Behaviour and Climate Change: Consumer Perceptions of Responsibility

Abstract

This paper explores the under-researched notion of consumer responsibility, a potentially significant influence on consumer behaviour that marketers and policymakers may be able to harness as they attempt to respond to environmental challenges such as climate change. The paper uses data derived from a commercially motivated survey (n = 1513) to explore domestic consumption behaviours most closely associated with the issue of disruptive climate change. A measure of 'General Environmental Responsiveness' (GER) is used to test: (1) the effects of consumers both taking responsibility for their actions and placing responsibility on others for the consequences of their consumption behaviour; and (2) whether sociodemographic variables can aid the targeting of consumers by the level and type of responsibility and pro-environmental behavioural intentions expressed. The study's findings demonstrate clear, if not strong, relationships between consumer conceptions of responsibilities for causing and tackling climate change and environment-related consumer behaviour. The study's implications both challenge accepted wisdom about environment-related consumer behaviour and suggest avenues for future research.

Full text

Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO:
01 May 2012
Version of attached file:
Accepted Version
Peer-review status of attached file:
Peer-reviewed
Citation for published item:
Wells, V.K. and Ponting, C. and Peattie, K. (2011) ’Behaviour and climate change : consumer perceptions of
responsibility.’, Journal of marketing management., 27 (7-8). pp. 808-833.
Further information on publisher’s website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500136
Publisher’s copyright statement:
This is an electronic version of an article published in Wells, V.K. and Ponting, C. and Peattie, K. (2011) ’Behaviour
and climate change : consumer perceptions of responsibility.’, Journal of marketing management. . pp. 1472-1376.
Journal of marketing management is available online at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ with the open URL of
your article.
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided that:
•a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
•alink is made to the metadata record in DRO
•the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 — Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
http://dro.dur.ac.uk

i
Behaviour and Climate Change: Consumer Perceptions of Responsibility
Victoria.K.Wells*
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University
Cerys A. Ponting
ESRC Research Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and
Society (BRASS), Cardiff University
Ken Peattie
ESRC Research Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and
Society (BRASS), Cardiff University
* Corresponding author: Dr Victoria.K.Wells (née James), Cardiff Business School,
Aberconway Building, Column Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK, JamesVK@cardiff.ac.uk

ii
Abstract.
This paper explores the under-researched notion of consumer responsibility, a potentially
significant influence on consumer behaviour that marketers and policy-makers may be
able to harness as they attempt to respond to environmental challenges such as climate
change. The paper uses data derived from a commercially motivated survey (n = 1513) to
explore domestic consumption behaviours most closely associated with the issue of
disruptive climate change. A measure of „General Environmental Responsiveness‟ (GER)
is used to test (1) the effects of both consumers taking responsibility for their actions and
placing responsibility on others for their consumption behaviour and (2) whether socio-
demographic variables can aid the targeting of consumers by the level and type of
responsibility and pro-environmental behavioural intentions expressed. The study‟s
findings demonstrate clear, if not strong, relationships between consumer conceptions of
responsibilities for causing and tackling climate change and environment-related
consumer behaviour. The study‟s implications both challenge accepted wisdom about
environment-related consumer behaviour and suggest avenues for future research.
Keywords: Consumer Responsibility, Environmental Responsiveness, Climate Change,
Socio-Demographic Variables

iii
Author Biographies.
Dr Victoria.K.Wells (née James) is a Lecturer in Marketing and Strategy at Cardiff
Business School. Her research interests lie in the application of behavioural psychology
to consumer choice models and environmental behaviour and psychology. She joined
Cardiff Business School in 2005 as a research associate, becoming a lecturer in 2006 and
is currently the secretary of the Consumer Behaviour Analysis Research (CBAR) Group.
She holds a degree in Commerce from Birmingham Business School and a Postgraduate
Diploma in Social Science Research Methods from Cardiff University. Prior to joining
Cardiff Business School she worked in Marketing Communications as an Account
Executive.
Cerys Ponting is a Research Associate at BRASS and is a member of the Sustainable
Communities, Lifestyles and Consumption (SCLC) group and is also associated with
work of the Sustainable Production, Use of Resources and Technology (SPURT). She
holds a degree in Business Administration from the School of Management at the
University of Bath and an MSc in Social Science Research Methods from Cardiff
University. Prior to joining BRASS she previously worked with Business in the
Community as a Business Development Executive & Account Manager.
Prof Ken Peattie is the Director of BRASS (ESRC Research Centre for Business
Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society), and is also a Professor of
Marketing and Strategy at Cardiff Business School, which he joined in 1986. He holds a
BA in Management and Geography from the University of Leeds, and before becoming
an academic, he worked in marketing and systems analysis for an American paper
multinational, and as a strategic planner within the UK electronics industry.

1
Introduction: Motivating More Sustainable Consumption.
Scientific evidence is creating a consensus that economic growth has placed an
unsustainable burden on the physical environment. Over-consumption, resource use and
the generation of pollution and waste are degrading environmental systems and the
„ecosystem services‟ they provide and which people depend upon, directly and indirectly,
for their survival and wellbeing (WRI, 2005). In the case of the most pressing
environmental challenge, preventing and/or responding to disruptive climate change, it
has significant implications for the global economy. The evidence review by the eminent
economist Sir Nicholas Stern (2006) forecast that unless 1% of GDP is invested in
responding to the climate challenge (later increased to 2% to reflect continuing inaction),
then the negative consequences could shrink the global economy by 20% by 2035. The
need to move to a lower carbon economy is therefore a pressing strategic challenge
widely acknowledged by both policy makers and businesses.
Moving towards a lower carbon economy requires a range of possible levers to be
employed including technological innovation, regulation, investment, financial
incentives, organisational change and education. Carbon emissions are also strongly
linked to the consumption of private households and the choices and behaviours of
individuals. Motivating consumers to adopt more sustainable consumption behaviours is
therefore an important policy goal and a source of potential commercial marketing
opportunities. It has therefore become a focus for academic research, much of which was
comprehensively synthesized by Tim Jackson (2005) in his research monograph
„Motivating Sustainable Consumption‟. Jackson‟s synthesis, together with other studies

2
(e.g. Moisander, 2007), demonstrate that consumer behaviour is a complex and
multidimensional phenomenon, which is further complicated by the inclusion of
sustainability concerns. They also highlight the range of factors thought to influence
consumers‟ sustainability-related behaviours including their demographics, values,
attitudes, knowledge, goals, emotions and circumstances. Behaviour can also vary
according to the nature of the purchase, including its social significance and the
situational influences of the time and place of purchase.
There is a myriad of potential influences on consumer behaviour in relation to
sustainability which researchers have tried to identify and measure. Many of these, such
as goals, attitudes, social identity, perceived self-efficacy and situational forces are
incorporated within conventional integrative models of consumer behaviour (such as
Bagozzi‟s et al‟s 2002 “Comprehensive Model of Consumer Action”) and have also been
well-researched in conventional, as well as sustainable, consumption contexts. Other
potential influences are more characteristic of models of behaviour developed specifically
to explain environmentally and socially motivated behaviours. Grob‟s (1995) Model of
Environmental Behavior for example found that environmental knowledge together with
personal values, perceived control and emotional response determined environmental
behaviour. Some influences are features of models developed by extending existing
models of consumer behaviour, with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) being a
particularly popular basis. For example, Oom Do Valle et al. (2005) extended the TPB
with elements from other models of altruistic behaviour, environmental behaviour and
environmental concern to create a comprehensive model of recycling behaviour. This

3
included very behaviour-specific influencing factors such as knowledge about recycling,
and perceived convenience of local recycling systems.
It is unusual to find a potential behavioural influence which is relatively generic
(ie. not specific to a particular environmental behaviour such as recycling), yet appears
only in those models of consumer behaviour developed to explain social or
environmental consumption behaviour. One such factor, is a sense of „responsibility‟ and
how it is perceived and ascribed by consumers. This is a key feature of Stern et al.‟s
1999, Value Belief Norm Model, but has otherwise been generally neglected by
researchers interested in pro-environmental consumer behaviour. This paper seeks to
further our understanding of how consumer perceptions about responsibilities may
influence their behaviour in the context of climate change. It explores this issue with
regard to those domestic consumption behaviours most closely associated with the issue
of disruptive climate change.

