Consumers’ Social Responsibility in the Process of Energy Consumption—The Case of Poland

Abstract

Although European energy policy supports the reduction of energy consumption, the current economic and political situation in Poland and uncertainty related to the origin of energy sources do not support it. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify and assess the factors that affect the energy-saving behaviour of Polish consumers in the process of energy consumption. The research problem concerns the specificity of behaviours that are part of new trends in consumption, such as greening and the ethical dimension of consumption. The research question arises as to what the social responsibility of consumers is in the process of energy consumption. The research problem comes down to the question of factors that determine the behaviour of an individual consumer in the energy market. In order to realise the indicated purpose of the article, a conceptual research model was built and direct research was conducted using the research method, which was an online survey (CAWI). The research was run among 1422 individual consumers. After verifying 14 research hypotheses, it can be concluded that energy-saving behaviour is influenced in similar ways by a set of factors. In the paper there are findings which show that the generally understood energy-saving behaviour (Y1—at home and Y2—off-site) is influenced by the following factors: X1—energy-saving knowledge, X3—green consumer values, X5—social influence, X6—beliefs, and X7—consumer awareness. The specific mechanism of influence of each of the dominant factors is that the higher the intensity of these factors in consumer behaviour, the more actions are taken to save energy inside or outside the home. However, X2—energy-saving cost perception and X4—materialism presents this influence mechanism only for Y1—energy-saving behaviour at home.

1. Introduction

For many years, global experts dealing with the energy sector have been pointing to transformations relating to wholesale energy markets. Trends described by them, such as the pursuit of low carbon and energy efficiency, were directed mainly at enterprises [1]. It is interesting to note that they are now also affecting the individual consumer (retail energy markets).

On the one hand, European energy policy supports the reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions and the implementation of solutions to challenges such as increasing import dependency, insufficient diversification, high and volatile energy prices, growing energy demand, the threat of climate change and decarbonisation, among others. As a consequence of the low rate of progress in energy efficiency, there is an emerging need for increased use of renewable energy sources in power generation and greater transparency and further integration of energy markets [2,3]. It is also important to mention the Polish hydrogen strategy, which an presents interesting solution for enterprises operating in various sectors of the economy where emissions reductions through direct electrification are challenging to achieve [4].

The answer to these challenges is a dynamic increase in the share of renewable energy sources in the energy market, which is also observed in Poland. It is worth noting that the transformation processes in the power industry refer not only to changes in the area of technological methods of energy production, but also to the involvement of end users, i.e., energy consumers who are becoming more and more responsible and active on this market [5]. Therefore, there is an expectation that the contemporary need to care for the environment, i.e., to be a responsible consumer, including saving energy resources will help to solve the above-mentioned problems [6,7].

On the other hand, the current economic and political situation in Poland, i.e., increasing energy prices, changes in the law regulating the operation of economic entities and uncertainty related to the origin of energy sources, does not seem to be favourable. Due to the growing population demand for energy and the increasing impact of global warming and climate change at the global level, it has become necessary to reduce energy consumption worldwide.

Thus, a research gap has been created by the contradiction of European conditions related to the increase of renewable energy sources and the growing energy demand of the population in the context of climate change. For this reason, a deeper understanding of the factors that encourage consumers to save energy is needed [8]. The research problem, therefore, concerns the characteristics of behaviours that are part of the new trends in consumption, such as greening and the ethical dimension of consumption, sustainable consumption and prosumption [9,10]. Their manifestations in various areas of consumption should be considered as particularly important for the analysed energy sector. The authors dealing with the issue indicate that the extent to which people undertake actions that fit into the sustainable consumption model is still relatively small [11]. This raises the research question about factors that determine individual consumer behaviour in the energy market.

The aim of this paper is to identify and evaluate the factors that influence the energy-saving behaviour of Polish consumers in the process of energy consumption. In particular, attention was paid to the energy-saving behaviours exhibited by the individual consumer at home and off-site, thus emphasising the social dimension of consumer responsibility. In order to realise the indicated purpose of the article, a conceptual research model was built and direct research was conducted using the research method, which was an online survey (CAWI). The research was run among 1422 individual consumers in Poland in the first quarter of 2022.

The research model was prepared based on extensive literature studies and deals with consumer social responsibility in the process of energy consumption. The dependent variables Y1—energy-saving behaviour at home and Y2—energy-saving behaviour outside the home, as well as factors influencing the consumer’s energy-saving behaviour, i.e., independent variables, were included in the model: X1—knowledge on energy saving, X2—perception of energy-saving costs, X3—green consumer values, X4—materialism, X5—social influence, X6—beliefs, and X7—consumer awareness.

The results of the study enabled the verification of the hypotheses resulting from the research question posed and the research model built. The research model identified 14 hypotheses, under which each of the above-mentioned factors influences energy-saving behaviour at home and off-site.

