, upgrading), i.e., replacing physically worn out or technically obsolete parts or components	Critical
Ability to customize the properties of the finished product to meet individual needs of expectations, requirements of the consumer	Significant
Consumer participation in the design of products and customization of their properties and functionality to meet individual needs, expectations and requirements	Significant

).

In terms of life extension opportunities (Table 8), the most attractive, according to respondents, is the availability of high-reliability products with a long shelf life. This was followed by life extension through retrofitting and opportunities for the customization of features. The option related to consumer participation in the design and customization of products and services received the lowest ratings in terms of opportunities to extend the useful life of products.

4. Discussion

The survey responses (Question (1)) indicate that respondents’ needs for the consumption of material goods are significant but are of lesser importance to them than higher-order needs, represented by, among other things, the realization of their own ambitions and the enjoyment of being in a clean, unspoiled environment.

The following responses show (Question (2)) that most of the purchasing decisions made by respondents are made on conservative, balanced grounds. This was followed by the indication of basing decisions on rational arguments, and emotional motives received the least indications.

However, if the purchase of a product was dictated by emotion, then the most frequently indicated rationales are discounted and spontaneous purchases and acting on impulse (Question (3)).

The results indicate (Question (4)) that consumers see the main source of negative impact on the environment and climate in human activity WA = 78%, followed by population growth WA = 55%.

Awareness of climate and environmental risks most often (Question (5)) accompanies respondents’ handling of waste. To a relatively small extent, it influences decisions made in situations of dietary choice and planning.

Respondents showed understanding and acceptance at a similar level for the concepts of sustainable development (SD) and Degrowth (DG) (Table 7).

The availability of products with high durability and reliability received the most indications as a factor limiting consumption (Question (6)). In terms of life extension opportunities (Question (8)), the most attractive, according to respondents, is the availability of high-reliability products with a long shelf life. This was followed by life extension through retrofitting and opportunities for the customization of features. The option related to consumer participation in the design and customization of products and services received the lowest ratings in terms of opportunities to extend the useful life of products.

The postulate contained in the answers to Question (6) places an important role on the issues of product design and engineering. In order for such opportunities to arise, a change in the design paradigm is necessary [47].

The design quality of a product should not be determined by reference to consumer needs and the potential profit of a company, but by reference to the ecological footprint of the product throughout its life. Designers must also be guided by the principle of not creating needs that do not enrich humans, the satisfaction of which may negatively affect social relations. At the same time, they should design with the aim of optimizing energy consumption throughout the product’s life [48].

A consumer who supports environmental activities is interested in the products they use that cause the least possible damage to the natural environment throughout their life. From this point of view, the consumers expects products that—in addition to being ecological, both in terms of design and operation—are durable and reliable. Durable and reliable products must be replaced or replaced less often, and therefore, they consume less raw materials and energy, and also generate less waste. On the other hand, the consumer is aware that new products are more ecological, so using products that are “obsolete” in terms of design may be ‘on balance’ unfavorable for the environment.

5. Conclusions

The authors try to answer the question of how to influence consumers to reduce their consumption. This study explores whether consumer behavior is best influenced through awareness campaigns, regulatory and economic incentives, or implicit design strategies.

The results of the research indicate the validity of supporting the limitation of consumption with external stimuli. In the opinion of respondents, the availability of products with high durability and reliability received the most indications as a factor limiting consumption.

In this way, quality engineering can significantly contribute to saving the environment and climate by, first of all, postulating a change in the product design paradigm. The possibilities of developing this direction in influencing the consumption behavior of customers will constitute another direction of research.