4
Profiling Consumers for Sustainability
Sustainability orientated consumer research encompasses a variety of concepts of
more sustainable consumption using a range of labels for consumers and their behaviour
(including green, greener, sustainable, pro-environmental, pro-social, environmentally
conscious, altruistic, ecological, ethical or alternative, see Jackson, 2005). The key
streams of this research involve profiling consumers in relation to sustainability concerns
to enable markets to be meaningfully segmented (Straughan and Roberts, 1999); profiling
types of consumer to understand how they might be motivated to consume more
sustainably (Jackson, 2005); testing the acceptability of price premiums for more
sustainable products (Laroche et al., 2001); and exploring why there is frequently a
significant gap between consumers‟ reported willingness to consume more sustainably,
and actual behaviour (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006).
One contentious issue affecting early attempts at profiling consumers and
segmenting markets for sustainability were that they were often largely based on socio-
demographic variables (Straughan and Roberts, 1999). However as Schlegelmilch et al.
(1996) note, this reflected the ease with which such variables could be applied and
measured rather than any very strong theoretical or conceptual arguments. As the body of
research expanded, the value of using socio-demographic variables became increasingly
contentious, particularly given the tendency for different studies to produce inconclusive
and contradictory results for particular demographic variables (Kilbourne and Beckman,
1986; Robinson and Smith, 2002). Diamantopoulos et al. (2003) provide a critical review
of the literature linking socio-demographics to environmentally-orientated consumer
attitudes and behaviours. They conclude that socio-demographics alone are of limited

5
value for profiling, but are more potentially useful when used in combination with other
influences such as values, attitudes or knowledge. This study builds on this insight by
testing the value of socio-demographic variables when used with other socio-
psychological variables, in this case, the under-researched notion of consumer
responsibility in relation to the environment and climate change.
Research profiling consumers and segmenting them in terms of sustainable
consumer behaviour also has another acknowledged weakness, which is a tendency to
focus on individual behaviours (such as recycling or purchasing of a particular type of
product) and on specific impacts such as energy usage (Spangenberg and Lorek, 2002).
This is problematic because the research literature indicates that while some types of
sustainable behaviour are influenced by factors such as values, others are not. Even
amongst those behaviours influenced by values, particular values influence different
behaviours in different ways (Pepper et al. 2009; Barr, 2007; Corraliza and Berenguer,
2000).
Another problem with the over-emphasis on individual behaviours and impacts is
that it is the cumulative impact of all a consumer‟s behaviour that is significant. This is
demonstrated by the „rebound effect‟ associated with behaviours such as energy saving.
Reducing domestic energy use apparently lessens a consumer‟s environmental impact,
but if the resulting financial savings are spent on energy intensive goods and services,
this may not be the case (Herring, 1999). This paper seeks to gain insight into overall
consumer lifestyles and their sustainability by considering a range of behaviours and by
seeking to evaluate their net effect in relation to climate change.

6
Evolving Notions of Consumer Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received considerable attention
academically (recent examples include Peng 2009 and Jenkins 2009) and in the wider
media. Other notions of business responsibility, and particularly an equivalent concept of
„consumer social responsibility’, have received comparatively little attention (Brinkman
and Peattie, 2008). This may be due to the dominance of the notion of consumer
sovereignty, which assigns power as opposed to responsibility to consumers, as a key
principle underpinning the marketing discipline.
When the existing marketing literature does consider the social responsibility of
consumers, it has mostly restricted itself to questions of the behaviour of the consumer
rather than the company, and of consumer dishonesty rather than on more positive
behaviours (Brinkman and Peattie, 2008). However, there is an emerging normative
concept of the „citizen consumer‟ which Gabriel and Lang (1995: 175) define as „a
responsible consumer, a socially-aware consumer, a consumer who thinks ahead and
tempers his or her desires by social awareness, a consumer whose actions must be
morally defensible and who must occasionally be prepared to sacrifice...‟. In marketing,
such a concept of consumer responsibility is still under-developed, but looking across
other disciplines of social science scholarship such as health, notions of personal
responsibility tend to be more prevalent (see for example, Attell-Thompson, 2005 and
Bricas 2008).

7
Although such a sense of personal responsibility might be expressed by
consumers through self-sacrifice, potentially more significant would be a sense of
personal responsibility as an individual being extended to a sense of responsibility as a
consumer for the behaviour of the companies they patronise. Williams (2005) discusses
the role consumers could play, suggesting an increasing role for consumer social
responsibility to complement CSR. Reporting results from the „Which? Bite Back‟
survey, Williams suggests that, since 66% of consumers believe they can influence a
company‟s environmental and ethical behaviour, they might therefore be prepared to
accept some responsibility for how companies behave. He urges the development of a
proactive notion of consumer social responsibility that encourages more socially and
environmentally favourable behaviour by companies. The link between consumer power
and responsibility is also raised by Peters (2005) reporting on the practices of the Dutch
Consumer Association, which support the notion that consumers can affect, and therefore
bear some responsibility for, the practices and policies of companies. There have also
been some empirical studies linking consumer behaviour as „voting behaviour‟ to
perceptions of consumer responsibility (see for example Dickinson & Carsky, 2005).
Even where the consumer is potentially willing to adopt this type of responsibility
and seek to influence companies, their ability to do so will depend upon the availability
of relevant information (Williams, 2005; Barnett et al. 2005). This could include
information relating to companies‟ practices and policies (Peters 2005) and to the
consequences of consumers‟ choices. However information alone will not guarantee that
consumers respond. Too much information can create a sense of „information overload‟

8
which deters a response (Jacoby 1984, Hahn, Lawson and Lee 1992). Consumer response
also depends on their ability to understand the information, but as Shaw and Clarke
(1999) note, individuals are often confused about environmental issues and are
inconsistent in making connections between an issue like climate change and aspects of
their own lifestyles and consumption (Anable et al., 2006). Ability to act on relevant
information will also depend on the consumer‟s sense of perceived behavioural control
(Giles and Cairns 1995, Armitage and Conner 2001) and their wider sense of self-
efficacy (Terry and O‟Leary 1995).
In relation to sustainability issues (including climate change) and responsibility,
the research emphasis has often been on who is responsible for particular problems, or
who should bear responsibility for addressing them. Rodrigues et al. (2005) and Lenzen
et al. (2007) use ecological economics to frame responsibility in terms of ascribing who
is accountable for a) environmental pressure and b) the environmental impacts of
producers or consumers respectively. Similarly Munksgaard and Pedersen (2001) sought
to ascribe responsibility for CO2 emissions from a policy perspective. From a marketing
perspective, what is more significant is the consumer‟s sense of responsibility, and how
they perceive and ascribe responsibilities for the environmental consequences of
products, production impacts, purchase behaviour, and consumption and disposal
behaviours. For companies and policy makers seeking to develop more sustainable
systems of consumption and production, the role that consumers‟ sense of responsibility
plays in their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) is potentially
vital and needs to be researched and understood.

9
Awareness of the potential importance of consumer responsibility appears to be
growing. Kaiser and Schimoda (1999: 244) in discussing the psychology of PEBs stress
the need to develop personal responsibility stating that “If a person is aware of the
consequences of certain behaviour, the ascription of personal responsibility becomes
crucial.” This was reflected in the recent EU campaign „You Control Climate Change’1,
in which consumers are urged to take responsibility by turning down the thermostats in
their homes, switching off their appliances, recycling and walking. Similarly the research
which underpinned the UK Sustainable Development Commission‟s „I Will If You Will‟
report (Sustainable Consumption Roundtable 2006) highlighted the importance of a sense
of shared responsibility.
Despite the growing emphasis on consumer responsibility, it remains under-
researched (Carrigan and Attalla 2001), and is mostly discussed normatively and
theoretically (for example Caruana and Crane 2008). Relatively little empirical work has
built on these ideas, and that which does exist explores the idea with a relatively narrow
focus (see for example Wray-Lake et al., 2010 which only explores adolescent
behaviour). There is an irony that “environmentally responsible” is one of the more
commonly used labels for more sustainable consumer behaviour, when consumer
environmental responsibility remains a comparatively under-researched and poorly
understood concept.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/campaign/index.htm

10
Understanding Consumer Socio-Environmental Responsibility
There are several problems with the existing literature when seeking to
understand the motivations behind PEB, and the role played by consumers‟ sense of, and
ascription of, responsibility. Firstly, there is what Jackson (2005) describes as a „well-
informed confusion‟ in the academic literature resulting from the differing definitions and
terminology used (often interchangeably), especially the wide range of titles applied to
sustainability-orientated consumption behaviours (as noted above) and the varying terms
describing different types of responsibility. For simplicity this article will use PEB to
describe pro-environmental behaviours in the context of climate change, since most of
the major PEBs such as recycling, energy-saving, travel and purchase reduction are also
specifically pro-climate.
Secondly, much of the early work uses a very narrow conception of social
responsibility. Webster‟s (1975) early extensive exploration of the „socially conscious
consumer‟ used as the dependent variable a measure of social responsibility, based on a
scale developed by Berkowitz and Lutterman (1968) and refined by Anderson and
Cunningham (1972). Even Webster concedes that this scale „defines social responsibility
in a rather specific (and perhaps outdated) way‟ by basing it on the acceptance of norms,
involvement in community affairs and identification with the protestant work ethic. It is
perhaps unsurprising that he found no relationship between a sense of social
responsibility using that measure and socially conscious consumer behaviour.