Section 2 of the paper presents an extensive literature study of the factors influencing socially responsible energy consumption and conceptual model elaborated on the basis of the literature review. Section 3 presents the research method used. Section 4 presents the detailed research results based on statistical analysis of the data obtained from the respondents. Section 5 presents a critical discussion of the results in the context of the literature review. The paper ends with conclusions that summarise the entire discussion.

The relevance of the topic addressed in this paper stems from the fact that responsible consumption is an important trend that can be disseminated by promoting desirable behaviour patterns that will make the environment less vulnerable to pollution. On the other hand, people involved in the processes of production of various goods, including energy, will be able to function in conditions of respect for human rights.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Consumer Social Responsibility (CnSR)

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in consumer social responsibility (CnSR). Research on this issue has been conducted since the 1990s. The earliest definitions emphasise that CnSR is moral principles, standards of consumers’ behaviours. It is also called consumer ethics and responsibility towards society in the area of obtaining, using and disposing goods and services [12].

Some of the current literature on CnSR pays particular attention to a link between consumer social responsibility (CnSR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Numerous authors have attempted to explain this link and the issue of corporate social responsibility try to explain its relation to the CnSR. One of the views considers CnSR as a CSR, because the customer is the main factor that influences corporate behaviours. These results suggest that CnSR is an attitude that can be observed as a set of socially responsible consumer behaviours.

A review of definitions by Schlaile, Klein and Bock leads to the conclusion that all socially responsible consumer behaviours refer to a few spheres identified by Neuner: social environment, natural environment and individual wellbeing. These terms include five domains of responsibility: responsibility for information procurement, consumer citizenship, demand-side responsibility, responsibility for usage and responsible disposal [13]. The past decade has seen the rapid development of research and many academic papers on CnSR. Their authors perceive it as moral principles and standards guiding human behaviour in the process of consumption. Other approach treats CnSR as consumption that endeavours to minimise or eliminate any harmful effects and maximise the long-term benefits for society [14].

The contemporary world needs an engagement towards solving many ecological problems. The concept of ‘responsible’ consumers is frequently used in international and European documents on sustainable development as well as in economic, sociological and political sources. Energy efficiency is one of the most important targets of the European Union’s strategy. The EU energy efficiency targets for 2020 and 2030 are set to reduce primary and final energy consumption. There are precise directions that EU countries should follow: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, obtaining more energy from renewables and improving in energy efficiency [15]. These can be achieved by consumer behaviours that can influence and change organisations’ activity. Throughout this paper, the term ‘consumer social responsibility’ will refer to either (Y1) behaviours at home or (Y2) off-site behaviours aimed at energy savings. Both phenomena will be influenced by several factors, described in the literature.

2.2. Knowledge on Energy Saving

One of the factors influencing the energy-saving behaviour of consumers in and outside the home is (X1) consumer knowledge on energy saving.

A number of researchers have reported that the level of consumer knowledge in energy saving positively influences consumer behaviour in the context of energy saving [16]. Other studies show that the more knowledgeable consumers are about energy use, the more motivated they are to change their behaviour to improve on energy efficiency [17]. Research on benefits of energy saving shows that ecological and financial motives are common among consumers in Poland [18].

Socially responsible consumer behaviours refer to, but are not limited to, the ways in which the consumer uses and reduces energy consumption on and off-site. The energy-saving behaviours of socially responsible consumers at their residence refer to the following electricity-saving activities: unplugging unused mobile devices (not leaving them on standby), turning off lights in unused rooms, running washing machines and dishwashers fully loaded, boiling only required amount of water in the kettle, using energy-efficient household appliances and using ECO programs, buying home appliances with the highest energy efficiency (class A) and low-energy light bulbs, as well as using the refrigerator in a way that ensures the lowest possible electricity consumption [19,20].

In the case of socially responsible consumers it is important to also identify energy-saving behaviour outside the place of residence, e.g., at work or school or in public places (e.g., stores, offices). This is confirmed by nationwide research, which analyses consumer actions performed more often for philosophical than financial reasons. Polish consumers save energy outside their homes mainly due to good habits transferred from home.

In addition, they can be proactive by suggesting to others how to effectively save energy and motivating them to do so. This will also be manifested in the participation of consumers in organised energy saving initiatives and by promoting the purchase of products that did not require much energy to produce [19,21]. The necessity of also recognising the energy-saving behaviour of consumers outside their residence because of the growing feeling of responsibility for the costs of energy consumption and to reduce energy consumption is indicated not only by the research carried out in Poland [20] but also by those conducted abroad [22,23,24].

Therefore, we can formulate hypotheses H1a and H1b:

H1a: 

The higher the knowledge on energy saving (e.g., ways to save energy, energy efficiency class of home appliances) (X1), the more actions are taken focusing on energy saving at home (Y1).