11
A third weakness in the literature is a tendency to consider „social responsibility‟
as a broad construct, and to assume that concepts like social responsibility, environmental
responsibility and altruism are interrelated and can be used interchangeably. Tucker et al.
(1986) sought to break down the differences between general social responsibility (also
commenting on work by Berkowitz, this time Berkowtiz and Daniels, 1963) and specific
individual responsibility. They suggested that individual environmental responsibility
was a subset of social responsibility, and that the term individual social responsibility can
be used interchangeably with altruism or pro-social behaviour (although work on specific
environmental altruism appears to be lacking in the literature). As with other authors,
Tucker et al. attempt to understand the characteristics, whether psychological, attitudinal
or socio-demographic of what they term „environmentally responsible consumer citizens‟
but do not then go on to discuss how specifically this may affect their behaviour and
consumption choices.
The literature on ethical consumption encompasses issues beyond the
environment including oppressive regimes, human rights, factory farming and political
donations (Harrison, Newholm and Shaw 2005). Broad measures of social responsibility
or ethical consumption may be unhelpful for understanding consumer behaviour in
relation to more specific environmental issues. A political activist with strong views on
human rights or political donations, and an environmental activist with strong views on
factory farming might have little interest in each other‟s agendas or priorities. In some
cases these might even conflict. Ever since Kinnear et al. (1974) sought to identify the
„ecologically concerned consumer‟ by simply extending Anderson and Cunningham‟s

12
(1972) „Social Responsibility Scale‟, the working assumption within marketing
scholarship has been that the socially and environmentally concerned consumer will be
much the same thing. However, this is a significant assumption, and a misanthropic
animal lover would be a simple confounding example. Similarly the research on how
environmental concerns impact on consumer behaviour have overused broad measures of
environmental concern (Follows & Jobber, 2000), whereas more specific environmental
issues (such as animal cruelty or concerns about genetic modification) are more strongly
correlated with actual behaviour (Fraj and Martinez, 2007).
A fourth weakness is the tendency for research to focus on consumer perceptions
of their personal responsibility in relation to an issue, without attempting to understand
the perceived allocation of responsibility to others. For example if consumers feel that
others such as governments or businesses are more responsible than themselves for
causing climate change, how would this affect their own behaviour and attitudes? Zaccaï
(2006) observed that the attitude-behaviour gap often noted amongst consumers with
strong pro-environmental attitudes was linked to uncertainty about consumer
effectiveness combined with an expectation that government should tackle sustainability
issues through regulation. There is little research attempting to apply a broader, multi-
stakeholder perspective to responsibility, although Rodrigues and Domingos (2008) did
seek to apply mathematical modelling to determine how much responsibility should be
placed on the company (the producer), the consumer (households, capital purchasers etc)
and intermediaries in an attempt to monitor and resolve environmental problems.
Similarly Wray-Lake et al. (2010), examine the ascription of responsibility amongst

13
adolescents between individuals, consumers and government in environmental
behaviours including consumption. They found a declining sense of responsibility
amongst adolescents over time, and a tendency to ascribe responsibility to government or
an abstract notion of „consumers‟ rather than to themselves.
Perhaps because of these difficulties, research focussing on the links between
consumer responsibility and PEB, and which takes the ideas of consumer responsibility
beyond a normative and theoretical discussion, remains a rarity. Kaiser and Schimoda
(1999) did look specifically at the link between responsibility and what they term
ecological behaviour. They broke down the responsibility concept suggesting two
specific responsibility feelings, feeling morally (related to causality, freedom of choice
and intentionality) or conventionally (related to desire for approval and fear of
atonement) responsible for the environment. They found that moral responsibility is
more closely linked to PEB, especially in terms of causality (that is how much a person
feels they cause the problem). Overall they suggest that 55% of a person‟s PEB can be
explained by what they term, a responsibility judgement.
Within the „Motivational, Moral and Value Theories‟ school of research into pro-
environmental behaviours (Vinning and Ebreo, 2002), responsibility as a concept features
mainly within Norm Activation Theory (Schwartz, 1968 and 1977). This proposes that
personal norms which drive behaviour are the result of (1) awareness of consequences
and (2) feelings of responsibility for carrying out the behaviour. Since Schwartz‟s theory
is unusual in seeking to explain specifically ethical consumption, it has been widely used

14
to understand and to predict PEBs such as recycling (Hopper and Nielsen 1991; Vining
and Ebreo 1990 & 1992), household energy saving (Black et al. 1985) or reduced private
car use (Bamberg and Schmidt, 2003). Schwartz‟s Norm Activation Theory has also been
developed further into Value Belief Norm (VBN) theory by integrating it with ecological
value theory (Stern et al. 1999, Stern 2000, Hansla et al. 2008). The VBN model (Figure
1) proposes that behaviour is shaped by consumer values, particularly in relation to their
acceptance of the need for a „new environmental paradigm‟ (NEP), their awareness of the
consequences of behaviour and their sense of responsibility towards the environment
(which Stern et al. 1999 articulated as the personal norm of „a sense of obligation to take
pro-environmental actions’ (p.90)).
Figure 1: VBN Model
Promisingly, in use this model performed better than competing value-based
models in explaining variances in consumer behaviour. However, the correlations were
relatively weak, explaining less than 35% of behavioural variance, and for private sphere
(i.e. consumption) behaviours, the explained variance was less than 20% (Stern, 2000).

15
The potential practical gap between such values and beliefs and actual behaviour was
also demonstrated by Bickman‟s (1972) study on littering. In a survey of 500 people‟s
attitudes to littering, 94% of interviewees acknowledged a sense responsibility for dealing
with litter, but only 2% of those interviewed were observed to pick up a strategically
planted piece of litter as they left the study venue.
Overall there is little consensus about the issue of environmental or climate
change responsibility and its effect on behaviour or behavioural intention. This paper
seeks not to clarify all aspects of responsibility, but to look instead at two specific areas
(1) the effect of both the consumer taking responsibility for their actions and the
consumer placing responsibility on others for their consumption behaviour and (2)
whether socio-demographic variables can aid the segmentation and targeting of
consumers based on their self-perceived level and type of responsibility, and their self-
reported PEBs. In short the issue addressed here is not specifically the concept of
responsibility, but whether responsibility matters in terms of behaviour. Does the
responsibility orientation of a consumer, whether or not they feel responsible for (or think
someone else is responsible for) climate change affect their behaviour? This links
specifically into the causality idea of Kaiser and Schimoda (1999). Understanding this
better will help policy makers and businesses to create more effective polices and
practices that encourage and promote desirable behaviours, especially in terms of
consumption.
To summarise, the main research questions were:

16
(1) What is the role of demographic variables in consumers‟ environmentally related
behaviours?
(2) What is the role of demographic variables in consumers‟ responsibility
orientations (who the consumer feels is responsible for causing and tackling
climate change)?
(3) What role do differing responsibility orientations and agreement with a range of
attitudinal statements have in environmentally related behaviour?
Methodology
This research is based upon a partnership project between the Centre for Business
Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) at Cardiff University
and the Future Foundation consultancy, exploring issues of climate change, consumer
behaviour and the future of brands. The research involved a range of qualitative and
quantitative dimensions including questionnaires, interviews, household „deep dives‟, and
Delphi research involving an expert panel. The issue of responsibility was tackled in the
qualitative stages (the results of which will not be considered here) which informed the
development of the responsibility questions in the questionnaire. The research was
predominantly funded through a consortium of commercial businesses and public sector
organisations acting as sponsors.2
2 The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the ESRC‟s Business Engagement Scheme which
funded BRASS‟s involvement in this research partnership and the secondment of a researcher.