H1b: 

The higher the knowledge on energy saving (e.g., ways to save energy, energy efficiency class of home appliances) (X1), the more actions are taken focusing on energy saving off-site (Y2).

2.3. Perception of Energy-Saving Costs

The authors recognise a number of barriers associated with energy conservation (X1). Sheoran and Kumar divide them into those related to personal norms barriers (high price, lack of environmental impact, greenwashing), subjective norms barriers (social image, no use by family members or friend, lack of awareness/advertisement) or controlled behaviour barriers (inconvenience, inaccessibility, incompatibility with other products) [25]. A number of the barriers mentioned are related to the cost (often additional) of purchasing/using environmentally friendly products.

The high purchase price in Sheoran and Kumar’s study emerged as the most significant barrier [25]. This is confirmed by the study of Barbarossa and Pastore in which consumer behaviour related to the purchase/choice of eco-friendly products is related to the barriers of choice related to the lack of availability, time and desire to make such purchases, higher relative prices or problems of communication of such products (at the point of sale or mass media) [26]. Among the reasons for barriers to energy conservation by consumers are additionally cited: energy conservation could reduce comfort; it could be too expensive [27]. In their study, Broberg and Kazukauskas examined the relationship between receiving feedback and energy consumption [28]. They found that a lack of knowledge about the cost of using particular electrical appliances can lead to incorrect energy-consumption decisions, either overconsumption of energy and underconsumption of energy. Consumers who are less knowledgeable about energy tend to have a higher perception of the cost of energy consumption [28].

Frederiks et al. point out that people, guided by self-interest, choose solutions that bring them the most benefits relative to the costs incurred [29]. Costs can be considered as time, effort, money, convenience or comfort. In the case of energy saving, the considered cost is the purchase of energy-efficient equipment, and the benefit is lower electricity bills. Those who perceive their electricity expenses as high are more likely to spend more to conserve energy [30]. The perceived cost of saving energy may therefore be a factor that may reduce interest in reducing energy consumption.

On this foundation it lets us to claim the hypotheses H2a and H2b:

H2a: 

The higher the perceived cost of saving energy (X2), the lower the propensity to save energy at home (Y1).

H2b: 

The higher the perceived cost of saving energy (X2), the lower the propensity to save energy off-site (Y2)

2.4. Green Consumer Values

“Green consumption values” (GCV) (X3) aim to identify the tendency of buyers to express values related to environmental protection through their purchasing and consumption behaviour [31]. The scale makes it possible to predict purchasing behaviour with regard to environmentally friendly products. There is a large number of published studies describing that ecological consumption leads not only to the protection of environmental resources, but also to the protection of the physical and financial resources of the consumers themselves. A green consumer is a person who not only uses natural resources wisely, e.g., clean water, flora or fauna, but also prudently spends his financial resources. He tries to buy environmentally friendly products, and uses the goods he owns to the end, not throwing them away hastily.

The GCV scale has been used many times in the research of other authors. For example, its impact on pro-environmental consumption intentions was checked [32], its impact on the willingness to use bioplastic was tested [33], the relationship between green consumption values and the behaviour of young consumers on the food market was studied [34] or its relationship with the consumption of renewable energy was analysed [34].

The GCV scale was also treated as a moderating variable in the study of the relationship between product brand experience and brand loyalty [35].

Overall, these results indicate the following hypotheses, H3a and H3b:

H3a: 

The higher the level of GCV (X3), the more impact on the energy-saving behaviour at home (Y1).

H3b: 

The higher the level of GCV (X3), the more impact on the energy-saving behaviour off-site (Y2).

2.5. Materialism

There are many studies in the literature that link materialism (X4) with life satisfaction or with the quality of life. Keng et al. noted that people focused on the material side of life pay more attention to success, wealth, happiness, social status and power, while health, friendship and love are less important to them [36]. Due to setting unrealistic goals for themselves, materialists are dissatisfied with their standard of living and compared to nonmaterialists they are more often dissatisfied with their life in general [37].

The materialism scale used in these studies comes from the work of Richins, who investigated the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction. The author points out that materialists are people who believe that success is defined in terms of the goods they have. He also notes that a materialist focuses more on material goals than on building relationships with people around him [38].

Lysonski and Durvasula noticed that people with a higher level of materialism were more brand-aware, aware of market novelties and aware of product prices. Perhaps that is why they buy energy-saving household appliances and electronics or light bulbs with low energy consumption, which are often more expensive. It may also have a positive effect on their energy-consumption expenditure [39]. On the other hand, there is a concern that a commitment to wealth and a high standard of living may discourage energy conservation, which is associated with reduced quality of life. This seems to be confirmed by the results of studies by Larsen et al. who observed that a higher level of materialism had a negative impact on the environment. It is true that at the level of entire countries, a higher level of material well-being is associated with greater care for the environment, but this is not always the case for individuals. Overconsumption means an increase in waste, pesticide contamination of water, an increase in radioactive waste, or acid rain caused by sulphur dioxide [40].

These findings confirm that materialism is associated with consumer social responsibility, and it is possible to formulate such hypotheses:

H4a: 

The higher the level of materialism (X4), the less impact on the energy-saving behaviour at home (Y1).

H4b: 

The higher the level of materialism (X4), the less impact on the energy-saving behaviour off-site (Y2).

2.6. Social Influence

Social influence (X5) can be effective in influencing consumer energy-conservation behaviour. Frederiks et al. [28] include social influences among the psychological factors affecting energy consumption. These researchers point out that people make social comparisons, they follow norms or rules, guidelines for behaviour in a particular group or society. Adherence to norms leads households to reduce their energy consumption [41]. An energy conservation model based on information conveyed through social diffusion (the influence of friends, family, and other social networks) had a greater impact on behaviour because it tends to be more easily perceived, more favourably evaluated, better understood, and remembered than information conveyed through traditional means of education, marketing, and advertising [42].

As Mi et al. argues, reference information on energy consumption can induce households to behave towards reducing energy consumption [43]. An approach in which influencing pro-environmental behaviour is based on social influence is an alternative to information-based approaches [44]. This is supported by research indicating that messages that emphasise how other people behave are more effective than those that merely encourage certain behaviours [45]. As Lede and Melady point out, social influences may be unconscious by consumers and underestimated by experts and actually play an important role in consumer behaviour [44]. Their actual impact on consumer behaviour may depend on cultural, environmental or personality influences, which are factors that moderate the effect of the actual influence [44]. For example, more collectivist societies will be more likely to give in to peer pressure to save energy.

Thus, according to the authors of the publication, the perception of energy-saving tendencies by consumers among their family and friends may be a factor increasing the tendency of a given person to take steps towards reducing energy consumption. On this foundation, it is possible to verify hypotheses H5a and H5b:

H5a: 

The greater the social influence (X5), the greater the propensity to save energy at home (Y1).

H5b: 

The greater the social influence (X5), the greater the propensity to save energy off-site (Y2).

2.7. Beliefs

It is said that the next factor that influences energy consumption is the personal beliefs of consumers [46]. Such beliefs are defined as ‘primitive’ thoughts about the nature of the earth and how human beings can develop a relationship with it [47]. This is the perspective of the value belief norm theory (VBN) [48]. This contains the conclusions of studies that proved that individuals’ beliefs have behavioural effects in the area of energy consumption [49].

As far as such beliefs are concerned, it was established that people believe that anything that one individual can do about the environment and the efforts of one person are useful, even when other people refuse to conserve [50]. In other studies, we can find other beliefs on energy-consumption influence. For example, perceived behaviour-control attitude shows that people are able to reduce consumption if they are committed to doing so. They believe in having control over their own behaviour in this area of life [51]. Additionally, it is possible to assume that each citizen is able to contribute to solve environmental problems by individual actions that can help to reduce pollution [52].

It is said that such beliefs can impact on individual behaviour and attitudes about the environment [53]. Moreover, individual beliefs and general awareness of earth pollution impact on energy consumption more than other personal factors of consumers [54].

However, in the literature there are studies where we can find opposite conclusions regarding how beliefs may affect individuals’ energy-consumption behaviour. They demonstrated that beliefs are not positively related to pro-environmental consumers’ behaviour and that there is not a significant relationship between beliefs and energy consumption [55].

Taking into consideration these results of research, it is possible to attempt to verify hypotheses H6a and H6b:

H6a: 

The more people believe in their influence on the natural environment (X2), the more focused they are on saving energy at home (Y1).

H6b: 

The more people believe in their influence on the natural environment (X2), the more focused they are on saving energy off-site (Y2).

2.8. Consumer Energy Awareness

The last factor influencing consumer behaviours on the energy market (Y1 and Y2) is awareness (X7). Generally, consumer awareness is understood as being aware of something, i.e., a certain ability to know and assess oneself and the environment. Thus, it may represent a certain state of knowledge, views and perceptions of consumers regarding the importance of energy in human life, ways of using and saving it [56]. This refers to ecological awareness, which is expressed in thinking, experiences and social norms that help acknowledge, explore, reflect and value objective reality. It is necessary for people to understand the motives of their behaviours [57].