17
The quantitative questionnaire was hosted online utilizing a randomly selected
nationally representative panel provided by Research Now3. In the questionnaire alone a
panel of 1513 consumers were questioned regarding their behaviours, attitudes and
beliefs about their consumption behaviour and climate change. Panel members‟ profiles
ensured that their selection fulfilled sampling criteria, which in this case was for a geo-
and socio-demographically representative sample which was obtained. Respondents
received a small incentive from Research Now for the completion of questionnaires, and
thus there was little attrition with the survey.
This questionnaire was neither originally designed, nor data the collected, with
this specific analysis in mind, which imposes some limitations on the dataset and the
possible analyses. The data was also not specifically tailored to either academic research
or primarily focused on the issue of responsibility. The measures involved would
probably have been designed differently had the research been intended for this specific
purpose. However, the data generated is rich and the sample is large, so an exploration of
the issues can certainly be commenced. A conservative statistical approach was used for
these reasons, and the results should be interpreted as exploratory and tentative. They do
however suggest the need for deeper, more tailored and further future research into the
area.
3 Research Now owns the largest online panel in the UK, comprising of 400,000 consumers. The Research
Now UK panel is one of the most robust and deeply-profiled panels in the UK with extensively profiled
information on a range of subjects e.g. respondent region, age, social class, household size and status, cars
owned, mobile phones owned and networks used, bank and financial products used, TV packages in the
home, ailments suffered plus much more http://www.researchnow.co.uk/Panel_UK.htm (accessed
18/11/08)

18
This paper concentrates on a number of sections of the research questionnaire,
specifically those questions relating to consumers‟ pro- or anti-environmental behaviours,
their feelings about responsibilities for both causing and tackling climate change, along
with some general attitudinal statements. The responsibility questions offered the answer
choices of : ‘me as an individual’, ‘other individuals’, ‘extracting industries’,
‘manufacturing companies’, ‘service industries’, ‘central government’, ‘local
government’, ‘NGOs/Not for profit organisations’, ‘local community groups’,
‘developing countries’, ‘other’ and ‘don’t know’. Respondents could answer yes or no for
each of these choices. A range of attitude statements were also used (which are presented
and discussed in the results section). These were answered using 5-point likert scales
from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The analyses required a measure of behaviour or behavioural intention to act as
dependent variable and to assess the effects of, or correlations with, different aspects of
responsibility. The questionnaire asked a range of questions regarding consumers‟
behaviours from reduction, reuse and recycling behaviours to travel, shopping and energy
consumption behaviours. The behaviour measure simply scored them on the number of
reported PEBs minus any reported anti-environmental/negative behaviours. The
measure, termed General Environmental Responsiveness (GER) had a possible minimum
score of -47 with a possible maximum score of 79 (a range of 126). To summarise, those
scoring at the lower end reported more negative behaviours, those at the upper end more
positive behaviours. The actual maximum reported for any consumer was 56, the
minimum was -27 (a range of 83). There was a mean of 16.3602, median of 16 and mode

19
of 9 (although multiple modes did exist). The standard deviation is 13.68, skewness -
.028 and kurtosis -.107 showing a relatively normal distribution (GER score, D (1513) =
0.02, p>.05 was normal). The GER measure allowed exploration of a range of PEBs and
not just at a single behaviour such as recycling – which often dominates environmental
behaviour studies (Vinning and Ebreo 2002). However in appreciation of this, and to
allow comparison, four smaller GER scores were developed, each taking parts of the
main GER measure, to look at more specific groupings of behaviour. The four GER
groups were Leisure, Purchasing, Household and Travel. Unlike the main GER measure
the GER scores within the smaller groupings were not normally distributed.
The issue of social desirability of behaviours is important in all environmental
research and it is generally accepted that self reported behaviour does not always
correspond to actual behaviour (Vinning and Ebreo 2002). It is hoped however that data
collection via an impersonal online mechanism, rather than face to face, should
encourage participants to be honest and open about their behaviour. Unfortunately due to
the secondary nature of the data it was impossible to check actual behaviour to verify the
behavioural reports. It is also suggested that as pro-environmental issues are generally
socially approved, that respondents may overestimate their behaviours (Follows and
Jobber, 2000). Vinning and Ebreo (2002) suggest the need for a „correction measure‟ to
overcome this but this could not be included here again due to the secondary nature of the
data. In designing the GER measure the authors also tried to take into account other
methodological challenges in the research area summarised by Vinning and Ebreo
(2002). For example they suggest the need to consider how behaviour is assessed and

20
suggest using frequency, duration and intensity as measures as well as whether the
behaviour is performed at all. The data allowed both the actual performance and the level
of that performance to be taken into account. For example respondents received extra
points if they reported that they recycled „often’ rather than „a little‟.
A range of exploratory analyses were completed to investigate the data and
specifically the effects of responsibility. Consumers were firstly categorised by their
answers to the responsibility questions and the correlations with their GER score. In
some cases a linear regression analysis was also used. The same analyses were then
completed based on segmentations by age, education, sex, UK region and social class
although not all analyses will be reported here.
A large amount of demographic data was collected within the questionnaire. Of
the 1513 consumers questioned 47.5 % were male, 52.5 % were female. With regards
age 32.3 % were between the ages of 16 and 34, 34.6 % were between the ages of 35 and
54, 13.9 % were between the ages of 55 and 64 and 19.2% were over 65 years of age.
Results
Initial demographic analyses exploring the first research question, the role of
demographic variables in environmentally responsible behaviours, showed that the
general GER increased with age from a mean of 14.63 in the age group 16-34 to 19.80
for the 65+ age group (see Table One) and is largely supported across the other GER
groupings. The level of GER also increased as educational level increased (from 15.41

21
for 5 grade C GCSEs or less to 18.32 for those with a professional qualification) and a
similar pattern is somewhat evident in the other GER groupings. Females also have a
higher mean score than men (18.41 compared to 14.09) and this is supported across the
GER sub groupings. The female GER mode is also much larger than the male GER
mode score (25 for women compared to 9 for men). However GER scores do not show
any clear pattern by social class or by region.
-INSERT TABLE ONE ABOUT HERE-
In attempting to answer this first research question it can be seen that there is
some demographic influence although this is not always significant or consistent across
categorisations. Table Two contains GER scores for each responsibility orientation
segmented by responsibility orientation and by sex and age.
-INSERT TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE-
Although not always significantly different the general trend is that women have
higher GER scores than men (supporting the results in Table One). In terms of age there
is a strong tendency for higher average GER scores amongst older individuals (again
supporting the results in Table One). Similar explorations were performed for education
level and social class although no discernable pattern was found. In answering research
question two therefore, as with question one there is some correlation between
demographic variables and specific responsibility orientations although these are
strongest within age and sex categorisations. Table Two also contains useful information
in terms of research question three. Where consumers ascribe responsibility for causing
climate change to someone (including themselves) or something in general their GER
scores were higher. In comparison GER scores were lower if the participant ascribed

22
responsibility for tackling climate change to someone or something (including
themselves). By comparing the upper and lower sections of Table Two it can be seen, for
example, that if a consumer responded that they as an individual felt responsible for
causing climate change, they would also see it is their responsibility to tackle climate
change. In fact many more consumers reported that they felt responsible for tackling
climate change than for causing it (834 compared to 331 individuals). This type of
pattern is also prominent for Central Government, Local Government, NGOs/not for
profit organisations and Local community groups where many more consumers reported
thinking that it was these organisations‟ responsibility to tackle climate change, than
thought of them as causing climate change. For example 428 respondents ascribed
responsibility to Central Government for causing climate change while 1056 suggested
that Central Government had a responsibility to tackle it. Moving briefly into another
area of the questionnaire (trust) it can be seen that Pearson correlation between „trust of
the UK government‟ and stating that „it is central governments responsibility to tackle
climate change‟ (r = .143, p < .01) suggests that those who trust the government are more
likely to say it is the government‟s responsibility. However only 35% of respondents
said they trusted them, while 69% thought it was their responsibility to tackle climate
change.
Table Three contains Pearson correlation coefficients for GER and responsibility
orientation for both the overall GER score and for the four separate GER groupings.
-INSERT TABLE THREE ABOUT HERE-
There are significant positive correlations between GER scores and responsibility
orientation for causing climate change with the only negative correlations for respondents

23
who answered „other‟ or „don’t know‟. The opposite case is found for those consumers
responding to the question „Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle climate
change?‟ with no statistically significant correlations between GER score and
responsibility for tackling climate change. It can also be seen that the significance of
each GER grouping differs in terms of responsibility orientation (both in terms of
responsible for causing and tackling climate change). In terms of the Leisure GER the
results are quite weak and while overall there is a general increase in GER if you see
yourself or other individuals as responsible, this does not continue into other
responsibility orientations such as perceiving organisations and governments as
responsible. For the Purchasing GER the correlation is more statistically significant with
those who see individuals as responsible also displaying higher levels of PEB. A similar
pattern was also displayed for the Household GER.
The Travel GER shows mixed results with certain responsibility orientations (if
the consumer sees themselves, service industries or developing countries as responsible
for tackling climate change) they will also display a larger GER score. In general a
responsibility orientation of whichever type tends to be correlated more strongly with
household or purchasing behaviours.
Table Four contains Pearson correlation coefficients for GER against a range of
20 attitude statements contained in the questionnaire.
-INSERT TABLE FOUR ABOUT HERE-
Only three attitude statements correlate significantly with general GER: „Climate
change has occurred many times in human history and it’s part of the natural shifting of