The influence of consumers’ environmental awareness on their attitudes towards purchasing energy-efficient electrical appliances was also empirically confirmed [58]. The results of research conducted in Poland also show that the energy awareness of consumers determines the rational use of particular appliances and electrical devices. Moreover, the following aspects of consumer energy awareness were also considered important: knowledge of the energy tariff they have, knowledge of energy charges and prices, and the amount of energy consumed by the household [19]. Consumer energy awareness as an exogenous variable therefore plays an important role in consumer actions relating to energy conservation.

Considering the above, it is possible to verify hypotheses H7a and H7b:

H7a: 

The higher the consumer’s energy awareness (X7), the more actions are taken focusing on energy saving at home (Y1).

H7b: 

The higher the consumer’s energy awareness (X7), the more actions are taken focusing on energy saving off-site (Y2).

2.9. Conceptual Model of Factors Influencing Consumer Social Responsibility in the Process of Energy Consumption

The conceptual model of the consumer social responsibility research framework was developed on the basis of the literature review. All hypotheses presented in this section suggest that we can construct a model of factors influencing consumer social responsibility, presented in Figure 1.

3. Data and Methods

The aim of the research is to collect data on Polish consumers’ behaviours and opinions that allow to verify hypotheses mentioned in the previous part of the paper.

The study was conducted using secondary and primary sources of information. The secondary sources of information refer to the literature on the subject, articles in scientific journals and research reports of various agencies and institutions. The primary information, on the other hand, was obtained through quantitative direct research carried out using the CAWI online survey technique (using a standardised questionnaire) in February–March 2022 in Poland.

Based on the analysis of information from secondary sources, a conceptual model was constructed and research hypotheses were formulated (results of the analysis presented in Section 2). Based on desk research, a questionnaire for direct research was also constructed containing questions in the form of measurement scales. The measurement scales used took the form of five-point Likert scales. Thus, to measure energy-saving behaviour of the consumer at home, a scale was constructed consisting of 15 statements formulated on the basis of the results of social research conducted by CBOS [21], RWE Polska [19], as well as studies by Ropuszyńska-Surma and Węglarz [20]. To measure energy-saving behaviour manifested outside the home (4 statements) a scale was constructed on the basis of the results of research conducted by CBOS [21] and RWE Polska [19]. Statements regarding energy saving at home were as follows:

• I unplug mobile device chargers (e.g., tablet, phone, laptop) when not in use.
• I turn off lights when leaving a room.
• I take a shower instead of a bath.
• I only run the washing machine when it is full.
• I wash dirty clothes without pre-washing.
• I use ECO programmes in the washing machine/dishwasher.
• I only boil as much water in the kettle as you use at one time.
• I use lids on pots and pans.
• When buying new household appliances, I make sure they are of the highest energy efficiency (class A).
• I buy and use light bulbs with low energy consumption.
• I only use energy-efficient household appliances.
• I only open the refrigerator when necessary, and never leave it open for any reason.
• I make sure the fridge is cleaned/defrosted regularly.
• I place products in the fridge using the least amount of electricity (as recommended by the manufacturer).
• I only run the dishwasher when it is full.

Saving electricity outside the home was included in the following statements:

• I motivate others to save energy (e.g., I tell work colleagues, neighbours, friends, etc.).
• Making suggestions on how to save energy more effectively (e.g., I hang a card with a request to close the front door or turn off the light, I tell others to close the door or turn off the light, etc.).
• I participate in organised energy-saving initiatives (e.g., public campaigns, training, school classes on energy saving and environment protection).
• I offer to buy products that are less harmful to the environment—their production does not require a large energy input (e.g., at work, at the child’s school/preschool, at the cooperative, at the housing association).

In both cases, information obtained from observations of the aforementioned types of consumer behaviour in the researchers’ setting was also used to construct the scales.

The statements of the explanatory variables and the sources from which they were prepared are presented in

Table 1. Statements in each latent independent variable.

Latent Variables	Adapted From:	Measuring Scale Items
X1—Knowledge on energy saving	[19,20]	- I know at least a few effective ways to save energy. - I know about the energy ratings of household appliances and consumer electronics. - I am knowledgeable about the energy efficiency classes of light bulbs. - I am aware of the energy consumption levels of different appliances. - I am conscious of the consequences of energy consumption on the environment.
X2—Perception of energy-saving costs	[29]	- Saving energy requires a lot of effort. - Saving energy makes life less comfortable. - Saving energy by purchasing energy efficient products is unprofitable. - Saving energy is inconvenient in daily life.
X3—Green customer values	[30]	- It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment. - I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions. - My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment. - I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet. - I would describe myself as environmentally responsible.
X4—Materialism	[38]	- It is important to me to have really nice things. - I would like to be rich enough to buy anything I want. - I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things. - It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the things I want. - It’s really true that money can buy happiness.
X5—Social influence	[42]	- Most of my friends save energy. - There is a lot of attention paid to energy saving in my surroundings - People are thinking more and more about how to save energy. - My relatives are putting emphasis on saving energy
X6—Beliefs	[46]	- The efforts of a single person to reduce energy consumption make sense even if other people ignore it. - My own actions can contribute to reducing energy consumption. - It is within my capabilities to reduce energy consumption in my daily life. - I feel responsible for the amount of energy used in my daily life. - I believe that all people have a responsibility to reduce their energy consumption.
X7—Consumer energy awareness	[19,21,59]	- I know the electricity tariff that I use. - I know what I pay for on my energy bill. - I have knowledge of electricity prices. - I know how much I pay for electricity. - I know how much electricity I use.

Source: Own elaboration.

.

In the conducted research, the following research question was formulated: what factors determine the behaviour of an individual consumer in the energy market? It stems from the research problem discussed in the introduction, which indicates the contradiction of European conditions related to the increase in the share of renewable energy sources and the population’s growing demand for energy in the context of climate change.

Quantitative research with the CAWI method was conducted on a nationwide representative sample of 1422 Polish consumers aged 18 and older. The choice of the CAWI method is reasoned by its wide range and possibility to reach respondents from all of the country. Respondents were invited to take part in the survey by authors of the paper and they were selected for the sample using a nonrandom selection method in order to represent specific age groups in Poland. The aim of the selection was to maximise the representativeness of the representatives of generations X and Y; in both cases they accounted for slightly more than 31% of the total number of respondents. The research sample included people living in all 16 voivodeships in Poland. A total of 1422 completed questionnaires were collected, of which 1405 respondents’ answers were accepted for analysis after verification.

The largest percentage of consumers surveyed (31.6%) lived in cities with a population between 101,000 and 500,000. The average age of the respondents was 40 years. Nearly half of the respondents lived in multi-family buildings, and about 41.6% of the respondents lived in single-family houses. Every third respondent incurred monthly electricity costs between PLN 101 and PLN 200, and for every fourth respondent the figure was between PLN 201 and PLN 300. The amount of energy charges was correlated to the size of the dwelling space and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.427 for p < 0.001. The correlation is slightly weaker between the number of persons living together in the household and the amount of the average monthly energy bill (r = 0.362, p < 0.001). Detailed characteristics of the study sample are presented in

Table 2. Sample characteristics (n = 1405, in %).

Characteristics	Item	%
Gender	Female	55.4
	Male	41.8
	Refusal to answer/other	2.8
Age	22 years old and less	18.1
	23–40 years old	31.2
	41–52 years old	31.6
	53 years old and more	19.1
Education	Primary	2.0
	Vocational	6.4
	Secondary	36.0
	Higher	55.6
Number of household members	1 person	9.6
	2 persons	26.0
	3 persons	22.2
	4 persons	27.3
	5 persons or more	14.9
Place of residence	Rural areas	24.8
	Towns, up to 100,000 residents	26.7
	Towns, 101,000–500,000 residents	31.6
	Towns, over 501,000 residents	16.9
Type of property occupied	Apartment in multi-family housing	50.1
	Terraced house	8.3
	Detached house	41.6
Average monthly electricity costs	Up to PLN 100 (up to EUR 22)	17.1
	PLN 101–200 (EUR 23 to 44)	34.7
	PLN 201–300 (EUR 45 to 66)	25.5
	PLN 301–400 (EUR 67 to 88)	13.0
	More than PLN 400 (EUR 89 or more)	9.7
Energy tariff type	Fixed per day	78.2
	Variable throughout the day	21.8

.

4. Results

The analysis of the results of the quantitative empirical study made it possible to answer the question relating to the research gap. In relation to the conducted literature review and the constructed model it was important to check the reliability of the individual lateral variables.

The individual latent variables in the research model (the endogenous and exogenous) were described by four statements (perception of energy-saving cost (X2), social influence (X5), off-site behaviour (Y2)), or by five statements (consumer awareness (X7), knowledge on energy saving (X1), Green customer values (X3), materialism (X4), beliefs (X6)) and one by fifteen statements (Energy-saving behaviour at Home (Y1). The latent variables were adapted from the literature. All questions were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In the first stage of analysis, the reliability of individual latent variables was analysed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached a minimum level of > 0.7 in each case. Next, factor analysis using the principal components method was used to analyse whether individual constructs form separate variables/components. In the next step, SEM regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variables. AMOS software was used in the SEM analysis and the model was estimated using the maximum-likelihood (ML) estimator. The model-fit indices reached the desired value, showing a good fit of the model to the data with CMIN/DF index reaching 4.939 and RMSEA 0.053 (LO90 0.52, HI90 0.54). Slightly worse values were obtained for GFI—0.825 and AGFI—0.807. The value of path coefficients of the model is presented in Figure 2.

Table 3. Reliability and validity of measurement model.