24
the climate‟, „It’s too late to do anything about climate change‟ and „Attempts to tackle
climate change should be coordinated at an international level to be successful‟.
However, the lack of correlation between attitudes and behaviour has been documented
widely so the lack of correlation here is perhaps unsurprising (Sutton, 1998; Foxall 2002;
Sheeran 2002). In terms of the GER groupings, the attitude statements showed some
interesting results. „I am concerned about the effects of climate change‟ correlated
strongly with the GERs for Leisure, Purchasing Activities and Travel. „Consumers can
help reduce the impact of climate change if they can change what they buy on a regular
basis‟ perhaps unsurprising correlated more highly with the GER for Purchasing
Activities and Household Activities, but also more surprisingly with the GER for Leisure.
Tables Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine contain results of simultaneous linear
regression analyses for general GER and each of the GER groupings. Only those
statements which were significant predictors within the models are included in the tables.
The significant predictors were also largely supported by subsequent stepwise regression
analyses. Adjusted R Square values for each analysis were: General GER 0.250, GER
Household Activities 0.145, GER All Travel 0.101, GER Purchasing Activities 0.214 and
GER Leisure 0.118. This suggests that GER predicts between 10 and 25% of the variance
in consumers behaviour. Although not directly comparable due to differing
methodologies and measures (the work used a sample of consumers specifically
interested in aspects of driving from two Swiss transportation associations) this is lower
than the 55% of person‟s ecological behaviour that Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) suggest
can be predicted by their measure of responsibility judgement.

25
-INSERT TABLES FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE ABOUT HERE-
Most notable across all the regression analyses is that the attitudinal statements form a
larger proportion of significant predictors. Responsibility orientation (both in causing
and tackling climate change) did however play a larger part taking into account those
predictors that fell just short of the significance level required (and hence are not included
in the tables). In line with the above correlations the answer „don’t know‟ played a larger
predictive part than might have been expected. Within the household activities GER an
increased agreement with the statement „climate change is largely caused by human
activities‟ surprisingly predicted a small reduction in the dependant variable, GER.
Common predictors (of both increases and decreases in GER) across all groupings
included responsibility for causing and tackling climate change being apportioned to
local/central government and greater agreement with the statements „I am concerned
about the effects of climate change‟, „I don’t see why I should take action on climate
change if other people are not‟ and „I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change‟ (a greater predictor in general and purchasing activity
GERs).
It is obviously difficult given the above results and those further contained in the
tables to provide a definitive answer to research question three. While the correlation
analysis suggests a greater part played by responsibility orientations, especially those
regarding individuals perceiving themselves and/or other individuals as responsible, the
regression analyses suggest a heavier weighting toward the attitudinal statements and
some considerably more than others. While the nature of the data might explain some

26
inconsistencies there are still a number of interesting and useful aspects that have been
highlighted.
Discussion & Conclusions
This research demonstrates a clear relationship between a consumers‟ sense of
environmental responsibility and their environmentally-related consumption behaviours.
Although the influence of this sense of responsibility is often weak compared to other
factors, it is still significant, and this demonstrates the worth of approaches such as the
VBN Model in helping to understand PEB. By contrast it shows that the more
conventional and commonly-used models based on Theory of Planned Behavior and
Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen 1991), which omit any
notion of consumer responsibility, are missing a significant factor.
The nature of the relationship between a sense of responsibility and behaviour
however remains intriguing. The assumption people might draw from the VBN Model is
that a sense of responsibility would drive environmental behaviours. However, there is
also evidence showing that involvement in a behaviour can also shape values (Tucker and
Speirs, 2003), this begs the question as to whether involvement in certain environmental
behaviours could lessen a consumers‟ sense of responsibility? As Downing and
Ballantyne (2007) note: “Many consumers still seek to make changes at the margins of
their lifestyles and do not perceive a need for a fundamental shift in behaviour.
Moreover, their actions do not appear consistent, well planned or systematic – when
asked unprompted what they are doing to confront climate change, most cannot identify

27
anything beyond recycling, begging the question whether this has become a token
behaviour that discharges responsibility in other areas…”
The study also showed that, despite the controversy about their uses, socio-
demographic variables can still be useful in understanding and predicting pro-
environmental behaviours. The higher GER scores amongst females supported various
studies suggesting that females are more concerned than men about the environment in
relation to household behaviours (e.g. Teisl et al. 2008). GER also has a positive
relationship with Education, supporting findings of other studies (e.g. Teisl et al. 2008).
The NRS Social Grade categories did not prove conclusive for GER score, in accord with
findings by Consumer Focus (Yates, 2009) that consumers from across all social grades
engage in some way with certain „green‟ behaviours. This rather contradicts the
frequently expressed view that environmental issues like climate change are „middle class
issues’. GER also has a positive relationship with age, suggesting that either older people
have a broader knowledge of environmental responsibility, or that a sense of
responsibility is something that matures over time, or a declining sense of responsibility
amongst younger generations as observed in the USA by Wray-Lake et al. (2010).
Consumer environmental attitudes and knowledge are two of the most commonly
cited influences on behaviour, and the results provided further support for that.
Consumers‟ concern for the environment was generally seen to be a good predictor for a
higher GER score, whilst consumers responding „other‟ or „don’t know‟ to questions
about responsibility for causing or tackling climate change generally had lower levels of

28
GER. This suggests that there might be a genuine lack of information or education
amongst this cohort, and an inability to make the relevant connections between the issue
of climate change and their own lifestyles and behaviours (something which has been
shown to be important in motivating PEB, Pilgrim et al. 2007).
The results of this study add to the growing weight of evidence that consumer
behaviour, and the factors that influence it, varies across different types of PEB.
Exploring the differing types of GER, consumers were less affected by feelings of
responsibility in their leisure and travel activities even though there was a correlation
with the attitude statement that „Consumers can help reduce the impact of climate change
if they can change what they buy on a regular basis’. This resonates with Becken (2007)
who found that, when discussing individual responsibility for GHG emissions, tourists
were more likely to consider environmental factors in their every day life activities and
decision making as opposed to when undertaking a more „extraordinary‟ activity or
decision to travel: “The value of freedom to travel is firmly established in the minds of
many tourists and limiting travel is considered unacceptable by the (hyper) mobile
tourists who participated in this research”. Similarly, McDonald et al. (2006) identified
a consumer segment of „Exceptors‟ who sought to make sustainability orientated changes
to their lifestyles, but who kept specific types of behaviour outside this decision
framework (particularly foreign travel and car use).
Through focus group research, Niva and Timonen (2008) uncovered that
consumers perceived their own opportunities to influence the product-oriented market as

29
small; rather they attributed the responsibility to product manufacturers. Realising an
element of control over „extraordinary‟ consumption habits, such as travel is therefore a
key challenge in incorporating such behaviours within consumer perceptions of their own
sphere of influence and responsibility. It also raises interesting questions about whether
consumers feel responsible for a choice they make in a supermarket aisle or in their own
kitchen, but would not feel in any way responsible for the fact that an aircraft they were
sitting in was flying. This could be an interesting focus for further research.
This exploratory study has the key advantages compared to many other studies of
employing a multi-dimensional approach to PEB and employing a relatively large sample
size (for example, Kaiser and Schimoda (1999) surveyed 445 people; and Van Kenhove
et al.‟s (2001) study had a sample of 286). Its use of the GER score also provides a novel
approach to approximating the net environmental impacts of domestic consumption
behaviour which could be developed further. It generated some interesting if tentative
findings, which open up avenues for further research on the topic of responsibility (and in
particular in terms of consumer responsiveness to environmental issues when they hold
others more responsible than themselves) - an issue that until now has been largely
overlooked in the literature.
The findings however need to be considered in the light of the study‟s limitations,
particularly those linked to the roots of the data collection process in a business-focussed
survey that was not designed for purely academic research. Furthermore, this survey
shares a limitation that is widespread within green consumer research of relying on self-