Factor	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	Alfa Cronbach	CR	AVE
X1	0.727							0.83	0.81	0.50
X2	−0.251	0.761						0.81	0.83	0.58
X3	0.391	−0.383	0.784					0.89	0.89	0.61
X4	−0.132	0.261	−0.133	0.715				0.76	0.90	0.51
X5	0.429	−0.300	0.410	−0.096	0.758			0.81	0.84	0.57
X7	0.437	−0.473	0.589	−0.195	0.409	0.739		0.85	0.86	0.54
X7	0.594	−0.053	0.148	−0.014	0.232	0.136	0.741	0.89	0.91	0.55

presents the values of coincident and differential-accuracy indices for all independent variables. In all cases, the AVE is greater than the desired value of 0.5. The square root of the AVE is in each case greater than the value of the correlation between a given latent variable and another variable. The R2 coefficients on the dependent variables reached 0.34 for in-home energy-consumption behaviour and 0.19 for off-site energy consumption behaviour.

Referring to the research hypotheses, it should be noted that most of them were positively confirmed. Only hypotheses H2b and H4b could not be confirmed. The values of standardised coefficients for each research hypothesis are presented in

Table 4. Verification of research hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Paths	Estimate	p-Value	Verification
H1a	X1             Y1	0.392	0.000	Supported
H1b	X1             Y2	0.137	0.000	Supported
H2a	X2             Y1	−0.101	0.003	Supported
H2b	X2             Y2	0.039	0.236	Rejection
H3a	X3             Y1	0.204	0.000	Supported
H3b	X3             Y2	0.260	0.000	Supported
H4a	X4             Y1	−0.155	0.000	Supported
H4b	X4             Y2	0.002	0.941	Rejection
H5a	X5             Y1	0.254	0.000	Supported
H5b	X5             Y2	0.268	0.000	Supported
H6a	X6             Y1	0.213	0.000	Supported
H6b	X6             Y2	0.153	0.000	Supported
H7a	X7             Y1	0.071	0.038	Supported
H7b	X7             Y2	0.088	0.009	Supported

.

The results of the research show that consumer behaviour in terms of energy saving at home is mostly influenced by knowledge on energy saving and its consequences. On the contrary, when it comes to saving energy off-site, social influence has the greatest impact on consumer behaviour. In addition, the influence of factors that reduce consumers’ willingness to save energy, such as perceived costs of saving energy or materialism, is low or statistically not significant.

5. Discussion

The results indicate a relatively strong relationship between consumer knowledge and energy conservation. For behaviour at home (H1a), the parameter estimate is higher (β = 0.392) than for off-site behaviour (H1b, β = 0.137). This may be due to the fact that saving at home has a measurable effect in terms of lower electricity bills. The same off-site behaviour does not provide such insight. Turning off lights in common areas of residential buildings does not clearly translate into savings in the respondent’s wallet. Another explanation for this weaker relationship with respect to off-site behaviour may be due to the fact that savers at home focus on their immediate surroundings and do not see the need to motivate others to save and suggest sensible solutions. The results obtained are consistent with the considerations of the authors: Jablonska [18] and Ma, Andrews-Speed and Zhang [17].

Individuals who perceive energy conservation as a cost that reduces their living comfort are not inclined to home saving behaviours (H2a, β = −0.101). Due to the insignificant value of the parameter, we were unable to verify hypothesis H2b. It was originally assumed that acceptance of energy saving outside the respondent’s home, e.g., switching off streetlights, would correlated negatively with the respondent’s opinion on the annoyance of saving costs. In other words, it was assumed that people for whom it is an effort will not approve of such actions. The results did not allow us to verify these assumptions. Referring to the literature, it is worth noting that researchers such as Broberg and Kazukauskas emphasise that cost perception is a variable that depends, among other things, on the level of knowledge of energy consumers [28]. Additionally, Sheoran and Kumar show that energy consumers may be sceptical about saving energy by using sustainable electronic products, which are primarily perceived as costly [25]. Given this, the simple link between perceptions of energy costs and conservation behaviour may need to be refined or positioned differently in the research model.

The study positively verified hypotheses H3a and H3b, meaning that there is a relationship between the GCV scale and savings behaviours inside (β = 0.204) and outside the home (β = 0.260). These results are consistent with previous studies on Polish society conducted by Bartoszczuk, Singh and Rutkowska [34] and Alagarsamy, Mehrolia and Mathew [60]. Interestingly, pro-environmental attitudes more strongly determine respondents to motivate others to save energy than to save energy in their immediate environment. Could this mean that these are actions for show? Or maybe people with a high GCV scale believe that actions on a global scale are more important for the environment? Perhaps they think it is more important to “fix” the world? Certainly, this is a very interesting strand of this research that provides inspiration to explore this issue more deeply.