30
reported behaviours or behavioural intentions rather than measuring actual behaviour
(Follows and Jobber, 2000). In view of the frequently reported gap between attitudes and
behaviour (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006, Zaccaï, 2006) it is important to attempt to
develop direct or indirect measures that assess behaviour, to overcome the reporting of
socially desirable answers or tendencies to over-estimate PEB (Vinning and Ebreo,
2002). In relation to this study, an avenue for future research would be to seek to
research the influence of perceived consumer responsibility in relation to climate change
causes and solutions on actual PEBs.
A key implication of this research is that there is unquestionably a perception of a
shared responsibility for dealing with climate change amongst consumers. This could
create opportunities for companies, governments and NGOs to develop strategies and
partnership which build on this and which could perhaps benefit from complementary
relationships about their varying responsibilities and resources for tackling climate
change. Halpern and Bates (2004) suggest that co-production and a sense of partnership
between state, individuals and communities should succeed in increasing notions of
personal responsibility in areas such as climate change, amongst others. Consequently,
since the majority of survey respondents felt that Central Government should be
responsible for leading on a solution for climate change, despite low trust in them; this
therefore implies that there is an opportunity for government to further cooperate with
NGOs and Businesses, along the lines of the „New Social Compact‟ outlined by
Brugmann and Prahalad (2007) in increasing notions of personal consumer responsibility.
Effectively communicating such developments to consumers in such a way that

31
encourages them to take responsibility for changing their behaviours will be an important
future challenge for commercial and social marketers alike.

32
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc
Anable, D. J., Lane, B. and Kelay, T. (2006), A Review of Public Attitudes to Climate
Change and Transport Behaviour. London: Department for Transport.
Anderson, W. T. and Cunningham, W. H. (1972), “The Socially Conscious
Consumer”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, pp. 23-31.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), “Efficacy of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour: A Meta-analytic Review”. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 40,
pp. 471-499.
Attell-Thompson, L.M. (2005), “Consumer Directed Health Care: Ethical Limits to
Choice and Responsibility”, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol 3, No 2,
pp. 207 -226.
Bagozzi, R., Gürnao-Canli, Z. and Priester, J. (2002). The Social Psychology of
Consumer Behaviour. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bamberg, S. and Schmidt, P. (2003). “Incentives, morality, or habit?: Predicting
students‟ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and
Triandis.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 264-285.
Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P. and Malpass, A. (2005), “The Politics of Ethical
Consumerism: Citizenship Between Individualisation and Participation”, Consumer
Policy Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 45–51.
Barr, S. (2007), “Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: A U.K.
Case Study of Household Waste Management”, Environment and Behavior. Vol. 39,
pp. 435-473.
Becken, S. (2007), “Tourists' Perception of International Air Travel's Impact on the
Global Climate and Potential Climate Change Policies”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 351-368.
Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L. R. (1963), “Responsibility and Dependency”, Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 429-436.
Berkowitz, L. and Lutterman, K. G. (1968), “The Traditional Social Responsible
Personality”. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 32 (Summer), pp. 169-185.

33
Bickman, L. (1972), “Environmental Attitudes and Actions.” Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 2. pp. 323-324.
Black, J.S., Stern, P.C. and Elworth, J.T. (1985), “Personal and Contextual Influences
on Household Energy Adaptations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 1,
pp. 3-21.
Bricas, N. (2008), “Consumer Expectations and Responsibility/Attentes et
R Consommateurs”, OCL Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp.142 -144.
Brinkmann, J. and Peattie, K. (2008), “Consumer Ethics Research: Reframing the
Debate about Consumption for Good”. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and
Organisation Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 22-31
Brugmann, J. and Prahalad, C. (2007), “Cocreating Business's New Social Compact”.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 80-90.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The Myth of the Ethical Consumer- Do Ethics
Matter in Purchase Behaviour?” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.
560-578.
Caruana, R. and Crane, A. (2008), “Constructing Consumer Responsibility:
Exploring the Role of Corporate Communications”. Organization Studies, Vol. 29,
No. 12, pp. 1495-1519.
Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. (2000), “Environmental Values, Beliefs and
Actions: A Situational Approach”, Environment and Behavior. Vol. 32, pp. 832-848.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003),
“Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A
Review of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56, pp.465–480.
Dickinson, R., Carsky, M. (2005), "The Consumer as Voter: An Economic
Perspective on Ethical Consumer Behavior", in Harrison, R., Newholm, T., Shaw, D.
(Eds),The Ethical Consumer, Sage, London, pp.25-38.
Downing, P. and Ballantyne, J. (2007), Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social
Marketing & Climate Change, London: IPSOS MORI.
Foxall, G. (2002). “Marketing's Attitude Problem - And How to Solve It”. Journal of
Customer Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 19-48.

34
Follows, S.B. and Jobber D. (2000), “Environmentally Responsible Purchase
Behaviour: A Test of a Consumer Model”, European Journal of Marketing. Vol.34,
pp. 723-46
Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2007), “Ecological Consumer Behaviour: An Empirical
Analysis”. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 26-33.
Gabriel, Y. and Lang, T., (1995). The unmanageable consumer: contemporary
consumption and its fragmentation, London: Sage
Giles, M. and Cairns, E. (1995), “Blood Donation and Ajzen‟s Theory Of Planned
Behaviour: An Examination of Perceived Behavioural Control”. British Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol 34, No 2, pp. 173-188.
Grob, A. (1995), “A Structural Model of Environmental Attitudes and Behavior”.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 209-220.
Hahn, M., Lawson, R. and Lee, T.G. (1992), “The Effects of Time Pressure and
Information Load on Decision Quality”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol 9, No 5, pp.
365-378.
Halpern, D. and Bates, C. (2004), Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour:
the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy. London: Prime
Minister‟s Strategy Unit
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A. and Gärling, T. (2008), “The Relationships
Between Awareness of Consequences, Environmental Concern and Value
Orientations”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28, No 1, pp. 1-9.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (2005), “Introduction”, in Harrison, R.,
Newholm, T., Shaw, D. (Eds), The Ethical Consumer, Sage, London, pp.25-38.
Herring, H. (1999). “Does Energy Efficiency Save Energy? The Debate and its
Consequences”, Applied Energy Vol. 63, pp. 209-226.
Hopper, J.R. and Neilsen, J.M. (1991). “Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative
And Behavioral Strategies To Expand Participation in a Community Recycling
Program.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.195-220.
Jackson, T. (2005), Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on
consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Sustainable Development Research
Network.
Jacoby, J. (1984), “Perspectives on Information Overload”, Journal of Consumer
Research. Vol. 10, pp. 432-435.

35
Jenkins, H. (2009), “A „Business Opportunity‟ Model of Corporate Social
Responsibility for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises”. Business Ethics, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Kaiser, F. G. and Schimoda, T. A. (1999), “Responsibility as a Predictor Of
Ecological Behaviour”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 243-253.
Kilbourne, W.E. Beckmann, S.C. (1998), “Review and Critical Assessment of
Research on Marketing and the Environment”, Journal of Marketing Management.
Vol. 14, pp. 513-532.
Kinnear, T.C. Taylor, J.R. and Ahmed, S.A. (1974), “Ecologically Concerned
Consumers: Who Are They?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. , pp. 20-24.
Laroche, M., Bergeron. J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). “Targeting Consumers who
are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 503-20
Lenzen, M. (2008), “Consumer and Producer Environmental Responsibility: A
Reply”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 547-550.
McDonald S, Oates C, Alevizou PJ, Young W, Hwang K. (2006), “Communication
Strategies for Sustainable Technologies: Identifying Patterns in Consumer
Behaviour”. In Integration and Communication: A Clear Route to Sustainability?
Proceedings of 13th Greening of Industry Network Conference. Cardiff.
Moisander, J. (2007), “Motivational Complexity of Green Consumerism”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 404-409.
Munksgaard, J., Pedersen, K.A. and Wier, M. (2000). “Impact of Household
Consumption on CO2 Emissions”. Energy Economics. Vol. 22, pp.423-440.
Niva, M., Timonen, P., (2008). “The Role of Consumers in Product-Oriented
Environmental Policy: Can the Consumer be the Driving Force for Environmental
Improvements?” International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.
331 – 338.
Oom Do Valle, P., Rebelo, E., Reis, E. and Menezes, J. (2005), “Combining
Behavioural Theories to Predict Recycling Involvement”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 364-396
Peng, M. (2009), “Current Debates in Global Strategy”. International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 51-68.