The model also showed that there was a relationship between materialism and home energy conservation (β = −0.155). Noteworthy, this is the strongest negative relationship in the model discussed above. The higher the level of materialism, the lower the propensity for pro-environmental actions. This is probably due to materialists’ selfishness, their very good material situation (as they do not need to save) and preference for comfortable lifestyle (saving requires discipline and sacrifices). Research on materialism is consistent with the results obtained. In particular, it is worth noting the publication of Larsen, Sirgy and Wright, who point to the large impact of materialism on environmental degradation [40]. The work of Keng, Jung, Jiuan and Wirtz, who emphasise the influence of materialism on life satisfaction in the areas of friends, work, material comfort and money, also becomes relevant in this regard [36]. These findings indicate that materialism strongly influences human behaviour, motivating toward comfort and contributing to exacerbating environmental problems.

The study positively verified the hypotheses regarding the influence of environment on the respondents’ energy saving activities. The greater the pressure of the environment (relatives, friends) and more positive pro-environmental role models, the greater the willingness to save energy at home (H5a, β = 0.254) and the greater the willingness to educate others in this regard (H5b, β = 0.268). Analysis of the parameter values allows us to conclude that this influence is comparable in both areas. It probably results from the fact that a person is a part of a larger community with which he or she interacts, which is confirmed by the studies of Allcott [41] and Bamberg and Moser [54], or Lede and Meleady [44]. Although the transfer of views, exchange of opinions and experiences depends on the type of personality, everyone in the learning process uses different sources of information, which in this case are people from the closest environment.

The relationship between beliefs and savings behaviour is significant both in the respondents’ homes (H6a, β = 0.213) and in their immediate environment (H6b, β = 0.153). However, it is worth noting that in the former case the relationship is stronger, which may indicate the rationality of the actions of this group of respondents. A person convinced of the rightness of undertaking pro-environmental activity begins to realise it in his or her own home, seeing in it the sense and measurable benefits. To a lesser extent they believe in the success of raising awareness among relatives and friends. It seems that unlike people with high GCV scale value, they are guided by common sense and not emotions. The importance of beliefs in shaping energy-saving behaviour is also supported by the findings of Coelho et al. [50] and Fornara et al. [52].

The weak relationship between consumers’ energy consciousness and their pro-environmental activity (H7a and H7b) is surprising. This is true for both their homes (β = 0.071) and their surroundings (β = 0.088). It would seem that precise knowledge of electricity tariffs, electricity bill amounts or monthly energy consumption will determine respondents to a greater extent to save, as indicated by the results of Słupik and CBOS surveys, which indicate that Poles express concern about the state of the environment both domestically and internationally [21,59,61]. The results obtained by the authors of this paper indicate that this does not translate into energy-saving behaviour, which is certainly a cause for further research in this area.

Knowledge, influence of the environment and beliefs are the strongest determinants leading the respondents to energy-saving behaviours at home. Practical conclusions, therefore, seem quite obvious. Such a lifestyle should be widely promoted; people should be educated at each stage of education and told how to save energy effectively. Logical arguments, simple examples of pro-environmental behaviour and referring to measurable financial benefits will bring the desired effects in the long term. Everyday household habits applied on a micro scale will contribute to caring for and improving the environment on a macro scale.

6. Conclusions

The paper presents an extensive literature study on the determinants of energy consumption by consumers in the context of climate change and the results of empirical research aimed at finding an answer to the research question concerning the factors determining the behaviour of individual consumers in the energy market. Thanks to the empirical research conducted on a wide group of respondents, 14 research hypotheses were verified, 12 of which turned out to be true, and 2 false.

Thus, it can be concluded that the generally understood energy-saving behaviour (Y1—at home and Y2—off-site) is influenced by the following factors: X1—energy-saving knowledge, X3—green consumer values, X5—social influence, X6—beliefs, and X7—consumer awareness. However, X2—energy-saving cost perception and X4—materialism influence only Y1—energy-saving behaviour at home.

Thus, verified hypotheses included in the research model allowed us to solve the research problem—to determine the specificity of behaviours that are part of new trends in consumption, such as greening and the ethical dimension of consumption, sustainable consumption and prosumption.

Further research, which is planned for the following years, will be concerned with deepening the understanding of factors inducing consumers’ social responsibility in the process of energy consumption. We foresee the development of research areas as specific research prospects with topics related to reducing energy consumption not only in the use of domestic or mobile devices, but also topics related to reducing energy in transportation. This new topic is inspired by the incoming new European Union law on the registration of internal combustion cars after 2035, and the consequent inevitable increase in electric car consumption. A research question can therefore be posed as to how such a change in transportation will affect energy consumption. We expect that the coming years will bring an answer to this research question in the literature, and we will be able to answer this question in the planned subsequent empirical studies.