36
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. and Uzzell, D. (2009). “An Examination of the Values That
Motivate Socially Conscious and Frugal Consumer Behaviours”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol. 33, pp.126-136.
Peters, M. (2005), “CSR is a Consumer Concern”. Consumer Policy Review, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp. 36-37.
Robinson, R. and Smith, C. (2002), “Psychosocial and Demographic Variables
Associated with Consumer Intention to Purchase Sustainably Produced Foods as
Defined by the Midwest Food Alliance”, Journal of Nutrition and Education
Behavior, Vol. 34, pp.316-325.
Rodrigues, J. and Domingos, T. (2008), “Consumer and Producer Environmental
Responsibility: Comparing Two Approaches”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 66, pp.
533-546.
Schlegelmilch, B., Bohlen, G. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1996), ”The Link Between
Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp 35-55.
Schwartz, S. H. (1968), “Words, Deeds and the Perception of Consequences and
Responsibility in Action Situations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 10, pp. 232-242.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977), “Normative Influences on Altruism”, In: Berkowitz, L. ed.
Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 221-279.
Shaw, D. and Clarke, I. (1999), “Belief Formation in Ethical Consumer Groups: An
Exploratory Study”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Sheeran, P. (2002), “Intention-Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical
Review”, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 1-36.
Spangenberg, J. and Lorek, S. (2002), “Environmentally Sustainable Household
Consumption: From Aggregate Environmental Pressures to Priority Fields of Action”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 43, pp.127-140.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T, Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof, L. (1999), “A Value-
Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmental
Concern”. Human Ecology Review, 6, pp.
Stern, P. C. (2000), “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behaviour”. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 407-424.

37
Stern, N. (2006), The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 692.
Straughan, R.D. and Roberts, J.A. (1999). Environmental Segmentation Alternatives:
A Look at Green Consumer Behaviour in the New Millennium”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 558-75
Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006). I Will If You Will: Towards Sustainable
Consumption. London: Sustainable Development Commission and the National
Consumer Council.
Sutton, S. (1998), “Predicting and Explaining Intentions and Behavior: How Well are
We Doing?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 15, pp. 1317-1338.
Teisl, M. F., Rubin, J. and Noblet, C.L. (2008). “Non-Dirty Dancing? Interactions
Between Eco-Labels and Consumers”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 29, No.
2, pp. 140-159.
Terry, D.J. and O‟Leary, J.E. (1995), “The Theory of Planned Behaviour: The
Effects of Perceived Behavioural Control and Self-Efficacy. British Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol 34, No 2, pp. 199-220.
Tucker, L. R., Dolich, I.J. and Wilson, D.T. (1981), “Profiling Environmentally
Responsible Consumer-Citizens”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
9, No. 4, pp. 454-478.
Tucker P, and Speirs D. (2003), “Attitudes and Behavioral Change In Household
Waste Management Behaviors”, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Manangement, Vol. 46, pp. 289–307
Van Kenhove, P, Vermeir, I and Verniers, S. (2001), “An Empirical Investigation of
the Relationships between Ethical Beliefs, Ethical Ideology, Political Preference and
Need for Closure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 347-361.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006), “Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring The
Consumer Attitude-Behavioral Intention Gap”. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 169-194.
Vinning, J. and Ebreo, A. (2002), “Emerging Theoretical and Methodological
Perspectives on Conservation Behavior”. In: Bechtel, R. and Churchman, A. eds. New
Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp. 541-558.
Webster, F. E. (1975), “Determining the Characteristics Of The Socially Conscious
Consumer”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 188-196.

38
Williams, A. (2005), “Consumer Social Responsibility?” Consumer Policy Review,
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 34-35.
World Resource Institute (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Report (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), Island Press, Washington, DC.
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C.A and Osgood, D.W. (2010), “Examining Trends in
Adolescent Environmental Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviors Across Three Decades,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 61-85
Yates, L. (2009), Green expectations: Consumers’ understanding of green claims in
advertising, Consumer Focus: London
Zaccaï, E. (2006), “Assessing the Role of Consumers in Sustainable Product
Policies”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 51-67

39
Table One: GER by socio demographic factors: Age, Education, Sex and Social
Class
Mean Score
GER
Leisure
GER
Purchasing
GER
Household
GER
Travel
GER
Age
16-34
14.63
-.10
1.14
13.43
-.37
35-54
15.53
-.38
1.07
15.25
-1.27
55-64
17.69
-.36
1.82
16.13
-.82
65+
19.80
.37
1.53
17.31
.60
Education
5 grade C GCSEs (or equivalent) or
less
15.41
.00
.15
15.02
-.17
More than 5 grade C GCSEs (or
equivalent)
15.20
-.20
.52
14.87
-.62
A levels/ AS levels/Scottish
Highers/NVQ levels 3 or 4
15.68
-.21
.92
14.92
-.62
Undergraduate degree or equivalent
16.89
-.40
1.84
15.36
-.78
Postgraduate degree or equivalent
18.09
-.13
3.19
15.19
-.81
Professional qualification
18.32
.14
2.55
15.93
-.60
Sex
Male
14.09
-.30
-.06
14.76
-1.12
Female
18.41
.00
2.51
15.56
-.05
Social Class
A
16.19
-.24
1.22
15.50
-.98
B
17.28
-.49
2.03
16.00
-1.32
C1
16.49
-.15
1.39
15.22
-.56
C2
14.73
-.50
.72
14.71
-1.16
D
14.32
-.07
-.30
14.54
-.35
E
17.81
.63
1.67
14.76
1.03
Region
Scotland
13.38
-.75
.82
13.97
-1.42
Yorkshire & Humberside
14.36
-.21
.50
14.75
-.89
North East
13.90
-.65
-.27
15.62
-1.44
North West
15.81
-.06
1.65
14.87
-.71

40
East Midlands
18.44
-.10
2.20
16.65
-.41
West Midlands
15.92
-.15
1.42
15.17
-.67
East of England
18.67
.05
2.19
16.59
-.11
South East
16.04
-.04
1.11
15.34
-.40
South West
14.69
.-.54
1.04
14.51
-.87
London
15.91
.49
.88
14.47
.56
Wales
18.37
.08
3.11
15.68
-.43

41
Table Two: responsibility orientation and overall GER score segmented by Sex and
Age
Number of respondents
Mean GER
MALE
FEMALE
AGE GROUP 16-34
AGE GROUP 35-54
AGE GROUP 55-64
AGE GROUP 65+
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Number of respondents
Mean GER
Q Who do you see as most responsible for causing climate change?
Me as an
individual
331
21.8
134
19.1
197
22.6
115
20
121
19.9
45
24.7
50
26.3
Other
individuals
295
21.3
113
19.3
182
22.5
112
18.5
107
20.3
37
26.2
39
27.2
Private
Industry
963
17.7
447
15.5
516
19.6
310
15.6
324
16.9
138
18.7
191
21.5
Central/Local
Government
454
18.2
212
15.7
242
20.4
145
16.4
166
17.31
63
18.8
80
22.7
NGOs/Not for
profit
organisations
81
21.2
35
20.5
46
21.6
33
19.3
28
19.8
8
17.3
12
32.1
Local
community
groups
81
21.0
32
22.0
49
20.4
35
18.8
26
20.3
9
18.1
11
32.2
Developing
countries
748
17.4
368
15.2
380
19.6
196
15.2
248
16.2
122
18.6
182
20.6
Other
133
13.2
84
10.9
49
17.1
33
12.3
42
12.8
26
12.7
32
14.9
Don‟t know
196
12.9
63
10.4
133
14.1
86
11.8
66
11.7
22
19.5
22
14
Q Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle climate change?
Me as an
individual
834
16
368
17.7
466
21.3
269
16.9
301
19
118
21.5
146
25.1
Other
703
15.9
305
18.0
398
21.0
240
17.3
253
18.6
98
22.1
112
25.3

42
individuals
Private
Industry
916
18.4
410
16.2
506
20.2
228
16.3
320
17.2
132
19.8
176
23
Central/Local
Government
1080
17.4
506
15.3
574
19.2
330
15.6
374
16.2
155
18.7
221
21.3
NGOs/Not for
profit
organisations
558
16.1
246
18.7
312
21.3
194
17.3
199
20.1
79
22.5
86
24.5
Local
community
groups
571
16
256
18.9
315
21
197
17.5
203
19.7
80
21.7
91
24.8
Developing
countries
869
16.5
415
16.3
454
20.4
251
16.4
299
17.3
127
20.4
192
21.6
Other
175
15.8
86
13.4
89
18.0
51
15.8
60
14.3
36
15.8
28
18.6
Don‟t know
152
15.3
64
5.5
88
12.1
65
8.8
50
7.4
19
12.1
18
13.2

43
Table Three: Pearson Correlations of GER and Responsibility Orientation
GER
Leisure
GER
Purchasing
GER
Household
GER
Travel
GER
Who do you see as most responsible for causing climate change?
Me as an individual
.186(**)
.102(**)
.183(**)
.131(**)
.074(**)
Other individuals
.177(**)
.104(**)
.174(**)
.119(**)
.082(**)
Private Industry
.170(**)
.101(**)
.127(**)
.157(**)
.093(**)
Central/Local government
.109(**)
.073(**)
.117(**)
.067(**)
.036
NGOs/Not for profit organisations
(e.g. Friends of the Earth)
.083(**)
.058(*)
.086(**)
0.046
0.043
Local community groups.
.081(**)
0.039
.092(**)
0.044
0.027
Developing countries e.g. China,
India
.077(**)
0.009
0.023
.142(**)
0.005
Other
-.072(**)
-.071(**)
-.057(*)
-0.041
-.076(**)
Don't know
-.098(**)
-.053(*)
-.080(**)
-.109(**)
-0.005
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle climate change?
Me as an individual
-0.027
.117(**)
.250(**)
.213(**)
.104(**)
Other individuals
-0.033
.090(**)
.202(**)
.186(**)
.094(**)
Private Industry
.226(**)
.123(**)
.187(**)
.187(**)
.122(**)
Central/Local government
.172(**)
.072(**)
.141(**)
.156(**)
.072(**)
NGOs/Not for profit organisations
(e.g. Friends of the Earth)
-0.015
.080(**)
.183(**)
.181(**)
.073(**)
Local community groups.
-0.021
.096(**)
.178(**)
.175(**)
.094(**)
Developing countries e.g. China,
India
0.01
.053(*)
.117(**)
.204(**)
.055(*)
Other
-0.014
-0.048
-0.019
0.014
-0.043
Don't know
-0.025
-.096(**)
-.125(**)
-.167(**)
-.083(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

44
Table Four: Pearson Correlations of GER and Attitude Statements
GER
Leisure
GER
Purchasing
GER
Household
GER
Travel
GER
I am concerned about the effects of
climate change
-0.022
.245(**)
.320(**)
.275(**)
.237(**)
The media is exaggerating the
potential effects of climate change
0.034
-.187(**)
-.161(**)
-.088(**)
-.175(**)
Climate change is largely caused by
human activities
0.005
.189(**)
.167(**)
.129(**)
.161(**)
Climate change has occurred many
times in human history and it's part of
the natural shifting of the climate
.054(*)
-.127(**)
-.088(**)
-0.029
-.096(**)
The economic growth of developing
countries represents the greatest threat
to the world's climate (China India
etc).
0.015
0.044
.083(**)
.112(**)
0.023
It is too late to do anything about
climate change
.055(*)
-.073(**)
-.147(**)
-.213(**)
-.061(*)
Attempts to tackle climate change
should be coordinated at an
international level to be successful
-.067(**)
.071(**)
.141(**)
.144(**)
.076(**)
The Government should enforce more
strict environmental policies in order
to prevent climate change
0.006
.172(**)
.238(**)
.173(**)
.159(**)
Off-setting carbon emissions is a good
way of reducing the effects of climate
change
-0.023
.185(**)
.144(**)
.114(**
.196(**)
Consumers can help reduce the impact
of climate change if they can change
what they buy on a regular basis
-0.021
.215(**)
.324(**)
.231(**)
.177(**)
There is no point in trying to reduce
emissions at an individual level
0.027
-.140(**)
-.254(**)
-.276(**)
-.137(**)
I want financial incentives to take
action on climate change
0.029
-0.046
-.053(*)
-0.041
-.059(*)
I don't see why I should take action on
climate change if other people are not
0.021
-.176(**)
-.260(**)
-.265(**)
-.167(**)
Businesses should take the issue of
-0.039
.174(**)
.252(**)
.255(**)
.171(**)

45
climate change more seriously
Businesses should send documents
such as statements and policy
documents electronically wherever
possible
-0.048
.127(**)
.214(**)
.216(**)
.126(**)
I want more information from
businesses on what they are doing to
address climate change
0.009
.244(**)
.287(**)
.207(**)
.232(**)
I trust companies to do the right thing
when it comes to climate change
0.027
0.024
-0.022
-0.011
0.024
I would switch my custom to
companies that are working to reduce
climate change
-0.027
.281(**)
.386(**)
.233(**)
.236(**)
I would rather companies took the
choice out of my hands by not
stocking products that are damaging to
the environment
-0.012
.121(**)
.183(**)
.132(**)
.135(**)
I would like more independent
assurance of the claims made by
companies about how they are tackling
climate change
-0.041
.194(**)
.263(**)
.217(**)
.176(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

46
Table Five: Regression Analysis of GER (only significant independent variables are
included)
B
SE B
β
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: Local Government
-2.48
1.20
-.07*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Central Government
-2.37
1.03
-.08*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Don‟t know
-3.04
1.44
-.07*
I am concerned about the effects of climate change
1.81
0.42
.15**
Climate Change is largely caused by human activities
-0.93
0.36
-.08**
Attempts to tackle climate change should be
coordinated at an international level to be successful
-.084
0.39
-.06*
Consumer can help reduce the impact of climate
change if they can change what they buy on a regular
basis
1.47
0.42
.11**
There is no point in trying to reduce emissions at an
individual level
-0.96
0.36
-.08**
I want financial incentives to take action on climate
change
-0.92
0.28
-.08**
I don‟t see why I should take action on climate
change if other people are not
-1.60
0.35
-.13**
I want more information from businesses on what
they are doing to address climate change
1.04
0.41
.09**
I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change
2.77
0.43
.21**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

47
Table Six: Regression Analysis of GER Household Activities (only significant
independent variables are included)
B
SE B
β
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: Local Government
-1.53
0.57
-.10**
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: Developing countries e.g. China, India
0.86
0.39
.07*
I am concerned about the effects of climate change
0.63
0.20
.12**
The media is exaggerating the potential effects of
climate change
0.29
0.15
.06*
Climate change is largely caused by human activities
-0.38
0.17
-.07*
It is too late to do anything about climate change
-0.31
0.16
-.06*
Attempts to tackle climate change should be
coordinated at an international level to be successful
-0.39
0.18
-.07*
There is no point in trying to reduce emissions at an
individual level
-0.53
0.17
-.10**
I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change
0.44
0.20
.08*
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

48
Table Seven: Regression Analysis of GER All Travel (only significant independent
variables are included)
B
SE B
β
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: NGOs/Not for Profit organisations (e.g.
Friends of the Earth)
1.31
0.65
.08*
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: Don‟t Know
0.80
0.37
.08*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Central Government
-0.77
0.30
-.10*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Don‟t Know
-1.09
0.42
-.09**
I am concerned about the effects of climate change
0.38
0.12
.12**
The media is exaggerating the potential effects of
climate change
-.23
0.09
-.08*
It is too late to do anything about climate change
0.20
0.10
.06*
Off-setting carbon emissions is a good way of
reducing the effects of climate change
0.30
0.10
.09**
I want financial incentives to take action on climate
change
-0.22
0.08
-.07**
I don‟t see why I should take action on climate
change if other people are not
-0.28
0.10
-.09**
I want more information from businesses on what
they are doing to address climate change
0.46
0.12
.14**
I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change
0.29
0.13
.08*
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

49
Table Eight: Regression Analysis of GER Purchasing Activities (only significant
independent variables are included)
B
SE B
β
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Me as an individual
1.43
0.73
0.9*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Central Government
-1.47
0.63
-.08*
I am concerned about the effects of climate change
0.81
0.26
.11**
Climate change is largely caused by human activities
-0.60
0.22
-.08**
Consumer can help reduce the impact of climate
change if they can change what they buy on a regular
basis
1.09
0.26
.14**
I want financial incentives to take action on climate
change
-0.50
0.17
-.07**
I don‟t see why I should take action on climate
change if other people are not
-0.69
0.212
-.10**
I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change
2.04
0.26
.26**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

50
Table Nine: Regression Analysis of GER Leisure (only significant independent
variables are included)
B
SE B
β
Who do you see as responsible for causing climate
change?: NGOs/Not for Profit organisations (e.g.
Friends of the Earth)
1.02
0.44
.09*
Whose responsibility do you think it is to tackle
climate change?: Central Government
-0.59
0.20
-.11**
I am concerned about the effects of climate change
0.21
0.08
.10**
The media is exaggerating the potential effects of
climate change
-0.14
0.06
-.07*
I don‟t see why I should take action on climate
change if other people are not
-0.20
0.07
-.09**
I would switch my custom to companies that are
working to reduce climate change
0.35
0.08
.15**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.